1959-02-26

Mr. Speaker:: Before calling the orders of the day may I be permitted a minute to deal with a matter which arose yesterday, and also to make a correction in yesterday's Hansard. At the foot of page 1367, the first column, I commented on the procedure in asking that written or starred questions be made orders for returns, and I think I incorrectly stated the effect of the rule-incidentally the rule is No. 39, clause 5-when I said:
It is so ordered, then, that this question be made an order for return. Consent of the house is not necessary.
The rule, as hon. members will see, says that the minister having expressed a willingness to lay a return upon the table, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the house, be deemed an order of the house. I did not want the record to be erroneous in the conclusion as to the effect of rule 39.
Another point on the same rule was raised by the hon. member for Laurier, who suggested that a starred question could not be made an order for return under this rule. I find I was correct in rejecting that view. The authority for so doing is the report of the special committee appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of the House of Commons. Their report, dated Tuesday, June 14, 1955, which was accepted by the house, states that clause 5 of rule 39 contains a consequential amendment in respect of questions, starred and unstarred, passed as orders for returns. This would clear up that point.
The other problem that arose was on the interpretation of our practice on oral questions. I think there is no part of our procedure about which it is more difficult to arrive at clear decisions which are not susceptible of argument one way or the other. I have set down my views of the practice very briefly, and I should like to give them to the house at this time.
The standing orders, rules 39, 40 and 41, provide only for written questions to be answered by the tabling of written answers or, if marked with an asterisk, to be
answered orally on Wednesdays within the first hour or on other days after the last order of business. Other oral questions asked upon the calling of the orders of the day are sanctioned only by usage. The following principles have been applied to oral questions:
1.	The question should seek information or press for action on a matter relating to public affairs of such immediate urgency that it would be inappropriate to put it on the order paper.
2.	Both the question and the answer should be concise, factual and free of opinion and argument or observations which might lead to debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a rule of procedure that is rather honoured in the breach on both sides.
3.	An explanation can be sought regarding the intention of the government but not an explanation of opinion upon matters of policy. That is citation 178 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.
4.	Other detailed limitations, some 40 in number, are set out in citation 171 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which was cited yesterday, and apply to oral questions as well as to written questions.
5.	Supplementary questions are matters of grace.
6.	The minister is entitled to notice, and answers cannot be insisted on nor is it regular to comment on the refusal to answer an oral question.
I may say this principle relates to oral questions and perhaps not to questions on the order paper.
In effect, oral questions are a limited supplement to questions which may be put on the order paper, and are for the purpose of enabling members to get information on public affairs of urgent importance without delay and to bring such matters to the attention of the government.
I hope this resume will be helpful to hon. members. In reviewing the questions that were asked yesterday I find that the question asked by the hon. member for Essex East was wrong in form because, as he put it originally, it only asked the Prime Minister to confirm a newspaper report. Then he himself made some modification of the question, and the hon. member for Trinity asked

Inquiries of the Ministry the question in a different form which, in my view, was a proper question for the order paper if he had chosen to put it on the order paper. It also may be a proper question to be asked orally before the orders of the day, depending on the point of view about urgency. I said yesterday that we had just debated that matter, namely the matter to which this question obviously related, at some length on Monday and it did not appear to me to be urgent to find out, before the orders of the day, whether or not a certain communication on December 2, 1957 had been received. But that view was taken on the question of urgency. As I say, that is a matter of judgment. I might take a different view if the same question were asked today.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if, on December 2, 1957 or thereabouts, he received a report presented to him by the Air Industries and Transport Association of Canada?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to examine the records in order to see whether or not such a report was received, and then decide whether or not the information asked for by the hon. gentleman should be given.



A. V. ROE COMPANY INQUIRY AS TO MEETINGS WITH UNION AND COMPANY OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister report any further progress in the negotiations with A. V. Roe Company? Would he say particularly whether it is hoped that 14,000 persons may be employed in this industry, and whether in the meantime the engineering and technical staffs will be kept together intact?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answers given yesterday and the day before. The discussions continued this morning and I hope there will be further discussions this afternoon. Until there is some degree of finality there is nothing I can add.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government in fact proposed to Avro that

they should seek United Kingdom defence contracts in order to maintain their Canadian operations, as reported in the Toronto Telegram?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer I gave the hon. member for Assiniboia would seem to me to be appropriate at this time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a request from the premier of Ontario to complete seven of these Arrow airplanes?


John George Diefenbaker: Any communications
which have been received have been in the nature of general discussions in furtherance of the consideration which is being given to this matter with the Avro company. It would be inappropriate to say anything further than that.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF TELEGRAMS CANCELLING CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. I wonder if the minister would table copies of the telegrams sent to A. V. Roe and Orenda Engines Limited announcing the cancellation of the CF-105 and Iroquois contracts.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Yes.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: A supplementary question. Would the minister tell us also to what extent the government indicated that it would contribute to the payment of severance pay, vacation allowances and other benefits under the union contract?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question which has just been asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River would be covered by the general answer given by the Prime Minister, namely that this is a matter which is under review between the government and the company.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a request this week or in the last two days from the premier of Nova Scotia for a decision as soon as possible with respect to increased subventions on Nova Scotia coal? If so, is the Prime Minister

Inquiries of the Ministry now in a position to say when such a decision I believe the hon. member will appreciate will be taken, as the matter is of great that if all 265 hon. members proceeded in the urgency in view of further lay-offs contem- same way it would not work out very well. I plated in the coal mines of Cape Breton at think the question should go on the order an early date?	paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there have been continuing representations made by the premier of Nova Scotia since the occasion when he was among those in the delegation that met with me and other members of the government. The matter is still receiving consideration.
(Translation):



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the hon. gentleman have bilingual name plates affixed to the present science service building on Carling avenue when the divisions of his department are regrouped at the end of March?
(Text):


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the translation did not come through sufficiently well on my machine to know what the question was, so I will take it as notice and answer it tomorrow.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I will ask it in English. Will the minister order that bilingual signs be placed on the present science services building on Carling avenue when different divisions of his department will be regrouped?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice also.
(Translation):



EASTVIEW, ONT.  REQUEST FOR POST OFFICE BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Would he care to say whether his department will soon start building a post office in Eastview, a prosperous town with a population of over 22,000? Having regard to the population in the surrounding districts, this post office could serve more than 50,000 people.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: From time to time we have had questions from those who would like to have post offices in their constituencies, but



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on February 19 the hon. member for Hull directed a question to me in these words:
When Major General Kennedy, chairman of the national capital commission, spoke about the bridge which is badly needed was he reflecting the policy of the present government?
The answer is that General Kennedy was voicing his own views. Those views were spoken at the final meeting of the federal district commission, which views were later reported by His Worship Mayor Moncion, who was also at that meeting. In brief, General Kennedy's view was and is that as far as the commission is concerned other projects should have higher priority than this new bridge. The government has not had occasion to consider this matter recently, and it would not necessarily have to be considered as a national capital project, since it is a bridge between one province and another. No decision on government policy in regard to this project has been taken, and when such a decision is taken it will be brought to the attention of the house in the usual way.
In the meantime I think it is well that the national capital commission should consider what interim arrangements can be made to improve the approaches to the existing interprovincial bridge. It appears that the bottlenecks for traffic at present arise from the approaches to the bridge on either side, rather than from the lack of capacity of the bridge itself.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I regret I was not able to give him notice earlier today. I wonder if the minister's attention has been drawn to a Canadian Press dispatch indicating that Detective Alan Shepherd of the Vancouver police force gave in testimony at an inquest that certain druggists in Vancouver are selling specially prepared containers with hypodermics and so

Inquiries of the Ministry on for use by drug addicts, and whether this animals lost through rabies on the part of would necessitate any remedial action if this the municipalities, the provinces and the is so?	dominion government.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: My
attention has not been directed to that particular news report, but on the basis of what the hon. member says, this is something we should certainly study. I will see that the report is drawn to the attention of the officials of the R.C.M.P., and if there is anything further to report to this house, I will do so.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairdough (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the hon. member for Assiniboia made inquiries with respect to five employees of the Allis Chalmers company in the plant at St. Thomas. The report has been investigated. These men were certainly there, five of them, but they were working on the dismantling of machinery and were in no way connected with production. I might say further that apparently they entered Canada on February 18. Two of them left on February 20 and a third left on February 24, the same day the hon. member put his question. None of them are now in the plant at St. Thomas, and this has been the situation for two or three days.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In the light of a statement by Dr. C. D. Graham, deputy minister of agriculture in the Ontario government, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star, in which he suggested that the provincial and federal governments sponsor a joint program to provide compensation for animals lost through rabies, would the minister care to tell the house what position he has taken on this matter?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I made clear our position in this regard some ten days ago, I believe, in response to a question asked by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce when the supplementary estimates were being considered. At that time I said we would be prepared to consider very seriously any proposition advanced by the provinces for a sharing of the cost of compensation for



COMMUNIST CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me to comment on a report in the Toronto Telegram attributed to an official of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to the effect that China is interested in increasing trade with Canada.
I have now had an opportunity to review the newspaper article to which the hon. member referred, and I can confirm that the commercial products division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited recently concluded a sale of two cobalt 60 beam therapy units for cancer treatment to the China National Import-Export Company. The transaction is worth some $100,000.
This cancer therapy equipment falls, of course, within the area of permissible trade with China, and I understand that the Chinese authorities are well satisfied with Atomic Energy's beam therapy unit. The corporation and our trade commissioner in Hong Kong, who is responsible for the promotion of our trading interests with China, are endeavouring to develop repeat sales.
The hon. member also asked me if I was in a position to say what further steps are being taken to increase our trade with China. Our trade commissioner in Hong Kong informs us that an increasing number of Canadian exporters are visiting China for consultations with representatives of these trading corporations. The trade commissioner is facilitating these contacts by providing introductions and guidance to our businessmen. I am hopeful that our trade with China can develop along sound lines now that these useful working relationships have been set up by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his comprehensive answer. I wish now to ask him a supplementary question, and if the minister does not have the information at hand perhaps he could give it to me at a later time. Can the minister say whether China has accepted the offer of the Canadian wheat board to send to China experts to train the Chinese in how to use Canada's excellent high protein wheat as a mix with their own?

External Affairs


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that as notice and have an answer prepared for the hon. member as early as possible.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to advise us when he expects to table the information that he agreed to table on February 9, concerning refuelling at Frobisher Bay?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall check into the matter and let the hon. member have the information as soon as possible.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a request from Premier Frost of Ontario that the special winter work program be extended for two months?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Artha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. Would the minister tell the house on what basis his department made the allocation of the stamp commemorating the 50th anniversary of the first powered flight in the British Empire? Victoriaville has a population of 17,500 inhabitants and has received only 10,000 stamps. The residents are anxious to get more.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I heard the question in its entirety. We have 12,000 post offices in Canada, and unfortunately I cannot carry with me at all times the exact allocation of special stamps for each one of those post offices. If that is the answer for which the hon. member is looking that is as far as I can go at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Augusiin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question. Will he tell us whether he will take as notice the question just asked by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, as I am also interested in this matter?


William McLean Hamilton: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received a report from the restrictive trade practices commission saying that Canadian Industries Limited has a restrictive hold on the wholesale distribution of ammunition in Canada? Can the minister say what action, if any, the government is considering taking so that ammunition is made available to all retailers in Canada, or whether the government intends to follow the suggestion that outside sources be made available to Canadian retailers?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the report of the restrictive trade practices commission was received by me on February 3. It has now been made public in accordance with the terms of the act. I am studying the report at the present time with a view to making recommendations to my colleagues and I am therefore, of course, not in a position at the moment to say what action will be taken by the government in respect of the report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:: That items numbered 76 to 105 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1959-1960, relating to the Department of External Affairs, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to support the motion standing in my name in order to place before the house the views of the government with respect to several matters that concern Canada directly at this time.

External Affairs
Before I proceed to do so, however, I should like to express in a personal vein, indeed in an official vein, my gratitude for the hospitality that was extended to me in Brazil when I paid an official visit of two week's duration to that country last November, and also for the hospitality accorded to me in Mexico where I had the honour last December 1 to represent Canada at the installation of the new president, Lopez Mateos. From discussions with leaders in those two countries I learned much, and I saw at close hand the dynamic growth not only of these two countries but of Latin America as a whole. I returned to Canada convinced that through ease of communication, through trade and by virtue of common interests our relations with Latin America can and must grow.
Following the practice I have adopted in the past I will not engage in a global survey this afternoon but will attempt to explain, as I said a few moments ago, the government's attitude on a number of specific issues.
I was about to say, and perhaps I should say that the most important and urgent of the problems facing Canada and her NATO allies lies in the field of east-west relations. I approach this subject gravely but not despondently. When I presented my estimates, in July of last year, I believe, I spoke of the need to maintain our defences and at the same time to endeavour to make some advance in establishing mutual trust and confidence and in coming to some understanding with the Soviet union. The communist leaders, as we all know, have professed their desire to promote the objectives of easing tension and of a reduction of the cold war. These professions, however, are certainly difficult to reconcile with the demands made by the Soviet government on November 27, 1958 when it abruptly declared that existing agreements on Berlin were null and void.
Whatever the basic Russian objectives may have been, I am bound to observe that these tactics do not convey an image of a state bent on a lessening of international tension. On the contrary, the Soviet union deliberately chose to create a crisis where none had recently existed, and thereby to plunge the whole world into a new period of deep anxiety that will not abate until there is some sort of meeting of minds in negotiation between east and west and some agreement has been reached on the German question.
The Berlin situation was the critical issue before the NATO council meeting held in Paris last December. I, along with my colleagues the Ministers of Finance, Defence and Defence Production, had the honour to represent Canada at that meeting. Members
[Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac) .1
will recall that before the formal meeting of the NATO council began on December 16 there was a meeting on Sunday, December 14 at which were present representatives of the three occupying powers from the west, the United Kingdom, the United States and France. At that meeting, held, as I said a moment ago, prior to the meeting of the council, there were also present representatives of West Germany. Willie Brandt, who honoured this country by a visit recently, also attended that meeting in his capacity as mayor of West Berlin. Out of that meeting of the three occupying powers and West Germany came a statement in which they publicly rejected the Soviet proposals and reaffirmed their determination to maintain their position and rights in the city, including the right of free access to Berlin.
When this issue came before the NATO council the Canadian delegation took an active part-I say without immodesty that we did take an active part-in pressing for a full discussion of the Berlin situation in the council with emphasis on maintaining an appropriate blend of firmness in the face of threats, and constant readiness to examine serious Soviet proposals. The position adopted by the council two days later was entirely consonant with the Canadian position. The council, in associating itself with the position taken by the four western powers, adopted the view that the Berlin question could be satisfactorily settled only in the context of a consideration of the problem of Germany as a whole. The council referred to the notes that had been sent by the western powers to the U.S.S.R., in which they offered to negotiate on the situation with respect to Germany as a whole. That offer was reaffirmed in the communique issued at the termination of the NATO council meeting. Then, coupled with the consideration of the problem of Germany as a whole, they indicated their urgent willingness and desire to have discussions on the related issues of European security and disarmament.
In addition to supporting the position taken by the western occupying powers, members of the council-and I refer you to the communique I have mentioned-reiterated the stand of the occupying powers that NATO is a defensive organization. They also said, Mr. Speaker, that in respect of Berlin they desired to leave no doubt as to the determination of the alliance to stand fast and to employ its defensive capacity in the event of aggression against Berlin or any interference with the arrangements that had been

duly entered into between the occupying powers and the U.S.S.R. in a series of meetings culminating in 1949.
In giving this undertaking in respect of Berlin, neither the council nor its individual members was assuming obligations that were new. Indeed, the NATO partners have been bound in respect of the defence of Berlin since October 22, 1954. This obligation was undertaken by the NATO council on the occasion of West Germany joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, when all the other members of the alliance formally associated themselves with the provisions declared earlier, in the month of October, 1954 that the three occupying powers would remain in Berlin so long as their responsibilities so required. The text of the obligation assumed by Canada, as a member of NATO, is, and I quote:
-to treat any attack against Berlin from any quarter as an attack upon their forces and themselves.
Members of the house, Mr. Speaker, may recall that on December 31-that was after the termination of the meeting of the NATO council-the United States, the United Kingdom and France sent replies to the new note of November 27, 1958. In these notes, which had been discussed in the NATO council, the three occupying powers reaffirmed their right to be in Berlin, and they condemned the Soviet union's unilateral denunciation of the agreements relating to Berlin to which I have referred. In these notes of December 31, 1958 the occupying powers stated that they could not accept the repudiation by the Soviet union of these obligations in this way, and that they could not consider proposals which would jeopardize the freedom of the West Berlin population.
Speaking in geographical terms, Mr. Speaker, I may say that here is a community, West Berlin, of 2.5 million people which is 110 miles east of the West German border. This little island is isolated in the midst of Soviet controlled territory, East Germany. I must say that Canada's view is, and I state this very firmly, that we will not countenance the swallowing up or absorption of 2.5 million of our friends in West Berlin into the Soviet complex which surrounds the city of Berlin.
In the notes of December 31 the United Kingdom, the United States and France also said they would not jeopardize in any way, by negotiation or otherwise, the West Berlin population. Then again in these notes there was a reiteration of the offer which had been made over several years and which was restated and made manifest in the communique issued after the NATO meeting in December, to negotiate the question of Berlin in relation
External Affairs
to the whole German situation as well as in relation to the problem of European security.
Subsequent events, Mr. Speaker, have tended to confirm the wisdom of the firm but flexible position that was taken in these notes and in the meetings of the NATO council. On January 10 of this year the Soviet union sent notes to all the powers on the western side which had fought against Germany in the second world war. I have reported to the house on that note, and indeed I have tabled it here, accompanied as it was by a draft peace treaty relating to the whole of Germany.
In that note it was suggested that there should be held a conference of the representatives of these countries-28, I think there are-on the western and eastern side which had fought against Germany. The conference would discuss this draft peace treaty. In that note there was, in tone if not in content, the idea that the U.S.S.R. would be ready to consider the problem of Berlin in relation to Germany as a whole. Recent public statements-perhaps we can take some comfort from them-by U.S.S.R. leaders, indicate that they do not regard the note of November 27, 1958, to the three occupying powers in Berlin as an ultimatum.
I tabled in this house on February 17 the Canadian reply to the Soviet note of January 10. Briefly, as I stated at the time, our position is this. It would not be useful to have a large peace treaty conference until some aspects of the German question have been examined by representatives of the four states, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the U.S.S.R., those countries that have a special responsibility in Berlin. The Canadian reply did not, and I do not now, try to lay down a blueprint for the solution of the German problem. There will be general agreement, however-I hope there will be; I will put it that way-that this is not the time for Canada or any other NATO country which has been a party to the preliminary discussion of this problem of Berlin in relation to Germany as a whole and also in relation to European security, to put forward proposals in public. However, I assert and affirm that this is no time for anything other than positive policies. We should not, in the days and months ahead- and they may be critical ones-refuse to consider any proposal that is put forward by any country in the west, or any proposals that may be put forward by the Soviet union.
Among the types of proposals which could be considered-and I am not going to give a long list; I am going to give a partial list- are those which envisage some form of mutual

External Affairs
limitation on nuclear weapons, and by that I mean a mutual limitation under supervision. There also might be considered agreed arrangements for gradual and mutual armed force reductions and comprehensive security guarantees for the countries of both eastern and western Europe. This is not to say, of course, when I give this partial catalogue, that Canada has taken a firm position or a fixed position on any specific measure as yet. They could be considered as general objectives. I would hope that these and others would be considered at a ministerial meeting of some NATO powers or the occupying NATO powers to be held about the middle of March. I repeat, and I say it seriously, that we should not have a negative approach, but at the same time we should have clear objectives in respect to a settlement of these topics to which I have referred. Every proposal, however, must be considered in the light of certain aims and objectives which are basic to western interests. Among these I mention again the freedom of the two and a half million people in Berlin. We cannot compromise their situation. We must look toward attaining, with safeguards, and with some advances in terms of European security, the restoration of a free Germany in a free and untrammelled Europe. No proposal, Mr. Speaker, should be accepted which would have the effect of changing the balance of military security to the disadvantage of the west.
At this part of my contribution to this debate I must say quite frankly that it is distressing that John Foster Dulles, the United States secretary of state, should have been stricken by illness. All members of the house will join with me in wishing for him a speedy and complete recovery. I salute him as a man who has devoted his public career, in that high office of secretary of state of the United States, to the pursuit of an honourable agreement between the east and the west. I express my own admiration of his qualities of fortitude and courage. I can report to the house, Mr. Speaker, that his recent visit to London, Paris and Bonn, just before he was taken to hospital, helped materially in coordinating the western views, in identifying basic western interests to be protected, and in making clear the objectives to be pursued in any negotiations with the Soviet union.
Having mentioned Mr. Dulles and it is not by way of formality but out of the depth of sincerity that I must say that we applaud the current visit of Mr. Macmillan, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, to the Soviet union. It might appear that he has had something of a mixed reception, but for us his visit could be a most significant development,

providing as it does a timely opportunity for Mr. Macmillan to make it clear to the Soviet leaders that the western countries are genuinely interested in a search for common ground but that they do not intend to be intimidated by the belligerence which often characterizes statements coming from the U.S.S.R.
Prime Minister Macmillan has made it clear in the United Kingdom and to his NATO allies that he is not in Russia for the purpose of negotiating, but that he is there rather to exchange views and to work toward a better understanding on both sides of opposing points of view. I am sure all members of the house are confident of his ability to do that and perhaps more. He carries with him today our best wishes for the success of his visit.
That sense of well-wishing, for me anyway, has been intensified recently-indeed on February 24-by reason of a speech made by Mr. Khrushchev to a political gathering in the Kremlin. I have studied the press reports of the speech, and that is all I have at the moment. I have studied them carefully and at least I can say this. I recognize in that speech the standard Soviet position on questions relating to Germany and Berlin. Although this speech may be discouraging- and I do not think I am running the risk of being Pollyanna-ish-I still want to see what will be the formal reply by the U.S.S.R. to the notes that were recently sent to Moscow. I am thinking of the series of notes which I identify by the date of our own note, namely February 17. I think the western powers should be guided more by whatever the tenor of that formal response may be than by the remarks made by Mr. Khrushchev at a political gathering.
As the western powers approach-and I say this very definitely-what could be a fateful new effort at negotiation with the Soviet union, it is opportune to look at other fields of endeavour where we have been negotiating with the U.S.S.R. on important matters. I speak of the two conferences. One was to have started last autumn in Geneva. One of the conferences had to do with the cessation of nuclear tests; the other had to do with setting up some machinery or technique against surprise attack.
For a moment let us look at the question of the cessation of nuclear tests. That is an objective for which the whole of mankind must pray. The disarmament commission and under it the disarmament sub-committee, which was set up by the United Nations really came to an end at the end of 1957. The Soviet leaders said they would not participate in any further discussions in the disarmament

commission or in its sub-committee. So there came about direct negotiations between the United States, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.S.R. with respect to the cessation of nuclear tests.
Last July and August Canada participated in a meeting of experts held in Geneva to study this whole question of the identification and detection of nuclear tests. Canada had a strong team at that meeting. Indeed, it may be a sad commentary that the scientists could agree where the diplomats and the politicians could not agree. But the fact is that out of that conference of experts there came a unanimously adopted report on effective methods for the detection of nuclear testing.
Then on October 31, 1958 there was assembled in Geneva a group of men, at the nontechnical level, to draft a treaty which would provide for the cessation of nuclear tests, and would also provide for the machinery whereby that treaty could be fully implemented. We were rather encouraged about a month ago that progress in that conference had been made to the extent that four articles of that treaty had been agreed upon and settled. However, we realized that many complex questions were still to be settled. The question with respect to the composition- that is, the nationality-of personnel in control stations, and the composition of personnel in mobile units had to be decided, and above all the methods of procedure which would be provided in the treaty for the organization-the control commission, or whatever it might be called-whereby they would conduct their business.
Sir, without going into any of the details I am bound to report that the old question of veto arose again in those discussions. The U.S.S.R. wanted, and want at the moment, to have a veto with respect to certain inspections that might be proposed in that country. Mr. Khrushchev in his recent statement of February 24 said they were not going to have spies and intelligence officers from the west discovering what is their military strength and potential. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to observe this, that any machinery set up under a treaty for the cessation of nuclear tests which does not provide for inspection and control would be misleading and deceptive, and dangerous to the west.
Then I must observe, despite some foreshadowing of an adjournment of those talks which is to be found in the press only this morning, that we do hope and pray that that question of machinery for detection, and so forth, may be satisfactorily settled. As I said a moment ago, and I repeat, mankind everywhere, I am sure, must pray for at least one
External Affairs
step to be taken toward cessation of nuclear testing; and from that step let us pray that it will be continued into other parts of the galaxy of nuclear arms.
With respect to surprise attack the story is less comforting, indeed. Last summer Canada contributed to the panel from the west at a meeting in Geneva for the study by experts, as in the other case for the cessation of nuclear tests, of methods whereby surprise attacks might be identified or anticipated. This concerned a larger group:	Canada,
France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States on the western side; from the Soviet bloc the U.S.S.R. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Roumania and Albania. They began their deliberations on November 10 of last year, and just before Christmas they adjourned, it might appear sine die but this was not so stated.
There was a conflict. The proposal really came out of an exchange of notes last winter with respect to the holding of a summit conference. In one of those notes Mr. Eisenhower, the President of the United States, proposed there should be such a conference with respect to surprise attacks; and to us it seemed abundantly clear that what the President of the United States of America was suggesting was the holding of a conference of experts. But when those representatives from the five countries of the west met with the Soviet side, they realized that what had appeared to us to be consent on the part of the U.S.S.R. to a discussion at the expert level turned out to be an intention to discuss political matters, such as bases and so on, and the minds of the two sides did not meet. We are now in consultation with other representatives of the west who participated in the conference of last November and December to the end that we might review the scope of the agenda and the possibility of a resumption of the conference.
There is another matter relating to negotiations and dealings with the U.S.S.R., and that has to do with outer space. The year 1958 was a most significant year in the exploration of outer space, in connection with the international geophysical year. I must pay tribute to the participation of Soviet scientists in the successes of that year. That was not on the government level but was an association of scientists throughout the world. Just let us reflect for a moment. In the recent period, or in 1958 to centre on that year, there have been launched objects which have overcome, most astonishingly, gravitational forces; objects or vehicles which can circumnavigate the moon and which can circle the globe in a few minutes or so. And now a vehicle has been placed in orbit about the sun.

External Affairs
I must interpolate here that it is an awesome thought that vehicles can be launched and within a few moments go thousands of miles with an aim that is remarkably accurate. This in itself is a challenge to the statesmanship of the world. At the same time there is an equal challenge to statesmen throughout the world, and that is outer space. It seems presumptuous for us to be talking about outer space, but its use is coming within man's grasp. We should not translate to outer space the national rivalries to be found on this globe.
Last autumn the United Nations established a committee for the study of the control and use of outer space, and Canada was happy to be appointed to that committee. The U.S.S.R. has refused to attend any meetings of that committee, of which it is also a member. They complain about the composition of the committee. They complain that they did not receive parity in the selection of the committee. That is most regrettable, and efforts are being made within the United Nations, under the umbrella of which this outer space committee has been established, to break this deadlock.
I have been talking about the European scene. I said in this house last August with some confidence that the tenseness of the Middle East situation had somewhat abated, and I stated that in that pause there was some ground for gratification. Since then from the Middle East the pendulum has swung to the Far East and now it has come back to Europe, which has been in a period of relative quiescence in recent years.
I have one item to report with respect to the European scene which will bring satisfaction. I announce that it is the intention of the government to present a resolution to the house for approval, and I expect this resolution will be welcomed by all hon. members. The government will request parliament to adopt a resolution approving the accession by Canada to the Austrian state treaty of 1955. This is the treaty which terminated a 10-year occupation of Austria, and it marked the re-emergence of Austria as a free and independent nation. The treaty was negotiated between Austria and the four occupying powers at that time, the United States, United Kingdom, France and the U.S.S.R. Under the treaty of 1955 provision was made for the accession of any country Which had fought against Nazi Germany. Accession by Canada, I can assure the house, will not increase our rights, neither will it increase the responsibility which we have undertaken under the charter of the United Nations.
Canada's accession, when it takes place, will be at the request of the Austrian government,

and it is an action which we take willingly as a mark of friendship and sympathy for a country whose achievements we admire. In particular we take this action as a gesture of gratitude to Austria for the humane welcome given to Hungarian refugees during the tragic events in Hungary in 1956. We are indeed pleased to learn that a sister nation of the commonwealth, New Zealand, is also planning to exercise the right to accede to the treaty.
Turning now from the European scene, it is perhaps appropriate that I should deal briefly with an area to which I referred a few moments ago, namely the Middle East. When I reported at length on my return from the special emergency session of the United Nations at which the Middle East situation was considered, I told this house of a resolution passed by the general assembly under which the secretary general was given power to see what he could do in the name of United Nations to meet the difficulties which existed at that time. Developments since then warrant my saying that we can look upon the situation at the moment with cautious satisfaction, and a great deal of credit for this is due to the secretary general, Mr. Hammarskjold, who carried out so very successfully the task of undertaking the "practical arrangements", to use the words contained in the resolution.
It has been possible, under that resolution and through the activities of the secretary general, for the United States and the United Kingdom to withdraw their troops from Jordan and Lebanon respectively. That was done by November with the consent of all the powers concerned. The improved situation in Lebanon has enabled the secretary general to return to their national homes the units which made up UNOGIL.
On the other hand, on the Arab-Israeli front, there have been most regrettable incidents which indicate a certain amount of unrest between those two countries, and I am thinking not of the UNEF front but more particularly of the boundary between the region of the United Arab Republic and Israel. Nevertheless I think we can be reasonably confident that if Canada and other countries give continued support to the United Nations activities, and if there is shown a continued willingness on the part of all concerned to resort to United Nations machinery, no general deterioration should ensue.
The moderately encouraging developments to which I have referred have given us an opportunity to take stock and do some careful thinking about what should be our future attitude to events in the region as a whole. I am thinking of Canada in this context. We must, of course, realize that the relationship of the Middle East countries to one another

and to the outside world is undergoing a very rapid transformation. The trends of thinking which we loosely describe as nationalism and neutralism are spreading widely and rapidly. In these countries these trends are there to stay.
No country could resist an evolving nationalism any more than Canada could. We must recognize these forces, which animate the leaders of the present in that particular area. These powerful tendencies may not always manifest themselves in a way that we would welcome, but we must accept the fact that they will continue to animate the new leaders who have arisen, and will therefore inevitably dominate the Middle East scene for some time to come. We cannot, of course, oppose this evolutionary process of change but there is an international responsibility to see that if change comes, it comes peacefully, with the consent of those concerned and without menace to the security of others.
Yet if we are justified, as I am sure we are, in our efforts to ensure that change is peaceful, we must recognize for our part that one of the chief causes of instability in the area as a whole has been a profound lack of confidence of each country in its neighbours, and a mutual lack of confidence between the countries of the area and those lying outside of it. Western countries may be able to help in establishing a basis on which that confidence can grow, though this will require restraint, patience, impartiality and a willingness to approach the countries of the area on a footing of equality and respect. It may be that, as in other areas, the United Nations can offer the best medium through which adjustment to the new order of relationships can take place; for this adjustment must be accomplished without sacrifice of principle and without too close involvement in the regional tensions which political, economic and social forces still at work in the area are bound to engender.
Canada's own policy continues, as in the past, to be one of firm support of United Nations institutions in the area. We were, for example, one of the main contributors to UNOGIL-that is, the United Nations observation group in Lebanon-and Canadian officers continue to serve with the United Nations truce supervision organization in Palestine. Support for Palestine relief and rehabilitation is also to be maintained this year, subject to parliamentary approval, at our annual rate of $500,000. Finally, we can derive great satisfaction from the contribution that Canada continues to make to the United Nations emergency force in the form of a large Canadian contingent. It is, I think, a remarkable tribute to the success of
External Affairs
this unique United Nations peace-keeping activity that the secretary general was able to refer in his 1958 report on UNEF's activities to the "virtually unbroken quiet" which had prevailed "along the entire line between Egypt and Israel" during the period covered by the report.
Mention of the secretary general prompts me to pay once again the highest tribute to the selfless and tireless personal contribution that Dag Hammarskjold has made to the cause of peace throughout the world, and nowhere more successfully than in the Middle East.
This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to some brief comments on the last regular session of the United Nations general assembly, at which I had the honour to head the Canadian delegation. As there are many important matters to be considered during today's debate, I shall confine myself to one or two items and impressions of special concern to Canada.
Having just referred to UNEF, it is appropriate that I report at this point on the related question of a United Nations stand-by force. Hon. members may be aware that at the 13th session of the general assembly the secretary general presented a summary study of the operation of UNEF, out of which he drew a number of observations and principles for consideration as a guide to future United Nations action in preserving peace through its own instrumentalities. The secretary general's conclusions reflected the tenor of the discussions concerning a United Nations peace force at both the special emergency session of the assembly in August, 1958 and at the 13th regular session in September, 1958.
In these discussions attention shifted from the possibility previously considered of establishing a permanent stand-by force as such,, or earmarking national units for service with such a force; rather it was directed toward, first, the desirability of developing arrangements and planning procedures which would enable the United Nations to meet swiftly a wide variety of possible situations and, second, the need for agreement on a set of basic principles to govern the operation of whatever United Nations instrumentality might be created. In supporting this approach, the need for flexibility in the planning of stand-by arrangements was particularly emphasized by the Canadian delegation at both sessions..
In the course of the meetings of the external affairs committee last summer, I had occasion to review the history of attempts to establish an effective United Nations stand-by peace force. Opposition has been based on

External Affairs
many grounds and the problems and difficulties have been legion. They relate primarily to the concern with which a number of countries regard the implications of such a force for their national sovereignty. Others have been reluctant to contemplate the financial burden which the support of a permanent force would entail. Still others have been dubious of the feasibility of creating a permanent force capable of meeting the various and unpredictable situations that could possibly arise. These are legitimate apprehensions and practical problems which may prove difficult to dispel and resolve completely.
It is my impression that although there was apparent a new note of concern in the approach of a large number of nations toward the concept of an armed stand-by peace force, awareness continues to grow amongst the United Nations membership, despite the opposition of the Soviet bloc, of the overriding need for machinery of some sort to permit quick and effective United Nations action to prevent the development of conditions which could result in armed conflict and the needless sacrifice of human lives. As I said, there seems to be developing in the general assembly a growing general awareness that the United Nations must be provided with instrumentalities for quick and collective action that would prevent the outbreak or the extension of hostilities.
Just think of the great variety of agencies for the preservation of peace that the United Nations has had under its supervision, ranging from armed units, with respect to which I have spoken proudly as far as Canada is concerned, right down through observer groups to the mere token presence of the United Nations evidenced by only one person. It does seem to me that in this age, when we are likely to have indirect aggression, that the United Nations may be called upon to a greater degree to make provision for procedures of investigation. The secretary general is continuing his study and I can assure the house that Canada will be interested in his study and his further recommendations when we have some clear idea of what they may be.
I know that the thirteenth session of the general assembly has been dubbed an unspectacular one but in that regard I make the observation that dramatic quality is not a criterion of success. It is also not the sole test of the success of a session of the general assembly to ask the question, how many final agreements were reached on any particular set of subjects at a particular time? I was not able to attend the session of the general assembly for longer than seven weeks but I did sense a spirit of compromise,
[Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac) .1
a seeking for solutions, a climate of reconciliation of conflicting interests. True, as I have already stated, no final agreement was reached with respect to disarmament. No final agreement was reached with respect to Cyprus but this is an example of what I had in mind when I said that dramatic quality is not the criterion of success.
Undoubtedly the reasonable discussions that took place in the thirteenth session of the assembly provided a climate-to use the word I invoked a moment ago-of compromise, that outside of the United Nations came to fruition. I am sure we all join in congratulating the statesmen of the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece on the solution of that problem which was of special concern to the NATO allies. I have sent, as I know the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has, congratulatory messages to the prime ministers and foreign ministers of these three countries, and it is our wish and our hope that the spirit of reconciliation will continue in that island which has been so unhappy.
Perhaps the most significant discussions at the thirteenth session of the assembly had to do with matters in the economic and social fields. There was manifested to an encouraging degree a willingness on the part of the industrially developed countries to assist in the development of the economic and social potential of their less developed fellow members. I think it is opportune for me to mention at this stage what Canada is seeking to do in the way of helping underdeveloped countries, particularly our partners in the commonwealth, to solve their problems of economic development.
The problem, of course, can be stated in very simple terms. It is astonishing, it is distressing to realize that close to three-quarters of the human race live in conditions where poverty, hunger, disease and illiteracy are endemic. Many of these countries have emerged recently from colonial status. They now have their political independence and they are seeking, quite properly, not selfishly but in terms of the development of their own countries, to bring the standards of living of their people closer to those of the industrially and technologically advanced countries. Translated into economic terms this means that these underdeveloped countries must invest enough of their resources year by year to reach the point where economic growth can begin to sustain itself. It can be done in either of two ways. It can be done by their investing their own savings but when they are beset by impoverishment, illiteracy, disease and hunger how can they do that? They might do it under some leader who would adopt totalitarian processes and would

seek to take whatever savings they had. We would not be happy about that type of government growing up in these new nations. The alternative is for the west to invest in this great human endeavour. Otherwise these underdeveloped countries which have recently gained their independence may be prone to accept blandishments and offers from other parts of the world. Surely Canada is justified in making contributions to assist these countries. Indeed, to do otherwise would make it difficult for us to reconcile our actions with the principles for which we in the free world stand. I also suggest that it would be difficult to reconcile with the concept of the partnership of the British commonwealth as a community of free and independent nations.
I am glad to say over the past year the government has endeavoured to play an increasing part in helping underdeveloped countries. We have undertaken, subject to the approval of parliament, to increase our contribution to the Colombo plan from $35 million to $50 million a year for a period of three years beginning with the next fiscal year. We have also recognized the needs of emergent nations and territories in the commonwealth which are not eligible for assistance under the Colombo plan. I am thinking particularly of the African area. We are proposing to extend the benefits of our technical assistance program to commonwealth areas in that region.
We have embarked on a five-year program of aid to the West Indies. This does not come under the Colombo plan program, but a major part of the contribution of $10 million will be used in the building of two steamships in Canada for inter-island service. These ships should represent to the West Indies what the building of the railroad meant to Canada in helping our nation to become more united.
I recall to the house that on July 25 last year the Prime Minister advocated that there should be an increase in the capital of the international bank and the international monetary fund. That has come about and proposals will be placed before parliament respecting Canada's subscriptions to these institutions which are allied with the United Nations for the purpose of helping underdeveloped countries.
There was established last year by the United Nations general assembly a special fund to which Canada has promised to contribute $2 million, subject to the approval of parliament. The objective of the special fund will be to provide for surveys of natural resources, manpower, skills and industrial potentials, to the end that there can be established in many countries of the world a sound basis for economic growth.
External Affairs
There is one factor that I mention, not in a selfish mood, but when Canada makes a contribution of this kind, in a large measure the contribution in money is translated into Canadian goods and services which these countries need, for which they have asked. There is in this way a mutuality of interest, because our friends can be helped and our own economy sustained.
I have been discussing the Colombo plan, Mr. Speaker, which forms one of the particularly productive bridges of friendship between Canada and our friends in south and southeast Asia. It is a trend of thought which inevitably brings me to the less happy and less satisfactory relationships which exist between Canada and the millions of Asians living on the Chinese mainland. In view of the lively interest that is shown by the Canadian people in the future of our relations with the Chinese people, I feel sure that the house will expect me on this occasion to discuss in some detail the government's attitude toward the recognition of the government of the Chinese People's Republic. As this house knows this government, as did the government which we succeeded, has been giving continued consideration to the advisability or otherwise of extending recognition to the Chinese communist government. We are aware of the arguments in favour of such a step. It seems to me, however, that in discussing this question we must make a clear distinction between the legal factors which apply whenever Canada extends recognition to any new government, and the national and international considerations.
Let me deal with the legal aspects of the question first. It is true that recognition is usually extended to a government when that government exercises effective control over the territory of the country concerned, and when that government has a reasonable prospect of stability. Then, there is a second legal factor. The government of that country should indicate its willingness to assume international obligations inherited from its predecessor. So far as China is concerned, there is some doubt about the Peking government's willingness to assume the obligations and responsibilities of its predecessor. The Peking government made known, in September, 1949, that it would, in effect, regard as binding only those obligations which it considered to be in its own interest. There is little doubt, however, that the Peking government commands the obedience of the bulk of the population. It must be admitted, therefore, that most of the legal requirements for recognition have been fulfilled by the government of the people's republic. In any event, I say this: the Peking government has

External Affairs
have been protracted discussions on the cessation of nuclear tests. There has been a road block in the way of reaching agreement on machinery for the use of outer space. There is not much comfort to be gained from the difficult starting point from which discussions on Berlin and Germany may begin. But, Mr. Speaker, I do think that there is some evidence that the international climate may be improving. The U.S.S.R. wants to discuss with us many problems. Certainly it should be evident to all sane men that there is a great interest in avoiding the mutual destruction of mankind in a nuclear conflict. May the desire for discussions on the part of Mr. Khrushchev and his comrades be a genuine readiness to negotiate in this particular instance of Berlin and Germany, rather than an attempt to impose their will on the three occupying powers and the two and a half million people in West Berlin to whose security we have pledged ourselves.
I conclude by saying that we wish and hope, as I am sure does every member of this house, that a meeting or meetings between the west and the soviet bloc will provide a greater mutual trust and confidence, even if that desideratum be reached only gradually.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
house will have listened with great interest, and I believe also sympathetic understanding, to the comprehensive statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) as he told us something about the international problems that we are facing today. They are problems just as complex and difficult as they have been at any time in our post world war II history. The minister ended on a note of at least qualified optimism. He did not think things were any worse; and I think he was realistic in this. He did not indicate that they were much better, and perhaps we have to leave it at that. He covered-I think the house will be grateful to him for so doing-a good deal of ground. Of course, the world is big and he could not deal with all the problems facing it. There was, I thought, one notable omission, and that was the relations of this country directly with the United States of America, and not relations merely arising out of our association with the United States in an alliance of free nations.
I was glad to hear the minister give his good wishes, and I am sure we all join him, to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in his current mission to Moscow, which is turning out to be, perhaps I can call it, a somewhat rugged one. However, Mr. Macmillan is well able to stand that kind of thing.
[Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac) .1
I am sure we also agree with the minister when he gave his good wishes and sympathy to the secretary of state for the United States in the illness which has taken him out of action for the time being, and we hope it is only for the time being. I have had my differences of opinion, Mr. Speaker, with Mr. Dulles. I remember once when I felt doubtful of the wisdom of the doctrine he had been preaching of what came to be known as massive retaliation. I went down to Washington and quarrelled with that doctrine in an address to the Press Club there, right in the grounds of the other side, and after I had spoken Mr. Dulles asked me to come and have dinner with him so that he could tell me how much he disagreed with my disagreement. After a very good dinner, because Mr. Dulles is a very good host, I was subjected to some massive argumentative retaliation by the secretary of state of the United States.
As the hon. minister has pointed out, Mr. Dulles is a man of courage. His courage is indomitable; his energy is unbelievable; his integrity and sincerity are unquestioned; and his knowledge of international affairs is certainly unrivalled. Perhaps the greatest tribute that can be paid to the importance of the part he has been playing now for so many years is the universal recognition of the vacuum in the United States foreign policy -if that is not too strong a word-which has been created temporarily, we hope, by his departure from the state department. We hope that his recovery will be early and complete.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the situation that faces us as, the hon. minister has said, is a serious one. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), as recently as Monday of this week in a debate on another matter, indicated his view of that seriousness. It was so serious last September that it was considered undesirable-and I recognize there were other factors involved-to interfere with a contract for the production of manned interceptors, and it is equally serious now. I think the minister will agree with me when I say that it is not wise, and I am not suggesting he is doing it, to base one's foreign policy on the oscillations of an international situation which has remained serious ever since world war II, and will remain serious as long as we have what is known as the cold war: the east-west conflict. The minister quite rightly spent a good deal of his time telling us of that conflict and I will have something to say about it a little later.
He mentioned the commonwealth. We on this side would have been very interested on the occasion of this debate to have heard

from the Prime Minister a report of his recent journey to the nations of the commonwealth.
I know that this would not be possible in a one-day debate, but I hope that before long we shall be able to have such a report as I have suggested from the Prime Minister. In the uncertain and, indeed, the dangerous world in which we live, one of the more encouraging aspects of the international situation is the part which the nations of the commonwealth are continuing to play in working together for peace and for constructive purposes. Of course, the commonwealth has its difficulties also, and yet it is amazing to see how it adapts itself to these difficulties and to a changing world.
The commonwealth itself is changing so rapidly and so noticeably in my view that the difference between the commonwealth we see today and the commonwealth of just a few years ago is about as marked a difference as the difference between that older commonwealth and the still older British Empire. Four-fifths of the members of the British commonwealth are now Asian. Of the ten countries presently composing it only four have indicated their desire to remain monarchies within the commonwealth. So that bond of unity which we still cherish and which other members of the commonwealth cherish does not apply in the same way to all the members. Three of them have indicated their desire to become republics. Two of them are republics and one, indeed, has an elected monarchy. I am thinking of the Federation of Malaya, where an elected monarch accepts another monarch as head of the commonwealth, certainly something new in international relations. Nevertheless, this strange machine, if I can call it that, works and is perhaps as important as it has ever been in the part it can play in acting as a link between east and west, between Asia and the west, when there are all too few such links.
Now may I say a few words about the relations of this country with the United States of America. I recall that five or six years ago I said the days of relatively easy and automatic relations between the United States and Canada were over. I got into a good deal of hot water by making that statement at the time but it is obvious now as a result of the events of the last few years that the statement was quite accurate and remains quite accurate. I suppose we now have in this country more problems with the United States than we have had at any time since we as a Canadian nation through a Canadian government became solely responsible for our relations with the United States. That does not mean, of course, that we cannot solve them;
External Affairs
it does not mean we shall not apply to them the same frank and friendly treatment, as the phrase goes, that we have applied in past years. But it is just as well to recognize that in spite of the fact that the plants in the garden are now being more carefully tended there are a great many difficulties in respect of this situation. These are pointed out very clearly in the Hays-Coffin congressional report which also says that while the difficulties may be great and increasing there is perhaps a greater awareness of those difficulties than in past years.
Certainly there is a greater awareness of them on the part of our friends across the line and I think that is all to the good. But I think there is also a growing awareness on the part of the members of the government-an awareness which was perhaps not so obvious to them when they were sitting on this side of the house-that it is not so easy to stand up to the United States. Or, rather, I might put it this way: it is easy enough to stand up to the United States, but it is not so easy to stand up to them for the only purpose worth while-the achievement of good results for our country.
The experience of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) with regard to his intervention on the application of the anti-trust laws of the United States to this country is a good illustration of the difficulty that we encounter in this regard. The Minister of Justice, reporting on his journey to Washington on February 3, said that the reaching of an understanding on prior consultation on this particular problem was a real accomplishment. It was an accomplishment, but I would point out that in the statement made by the President of the United States in this house last summer an assurance was given in very formal words- and I quote from President Eisenhower's statement-that it was "the desire and intention of the United States to keep the doors of consultation fully open." And later in his speech, President Eisenhower said:
Yet despite these dissimilarities in form our two governments are developing and are increasingly using effective ways to consult and act together.
I know that when he said that, he was being perfectly sincere. The Prime Minister of Canada has also on more than one occasion expressed his view that progress is being made in regard to consultation between the two governments in order that difficulties which are encountered in our relations may be speedily and effectively overcome. I have mentioned only one such difficulty. And as late as January 6 of this year, not long before the Minister of Justice went to Washington,

External Affairs
the communique issued by the United States-Canada committee on economic affairs which met in Ottawa on January 5 and 6, said:
It was also agreed that wherever feasible there should be close consultation in advance between the two governments whenever it seemed necessary for the government of one country to take action which might affect the commercial and economic interests of the other.
That seems to me to be a less forthright declaration with regard to consultation than the one we received earlier. Hon. members will notice that the communique said:
It was also agreed that wherever feasible-
And so on. Mr. Speaker, there should not be such a qualification regarding the relations between our two countries. In every case where the interests of the other are affected- and this applied to us when we introduced the new customs regulations last year-there should be consultation. There is no excuse for it not taking place. Not only should there be consultation but it should be continuous and effective to prevent to the fullest possible extent those difficulties arising. We know what some of the difficulties are. One is restrictions on our exports of oil and strategic base metals to the United States, restrictions which do not reflect the theory of unity in continental defence. Another problem is that of the surplus disposal of agricultural products concerning which it was hoped by the government last summer that some progress had been made in preventing United States policy in this matter affecting unfairly our own exports but concerning which at the present time there are many ominous signs that that kind of action may still be taken.
There is also the whole question of defence relationships between our two countries. I shall not go into this question in too much detail at the present time because when the defence estimates are up for consideration we will have ample opportunity to discuss this matter.
There is also the question of the relationship between our two countries and peoples in regard to control of our Arctic territories. I know that the Prime Minister said in this house last summer that whereas these arrangements to ensure Canadian control and sovereignty over her Arctic territory had not been satisfactory when the government came into power-notwithstanding the feelings of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton)-all difficulties had been removed and everything was changed because of new regulations. Ever since that date-I believe it was last September-I have been trying to get these regulations which brought about this changed situation but without any success whatever.

We are going to have these problems and I think we must assume that the good sense and the realization of our interdependence on both sides of the border will ensure that while these difficulties will arise, with good will and practice they can be solved. We have to face the problems involved in these relationships with a sense of realism and with evidence of maturity. We must search for solutions to these problems that will maintain Canadian rights and protect Canadian interests but we must do this while recognizing that our two countries in the world in which we both live must inevitably work closely together; that isolation of either one from the other is made impossible by geography, economics, enlightened self-interest and by, as I have expressed it, the very nature of the world in which we live with its tensions and deep conflicts between two struggling systems of human and political organization.
We can never forget as we try to solve these problems with our neighbours that the United States remains the foundation of our defence for the western world and its ideals against those who would destroy them and by its very power it is the only western country qualified in the material sense to give the kind of leadership and the kind of strength without which we would be in a bad way in the western world today. We should talk up and talk straight and if necessary we should do more than talk when our rights and our interests are being overlooked in Washington. But that surely does not mean petulance, pettiness or-to use a word of which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) is so fond-whining. We are supposed to be grown up now nationally and one indication of maturity is a combination of firmness with steadiness and understanding.
I have been wondering whether the time has not now come for a top level formal conference between the leaders in Canada and the United States to see if some formal agreement could not be reached and embodied in a formal convention, perhaps for ratification by legislatures-because this would be one way of bringing these matters to the attention of congress as well as parliament-embodying principles that should govern our relations. We had such an agreement in the Hyde Park arrangement. We had an enunciation of principles, as the minister knows, repeating the principles of the Hyde Park agreement, I believe in 1950, but it was an informal document with no binding effect in any formal sense. Perhaps the time has come when we should try to work

out some arrangement of that kind with a more formal and binding effect than the documents I just mentioned so that when one government takes action without consultation or even with consultation that seems to controvert the principles of this particular agreement it could be appealed to in order to restore the position.
As the Hays-Coffin report says, Canadian and United States interdependence demands a new category of relationship. That kind of relationship which is perhaps becoming necessary can certainly not be worked out at the kind of meeting held in Ottawa in January, and I am not depreciating the importance of that kind of meeting. It requires, as the minister undoubtedly knows, a great deal of continuous preparatory work before documents can be produced. The main purpose from our point of view in any such arrangement would be to ensure that Canadian rights and interests and our separate national position would be protected as the compulsions and the necessities of interdependence become more and more apparent, as they are becoming increasingly apparent every day.
I suggest that the present machinery is not adequate for that purpose. I also suggest-and I would not wish to be misunderstood in this regard-that important as is the recognition of this continental interdependence in such a way as to protect Canadian interests, that would not go nearly far enough. One important aspect of the kind of negotiation and conference I am talking about would be to discuss the relationship of this interdependent continent, especially in the economic field at the present time, of course, with western Europe which is now recognizing the interest of its own interdependence through the common market and the European free trade area. If we on this continent do not give some degree of consideration to and take some action about this development which is taking place in Europe-and I have said this a good many times-we will perhaps one of these days be faced with the division of the Atlantic world between the North American and European segments. No one will gain from any division like that except those who are attempting to destroy the whole Atlantic community.
Perhaps the time has come, Mr. Speaker, to lift the consideration of these matters to the highest level of examination and collective action both here and in western Europe in order to try to frustrate what is possibly the first objective of Soviet policy today, the splitting of the Atlantic nations-the western nations-into this European and North American division.
External Affairs
The minister had a great deal to say about NATO and European problems and more particularly about the Berlin and German problems. The minister could not cover everything even in an hour and a half and perhaps on another occasion he will let us know something about the operation of the NATO organization during the last year. He might tell us, for instance, how the earlier recommendations for consultation are working out and how the NATO council is performing as an agency for the co-ordination of western foreign policy. It is not enough in an international organization of this kind to take pledges to consult.
Consultation can mean many things but it does not mean very much if it means only that one member of the coalition confronts the other members with decisions taken and documents drafted and then asks for the help and co-operation of the other members in finalizing the decision. I get the impression that NATO through its council is making progress in this regard. Perhaps the minister will have an opportunity before long to tell us about that.
The situation in Berlin seems to me to deserve all the attention that the minister gave to it. It is difficult to visualize any more dangerous position than that which we find in Berlin at this time. I do not want to be unduly alarmist. We have had these crises, we have had these situations before and somehow or other we have at least overcome them to the point that they were not permitted to degenerate into conflict.
But it is hard not to be frightened about the developing possibilities of tragedy in Berlin at the present time, especially in the light of the words that are now coming out of Moscow. The minister had a good deal to say about the statements of last November and December and they, of course, were important, but some of the statements that have come out of Moscow and other places in the last week or two have been more frightening. We must hope that they are only, as the minister indicated perhaps they might be, merely political statements for domestic consumption. But it does look as if we may have a situation develop in Berlin where an irresistible force will find itself up against an immovable object, and when that happens something has to give.
I agree entirely with the minister and we on this side certainly will support the government in any steps it takes to make the position clear that the western powers must stand absolutely firm in regard to the situation in Berlin, that they do not dare yield to blufl or blackmail on that particular issue,

External Affairs
that the right of free access, a right which the occupying powers were granted at the end of the war in return for very great concessions made to the Russian side, must be maintained and cannot be unilaterally abrogated. But, Mr. Speaker, standing firm is not enough, as the minister himself indicated. Indeed, he supported his statement by reading from the NATO council communique of last December.
So the question arises, when do the risks from immobility exceed those from flexibility? A refusal to yield on Berlin which is justified must surely be coupled with a demonstrated willingness not only to consider proposals but to initiate proposals for an agreed Berlin settlement within, as the minister pointed out, the framework of a German settlement which itself must be within the framework of a European security settlement. I think it should be made perfectly clear to the other side by the western powers most concerned that that includes a willingness on our part to talk about disengagement. 1 know that disengagement can mean many things. I think it was a mistake to dismiss so quickly the Rapacki plan which was one form of disengagement, a plan which did not seem to me to be satisfactory to accomplish the purpose it may have had in mind but which perhaps might have been used as a basis for discussion. I do not think that disengagement would be too high a price to pay if it could be brought about in a way which really would ease tensions and strengthen security on the European continent.
All I am suggesting now is that Canadian policy should encourage a willingness to discuss disengagement and should encourage the putting forward of proposals to that end. When Mr. Dulles visited Europe a few weeks ago just before his illness-and it is an indication of the courage of the man that he made the visit at a time when he must have been suffering a good deal-he said on his return that his visit reconfirmed the unity and the firmness of the western position. I quote from his statement:
We are resolved that our position in and access to West Berlin shall be preserved.
I certainly do not quarrel with that. He went on:
We are in general agreement as to the procedures we shall follow if physical means are invoked to interfere with our rights in this respect.
It would not be proper, of course, to ask what those procedures would be but one cannot help but wonder on what this unity and firmness is based. One cannot help but wonder what these procedures are on which the four western powers are united. It is certainly appropriate that the Canadian government should know all about them and

I hope they do because this is no occasion for keeping any member of the western alliance in the dark in respect of measures of this kind which could have such far-reaching consequences.
It would be interesting to know-perhaps the minister will be able to tell us this- whether the unity to which Mr. Dulles referred includes the Federal Republic of Germany, whether it is based on a recognition or a refusal to recognize a transfer of authority to control access to Berlin from the Russian government to the East German government, something which the Russians have said they are going to do by May 26 of this year, not so very far away.
If such recognition is then laid down by the East German communist government as a condition for passage through or passage over the corridor, where are we then? Are the powers most concerned agreed as to what they will do if a convoy on land or in the air is interfered with? Mr. Khrushchev has made some ominous statements in Moscow as to what he thinks will happen if any effort is made on the part of the west to run a convoy through in spite of interference.
The minister said this afternoon that Canada's responsibility in this matter is clear, and I agree. As he pointed out, it was established in London some years ago. It is because our responsibility is clear, it is because our commitment in this matter as a NATO member is clear that the government has a right to know every plan and every intention of the four countries most concerned and this parliament has a right to know everything that the government feels that it is appropriate to tell it. We have no right to ask for any more than that in a matter of such grave importance. That makes the situation very different indeed from the last time we had to face the situation of a blockade of Berlin which was met by an airlift conducted by two powers alone. At that time Canada had no special responsibility, no special commitment, and Canada was told absolutely nothing in advance of the decision which brought about the airlift to meet the blockade. We were told about it after the decision had been taken. The situation is very different now. We know in advance, presumably what may happen and we accept -I certainly do not quarrel with it-the responsibility that goes with that kind of commitment.
The minister went on to talk about the United Nations assembly. He made the best case he could for the results achieved by the recent assembly of the United Nations, and so would I if I had been in his place. It did, of course, accomplish some useful things;

every United Nations assembly does. But I got the impression that this was not one of the more stimulating and constructive meetings of the United Nations.
I note also, and this has a bearing on what the minister said about Red China, that when the question of whether the United Nations assembly would discuss the admission of China came up, it was supported this time by 32 delegations-I believe that was the number. This was many more than had taken that position in the previous assembly. The motion was opposed by Canada and the majority of the delegations.
The minister had a good deal to say this afternoon about the recognition of communist China. I am not quite sure from what he said just where we stand on this very important matter, and perhaps that was the purpose of most of his observations. I do not want to be unfair to him, but I will say that I feel he nailed our colours firmly to the fence in regard to this matter. Perhaps, however, the nail has been moved up a few notches toward the top of the fence. I should like to ask him a few questions in a friendly and constructive vein. I do not know whether or not he will be able to answer this one, but how long are we going to be able to support the United States position, because it is a United States position, that this question cannot even be talked about at the United Nations.
The reason given by the Canadian delegation for not supporting this motion at the last assembly was that discussion at that time could not help and might hinder the settlement of the very dangerous position which had been created in the Chinese offshore islands. Perhaps by the time the next meeting of the assembly occurs things will be reasonably quiet out there and that reason will not be present. I got the impression from listening to the minister this afternoon that he thought there had been a change in the picture in so far as the position of the Chinese communist government is concerned. Certainly that position, in my view, is not now the same as it was a few years back when Chinese aggression in Korea was an obvious reason, even if there had been no other reason, for preventing diplomatic recognition and membership in the United Nations. The minister indicated that the technical and legal criteria which generally govern diplomatic recognition of a regime had been materially fulfilled at the present time. In this regard it is interesting to quote a paragraph from a book written by Foster Dulles called, "War or Peace", published in 1950. At page 190, Mr. Dulles gives this assessment of the situation in regard to recognition:
External Affairs
If the communist government of China, in fact, proves its ability to govern China without serious domestic resistance, then it too should be admitted to the United Nations.
He went on further:
However, a regime that claims to have become the government of a country through civil war should not be recognized until it has been tested over a reasonable period of time.
It does not seem to me that these observations have been followed, either in the first sentence in respect of China or in the last sentence in respect of many Latin American countries.
The other day I noticed a statement bearing on this question by Mr. Walter Robertson the assistant secretary of state in Washington, who is perhaps the strongest opponent of any form of diplomatic recognition of the communist government of China. He said that, nevertheless, if there is to be any international agreement on disarmament or any aspect of disarmament which requires international control and inspection-the minister mentioned this this afternoon though not quite in the terms I am using now-Red China would have to be included in that agreement and discharge its own obligations in that regard. This raises a question at once. How could Peking be asked to accept and carry out any such obligations, take part in control and inspection, which we rightly claim to be essential, and yet be considered as unrecognizable. It does, to say the least, present a dilemma.
The minister said that one of the obstacles to recognition was the fact that from the point of view of the Asian countries it would look as if we were deserting them in the face of communist Chinese subversion and pressure. The fact is, however, that most of these Asian countries have themselves recognized the communist government of China. I recall that when the Prime Minister was using that same argument during his tour in every case he had to use it in a country which, while strongly anti-communist, had recognized this particular regime. We really do not, therefore, solve many of our problems it seems to me with that particular argument. I am not sure whether the minister referred to the United Kingdom, but he said that some countries which had recognized communist China had not been treated very well by the Chinese communist government after recognition. No doubt, he may have had the United Kingdom in mind, and that is quite true. This has a bearing upon the action which this government should or should not take.
Diplomatic recognition of the Chinese communist government would be pointless, and I think worse than useless, if it were not followed by support for Chinese communist admission to the Chinese seat at the

External Affairs
United Nations. One reason why the United Kingdom government, in my view, got the worst of both worlds was that it recognized the communist government in Peking diplomatically, and then voted against the communist government of China taking the Chinese seat at the United Nations and voted in favour of a moratorium on the discussion of it. Naturally this action was not well received in Peking and the United Kingdom was not able to get any advantage, if advantage was to be received, from recognition.
Then the minister brought up the question of trade. He said we must not attach an exaggerated expectation to increased trade because of diplomatic recognition, and of course I agree with him. There has been a lot of loose talk about what recognition would do to trade. It would be some help, but it would be making a mistake to in any way exaggerate the nature of the trade that would follow from recognition. Nevertheless, it is going to be increasingly difficult to push trade in a country to which you do not give recognition and where the words-I am talking about our country-of the Prime Minister still stand on the record that there could be no recognition until this regime has expiated her wrongdoing.
Then, what should we do? The minister and the government are no doubt giving consideration to this matter. Perhaps he will pardon us for being a little confused on this side as to the nature of that consideration because of certain contradictory statements which emanated from various members of the government last autumn.
I suggest we should do four things. I suggest that we should send not a trade commissioner from Hong Kong to Peking-useful as no doubt that visit was-but should send a trade mission; I refer to a governmental trade mission. Second, if this has not been done by the government, I thing the position should be made perfectly clear with regard to Formosa, namely that recognition or no recognition of the government of Peking, the people of Formosa should not be handed over to that government without some opportunity to express their own views on the matter. By that I do not mean-and I would not wish to be so interpreted-that we recognize what has come to be known as the doctrine of the two Chinas. That doctrine will never be accepted in Peking and it will never be accepted in Formosa. But by the same token we do not recognize that doctrine of the one China if it means the transfer against their will of nine million Formosans to the communist regime in Peking.
The third thing that I think should be done is this. Any influence which we may have on those most concerned-and by that

I mean the United States-should be exercised to persuade the United States to persuade the government in Formosa to evacuate the positions in the offshore islands Quemoy and Matsu. If, as Chiang Kai-shek now has formally stated-and the minister repeated it this afternoon-that government has no intention of using force to get back on the mainland, what possible good can these islands be to that government except for the maintenance of face which is the Chinese word for our word prestige.
If the situation becomes quieter out there in respect to those islands, surely it would be possible then to evacuate those islands. As I see it, it would strengthen the defensive position of the government of Formosa. It would be possible to evacuate those islands without any great loss of face, as I think we were told by the United States government some years ago would be done. As long as those islands which are two or three miles off from the continent of China are heavily armed and are facing the mainland and as long as the Red government in Peking interprets the arming of those islands and the dispatch to those islands of a relatively large army from Formosa as a threat to its position on the mainland, it does not seem to me that there is going to be peace in that particular area.
Then the fourth suggestion I make to the minister is this. Why should not our government now initiate discussions with a few friendly governments which have not recognized Red China in order to try to work out an agreed attitude and agreed approach before the next assembly when this matter is certainly going to come up for serious consideration. I am thinking of such countries -and the list is certainly not exclusive-as Ireland which supported discussion of this matter at the last assembly France, Italy, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand. It seems to me that might mean a useful initiative for Canada to take in this matter.
The minister mentioned some other questions that came up for consideration at the United Nations assembly and I was interested-


Sidney Earle Smith: I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition would permit a question at this stage?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; of course.


Sidney Earle Smith: I am trying to phrase my thoughts in the form of a question. Is the Leader of the Opposition advocating immediate recognition? He paid me the compliment of being mystified. I do not know what he stands for. Can he help me?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister apparently is not quite as clear about what I am advocating as I was about what he was advocating. He was advocating an extremely cautious policy of doing nothing at the present time but keeping all considerations under examination so that when the time to do something arrived the right thing would be done. I am making certain proposals which will help the minister in the achievement of that policy and perhaps go a little further, so that if this situation has to be faced at the next assembly of the United Nations-as undoubtedly it will- perhaps Canadian policy will have been considered in the light of the policy of certain other friendly countries and perhaps a careful and constructive attitude may be adopted. I am trying to suggest that it is not going to be easy to avoid a decision on this matter much longer because-and this is a most important consideration-the events in Korea which made recognition out of the question up to a few years ago no longer have much bearing on this particular problem.
Perhaps when the time comes when we discuss this matter on the estimates, in the light of the advice I have given the minister perhaps he will be a little bit more concrete and perhaps I will also be a little bit more concrete.


Sidney Earle Smith: I thank the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister indicated that at the last assembly not much was done to carry out the idea which I know he has very much in mind as a great many of us have. I refer to the idea of taking advantage of the experiment which has been so successful with respect to the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East in order to establish something of a permanent organization on which, if the emergency arises in the future, we can arrange United Nations intervention more speedily and perhaps more effectively than would otherwise be possible. I had hoped that this could be done, and none of the arguments that have been put forward that I have been able to discover, seem to me to be valid. I am not now suggesting any great international army. That would be out of the question. I am not now suggesting an international police force which would be able to stand up to any national aggressor if that aggressor was determined to commit an aggression. I am thinking of the kind of force which proved to be so useful in the Middle East and which might be required again-it might even be required one of these days in Berlin or some other 66968-9-901
External Affairs
danger area-to police a settlement which has been reached and which cannot be policed by national forces.
If that is to be done-and when the crisis arises and when the emergency takes place, the people down in New York say, "That is a great idea; let us do it"-why not prepare for this situation in advance by setting up a small permanent organization in New York for which those governments which so desire would earmark certain forces which would be trained and made ready for this particular purpose.
The minister has said that at the United Nations people are worried about the variety of situations that the United Nations may have to face. That is one of the reasons that we should have this kind of permanent arrangement because it would be flexible and I am sure it could be made adaptable to the kind of situation which he has in mind. We on this side had hoped, as I am sure had the minister, that at the last United Nations assembly something could have been done. If we do not soon take advantage of the situation created by the first successful United Nations initiative in this field the opportunity may be lost and it may not recur for a long time. I know a proposal was made at the last assembly and it was extremely discouraging that nothing could be done about that proposal.
I think I know the main reason for the failure of the secretary general's proposal. Once it ceased to be the proposal of the secretary general-that great and objective man-and was taken up by the United States of America -and I can speak perfectly frankly about this matter because all this information has appeared in the press-that fact aroused all the suspicions on the other side of the iron curtain and it even aroused in the minds of people in uncommitted nations some doubts which would not have been there if it had been either on the initiative entirely of the secretary general or the initiative of a delegation of a middle or smaller power. I therefore hope that in spite of this setback at the last assembly, perhaps some progress may be made at the next one.
The minister had a good deal to say about nuclear disarmament, and those of us who have been following these interminable discussions at Geneva, which seemed to start off in an atmosphere of hope, have some right to feel discouraged. It does not seem to me that there is much likelihood of achievement as long as it is recognized, as it now seems to be recognized by everybody in the discussions, that there must be some ironclad system of inspection and control, and as long as the Russians will only accept it at the price of having a veto over the control agency.

External Affairs
I remember last March during the election that the minister did not go nearly so far as insisting on inspection and control to accompany at least a temporary suspension of tests, and that was the position I myself took at that time. The reason I felt it would be possible at that time perhaps to agree to a temporary suspension of tests, with all the danger which now seems to be developing in the atmosphere as a result of the tests, is that I had read, and I have studied the matter a little, that there is no way by which you could violate an engagement of this kind not to explode nuclear missiles without having that violation detected by someone in another country. I have since been again told by very high scientific experts that such an engagement could not be violated without it being known.
Now that position seems to be changed. Indeed, while the Russians must take the main share of the responsibility for preventing an agreement, with inspection and control to go with it, the hon. minister must recall that only a few weeks ago there were some statements from Washington to the effect that even international control and inspection might not be ironclad enough to permit the United States government taking part in this kind of agreement, because it could be violated without any international control organization knowing anything about it. So it seems to have become a very confused situation, and those of us who felt that perhaps something could be done in Geneva to deal with this important and serious problem have some right to be discouraged.
Disarmament itself is bogged down worse than ever. Instead of having a United Nations disarmament sub-committee, which was a small group, Canada being one of the five, which could at least make some progress with regard to clearing away some of the technical underbrush as a result of all these discussions in the last two or three years, we now have a disarmament commission consisting of 82. We are not likely to make very much progress with a disarmament commission of 82. I know how difficult the matter is because it is tied up with political considerations. It seems to me that the only proposal for disarmament that made much sense in terms of its practical realization was one made by the prime minister of France, Edgar Faure, a few years ago, when he suggested that every country should agree to devote a percentage of its previous year's expenditure on armament to a great world development activity through the United Nations. This proposal, as he said, would be at least self-implementing to this extent,

that if you agreed to transfer 20 per cent of your previous defence budget to the United Nations or some international agency for development, you might cheat in regard to the amount of money which you spent on armament but you could not cheat on the 20 per cent turned over to the development authority. However, there have been a lot of other proposals which have not seemed to come to anything, and I do not think the outlook for the immediate future is very hopeful.
All these problems, and many others which I could touch on if I had time, are reflections, and some are rather sombre reflections, on what the minister called the east-west conflict. A basic reason for the conflict between communist imperialism and those countries who are determined to protect their free institutions, their democratic processes and their way of life against reactionary totalitarianism, is to my mind fear. I hope that the free people of this world are willing to pay the price in defence costs which are necessary in this situation and also in terms of an imaginative and flexible diplomacy, which is also a very important part of defence. But there is no doubt in the world, as I say, in my mind that one of the bases of this conflict is fear combined on one side, combined with a confident, at times a crusading, and an aggressive, ideology. The problem we face is the same problem we faced last year, the year before, and the year before that. It is how to break through this fear.
As we discuss this matter tonight, Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Macmillan are talking about this matter in Moscow. It is being talked about in Berlin, Paris, and in Washington. They are discussing conferences which might get these two sides together. So our minds inevitably go back to proposals for a conference at the summit between those men who have the destiny of the world largely in their hands. Yet as soon as one of these men proposes a conference, the three or four on the other side react against it because they are afraid of that proposal. That is true when the proposal comes from the western side, and you get the same reaction when it comes from the communist side.
What can we do about that? I have only one idea to put forward. This matter is certainly not the responsibility of the Canadian government, but it might be something perhaps in which the Canadian government would see some advantage if it were followed up. If there is to be a summit conference, as there will have to be one of these days, surely it must be convoked by someone and held in an atmosphere which does not arouse suspicion on either side. It seems to me there is one country and one man peculiarly

qualified to do this at the present time. That country is India, and the man is Nehru. If the prime minister of India, whose bona fides in regard to objectivity certainly are not questioned because he is criticized on both sides, would take the initiative and responsibility of summoning a conference at the summit, perhaps there would be more possibility of successful results from that kind of conference than one called by either side to the east-west conflict. He could take complete charge and decide who would be there. He could decide what the agenda would be if an agenda were required, and he could determine the basis on which the conference would be held. This is asking someone who is not directly committed to either side to take a great deal of responsibility. Well, the stakes are very high and the reward would be very great if a conference of this kind would make some contribution toward cutting through the circle of fear which now surrounds us.
The minister talked about the implications in the future in regard to the conquest which had been made in outer space. It does indeed mean that we are approaching an entirely new dimension, one which frightens us as well as entices us. It is a new dimension of politics, of strategy, of economics, and indeed a new dimension with respect to population. But while it is a frightening and alluring prospect for the next ten years, with the effect it may have on all our worldly conflicts, I am inclined myself to agree with the remark made by the Right Hon. R. A. Butler in the house of commons in London the other day, when he said:
I don't want to go to the moon or the sun, I only want to find peace on this earth.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest this afternoon to the comprehensive and general review of international affairs given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith). I must say that at some points in his speech I was very pleased while at others all the members of this group were, I am sure, somewhat disappointed. I will deal with the disappointments later. I was also interested in the speech just completed by the leader of the official opposition. I was very interested to note his increased flexibility since he became Leader of the Opposition with respect to certain important international questions and also his progressive advance, shall I say, toward the view taken by the C.C.F. on the recognition of China and the composition of the United Nations.
Although we are small in numbers it seems we are having a definite influence on
External Affairs
the official opposition and I hope this influence will continue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope it works both ways.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hope it does as far as an increase in our numbers is concerned after the next election.
I must frankly confess that I rise to speak in this debate with a considerable sense of inadequacy, and I say this in all sincerity. The issues raised when we discuss international affairs are so profound and so complicated and involve so many facets of human behaviour that I feel unable to discuss the question with the competence it demands. All I can say in justification of my plunge into the stormy waters of international affairs is that a study of history, speeches-excluding the speeches to which I listened this afternoon

writings and documents on this subject convinces me of the equal inadequacy of many others who have dealt with international affairs throughout the years.
I might say that this afternoon I am speaking for the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation-long may it live-and I am expressing the views of the members who represent that organization in this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some of them are trying to break up that federation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do wish the farmer member for Essex East would confine himself to international affairs this afternoon.
First of all, I must stress the fact that the power relationships between the NATO nations have drastically changed within the last two or three years. If it ever made any sense for the western powers to negotiate on the assumption of United States military superiority, this approach has now become totally untenable. A second major development, and a much more hopeful one, is the evidence of a greater flexibility in approach on the part of both the Soviet union and the United States. Coupled with this is the apparent desire of the Soviet union to wage its battles more and more, according to the reports we receive, on the economic front. There was a day when the United States could answer most of its critics, at least to its own satisfaction, by stating that it was its military superiority that saved the non-communist world from being seriously challenged by the communist military might.
While western military strength may still be a deterrent to communist ambitions it is becoming obvious now in the opinion of an increasing number of people that the power of the west to deter is shrinking rapidly, particularly if we look at both the western side

External Affairs
of the world and at the Far East. Russian successes in the launching of sputniks and the lunik, and her adventures into planetary space, indicate quite clearly that this country has the know-how and the productive capacity to turn out destructive weapons just as effectively as our friends to the south.
The successful testing of ICBM's and the prospect that they will soon be produced by the Soviet union in operational numbers, according to the best information we can get, makes any theory of dependence upon massive retaliation as a basis for negotiation very shaky indeed, in our opinion. I might say here that I was very pleased to hear the remarks made by the leader of the official opposition on this subject.
From a longer term point of view, perhaps an even more significant development of recent years has been the emergent industrial development of China. While China offers no military threat at the moment, no one who has viewed her development can deny that she may well become one of the great industrial powers of the future. Clearly this development calls for a re-thinking in the field of international relations such as we have not been forced to undertake since the end of *world war II.
No doubt these developments are the important ones if one is pessimistic enough to believe that the major issues of the world must be settled by negotiations based on armed strength. However, there are other developments, I am glad to say, which indicate that both sides are more interested at the present time in a different kind of battle. I think we should promote this interest. The Soviet union appears increasingly concerned in developing its industrial potential in order to catch up with the United States in the field of economic production. That country, too, appears to be showing an increasing interest in international economic competition. We in this group hope that co-existence and competition can be developed on this basis.
The western powers, on the other hand, appear, especially on the Berlin and German question, to be willing to consider a more flexible approach. If this greater flexibility on the part of the west can be broadened to include a serious re-examination of the problem of world economic development as an alternative to continued military strength we may truly be on the way to a new and more hopeful era in international relations.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure it is a little difficult to hear the hon. member while so many conversations are going on. I wonder whether hon. members on my right would moderate their tone.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
Mr. Regier:: Take the initiative.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Canada should take the initiative as my friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) suggests. I cannot resist saying at this point that while the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) took a very good stand on that question we
External Affairs
must not forget that when the Liberals were in power there was nothing done at the conclusion of the Korean war to maintain the sort of military force in being that could have been called upon quickly to meet a similar situation.
We all know that a permanent police force does not mean the organization of large armies. I do believe the force should be permanent and its numbers strengthened. Member nations of the United Nations would be willing to supply the necessary contingents to meet a situation such as that which developed in the Middle East area or which might develop in other parts of the world.
Finally, we in this group suggest that Canada should work toward getting member nations of the United Nations to be willing to submit their difficulties to the arbitration of the international court. I know that is not an immediate possibility but it is something we should work toward as people who believe in the rule of international law.
I have almost concluded what I have to say about the United Nations, Mr. Speaker, and as it is fifteen seconds before six o'clock, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on external affairs was temporarily halted to permit members to attend to internal affairs I was presenting to the house various aspects of the foreign policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and I now want to continue. I dealt briefly with our approach to the United Nations. I now want to say that the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation is very keen on strengthening the commonwealth. We believe that this unique, this intangible organization, this group of nations whose structure and whose behaviour is almost misunderstood by many nations in the world, is a balance wheel in the whirling machinery of international affairs. We believe that our government should do everything it can toward strengthening the ties within the commonwealth. We believe that the government should seize every opportunity for co-operation and consultation with other commonwealth nations.
I must say that we were particularly pleased to hear the minister say that there were going to be increased grants toward assistance under the Colombo plan and particularly that the government was making provision to assist some of the recent additions to the

External Affairs
commonwealth, those young and immature Asiatic nations to whom we can be of great assistance at this time. We believe that this type of assistance is one way in which we can certainly strengthen understanding between various members of the commonwealth and strengthen the commonwealth itself. In addition, we believe that the government could be a little less niggardly in its contribution to the commonwealth parliamentary association with which this parliament is connected. Its membership is composed of the majority of the members of the House of Commons who are interested in international affairs, and if that association is going to function satisfactorily and make the contribution it should toward understanding between the various nations of the commonwealth it could do with a little more financial assistance than has been extended to it by Canadian governments.
I want to refer briefly now to the European situation. In that connection I was interested in a press report this morning on Mr. Macmillan's visit to Moscow, to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) referred this afternoon. At the time the minister emphasized its importance and said that he was following the visit with interest. I want to quote a short paragraph or two from the report because I think this also indicates the stability of the British prime minister's outlook and his unruffled approach. That is the sort of approach which goes a long way to finding solutions to difficult problems in international affairs rather than blowing off steam and talking about massive retaliation. The report has this to say in part:
Mr. Macmillan's speeches have been marked by an unusual combination of admiration and jibes.
A delightful combination.
He has referred to Russian misconception of Britain as a land of Dickens; or the fact that he, unlike other prime ministers, is answerable to questions in parliament.
I think that is a wonderful little dig in the right spirit.
At the same time he has praised the achievements of the Soviet union with a lack of inhibition which has surprised both Russian and British listeners.
Here he shows his fairness.
"The rate and quality of your progress are indeed extraordinary and, so far as I know, unparalleled in history."
Both Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Khrushchev have referred in very similar terms to the splendour of the British-Soviet alliance in the war-*
We should not forget that.
-and worsening of relations since. The prime minister's speech at the British embassy dinner has been treated by the Soviet press with obvious respect.
[Mr. Herridge.l
That is the sort of approach that engenders respect in any country. We in this group hope, regardless of the surface ruffles on the sea of diplomacy, that Mr. Macmillan's visit to Moscow will have some fruitful consequences and be part of the long and tedious period of negotiation to which we must inure ourselves.
So far as the European situation is concerned, I wish to say that there are growing indications that the vested interests of monopoly capitalism are beginning to have a serious influence on world affairs at this time and particularly in recent years. I think that that is indicated by the finger in the pie that the oil interests have had in the Middle East. We would not have had half the trouble we had with the Arabs if it had not been for the oil industry and their greed.
We also have the record of monopoly capitalism in South American countries throughout the years and recently in Cuba. So far as Cuba is concerned, we hardly heard a word about the frightful Batista regime until it was overthrown. The press kept almost complete silence on the tyranny of that regime. Now, and I am always aroused when I think of it, some of these birds are wanting to put their filthy paws on the natural resources of British Columbia.
These small groups in Europe, the Middle East and the United States are having a very serious effect and an undue influence on international affairs at this time and all democratic parliaments will have to keep their eyes open in that respect. I want to quote an editorial from the Christian Science Monitor of Monday, February 16, 1959. The Christian Science Monitor is a very well balanced and thoughtful paper, by no means radical. The editorial is entitled, "The Krupp Puzzle", and reads as follows:
Very few persons outside the Krupp family and some employees can be happy at news that the Krupp industrial empire in West Germany is apparently being put back together and even enlarged. Yet several very practical questions are involved in whether the world war II allies can or should hold Alfried Krupp to a postwar agreement to break up and dispose of his coal and steel enterprises by 1959.
Two views of the matter are presented on this page. To those still seared by memory of Nazi cruelty, the role of Alfried Krupp's father as armorer to Hitler is not easily forgotten. But today the most serious threat of dictatorial rule comes not from a revival of Hitlerism but from a Soviet empire devoted to the spread of communism. Against that threat the west needs strength in West Germany.
Herr Krupp points out factually that there is no one in West Germany with money enough to buy him out.

Of course, what should have happened is that the allies should have collared the whole lot and given it to the German people as a nationalized industry.
The smaller Mannesmann syndicate has already been reorganized. The six parts of the former
I.	G. Farben chemical combine are likely to be reintegrated soon.
Anyone with a knowledge of history knows what the I. G. Farben chemical combine did before the war to play all sides against the middle.
The Krupp industries, of course, have made their postwar recovery without armament manufacture.
There is a certain irony in the United States assenting to the reconcentration and expansion of Krupp holdings while its department of justice carries on an anti-trust investigation of General Motors.
I think that is a very good comment.
But the West German government now has its own laws against the revival of cartels and economics minister Prof. Ludwig Erhard is a vigorous advocate of competition. There are also strong controls applicable under the relatively new European coal and steel community.
The misgivings raised by imminent revival of the Krupp industrial empire are that it will wield monopoly powers in trade and that it may form part of a remilitarized Germany.
Do not forget that the Krupp family were armorers for Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler.
As to both these hazards, the best hope lies in democratically strong German government and a peace-serving sense of European unity.
Unless these can really be depended upon, this newspaper believes there is ground for the deepest reservations against permitting a revival of far-flung power in the Krupp industrial empire.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: What paper is that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The Christian Science
Monitor, a paper with which I am sure you would be somewhat in agreement. We in this group view with alarm the rising power of these people who created so much misery in the world in years past. We can readily understand the reservations expressed by the editor of the Christian Science Monitor. The point I was making is that these various spots in the world are having a terrific influence in the direction that serves the development of their own economy, industrial plant expansion and so on. We should be very careful and watch these developments, not only in Germany with respect to the Krupp interests but with respect to other interests in the Middle East and the United States.
I want to quote briefly from the Foreign Affairs magazine which contains an article by Mr. George F. Kennan entitled "Disengagement Revisited". It is contained in the January 1959 issue. In this article Mr. Kennan 66968-9-91
External Affairs
deals with the question of the policy of disengagement which we in the C.C.F. feel should be given some consideration and which is mentioned, I think, as the Rapacki plan. I believe the leader of the official opposition mentioned it this afternoon and said he thought there should be some investigation of the possibilities of a plan of this type, if I understood him correctly. We, in the C.C.F., believe in that, and this is what Mr. Kennan has to say in dealing with that in Foreign Affairs magazine. I am only going to quote a paragraph because my time is running out. I have to deal with it quickly because I am only about 10 per cent through in presenting C.C.F. foreign policy. The paragraph reads:
If, of course, the new German army were to become in organization and conceptual principle as dependent on atomic weapons as is the American defence establishment of this day-were the Germans, in other words, to place themselves in a position where they could not dispense with atomic weapons without generally emasculating their over-all military capability-then the chances for any change in the present status quo in central Europe would be practically non-existent. Confronted with such a force on the western side of the Elbe, the Soviet government, which will presumably observe a much greater prudence than has the American government about putting atomic weapons in the hands of its allies, will see no choice but to keep its own forces, themselves armed with atomic weapons, in substantially the positions they occupy today. The atomic armament of Western Germany is in fact the enemy of any real progress in the matter of unification. The western chanceries could not have been oblivious to this fact when they refused even to consider the Rapacki proposals for an atom-free zone in the centre of the continent, and when they took the decision to introduce atomic weapons into the NATO defences on German soil.
I had more to say on that, but time will not permit. We in this group do urge the government to give consideration to the possibilities of developing the plan for disengagement and to provide this zone in central Europe of a neutral Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary, and in so doing provide a buffer which will also permit further opportunities to deal with reunification.
In that connection, I want to place on the record the resolution adopted by the C.C.F. national council at a meeting held in Ottawa on January 24 and 25. It reads:
The C.C.F. believes that the present Berlin crisis should be seized upon as an opportunity to reopen negotiations on the whole question of Germany. In their approach to new talks the western powers should be prepared to consider, as a basis for negotiations, some of the new proposals that have been put forward in recent months.
As a prelude to negotiations and as a basis for approach in negotiations themselves, the west should make clear the following:
1. That the unilateral action of the Soviet union in insisting upon withdrawal from Berlin is to be condemned, and that the other occupying powers are obligated to maintain their position in Berlin

External Affairs
and their support of the democratic socialist government of West Berlin until such time as an overall settlement is reached.
2.	That the Berlin crisis be considered within the framework of the German question as a whole, and that a summit conference, or at least a foreign ministers' conference, be called at the earliest possible date, for this purpose.
3.	That the western powers will consider new approaches with respect to at least two matters on which our attitude hitherto has been rigidly inflexible:
(a)	proposals for withdrawal of troops and creation of a neutral, demilitarized zone in central Europe.
(b)	proposals for a loose federation of the governments of West and East Germany as a first step toward the holding of free elections throughout all Germany.
The C.C.F. firmly believes that a more flexible approach along these lines is the minimum to be expected from the west as an indication of our willingness to negotiate outstanding problems and to seek out every possible path to a peaceful solution.
The minister asked for positive proposals, and that is another positive proposal I present on behalf of the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation who sit in this house at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, I have a word or two to say about the Middle East. A development plan of broad and imaginative scope, using oil revenues and international loans, might yet prove the salvation of the situation, both from the viewpoint of internal Arab needs and the western stake in a peaceful non-communist settlement in that area. But it is likely that at this stage something even more far-reaching is required, something along the lines of the 1958 C.C.F. national convention resolution. This resolution proposes that the Arab peoples should be assisted through the United Nations to take over full ownership and control of their oil resources in a peaceful and orderly way, so that the wealth accruing from oil could be used for the welfare of all the people in the area.
This major step is certainly more far-reaching and imaginative than anything yet suggested. It could serve a multifold purpose. It would enable the United Nations to give much more assistance than has hitherto been possible by the establishment of an international Middle East development commission to assist the economic development of the area and ensure the raising of living standards for the peoples of those areas.
The C.C.F. proposal could serve as a positive step toward wresting the initiative in the Middle East from the soviets. It would help to offset the deep-rooted anti-westernism, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism, which makes every western move suspect. Properly planned, it could encourage the

Middle East nations to develop along democratic lines and halt the totalitarianism, which is a serious threat to political, economic and social progress. It could turn Arab nationalism to constructive objectives, keeping their peoples so occupied with their own advancement that they would cease to aggravate and be aggravated by the various conflicts in the area, including their bitter feuds with Israel. It could ensure the availability of oil and oil products to all nations which require them at world market or contract prices, without fear that the flow would be cut off. For if the west needs eastern oil, the east needs the west as its customers. One cannot get along very well without the other; and western oil resources and control of oil tankers are good enough to give the western nations reasonable bargaining power in determining the conditons of their petroleum purchases.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time has almost expired. I do want to say how disappointed we were to hear the minister say that the government has decided not to recognize China at this time. I listened to the minister's reasons with interest. I thought his legal reasoning was somewhat faulty when he said they refused to recognize all their international obligations. I think the minister will recall that we recognized the Soviet union before it recognized its international financial obligations with respect to foreign loans abroad, and that has happened with one or two other countries. In any event, we are very disappointed because we believe that there is, shall I say, a growing demand from the Canadian people generally for recognition of the government of China and its admission to the United Nations. I could quote from various periodicals, and I have a number of them here, but I will not have time to quote them.
We believe we should recognize the government of China. We should finally arrange with the United Nations to take over the operation of Formosa and have a free vote so that the people of the island of Formosa could determine the form of government under which they wish to live. In Canada labour organizations, industrial leaders and bank managers, particularly Mr. Muir who made a visit to China, and representatives of all groups have urged the recognition of China as being in the interests of world peace and the admission of China into the United Nations.
This afternoon the minister stated that you cannot deal effectively with such problems as disarmament, control of nuclear weapons and so on until they are part of the United Nations and that our efforts in that direction

will be very limited and not at all effective. Therefore in concluding my remarks may I say that we in this group urge the government to give consideration to the recognition of China and the admission of China to the United Nations in response to the growing demand on the part of an increasing number of Canadians in all walks of life who apparently have a better appreciation of the realities of the situation than has the government at this time.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) in his most interesting statement this afternoon dealt with many of the most important international matters in which Canada is interested. I should like to join, first of all, in the tribute which he paid to Mr. Dulles, the secretary of state of the United States, and in the good wishes which he expressed for his speedy recovery from his illness. To my mind it has been most heartening to see the change in attitude that has taken place in the press concerning Mr. Dulles. Last year, when the world was going through various crises, many of the newspapers were heaping scorn and ridicule on Mr. Dulles and were criticizing him for being so uncompromising. Letters were sent in-and these could easily have been sent in by supporters of the communists-to the state department in the United States criticizing him and asking that he be removed. His reply was that he was not engaged in a popularity contest but in work of an international character of benefit to the whole world. I am sure we all hope that his disability is only temporary. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been an admirer of Mr. Dulles for a long time because of his great devotion to principles. Certainly the world owes to him a great debt for the stand that he took and for the character that he displayed despite the tremendous pressures that came from all sides against him last year.
When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was speaking about China I took down what I thought he said as to the number of supporters that backed the United States in supporting their motion not to have the admission of China considered at the United Nations, and I thought he said 32.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; it is quite the reverse. I said I thought there were 32 members that supported discussion of the matter in the United Nations.


William Joseph Browne: I have here the account of the United Nations proceedings when this matter was brought before the general assembly. I have here a list of the


[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
votes. The final vote on the United States motion that the question of China should not be considered was 44 votes in favour of the United States motion to 28 against, with nine abstentions. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, it is necessary to have a two-thirds vote in order to change the position as it is today.
I also noticed that the Leader of the Opposition referred to the offshore islands in an extremely offhand manner and indicated that they should be returned to the mainland. He spoke about their menace to mainland China. I expect he will agree with me when I suggest to him that maybe both Mao Tse-tung and Chiang Kai-shek attached the same importance to Quemoy and Matsu as Mao Tse-tung attached to the area that Mao Tse-tung occupied back in 1934 and 1935 when he was driven to the province of Shensi with only 5,000 followers at that time; from that small nucleus he built up an army with Russian help and was able to conquer the mainland. Maybe both of them had that in mind.
I was interested to note his generous concern that Formosa would not be put under Peking. I am glad to know that he feels that way. My friend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) was even more considerate and thought a referendum should be taken on Formosa. But what about having a referendum on mainland China-did either of the hon. gentlemen propose that procedure -in order to see where those people would like to go?
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the minister propose it?


William Joseph Browne: I believe both of my hon. friends supported a summit conference. I wonder whether Mr. Khrushchev's eagerness for a summit conference derives from the success which his predecessor had in summit conferences at Yalta, Potsdam and Geneva. I think the Leader of the Opposition certainly must be aware of the fact that it was as a result of Yalta that Russia occupied the strong position vis-a-vis Germany that she does today.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I heard of a summit conference called by those who did not want Newfoundland to enter confederation.


William Joseph Browne: I did not
know about that. There are dangers in summit conferences, I think, unless the ground has been properly prepared by a foreign ministers conference in the first place and I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West stated that during his remarks. I tried to follow the hon. member for Kootenay West in his suggestions.

External Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am honoured.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's Wesl):: I tried to follow them carefully I must say. I note that his party supports the United Nations. I think we all support the United Nations so there is no disagreement between us on that point. He speaks about strengthening the commonwealth and he said that our government should do everything that it could. I think there was never a government in the history of Canada that has the commonwealth so much in mind as has this government.
And with regard to the Colombo plan, it was announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon that we are giving $50 million a year for three years for the assistance of those countries under the Colombo plan. That is the greatest amount that has ever been given as yet.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad.


John Ferguson Browne: The hon. member for Kootenay West I think made reference to peaceful coexistence between .Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Khrushchev and he spoke about the nice words they said to each *other. That was not peaceful coexistence. I can give him a better example than that. That was good neighbourliness, talking like that. If you want an example of peaceful coexistence you only have to read the paper tonight to find one, where the two of them sat together during a Romeo and Juliet play without speaking a word to each other. Mr. Khrushchev walked out of the show and stayed outside during one of the scenes of Romeo and Juliet. That is peaceful coexistence. I do not think we could get a better example of it than the two of them sitting side by side and not speaking a word to each other.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But not fighting.


John Ferguson Browne: But not
fighting.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is better to talk than fight.


John Ferguson Browne: I do not
know about that. The hon. gentleman referred to West Germany and he read something from the Christian Science Monitor about the Krupp interests. I was wondering what lesson he wanted us to draw from that. West Germany today is not the Germany it was prior to 1939 nor yet is it the Germany it was prior to 1914. In the first place Germany has been divided into two, namely into East Germany and West Germany. In the second place, West Germany has a different type of government entirely from that which it ever had before. In the third place, it is a member of NATO and is on our side.

In the fourth place, we have armed Germany. We have control of the arming of Germany and therefore West Germany is an ally of the west. I gathered from the gist of his argument that he dismissed West Germany as an ally. I think it would be a fundamental mistake if we did, because West Germany possesses great bodies of skilled people, people who are amenable to discipline, and who could put strength on our side.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was quoting what the social democrats in Germany were saying.


William Joseph Browne: The social democrats are the same as the C.C.F., and the same as Mr. Gaitskell in England.


An hon. Member:: And Willy Brandt.


William Joseph Browne: Willy Brandt too. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege last fall of acting as vice-chairman of the Canadian delegation at the thirteenth session of the United Nations which opened in New York on September 16. The chairman was, as he himself told you this afternoon, our Secretary of State for External Affairs. The other members of the delegation were the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Vivian), the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Mac-quarrie), the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), Senator Gunnar S. Thorvaldson, Mr. Jean Morin of Montreal and Mrs. W. T. Hayden of Halifax, Nova Scotia. The members of this house who attended as observers at various periods were the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming), the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) , the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Regier), and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
This was my first visit to the United Nations, and I hope the house will bear with me while I give some impressions of some of the issues which were discussed at this session. I had imagined before I went to the United Nations that it was something like parliament, and I was not disappointed. There are three main buildings down there. There is the secretariat with 38 storeys; the conference building with a great number of conference rooms, a1] of which are fitted for sound and provide simuUaneous translation into five different languages, English, French, Spanish, Russian and Chinese. Then there is the main building, the general assembly, where on opening day 81 nations met from the

different parts of the world under the chairmanship of Sir Leslie Munroe, the chairman of the New Zealand delegation. The great hall was overcrowded on that opening day. I believe there were 58 foreign ministers in attendance, together with several hundred delegates, observers and advisers from the five continents.
The meeting opened with a minute of silence for prayer and meditation and then Sir Leslie Munroe, who was retiring from the office of president, addressed the assembly. One thing he said which I remember was that "it was not so much in what they said but in what they did that the members of the United Nations would prove that they adhered to their charter undertakings". The assembly then elected Dr. Charles Malik of Lebanon as its president. Dr. Charles Malik has been a delegate to the United Nations for many years, and I am sure most hon. members have heard him on the radio from time to time. He is well equipped by knowledge and experience, as well as ability, to fulfil competently the requirements of this exalted office.
The assembly then proceeded to a general debate much like a debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Our Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke vigorously at considerable length on various important international matters which were to come before the organization during the thirteenth session. A general committee was then appointed to consider the items on the agenda. There were 73 different items, and the duty of the general committee was to allot them to various committees.
There are seven committees, and most of the work, after the general debate has taken place in the general assembly, is done in these seven committees. There are two political committees, the first committee and a special political committee. Then there is the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth committee. The first committee deals with political matters and so does the special committee. The second committee deals with questions of technical aid to countries who need it and economic assistance to the same countries. The third committee deals with economic and social organization, with refugee problems and with drafting the covenant for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The fourth committee deals with trusteeships and the non-self-governing territories in Africa. The fifth committee deals with financial and budgetary questions, and I might say that that is a very difficult committee on which Mr. Tremblay served so well. The sixth committee deals, amongst
External Affairs
other matters, with the question of the law of the sea, a subject in which Canada was greatly interested.
In addition to the members of the delegations and the observers from the House of Commons, we were accompanied by expert advisers from the Department of External Affairs. Canada, as the hon. member for Kootenay West pointed out this afternoon, has a permanent mission to the United Nations like other countries. Mr. Charles Ritchie is our present ambassador there, and he and his very competent staff joined with those who came from Ottawa to constitute the Canadian, delegation.
Here I should like to do as the hon. member for Kootenay West did and pay a well deserved tribute to the diplomatic and general ability of the external affairs officials for the keen and well informed interest they are taking in international affairs. I am sure all members of the House of Commons who formed part of the delegation will endorse what I am now saying. I should also like to thank the other members of the delegation for the excellent manner in which they performed their duties.
Canada was honoured by having the hon. member for Durham elected vice-chairman of the second committee. Some of the delegates had to work harder than others. I am referring especially to the hon. member for Queens. His committee worked mornings, afternoons, nights and sometimes late into the next morning on the very contentious problems which arose in connection with the trusteeships and the non-self-governing territories in Africa. Personally, being a newcomer to the scene, I thought I would devote my attention to the work of the special political committee, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some observations on the problems which were considered there.
We dealt with the policy of apartheid of the government of the Union of South Africa. I will explain that in a moment. We dealt with the United Nations emergency force, with the progress report by the secretary, and also with the summary study to which reference has been made by previous speakers. We dealt with the report of the director of the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East, as it is called. We dealt with the very interesting academic question of measures aimed at implementation and promotion of peaceful and neighbourly relations among states. We also dealt with the question of the treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa. That question was very much

External Affairs
like the first question I mentioned, the policy of apartheid in the government of the Union of South Africa.
Apartheid means separation of the races. It is very much like the dispute which has been going on in the southern states of the United States-segregation. It is the policy of the government of South Africa that white people and coloured people should live apart, living according to their own traditions, cultures, and have a separate civilization. They have taken positive legal steps to see that that is carried out. The representative of the foreign minister of the government of the Union of South Africa objected to this being considered, and he raised the point that this was beyond the powers of the assembly. Since this is a matter which is frequently brought up, I think I should read the section of the charter to which he was referring. Article 2, section 7, says:
Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter.
Mr. Louw contended that this was a purely domestic matter, that these questions of apartheid and the treatment of South Africans of Indian origin were both domestic. He refused to attend meetings when these matters were being discussed. The attitude of the South African government was shared by very few members of the United Nations. May I say at this point that the white population of South Africa amounts to only three millions compared with 11 million non-white inhabitants. Our delegation recognized that a solution of this problem which has been in existence for many years, was not going to be easy. Nevertheless we in this country have no sympathy with such a policy as that which the government of South Africa is pursuing.
We have before us now a bill of rights which will grant formally to our citizens the rights which are being taken away from residents of South Africa because of discrimination on grounds of colour in the Union of South Africa. We consider, also, that the policy of apartheid or segregation is contrary to the spirit of the United Nations charter, because several of the sections of the charter say that the purpose of the United Nations is to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
We knew that the policy of South Africa had become set and that it would be very

difficult for them to change it. Certainly they could not change it over night. We remembered, to, that the white population in South Africa numbering, as I have said, three millions, is the biggest white population on the whole continent of Africa and must be compared with a population of 200 million people who are not white in colour. Thus the position of the government of South Africa is a very difficult one and those hon. members who have been reading the newspapers in the last few days will have noticed that there have been uprisings in various countries in Africa and that the people there are clamouring increasingly for independence. The spirit of nationality which was talked about so much after the first world war in terms of self-determination has certainly broken out anew in Africa, as it erupted in Asia previously.
All over the world there is concern about South Africa's racial policies and this was evident in the debate which took place during the thirteenth session. It was our opinion that any resolution to be brought in should take into consideration that the position in South Africa was exceptional and very difficult, and that we should not expect too much at one time. The resolution when drafted read something like this:
In a multi-racial society, harmony and respect for human rights and freedoms and the peaceful development of a unified community are best assured when patterns of legislation and practice are directed towards ensuring equality before the law of all persons, regardless of race, creed or colour, and when economic, social, cultural and political participation of all racial groups is on a basis of equality.
This is an ideal to which all members of the United Nations are striving, and since it is spoken of so freely in the charter it appeared to us that all members of the United Nations were bound to practice what they subscribe to. General Smuts was one of the original signatories to the charter of the United Nations, but it seems that since his day the government of South Africa has altered its views somewhat.
We regretted that this matter was being considered so frequently year after year. We have a special interest in South Africa because, like ourselves, South Africa is a member of the commonwealth of nations and in two world wars our forces have fought side by side. Ties are strong, so it was difficult for Canada to take a positive attitude in this matter against South Africa. However, we felt that this principle was very important and we did support the resolution. It was very moderate in tone and the whole tenor of the debate was very temperate. We took a part in drafting the resolution so that it would be inoffensive to South Africa. We pointed out in our

statement that if South Africa would take a second look at its policies, and reconsider them in the light of the universal opinions which had been expressed on all sides against the policies they have been following, we believed they would change their policies, and that the world would congratulate and praise them for changing their attitude in this respect. The resolution was, of course, adopted. This was the first time Canada had supported a resolution of this kind. I am sure all members of the house will appreciate that we have nothing but good wishes and good will for the government of South Africa. We trust that before the fourteenth session of the United Nations comes around the change we hope for will have taken place.
The special political committee had before it for consideration a progress report of the United Nations emergency force to which reference has already been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. members will recall that this emergency force was formed very quickly in 1956 when the United Kingdom and France attacked Egypt and when Israel attacked Egypt at the same time. Within a very short time the force was in action separating the combatants. It has been there ever since, and during the past year it has done exceptionally good work. About 5,500 men are in the force at the present time. India has the largest number but Canada has the second largest contingent, about 1,000 men. All are under the command of Lieutenant General Burns who has been in charge of the force since it was organized.
The report showed that the force has functioned smoothly. General Burns himself was present and gave evidence and I recall him saying: "You can go to the demarcation line and you can see Egyptians on one side plowing their land and on the other side you can see the people of Israel going about their business." General Burns and his force were the recipients of congratulations from a great many delegates for the splendid work they had done since the force was established.
In addition to this we have another report from the secretary general of the United Nations. This was also referred to earlier this afternoon in support of the argument that there should be a permanent international police force. I have in my hand an advance text of the report of the secretary general which he calls a summary study of the experience derived from the establishment and operation of the force. This is a lengthy document containing approximately 75 pages and it refers in detail to all features of the experience of the United Nations emergency force. Actually it would seem
External Affairs
unwise for the secretary general and the staff to let the opportunity go by of studying carefully the various features of the operation of the emergency force: what were the defects of its organization and operation? But let no one think it is easy to keep the force going. In the first place it is difficult to get personnel. They are limited for you cannot take them from any permanent members of the security council nor from the countries that are concerned and the host country may have serious objections to any particular country that wishes to supply troops.
When it comes to the question of paying the shot toward the United Nations emergency force there are various matters to be considered. I could not help smiling this afternoon when the hon. member for Kootenay suggested that the force that was used in Korea might have been kept going. That would have cost billions of dollars instead of millions and I think it would have been extremely difficult if not impossible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I explain to the hon. gentleman that I did not intend to convey that meaning. I suggested that it could provide the foundation for such a force.


John Ferguson Browne: A foundation is something to build on and if you were to take the troops that were in Korea and build on them you would have a big army. I do not quite understand what the hon. gentleman meant.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was referring to the principle.


John Ferguson Browne: However, I know what he had in mind. The hon. member feels there should be a permanent force. That is what the secretary general attempts to discuss in this study but this report was never debated. We were to consider it in our committee but word got around that we were going to have an opportunity to discuss it before the general assembly. We went before the general assembly where the secretary general made another brief statement in which he gave some reasons why he made this study. He indicated that there was no need for the assembly or the committee to take further action. The president then did a strange thing. He said, "You have heard the secretary general and I suppose there is no one who wishes to speak," and so the matter was concluded and no one had anything to say about this valuable report. However, it has been compiled and is available and all those who are interested or concerned may obtain a copy and draw their own conclusions. In the meantime there is nothing to prevent General Burns or the secretary general from making further observations as

External Affairs
time goes on, although we must keep in the back of our minds this question: how long will the emergency force be an emergency force and how long will it stay there?
I am sure hon. members will agree that the action of the secretary general was dictated by wisdom. It would be unfortunate indeed if the experience gained during the past two years should be lost.
I do not know how much time remains at my disposal.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may continue for approximately five minutes.


William Joseph Browne: I did not
realize the time was going so fast. Another matter that we considered was the question of UNRRA-a most interesting subject-the United Nations relief and works agency in Palestine. Hon. members may recall that in 1948 the United Nations set up the state of Israel and as a result of the division of Palestine to provide for the establishment of that state there are now one million refugees in the four neighbouring countries of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The number of refugees in Jordan constitutes approximately 33 per cent of the population and they have been living in misery at the expense of some of the members of the United Nations. At this point it comes to my mind that the soviet bloc has not contributed one cent to the cost of the United Nations emergency force or to the cost of UNRRA. It costs $36 million a year to operate UNRRA and that must come from voluntary gifts from different members of United Nations.
This subject was particularly interesting because the Arabs felt that this was a United Nations problem. They seemed to be against any solution but one and that was that the refugees should be re-established in their homelands. They felt they should be sent back to Palestine and given their land back again. Israel, of course, does not want that. In the thirteenth session, for the first time, Israel made the offer to pay compensation to the dispossessed refugees. They did impose certain conditions under which compensation should be made but it was important to note that the offer was forthcoming. They also offered to take a certain number of the refugees who had relatives in the state of Israel. The chief spokesman for the refugees was Mr. Shukairy the representative of Saudi Arabia at the present time. I do not know if my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition knows him, but in very dramatic appeals-


Lester Bowles Pearson: He used to represent Syria in my day.


William Joseph Browne: Yes. He himself is a Palestine refugee. He made
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West).l
some very pathetic speeches in support of the refugees. The permanent representative for Israel and the ambassador to Canada were also present and spoke on behalf of Israel. It seems to me that the Israeli government having made the offer of paying compensation provided a basis on which to work. I feel that the governments of the countries where the refugees are now stationed should discuss with the government of Israel how this question could be resolved because each year the number of refugees is growing and the cost is $36 million annually. The acting director of the agency, Mr. Leslie J. Carver, said there were some bright spots. People who had been living winter and summer in tents, numbering hundreds of thousands, were now willing to accept permanent buildings which he thought was a good sign. Also, through a system of loans he was able to establish some people in business which was also helpful but he did not have enough money to carry this on on any grand scale. In any case, it was decided that the agency would carry on for this year but as the mandate of the agency will be up in 1960 it will be extremely important in the session that will take place next fall to try and find a solution to this very serious problem.
There was one subject discussed at the United Nations which seems to me merits some attention. The delegate from Czechoslovakia sponsored a resolution dealing with the question of peaceful coexistence between states but in the general committee which was appointed to consider the items this was amended to read, "Measures aimed at implementation and promotion of peaceful and neighbourly relations among states." I feel that most people prefer that language because "peaceful coexistence" is a mysterious expression which members of the soviet bloc are continually using. They have some meaning of their own which they apparently attach to those words. They appear to have a certain understanding of that expression. Members of the soviet bloc attached great importance to the debate on this subject in its original form. They attended with their speeches all prepared and delivered them despite the fact that there had been an amendment.
But it seems to me that is a subject on which we should be well instructed. It seems to me also that hon. members should remember that the aim of the communist countries is world domination. Communism was established by Lenin in 1917 with one object in mind, controlling the whole world. Even at that time he thought there were going to be revolutions in neighbouring countries such as Germany and offered assistance to them.

He thought that in his lifetime a considerable portion of the European area outside of Russia would become communist, and it was at that time that he rendered assistance to the people in China who formed the communist party of that country. The communist party in China still contains many of the original members. I am sure there must be 20 or 25 of the top brass in the communist party in China who learned their communism from Lenin or his immediate successor and of course a great many of them were sent to Paris to study communism in France. Chou En-Lai was one of those.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), Minister without Portfolio, will not expect me to comment on the speech he has just delivered. However I should observe, as the first speaker after him, that I was disturbed by his response to the intervention made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who said, while the hon. gentleman was speaking, "Better to talk than to fight." The minister replied: "I don't know about that". I should have thought that by this time-


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, may I make an observation? I do not think I heard what the hon. member for Kootenay West said. I did not realize what he had said until afterwards and it certainly was not my idea that it was better to fight than to talk.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was about to observe that it would be regrettable if any hon. member today, in the face of the tragic events that pursue us, took the view that we should resolve our disputes with other countries not by pacific means but by the use of force. The correction that the hon. gentleman has made is, of course, fully accepted.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) covered a wide front today. I thought I would deal tonight with one phase of the situation in the Middle East. Before doing that, I should observe that we might have taken advantage of this debate today to hear accounts of the experiences of some members of the government who in the course of their duties have visited foreign lands since the last session. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) made an extensive visit to the Far East and this might have been an appropriate occasion to hear about the conference which he attended and likewise some of the other experiences which were his during that trip. The Prime Minister
External Affairs
(Mr. Diefenbaker), of course, could not be in the house after the orders of the day because of an indisposition but, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said, we will look forward to a report from him on the tour he made not only to the Far East but to Europe as well, a report which at the beginning of the session he intimated would be given at the first opportunity when there was a discussion of international affairs.
Last August I decided, as some hon. members will remember, to make a private, personal trip to the Middle East to formulate some impressions and to gather information about a situation which at that time occupied our attention in the house, later in the United Nations, and which for some time after the month of September continued to occupy the attention of those who are interested in the easing of international tension in the peaceful relations of states.


Mr. Monteith (Perth):: Did the hon. member travel as the hon. member for Essex East or as minister of national health and welfare? There was a report came back about that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I could not very well travel as minister of national health and welfare.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There was a report came back.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are many reports. I hope by hon. friend will take advantage of the opportunity to improve his mind by engaging in some travel. In commenting on the Middle East today the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a number of observations. He said first of all that we can now look at the situation in that sector with cautious satisfaction. He also observed that on the Arab-Israeli front some unrest prevails, particularly on the Israeli-Syrian border. He further observed that we must continue to support the work of the United Nations in that area as an effective agency for providing peace and international collaboration.
Then he gave what I thought was a satisfactory account of the neutralist policy and neutralist tendency of certain countries in the area. I must say that I thought his statement with regard to the Middle East was one with which I would generally concur.
I went to the Middle East at a time when there was civil strife in Lebanon, shortly before the revolution in Iraq which had been marked in its initial stages by the assassinations of King Faisal and his prime minister, Nuri es-Said, events which had caused the government of the United States to dispatch marines to the shores of the Mediterranean at Beirut in Lebanon and Her

External Affairs
Majesty's government in the United Kingdom to send forces to protect King Hussein of Jordan and provide for stability in that little country. These events were discussed in this house, last summer, as indeed they began to be discussed in the United Nations on August 13 last.
I want to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his co-operation in facilitating my access to certain individuals in some of the countries I visited. I wish to acknowledge at once the co-operation I received from Canadian personnel in every place I went where we have missions. I visited Lebanon, the United Arab Republic, Jordan, Iraq and Israel. I was afforded the opportunity in all these countries to see the heads of governments and in all cases but one the foreign ministers and as well, of course, other individuals from whom I was able to gather impressions and ideas. I believe that the house would expect me to say something of these impressions and this journey.
In Lebanon the government of President Chamoun was one that had not been disposed during its tenure of office to give support to the over-all objectives as stated by President Nasser, both with regard to the matter of Arab unity and certain aspects of Arab nationalism as enunciated by President Nasser. President Chamoun, in the conversation which I was privileged to have with him, had no hesitation in affirming that he did not share the objectives of President Nasser nor his general policy toward the Soviet union. On the other hand, the present president of Lebanon, General Chehab, who had not yet been installed in office, told me that he felt that in the interests of Lebanon itself there should be support by Lebanon for the general purposes of Arab unity and Arab nationalism as stated by President Nasser. General Chehab indicated his desire to do everything that would assist in the establishment in fact, if not in law, of the neutral position which Lebanon feels she should occupy vis-a-vis Europe and vis-a-vis her sister Arab states.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs will remember that when he spoke on this question last summer he put forward the view that by some form of international guarantee an attempt might be made to bring about the neutralization of Lebanon. My view is that it is not possible to do so in the manner suggested, and that the best we can hope, for some time at any rate, is the sort of informal arrangement which General Chehab is now pursuing as president of the little state of Lebanon. There can be no doubt that President Nasser is the single, dominant

figure in the Arab world. While at the present time the lack of full accord between the government of Iraq under Prime Minister Kassam and President Nasser would seem to indicate that Prime Minister Kassam is undoubtedly a personality of the greatest significance in the area, I do not think that anyone will deny the great influence which President Nasser occupies generally throughout the Arab world.
I would not want the house to think any impressions I have are based solely on the talks which I had the privilege of having with President Nasser. However, undoubtedly one is influenced by one's conversations with individuals who have, at the moment, great authority in their respective countries. I would not be true to my impression if I did not say that I was impressed with President Nasser. This does not mean to say that I do not have great reservations with regard to some of his policies, but I think I should say in this attempt to be objective, trying to fully assess the problems of the area, that there has been some misunderstanding of his motives and policies. I am satisfied that while the commitments he has made to the Soviet union are great, those commitments do not amount to his acceptance of the communist ideology. Indeed, only a few days ago, at a meeting in Damascus with President Tito, he made clear what his position was with regard to communists, both in Syria, now an integrated part of the United Arab Republic, and in Egypt.
As a matter of fact, I think it could be established that the integration of Syria with Egypt was largely brought about because of the fear Syria had become dangerously committed to the Soviet union and that this form of union would be one method by which the dangers of such a commitment could be mitigated. In any event, I think that we will not serve the cause of peace if, in the absence of a careful assessment of the situation, we charge the present government of the United Arab Republic as being fully in sympathy with communist ideology. I am sure that that is not the case.
There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the United Arab Republic is receiving great assistance from the Soviet union. President Nasser told me that it was only after the refusal of the government of the United States to maintain its policy of financially assisting the Aswan dam project, its refusal to extend credit terms to Egypt to permit that country to buy wheat, the intervention by the government of the United States with regard to the volutary CARE program designed to feed the children of Egypt, that as a matter of last resort he appealed to the then Premier Bulganin, for assistance

from the Soviet union. I am sure that economic and other assistance will be welcomed by Egypt and other Arab countries from the United Nations or from individual governments.
But it was pointed out to me, both by President Nasser and by Dr. Fawzi, his foreign minister, that under no circumstances were gifts being received from the Soviet union, nor were they going to be solicited from any other quarter. What they wanted was satisfactory credit terms to enable them to make purchases. In any event, the situation now is that the United Arab Republic, and particularly Egypt, a country with a very low standard of living, does need assistance. The same impelling motives that caused us to give assistance to the countries of south and southeast Asia will, I am sure, cause us in due time, possibly through the intermediary of the United Nations, to give assistance under satisfactory conditions to undeveloped areas in the Middle East.
Indeed, President Eisenhower on August 13 did propose to the United Nations that there should be set up an Arab development institution for the purpose of providing economic assistance to the Arab countries. He indicated that the government of the United States would be prepared to give assistance through that body, an organ which should be operated by the Arab nations themselves and which should be based on a concept which they, themselves, should initiate. On this point President Nasser indicated, in welcoming the suggestion of President Eisenhower, that the Arab league itself had some two years before set up an institution of this very kind for the purpose of providing a vehicle to give assistance which might be given from any quarter. I have since examined this, and I find that it is true that the Arab league did set up such a body and at least one Arab country, Saudi Arabia, did make some contribution out of its resources toward the objective intended.
But I fully agree with what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, that there will have to come to that area, I would think through the United Nations and a body such as that suggested by the President of the United States, assistance for the people particularly in the transit countries to enable them to improve their standard of living. If we do not do that, what the Soviet union has begun to do it will continue to do on an increasing scale. Certainly no one could visit Bagdad, the capital of Iraq, as I did without seeing the evidence, even six weeks after the revolution, of the assistance being accorded by the Soviet union to that country, a country in population as great as
External Affairs
Egypt and economically more powerful because of its oil resources; a country that is now becoming the object of the attentions of the Soviet union on an alarming scale as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with his access to sources not now available to us, knows even better than I.
The west, whatever may have been the mistakes in the past, and I am sure we will all agree that there have been mistakes and misunderstandings, will have to recognize that it has an obligation to these people just as we have an obligation to certain other undeveloped countries of the world.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? It is this: Did he find in the president of the Arab republic any desire to move toward a less despotic and more democratic form of government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may say that I suggested to President Nasser that the Syrian parliament was no longer in existence. There was the statement of the former foreign minister, Mr. Batar of Syria, who had a notable part in bringing about the union, that there would be set a deliberative assembly of some kind at the earliest possible moment; and President Nasser did say, as he subsequently announced only about ten days ago, the intention to set up some form of deliberative body that would bring together not party opinion-because party opinion is not tolerated under the law-but some kind of body that would permit popular discussion under certain limitations. But I think I must say at once to the hon. gentleman that no one would pretend for a moment that with the high measure of illiteracy-almost 80 per cent-it is possible in those countries, basically feudal in character, to develop the kind of demoratic representative institutions that we have without great preparation. I think that we have to realize that one of the misconceptions under which we have suffered in the past is that we have thought that in the Middle East, and in the Arab countries in particular, it would be possible forthwith to establish democratic parliamentary systems such as our own. I am sure that is one of the misconceptions under which we have pursued our analysis.
The situation at the present time is that it would seem that the government of Iraq is not likely to give effect to the bold declaration of intended union with the United Arab Republic made by Prime Minister Kassam, with whom I was given the opportunity of conversation. It would seem that there is no likelihood, notwithstanding the

External Affairs
declarations made on the night of the revolution, that there will be any merger in the foreseeable future between Iraq and the United Arab Republic.
The house will recall that a few weeks ago Prime Minister Kassam caused to be dismissed from his government some five or six ministers, some of whom were protagonists of union with the United Arab Republic. The deputy prime minister, one of the leaders of the resolution, General Aref, has been found guilty of treason-and I believe his sentence has been already imposed-because it was alleged that he and some others had taken a strong stand once the new government was formed to bring about a union with the United Arab Republic.
I agree that it is no concern of ours whether or not Iraq joins with the United Arab Republic. That is not the point. I would say that if we want to give evidence of our good faith in this matter we should recognize that that is a decision that belongs to the people of Iraq and the United Arab Republic. It is a decision that belongs to the people and the governments of the countries concerned. By these observations I am not suggesting any form of intervention whatsoever.
Then the situation, of course, at the time was aggravated by the disturbed conditions in little Jordan, a country that is divided against itself, a country that was set up in 1921, with much artificiality I think, in spite of the great qualities of courage and adventure which the little king possesses, and which are serving as an important stabilizing factor at the present time. But Jordan, a country of about one and one-half million people, one-third roughly of whom are refugees-a country, as I say, that is divided against itself-is a key territory in the disturbed situation that prevails in this section of the Middle East.
When I was in the Middle East, everywhere I went the argument was made that King Hussein's regime could not last very long, and that we would see a combination of the forces of Iraq and of the United Arab Republic on the west bank, a situation which would provide for Israel important and dangerous security circumstances which would cause her to give careful consideration to the action she should take.
Since that time nothing serious has eventuated-and I agree again with the Secretary of State for External Affairs-because of the work of the secretary general of the United Nations in particular and the great authority

given to his endeavours by the resolution proposed by eleven of the Arab states some time about the middle of August at the special general assembly, and the wide support given to that resolution by the general assembly itself with, I think, only one abstention.
I come back to this point. I endeavoured in the small and limited way that I had at my disposal to impress upon those with whom I came into contact that the intentions certainly of Great Britain and those of the United States were honourable. We knew these countries and we wanted the Arab people to understand that there was no desire to impose any form of colonial control in any step or policy being pursued by western countries. I am satisfied that in order to impress that fact upon the people in the Arab countries we must realize that we have suffered under certain great misconceptions. It is often suggested that if President Nasser were overthrown and the Soviet union were rendered impotent, tranquility would reign in the area. That is a great misconception. We should remember that history and the mercurial temperament of the Arab countries, not President Nasser, are responsible for the churnings among the Arab people which are, in part, the product of empty stomachs and old resentments.
Then another misconception is that the Middle East can still be dominated by the traditional ruling classes that have held sway in that sector for centuries. I think it is true to say that the growing middle class is now more representative of the new aspirations and of the old resentments. Another misconception is that the Middle East is ready for representative government as we understand it. I dealt with that misconception a moment ago when I told the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) that I was sure that in comparing the freedom and the high standards of literacy we have with those obtaining in these countries and in thinking that we could expect them to have the same form of democratic government forthwith in the face of their long history of domination we were being unrealistic.
We would all hope, I am sure, that the work of scholars in the Middle East, of intellectuals and of responsible statesmen will result in the creation of the conditions which obtain in this country and in so many nations of the west. I believe that the United Nations has done its best work in the Middle East, on the political side. I wonder whether or not the interventions of the United States in Lebanon and of the United Kingdom in Jordan were wise. I understand the provocations; and the fears that spread throughout the world particularly after the incidents

in Iraq were perhaps understandable. Even President Nasser, while he did not agree with the dispatch of troops to these countries, looking upon that dispatch as a form of intervention that was the stamp and mark of the old colonial period, nevertheless recognized that there was no justification but, if I may use the word, that there could be some understandable provocation. I am sure that if the west has learned anything now as the result of the experiences in Lebanon and Jordan, it is that if there is to be any intervention hereafter that intervention should come not on the part of any one nation but by the United Nations.
That, I think, is the lesson of these last few months, and the record of achievement of the United Nations in the area confirms this. For we have in the United Nations emergency force under General Burns, which I visited in the Gaza strip and in the Sinai desert, the embodiment of a successful venture which I am sure must occasion satisfactory pride to the Leader of the Opposition because of the great part he played in its establishment.
Many thought that the way to bring about stability in Lebanon, in Jordan, even in Iraq, was the creation in the area of another paramilitary body, something like the United Nations emergency force. I think quite wisely the secretary general took the position that, certainly as far as Jordan was concerned, that was not possible or desirable. That might be a violation of article 2, the domestic jurisdiction clause, of the charter of the United Nations.
In so far as Lebanon was concerned, while that clearly was, at least in form, an international dispute involving an alleged infiltration from Syria of bodies and arms, the situation in Lebanon at that time did not lend itself to intervention, because of the successful work of another United Nations organization, UNOGIL, the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon, which I think completely rendered unnecessary even the further consideration of the establishment there of a paramilitary body.
I must say that until I saw President Nasser, and later Mr. Ben-Gurion, I myself wondered whether the reported formula which the secretary general had in mind would ever work in so troubled and so highly explosive an area. We all know what the formula was. There was to be established in Amman, the capital of Jordan, a representative of the United Nations; sometimes called, using the French word, "presence". His powers were vague. They were never defined. They were described, I believe, on
External Affairs
September 30 or thereabouts in the United Nations by the secretary general, but they were never properly defined, and many in high places in the Middle East told me, "We accept this recommendation of the secretary general, but it will never work in the face of the armed forces of the United Arab Republic, in the face of the forces of Israel and of the circumstances in Iraq."
The fact is that by patient negotiation and diplomacy, by winning the confidence of President Nasser and of Mr. David Ben-Gurion, the prime minister of that dynamic and impressive little state of Israel, the secretary general has been able to do what many so-called practical people thought at that time was impossible. Peace generally continues to reign, except principally for the state of affairs mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on the Syrian border. Peace reigns in the area. King Hussein's regime continues to assert its authority, true with the financial assistance of the government of the United States in terms of some $67 million provided annually. But nevertheless the dangers which existed on th west bank, the danger of aggression from any quarter, have thus far not taken place. I think the world owes to the secretary general its deepest gratitude for this high form of statesmanship, which of course establishes the United Nations in the minds of all people who follow its achievements as an organization so indispensable at this time to the preservation of peace in the world.
Mr. David Ben-Gurion, the prime minister of Israel, as I said a moment ago, is a most impressive man. I must say that I do not think there is anyone today at the head of any government in the world who made such an impression on me as did Mr. David Ben-Gurion. He said the other day that if he could only have an hour with President Nasser he was sure that he could resolve the dispute which exists between Israel and the United Arab Republic. I formulated the view, after seeing President Nasser, Mr. David Ben-Gurion, and talking to others, that it was wrong to insist, as so many people with the best of intentions had, that the conflict between Israel and Egypt was insoluble. I do not think that is the case. This may not be the moment, but I am not sure that it is not the moment to seek a solution. In any event, given the right set of circumstances and the right climate, taking into account facts as they are in Israel and elsewhere, and recognizing the problem of the million refugees in the Gaza strip and elsewhere, I am satisfied that this problem can be resolved. I believe Canada as a member of the United Nations, along with other

External Affairs
countries, and with proper initiatives taken at the right time, can play an important part in providing a solution to the Arab-Israel problem.
I am wondering now if the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not think it desirable to give consideration to the establishment of a mission in Baghdad. We have missions in Cairo, and we have raised the status of our missions in Israel and Lebanon; but it would seem to me that this is an area where we might do some useful mediation and reporting. I am of the view that there is an opportunity present now to try and confront this Israel-Egyptian or Israel-United Arab Republic or this Israel-Arab problem, depending on how you look at it. The armistice agreements of 1949 have on the whole provided a certain minimum of stability in the relations between Israel and the Arab countries. But they have not prevented periods of acute tension, as we were reminded today. These have at times erupted into actual military hostilities.
The Cyprus development suggests what many of us have long contended, that perhaps the only hope for basic improvement in what has become a chronic situation must be sought in getting the parties concerned to meet together and to work out a solution in direct negotiations. The Cyprus situation, too, involves strongly conflicting national ambitions and deep and bitter resentments, which were fanned by the winds of the cold war. But for the courage shown by the respective leaders of the Greek and Turkish people in agreeing almost at the twelfth hour to explore together in privacy and seclusion the possibility of a solution, the situation might already have moved toward irretrievable disorder.
The relative calm which, despite occasional outbursts of violent rhetoric on the part of certain of the Arab leaders, has marked Israel-Arab relations in the past months suggests that it may not be untimely to promote again the idea of direct talks between Israel and the Arabs. Canada once before actively associated itself with a proposal for such direct negotiations when, in December 1952, together with seven other countries it sponsored a resolution in that sense at the seventh session of the general assembly of the United Nations. I refer the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the resolution A/AC.61/L.23 revised 4, of December 10, 1952 in which, among other things, Canada reaffirmed the principle that the governments concerned have the primary responsibility for reaching a settlement of their outstanding differences, and with this

in view urged the governments concerned to enter at an early date, without prejudice to their respective rights and claims, into direct negotiations for the establishment of such a settlement, bearing in mind the resolutions, as well as the principal objectives, of the United Nations on the Palestine question, including the religious interests of third parties.
This resolution was adopted by a majority in the assembly's political committee. It failed, however, to receive the required two-thirds vote necessary in the special session of the general assembly. Since then there has been no further progress in this direction. I am impressed by moves of this sort. I do not want to exaggerate their importance, but they deserve our attention. They suggest that the time is right, or may shortly be right, for some new initiative on these lines. I believe that there are leaders of stature on both sides in the Arab world and certainly in Israel who have the vision, the courage and the statesmanship to see that an Israeli-Arab peace would bring untold benefit to the entire region and also, if the ground is suitably prepared, to take practical steps to that end. Obviously this is something which can not be forced, but I would hope that Canadian policy is directed to this objective.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and I notice that once again the United Nations expeditionary force attracted his attention. In this connection I think I should mention once again that it would be quite impossible for a force such as UNEF ever to intervene in a dispute. I am sure the hon. member for Essex East would agree. UNEF was able to establish itself successfully in the area because a way has been made for it. It was never a force which could forcibly intervene.
Hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) mentioned in this house on July 25, 1958 our need for the closest possible diplomatic relationship with the countries of the Middle East in order that Canadian views might receive full consideration by the governments concerned and in order that political and commercial relations might be strengthened and our knowledge and understanding of the area increased. It was for this reason we established a diplomatic mission in Iran last October, and in addition to recognizing the political importance of that country and that area of the Middle East and the favourable prospect of developing Canadian trade, we also acknowledged the

keen desire of Iran, which has had a mission in Ottawa for two and a half years, for closer relations with Canada.
We also strengthened our relations with other parts of the Middle East by appointing full time resident ambassadors to Lebanon and Israel. In the latter country, I am pleased to say, Canada is represented by our only woman ambassador, Miss Meagher.
The task of extending and improving Canadian and diplomatic representation abroad is a continuing one, presenting a problem in terms of trained personnel and of finance. There are, of course, other areas of the world which need to be considered. I am sure the government is fully conscious of the importance of Iraq in the Middle East scene and intends to keep the question under close review in the light of priorities which must be established between this crucial area and other countries and regions which are also of importance to Canada.
With regard to some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), may I say that I noticed he joined forces with the C.C.F. group and, as one hon. member was saying during the supper intermission, the Leader of the Opposition led the Liberal forces into the Red China bed with the C.C.F. We all hope the bed does not break.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned at some length a suggestion with regard to the formulation of a new group-a formal conference, I believe he called it-to deal with problems relating to the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, I wish the hon. member would explain what he means, because I made no such suggestions, nothing remotely approaching it.


Henry Frank Jones: If I understood the hon. gentleman right, he proposed that there should be a top level conference between the United States and Canada at which there would be set up an agreement or treaty which would have to be ratified by the legislative bodies of the two countries, and the purpose of this agreement, if I understood him correctly, was to establish certain principles which would govern the relations between the two countries.
I gathered from his remarks that he had in mind three types of principle. The first would be the definition of the manner of communication between the governments and the means of providing continued consultation on all questions of common interest. The second was a set of principles to cover matters of defence procurement and, thirdly, there was a set of principles relating to trade and commercial questions, looking forward, as the hon. gentleman described it, to very close and continuing economic interdependence.
External Affairs
If I have understood the Leader of the Opposition correctly, I must say that on the surface the suggestions of his may sound very attractive, but when one comes to consider the various commissions, committees and points of contact with the United States, both formal and informal, which already exist, it seems to me that he is adding to the confusion of the relationship between the two countries rather than otherwise. I am reminded of the story of the old farmer who brought in a hired man from a strange country who did not know much about horses. By the time he got through harnessing the horse could not be seen for the harness.
As I understood it, the first principle referred to by the Leader of the Opposition was with regard to consultation. Hon. members are aware that the normal channels used for consultation are those through which diplomatic business is conducted through our respective ambassadors. To this must be added the facilities for consultation at ministerial level on economic and trade matters and the recently formed ministerial council on defence, in addition, of course, to the many agencies I have already mentioned-commissions and so on, such as the fisheries commission-which deal with particular areas in which frequent consultation is desirable. Every piece of new machinery proposed must, I suggest, be examined with great care. I think that by adding to the existing arrangements one might give rise to the danger of losing control and finding that the channels of communication between our two countries have been clogged and confused rather than clarified. In short, I believe the hon. gentleman's proposal would result in the over-formalization of our relationship with the United States.
I was somewhat surprised at the length of time which the Leader of the Opposition devoted in his speech to this matter of Canadian-United States relations. I find it strange that at this time above all times when the free world is facing a compelling challenge the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) should have chosen to devote an extraordinary amount of time to the question of Canadian-United States relations. I am sure all hon. members of the house agree with me that we view the United States in a different light from what we refer to when we are dealing with a crisis brought about by the communists. I submit that the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition is one that would cause a loss of the flexibility and informality which now characterize the whole concept of our friendly relations with the United States. I noted that the Leader of the Opposition said in respect of our relations with the United

External Affairs
States that we should talk up, talk straight and if necesssary do more than talk. I cannot imagine what he might mean by that, whether he was referring to economic retaliation or worse, but that is what he said according to the reference I have.
It seems to me that in considering this matter, if we give too much weight to the few isolated points on which we have disagreement with the United States and set aside cognizance of the many points on which we enjoy a happy relationship it is tantamount to ignoring a healthy body to probe at a pimple. Indeed, although some of the areas of disagreement are great from time to time they are very small in comparison with the vast areas in which difficulties and problems are lacking in our relationship. Consultation is certainly an excellent objective and we are seeking to make it more and more effective but any country that adheres to democratic principles, I would submit, encounters difficulty in maintaining complete consultation.
Our public men in the United States and in Canada are not insulated from the people of the country or from the press. Indeed the government is not insulated from hon. members of this house who seek daily to ply its members with the penetrating questions that come up on orders of the day. In consequence of this there are bound to be occasions when one country gets out of public step with the other. The important thing is to recognize this concept and not automatically castigate the other nation when this happens.
The second set of principles mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition related to matters of defence procurement. In respect of this question I can merely say there has already been a very wide measure of consultation as to the setting up of principles. I mentioned in this house the other day that I find it difficult to see what sort of principles could be established that are not summed up by saying we will keep in constant touch with one another and actively seek to coordinate our defence production and defence procurement activities. It occurs to me that if we were to carry further the principle I have enunciated we would be in danger of placing our economic activities in a strait-jacket. Although it might be in accord with the views of the third party in this house it seems to me that the measure of control over private industry required by this proposal if carried further than the degree I mentioned would be unacceptable even to those in the Liberal party who share with us support of the free enterprise system.
The third principle mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition would, I take it, establish continental interdependence in trade and economic relations. Regardless of the desirability
of these principles I submit that there is difficulty in application. One of the first and most important stumbling blocks would be the acceptance and implementation of these principles in the United States. As my hon. friend is well aware the exercise of discretion by the executive in that country is limited by law and constitution in matters of trade and economic policy. For example, there are legislative applications concerning such matters as an anti-trust suit to which my hon. friend referred this afternoon. These applications leave little room for the exercise of discretion by the United States executive. With respect to the legislation on the disposal of surplus agricultural products and the clear indications we have had of points of view with respect to imports of petroleum and base metals, the legislative branch in the United States, as a part of the government, seems to play such an important role that agreement of the kind foreseen by the Leader of the Opposition would have to require a self-denying ordinance restricting that body's freedom of action.
Perhaps the more effective, less formal means of achieving that objective will be through the inter-parliamentary group recently established for in the legislatures of the two countries. There is an opportunity to learn and recognize how much we have in common and how serious it is for us if either country acts in a manner detrimental to the interests of the other.
I have a great deal more to say but I see that it is ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock it is my duty pursuant to unanimous consent given yesterday to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the motion now before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there has been any change in the program the house leader indicated last night or if it still stands?


Mr. Green:: No, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we shall commence with third reading of the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act. We will then take the amendments to the National Housing Act and the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government still intends to proceed with the supply motion on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not know yet what the business will be on Wednesday. That is a long way ahead.


[Stage Direction]
At 10 o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 163
Paul Joseph James Martin: 1.	Did the Canadian government formally or informally approach the Japanese government with a view to initiating negotiations for a bilateral uranium agreement?
2.	If so, when did such negotiations begin?
3.	With what additional countries are negotiations for a bilateral agreement being conducted?
Answer by: Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary
of Slate for External Affairs):
1.	Yes.
2.	There have been preliminary conversations; the formal negotiations have not yet begun.
3.	The answer to this question, to the extent that it can be given at this time, will be found in the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs recorded on page 571 of Hansard for February 2, 1959. The negotiations being conducted with other countries are of a confidential nature and it would be inappropriate to refer to them
Questions
without the consent of those countries. However, the house will be informed whenever bilateral agreements are negotiated.


EURATOM
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Did the Canadian government formally or informally approach the european atomic energy community (EURATOM) with a view to initiating negotiations for a bilateral uranium agreement?
2.	If so, when did such negotiations begin?
Answer by: Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):
1.	Yes.
2.	February 10, 1959.


GOVERNMENT BUTTER HOLDINGS
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	What were the government holdings of butter as of May 1, 1957, May 1, 1958, December 31, 1958?
2.	How much butter was purchased by the government under the stabilization act during the calendar year 1958?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	May 1, 1957, 25,036,245 pounds; May 1, 1958, 25,194,071 pounds; December 31, 1958, 79,339,941 pounds.
2.	71,466,653 pounds.

Friday, February 27, 1959



ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling the orders of the day may I be permitted a minute to deal with a matter which arose yesterday, and also to make a correction in yesterday's Hansard. At the foot of page 1367, the first column, I commented on the procedure in asking that written or starred questions be made orders for returns, and I think I incorrectly stated the effect of the rule-incidentally the rule is No. 39, clause 5-when I said:
It is so ordered, then, that this question be made an order for return. Consent of the house is not necessary.
The rule, as hon. members will see, says that the minister having expressed a willingness to lay a return upon the table, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the house, be deemed an order of the house. I did not want the record to be erroneous in the conclusion as to the effect of rule 39.
Another point on the same rule was raised by the hon. member for Laurier, who suggested that a starred question could not be made an order for return under this rule. I find I was correct in rejecting that view. The authority for so doing is the report of the special committee appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of the House of Commons. Their report, dated Tuesday, June 14, 1955, which was accepted by the house, states that clause 5 of rule 39 contains a consequential amendment in respect of questions, starred and unstarred, passed as orders for returns. This would clear up that point.
The other problem that arose was on the interpretation of our practice on oral questions. I think there is no part of our procedure about which it is more difficult to arrive at clear decisions which are not susceptible of argument one way or the other. I have set down my views of the practice very briefly, and I should like to give them to the house at this time.
The standing orders, rules 39, 40 and 41, provide only for written questions to be answered by the tabling of written answers or, if marked with an asterisk, to be
answered orally on Wednesdays within the first hour or on other days after the last order of business. Other oral questions asked upon the calling of the orders of the day are sanctioned only by usage. The following principles have been applied to oral questions:
1.	The question should seek information or press for action on a matter relating to public affairs of such immediate urgency that it would be inappropriate to put it on the order paper.
2.	Both the question and the answer should be concise, factual and free of opinion and argument or observations which might lead to debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a rule of procedure that is rather honoured in the breach on both sides.
3.	An explanation can be sought regarding the intention of the government but not an explanation of opinion upon matters of policy. That is citation 178 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.
4.	Other detailed limitations, some 40 in number, are set out in citation 171 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which was cited yesterday, and apply to oral questions as well as to written questions.
5.	Supplementary questions are matters of grace.
6.	The minister is entitled to notice, and answers cannot be insisted on nor is it regular to comment on the refusal to answer an oral question.
I may say this principle relates to oral questions and perhaps not to questions on the order paper.
In effect, oral questions are a limited supplement to questions which may be put on the order paper, and are for the purpose of enabling members to get information on public affairs of urgent importance without delay and to bring such matters to the attention of the government.
I hope this resume will be helpful to hon. members. In reviewing the questions that were asked yesterday I find that the question asked by the hon. member for Essex East was wrong in form because, as he put it originally, it only asked the Prime Minister to confirm a newspaper report. Then he himself made some modification of the question, and the hon. member for Trinity asked

Inquiries of the Ministry the question in a different form which, in my view, was a proper question for the order paper if he had chosen to put it on the order paper. It also may be a proper question to be asked orally before the orders of the day, depending on the point of view about urgency. I said yesterday that we had just debated that matter, namely the matter to which this question obviously related, at some length on Monday and it did not appear to me to be urgent to find out, before the orders of the day, whether or not a certain communication on December 2, 1957 had been received. But that view was taken on the question of urgency. As I say, that is a matter of judgment. I might take a different view if the same question were asked today.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if, on December 2, 1957 or thereabouts, he received a report presented to him by the Air Industries and Transport Association of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to examine the records in order to see whether or not such a report was received, and then decide whether or not the information asked for by the hon. gentleman should be given.



A. V. ROE COMPANY INQUIRY AS TO MEETINGS WITH UNION AND COMPANY OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister report any further progress in the negotiations with A. V. Roe Company? Would he say particularly whether it is hoped that 14,000 persons may be employed in this industry, and whether in the meantime the engineering and technical staffs will be kept together intact?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answers given yesterday and the day before. The discussions continued this morning and I hope there will be further discussions this afternoon. Until there is some degree of finality there is nothing I can add.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government in fact proposed to Avro that

they should seek United Kingdom defence contracts in order to maintain their Canadian operations, as reported in the Toronto Telegram?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer I gave the hon. member for Assiniboia would seem to me to be appropriate at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a request from the premier of Ontario to complete seven of these Arrow airplanes?


John George Diefenbaker: Any communications
which have been received have been in the nature of general discussions in furtherance of the consideration which is being given to this matter with the Avro company. It would be inappropriate to say anything further than that.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF TELEGRAMS CANCELLING CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. I wonder if the minister would table copies of the telegrams sent to A. V. Roe and Orenda Engines Limited announcing the cancellation of the CF-105 and Iroquois contracts.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Donat Raymond: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: A supplementary question. Would the minister tell us also to what extent the government indicated that it would contribute to the payment of severance pay, vacation allowances and other benefits under the union contract?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question which has just been asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River would be covered by the general answer given by the Prime Minister, namely that this is a matter which is under review between the government and the company.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a request this week or in the last two days from the premier of Nova Scotia for a decision as soon as possible with respect to increased subventions on Nova Scotia coal? If so, is the Prime Minister

Inquiries of the Ministry now in a position to say when such a decision I believe the hon. member will appreciate will be taken, as the matter is of great that if all 265 hon. members proceeded in the urgency in view of further lay-offs contem- same way it would not work out very well. I plated in the coal mines of Cape Breton at think the question should go on the order an early date?	paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there have been continuing representations made by the premier of Nova Scotia since the occasion when he was among those in the delegation that met with me and other members of the government. The matter is still receiving consideration.
(Translation):



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the hon. gentleman have bilingual name plates affixed to the present science service building on Carling avenue when the divisions of his department are regrouped at the end of March?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the translation did not come through sufficiently well on my machine to know what the question was, so I will take it as notice and answer it tomorrow.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I will ask it in English. Will the minister order that bilingual signs be placed on the present science services building on Carling avenue when different divisions of his department will be regrouped?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice also.
(Translation):



EASTVIEW, ONT.  REQUEST FOR POST OFFICE BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Would he care to say whether his department will soon start building a post office in Eastview, a prosperous town with a population of over 22,000? Having regard to the population in the surrounding districts, this post office could serve more than 50,000 people.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: From time to time we have had questions from those who would like to have post offices in their constituencies, but



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on February 19 the hon. member for Hull directed a question to me in these words:
When Major General Kennedy, chairman of the national capital commission, spoke about the bridge which is badly needed was he reflecting the policy of the present government?
The answer is that General Kennedy was voicing his own views. Those views were spoken at the final meeting of the federal district commission, which views were later reported by His Worship Mayor Moncion, who was also at that meeting. In brief, General Kennedy's view was and is that as far as the commission is concerned other projects should have higher priority than this new bridge. The government has not had occasion to consider this matter recently, and it would not necessarily have to be considered as a national capital project, since it is a bridge between one province and another. No decision on government policy in regard to this project has been taken, and when such a decision is taken it will be brought to the attention of the house in the usual way.
In the meantime I think it is well that the national capital commission should consider what interim arrangements can be made to improve the approaches to the existing interprovincial bridge. It appears that the bottlenecks for traffic at present arise from the approaches to the bridge on either side, rather than from the lack of capacity of the bridge itself.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I regret I was not able to give him notice earlier today. I wonder if the minister's attention has been drawn to a Canadian Press dispatch indicating that Detective Alan Shepherd of the Vancouver police force gave in testimony at an inquest that certain druggists in Vancouver are selling specially prepared containers with hypodermics and so

Inquiries of the Ministry on for use by drug addicts, and whether this animals lost through rabies on the part of would necessitate any remedial action if this the municipalities, the provinces and the is so?	dominion government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My
attention has not been directed to that particular news report, but on the basis of what the hon. member says, this is something we should certainly study. I will see that the report is drawn to the attention of the officials of the R.C.M.P., and if there is anything further to report to this house, I will do so.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the hon. member for Assiniboia made inquiries with respect to five employees of the Allis Chalmers company in the plant at St. Thomas. The report has been investigated. These men were certainly there, five of them, but they were working on the dismantling of machinery and were in no way connected with production. I might say further that apparently they entered Canada on February 18. Two of them left on February 20 and a third left on February 24, the same day the hon. member put his question. None of them are now in the plant at St. Thomas, and this has been the situation for two or three days.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In the light of a statement by Dr. C. D. Graham, deputy minister of agriculture in the Ontario government, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star, in which he suggested that the provincial and federal governments sponsor a joint program to provide compensation for animals lost through rabies, would the minister care to tell the house what position he has taken on this matter?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I made clear our position in this regard some ten days ago, I believe, in response to a question asked by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce when the supplementary estimates were being considered. At that time I said we would be prepared to consider very seriously any proposition advanced by the provinces for a sharing of the cost of compensation for



COMMUNIST CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me to comment on a report in the Toronto Telegram attributed to an official of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to the effect that China is interested in increasing trade with Canada.
I have now had an opportunity to review the newspaper article to which the hon. member referred, and I can confirm that the commercial products division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited recently concluded a sale of two cobalt 60 beam therapy units for cancer treatment to the China National Import-Export Company. The transaction is worth some $100,000.
This cancer therapy equipment falls, of course, within the area of permissible trade with China, and I understand that the Chinese authorities are well satisfied with Atomic Energy's beam therapy unit. The corporation and our trade commissioner in Hong Kong, who is responsible for the promotion of our trading interests with China, are endeavouring to develop repeat sales.
The hon. member also asked me if I was in a position to say what further steps are being taken to increase our trade with China. Our trade commissioner in Hong Kong informs us that an increasing number of Canadian exporters are visiting China for consultations with representatives of these trading corporations. The trade commissioner is facilitating these contacts by providing introductions and guidance to our businessmen. I am hopeful that our trade with China can develop along sound lines now that these useful working relationships have been set up by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his comprehensive answer. I wish now to ask him a supplementary question, and if the minister does not have the information at hand perhaps he could give it to me at a later time. Can the minister say whether China has accepted the offer of the Canadian wheat board to send to China experts to train the Chinese in how to use Canada's excellent high protein wheat as a mix with their own?

External Affairs


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that as notice and have an answer prepared for the hon. member as early as possible.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to advise us when he expects to table the information that he agreed to table on February 9, concerning refuelling at Frobisher Bay?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I shall check into the matter and let the hon. member have the information as soon as possible.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a request from Premier Frost of Ontario that the special winter work program be extended for two months?


Michael Starr: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. Would the minister tell the house on what basis his department made the allocation of the stamp commemorating the 50th anniversary of the first powered flight in the British Empire? Victoriaville has a population of 17,500 inhabitants and has received only 10,000 stamps. The residents are anxious to get more.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I heard the question in its entirety. We have 12,000 post offices in Canada, and unfortunately I cannot carry with me at all times the exact allocation of special stamps for each one of those post offices. If that is the answer for which the hon. member is looking that is as far as I can go at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question. Will he tell us whether he will take as notice the question just asked by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, as I am also interested in this matter?


William McLean Hamilton: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received a report from the restrictive trade practices commission saying that Canadian Industries Limited has a restrictive hold on the wholesale distribution of ammunition in Canada? Can the minister say what action, if any, the government is considering taking so that ammunition is made available to all retailers in Canada, or whether the government intends to follow the suggestion that outside sources be made available to Canadian retailers?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the report of the restrictive trade practices commission was received by me on February 3. It has now been made public in accordance with the terms of the act. I am studying the report at the present time with a view to making recommendations to my colleagues and I am therefore, of course, not in a position at the moment to say what action will be taken by the government in respect of the report.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Sidney Earle Smith: That items numbered 76 to 105 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1959-1960, relating to the Department of External Affairs, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to support the motion standing in my name in order to place before the house the views of the government with respect to several matters that concern Canada directly at this time.

External Affairs
Before I proceed to do so, however, I should like to express in a personal vein, indeed in an official vein, my gratitude for the hospitality that was extended to me in Brazil when I paid an official visit of two week's duration to that country last November, and also for the hospitality accorded to me in Mexico where I had the honour last December 1 to represent Canada at the installation of the new president, Lopez Mateos. From discussions with leaders in those two countries I learned much, and I saw at close hand the dynamic growth not only of these two countries but of Latin America as a whole. I returned to Canada convinced that through ease of communication, through trade and by virtue of common interests our relations with Latin America can and must grow.
Following the practice I have adopted in the past I will not engage in a global survey this afternoon but will attempt to explain, as I said a few moments ago, the government's attitude on a number of specific issues.
I was about to say, and perhaps I should say that the most important and urgent of the problems facing Canada and her NATO allies lies in the field of east-west relations. I approach this subject gravely but not despondently. When I presented my estimates, in July of last year, I believe, I spoke of the need to maintain our defences and at the same time to endeavour to make some advance in establishing mutual trust and confidence and in coming to some understanding with the Soviet union. The communist leaders, as we all know, have professed their desire to promote the objectives of easing tension and of a reduction of the cold war. These professions, however, are certainly difficult to reconcile with the demands made by the Soviet government on November 27, 1958 when it abruptly declared that existing agreements on Berlin were null and void.
Whatever the basic Russian objectives may have been, I am bound to observe that these tactics do not convey an image of a state bent on a lessening of international tension. On the contrary, the Soviet union deliberately chose to create a crisis where none had recently existed, and thereby to plunge the whole world into a new period of deep anxiety that will not abate until there is some sort of meeting of minds in negotiation between east and west and some agreement has been reached on the German question.
The Berlin situation was the critical issue before the NATO council meeting held in Paris last December. I, along with my colleagues the Ministers of Finance, Defence and Defence Production, had the honour to represent Canada at that meeting. Members
[Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac) .1
will recall that before the formal meeting of the NATO council began on December 16 there was a meeting on Sunday, December 14 at which were present representatives of the three occupying powers from the west, the United Kingdom, the United States and France. At that meeting, held, as I said a moment ago, prior to the meeting of the council, there were also present representatives of West Germany. Willie Brandt, who honoured this country by a visit recently, also attended that meeting in his capacity as mayor of West Berlin. Out of that meeting of the three occupying powers and West Germany came a statement in which they publicly rejected the Soviet proposals and reaffirmed their determination to maintain their position and rights in the city, including the right of free access to Berlin.
When this issue came before the NATO council the Canadian delegation took an active part-I say without immodesty that we did take an active part-in pressing for a full discussion of the Berlin situation in the council with emphasis on maintaining an appropriate blend of firmness in the face of threats, and constant readiness to examine serious Soviet proposals. The position adopted by the council two days later was entirely consonant with the Canadian position. The council, in associating itself with the position taken by the four western powers, adopted the view that the Berlin question could be satisfactorily settled only in the context of a consideration of the problem of Germany as a whole. The council referred to the notes that had been sent by the western powers to the U.S.S.R., in which they offered to negotiate on the situation with respect to Germany as a whole. That offer was reaffirmed in the communique issued at the termination of the NATO council meeting. Then, coupled with the consideration of the problem of Germany as a whole, they indicated their urgent willingness and desire to have discussions on the related issues of European security and disarmament.
In addition to supporting the position taken by the western occupying powers, members of the council-and I refer you to the communique I have mentioned-reiterated the stand of the occupying powers that NATO is a defensive organization. They also said, Mr. Speaker, that in respect of Berlin they desired to leave no doubt as to the determination of the alliance to stand fast and to employ its defensive capacity in the event of aggression against Berlin or any interference with the arrangements that had been

duly entered into between the occupying powers and the U.S.S.R. in a series of meetings culminating in 1949.
In giving this undertaking in respect of Berlin, neither the council nor its individual members was assuming obligations that were new. Indeed, the NATO partners have been bound in respect of the defence of Berlin since October 22, 1954. This obligation was undertaken by the NATO council on the occasion of West Germany joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, when all the other members of the alliance formally associated themselves with the provisions declared earlier, in the month of October, 1954 that the three occupying powers would remain in Berlin so long as their responsibilities so required. The text of the obligation assumed by Canada, as a member of NATO, is, and I quote:
-to treat any attack against Berlin from any quarter as an attack upon their forces and themselves.
Members of the house, Mr. Speaker, may recall that on December 31-that was after the termination of the meeting of the NATO council-the United States, the United Kingdom and France sent replies to the new note of November 27, 1958. In these notes, which had been discussed in the NATO council, the three occupying powers reaffirmed their right to be in Berlin, and they condemned the Soviet union's unilateral denunciation of the agreements relating to Berlin to which I have referred. In these notes of December 31, 1958 the occupying powers stated that they could not accept the repudiation by the Soviet union of these obligations in this way, and that they could not consider proposals which would jeopardize the freedom of the West Berlin population.
Speaking in geographical terms, Mr. Speaker, I may say that here is a community, West Berlin, of 2.5 million people which is 110 miles east of the West German border. This little island is isolated in the midst of Soviet controlled territory, East Germany. I must say that Canada's view is, and I state this very firmly, that we will not countenance the swallowing up or absorption of 2.5 million of our friends in West Berlin into the Soviet complex which surrounds the city of Berlin.
In the notes of December 31 the United Kingdom, the United States and France also said they would not jeopardize in any way, by negotiation or otherwise, the West Berlin population. Then again in these notes there was a reiteration of the offer which had been made over several years and which was restated and made manifest in the communique issued after the NATO meeting in December, to negotiate the question of Berlin in relation
External Affairs
to the whole German situation as well as in relation to the problem of European security.
Subsequent events, Mr. Speaker, have tended to confirm the wisdom of the firm but flexible position that was taken in these notes and in the meetings of the NATO council. On January 10 of this year the Soviet union sent notes to all the powers on the western side which had fought against Germany in the second world war. I have reported to the house on that note, and indeed I have tabled it here, accompanied as it was by a draft peace treaty relating to the whole of Germany.
In that note it was suggested that there should be held a conference of the representatives of these countries-28, I think there are-on the western and eastern side which had fought against Germany. The conference would discuss this draft peace treaty. In that note there was, in tone if not in content, the idea that the U.S.S.R. would be ready to consider the problem of Berlin in relation to Germany as a whole. Recent public statements-perhaps we can take some comfort from them-by U.S.S.R. leaders, indicate that they do not regard the note of November 27, 1958, to the three occupying powers in Berlin as an ultimatum.
I tabled in this house on February 17 the Canadian reply to the Soviet note of January 10. Briefly, as I stated at the time, our position is this. It would not be useful to have a large peace treaty conference until some aspects of the German question have been examined by representatives of the four states, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the U.S.S.R., those countries that have a special responsibility in Berlin. The Canadian reply did not, and I do not now, try to lay down a blueprint for the solution of the German problem. There will be general agreement, however-I hope there will be; I will put it that way-that this is not the time for Canada or any other NATO country which has been a party to the preliminary discussion of this problem of Berlin in relation to Germany as a whole and also in relation to European security, to put forward proposals in public. However, I assert and affirm that this is no time for anything other than positive policies. We should not, in the days and months ahead- and they may be critical ones-refuse to consider any proposal that is put forward by any country in the west, or any proposals that may be put forward by the Soviet union.
Among the types of proposals which could be considered-and I am not going to give a long list; I am going to give a partial list- are those which envisage some form of mutual

External Affairs
limitation on nuclear weapons, and by that I mean a mutual limitation under supervision. There also might be considered agreed arrangements for gradual and mutual armed force reductions and comprehensive security guarantees for the countries of both eastern and western Europe. This is not to say, of course, when I give this partial catalogue, that Canada has taken a firm position or a fixed position on any specific measure as yet. They could be considered as general objectives. I would hope that these and others would be considered at a ministerial meeting of some NATO powers or the occupying NATO powers to be held about the middle of March. I repeat, and I say it seriously, that we should not have a negative approach, but at the same time we should have clear objectives in respect to a settlement of these topics to which I have referred. Every proposal, however, must be considered in the light of certain aims and objectives which are basic to western interests. Among these I mention again the freedom of the two and a half million people in Berlin. We cannot compromise their situation. We must look toward attaining, with safeguards, and with some advances in terms of European security, the restoration of a free Germany in a free and untrammelled Europe. No proposal, Mr. Speaker, should be accepted which would have the effect of changing the balance of military security to the disadvantage of the west.
At this part of my contribution to this debate I must say quite frankly that it is distressing that John Foster Dulles, the United States secretary of state, should have been stricken by illness. All members of the house will join with me in wishing for him a speedy and complete recovery. I salute him as a man who has devoted his public career, in that high office of secretary of state of the United States, to the pursuit of an honourable agreement between the east and the west. I express my own admiration of his qualities of fortitude and courage. I can report to the house, Mr. Speaker, that his recent visit to London, Paris and Bonn, just before he was taken to hospital, helped materially in coordinating the western views, in identifying basic western interests to be protected, and in making clear the objectives to be pursued in any negotiations with the Soviet union.
Having mentioned Mr. Dulles and it is not by way of formality but out of the depth of sincerity that I must say that we applaud the current visit of Mr. Macmillan, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, to the Soviet union. It might appear that he has had something of a mixed reception, but for us his visit could be a most significant development,

providing as it does a timely opportunity for Mr. Macmillan to make it clear to the Soviet leaders that the western countries are genuinely interested in a search for common ground but that they do not intend to be intimidated by the belligerence which often characterizes statements coming from the U.S.S.R.
Prime Minister Macmillan has made it clear in the United Kingdom and to his NATO allies that he is not in Russia for the purpose of negotiating, but that he is there rather to exchange views and to work toward a better understanding on both sides of opposing points of view. I am sure all members of the house are confident of his ability to do that and perhaps more. He carries with him today our best wishes for the success of his visit.
That sense of well-wishing, for me anyway, has been intensified recently-indeed on February 24-by reason of a speech made by Mr. Khrushchev to a political gathering in the Kremlin. I have studied the press reports of the speech, and that is all I have at the moment. I have studied them carefully and at least I can say this. I recognize in that speech the standard Soviet position on questions relating to Germany and Berlin. Although this speech may be discouraging- and I do not think I am running the risk of being Pollyanna-ish-I still want to see what will be the formal reply by the U.S.S.R. to the notes that were recently sent to Moscow. I am thinking of the series of notes which I identify by the date of our own note, namely February 17. I think the western powers should be guided more by whatever the tenor of that formal response may be than by the remarks made by Mr. Khrushchev at a political gathering.
As the western powers approach-and I say this very definitely-what could be a fateful new effort at negotiation with the Soviet union, it is opportune to look at other fields of endeavour where we have been negotiating with the U.S.S.R. on important matters. I speak of the two conferences. One was to have started last autumn in Geneva. One of the conferences had to do with the cessation of nuclear tests; the other had to do with setting up some machinery or technique against surprise attack.
For a moment let us look at the question of the cessation of nuclear tests. That is an objective for which the whole of mankind must pray. The disarmament commission and under it the disarmament sub-committee, which was set up by the United Nations really came to an end at the end of 1957. The Soviet leaders said they would not participate in any further discussions in the disarmament

commission or in its sub-committee. So there came about direct negotiations between the United States, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.S.R. with respect to the cessation of nuclear tests.
Last July and August Canada participated in a meeting of experts held in Geneva to study this whole question of the identification and detection of nuclear tests. Canada had a strong team at that meeting. Indeed, it may be a sad commentary that the scientists could agree where the diplomats and the politicians could not agree. But the fact is that out of that conference of experts there came a unanimously adopted report on effective methods for the detection of nuclear testing.
Then on October 31, 1958 there was assembled in Geneva a group of men, at the nontechnical level, to draft a treaty which would provide for the cessation of nuclear tests, and would also provide for the machinery whereby that treaty could be fully implemented. We were rather encouraged about a month ago that progress in that conference had been made to the extent that four articles of that treaty had been agreed upon and settled. However, we realized that many complex questions were still to be settled. The question with respect to the composition- that is, the nationality-of personnel in control stations, and the composition of personnel in mobile units had to be decided, and above all the methods of procedure which would be provided in the treaty for the organization-the control commission, or whatever it might be called-whereby they would conduct their business.
Sir, without going into any of the details I am bound to report that the old question of veto arose again in those discussions. The U.S.S.R. wanted, and want at the moment, to have a veto with respect to certain inspections that might be proposed in that country. Mr. Khrushchev in his recent statement of February 24 said they were not going to have spies and intelligence officers from the west discovering what is their military strength and potential. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to observe this, that any machinery set up under a treaty for the cessation of nuclear tests which does not provide for inspection and control would be misleading and deceptive, and dangerous to the west.
Then I must observe, despite some foreshadowing of an adjournment of those talks which is to be found in the press only this morning, that we do hope and pray that that question of machinery for detection, and so forth, may be satisfactorily settled. As I said a moment ago, and I repeat, mankind everywhere, I am sure, must pray for at least one
External Affairs
step to be taken toward cessation of nuclear testing; and from that step let us pray that it will be continued into other parts of the galaxy of nuclear arms.
With respect to surprise attack the story is less comforting, indeed. Last summer Canada contributed to the panel from the west at a meeting in Geneva for the study by experts, as in the other case for the cessation of nuclear tests, of methods whereby surprise attacks might be identified or anticipated. This concerned a larger group:	Canada,
France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States on the western side; from the Soviet bloc the U.S.S.R. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Roumania and Albania. They began their deliberations on November 10 of last year, and just before Christmas they adjourned, it might appear sine die but this was not so stated.
There was a conflict. The proposal really came out of an exchange of notes last winter with respect to the holding of a summit conference. In one of those notes Mr. Eisenhower, the President of the United States, proposed there should be such a conference with respect to surprise attacks; and to us it seemed abundantly clear that what the President of the United States of America was suggesting was the holding of a conference of experts. But when those representatives from the five countries of the west met with the Soviet side, they realized that what had appeared to us to be consent on the part of the U.S.S.R. to a discussion at the expert level turned out to be an intention to discuss political matters, such as bases and so on, and the minds of the two sides did not meet. We are now in consultation with other representatives of the west who participated in the conference of last November and December to the end that we might review the scope of the agenda and the possibility of a resumption of the conference.
There is another matter relating to negotiations and dealings with the U.S.S.R., and that has to do with outer space. The year 1958 was a most significant year in the exploration of outer space, in connection with the international geophysical year. I must pay tribute to the participation of Soviet scientists in the successes of that year. That was not on the government level but was an association of scientists throughout the world. Just let us reflect for a moment. In the recent period, or in 1958 to centre on that year, there have been launched objects which have overcome, most astonishingly, gravitational forces; objects or vehicles which can circumnavigate the moon and which can circle the globe in a few minutes or so. And now a vehicle has been placed in orbit about the sun.

External Affairs
I must interpolate here that it is an awesome thought that vehicles can be launched and within a few moments go thousands of miles with an aim that is remarkably accurate. This in itself is a challenge to the statesmanship of the world. At the same time there is an equal challenge to statesmen throughout the world, and that is outer space. It seems presumptuous for us to be talking about outer space, but its use is coming within man's grasp. We should not translate to outer space the national rivalries to be found on this globe.
Last autumn the United Nations established a committee for the study of the control and use of outer space, and Canada was happy to be appointed to that committee. The U.S.S.R. has refused to attend any meetings of that committee, of which it is also a member. They complain about the composition of the committee. They complain that they did not receive parity in the selection of the committee. That is most regrettable, and efforts are being made within the United Nations, under the umbrella of which this outer space committee has been established, to break this deadlock.
I have been talking about the European scene. I said in this house last August with some confidence that the tenseness of the Middle East situation had somewhat abated, and I stated that in that pause there was some ground for gratification. Since then from the Middle East the pendulum has swung to the Far East and now it has come back to Europe, which has been in a period of relative quiescence in recent years.
I have one item to report with respect to the European scene which will bring satisfaction. I announce that it is the intention of the government to present a resolution to the house for approval, and I expect this resolution will be welcomed by all hon. members. The government will request parliament to adopt a resolution approving the accession by Canada to the Austrian state treaty of 1955. This is the treaty which terminated a 10-year occupation of Austria, and it marked the re-emergence of Austria as a free and independent nation. The treaty was negotiated between Austria and the four occupying powers at that time, the United States, United Kingdom, France and the U.S.S.R. Under the treaty of 1955 provision was made for the accession of any country Which had fought against Nazi Germany. Accession by Canada, I can assure the house, will not increase our rights, neither will it increase the responsibility which we have undertaken under the charter of the United Nations.
Canada's accession, when it takes place, will be at the request of the Austrian government,

and it is an action which we take willingly as a mark of friendship and sympathy for a country whose achievements we admire. In particular we take this action as a gesture of gratitude to Austria for the humane welcome given to Hungarian refugees during the tragic events in Hungary in 1956. We are indeed pleased to learn that a sister nation of the commonwealth, New Zealand, is also planning to exercise the right to accede to the treaty.
Turning now from the European scene, it is perhaps appropriate that I should deal briefly with an area to which I referred a few moments ago, namely the Middle East. When I reported at length on my return from the special emergency session of the United Nations at which the Middle East situation was considered, I told this house of a resolution passed by the general assembly under which the secretary general was given power to see what he could do in the name of United Nations to meet the difficulties which existed at that time. Developments since then warrant my saying that we can look upon the situation at the moment with cautious satisfaction, and a great deal of credit for this is due to the secretary general, Mr. Hammarskjold, who carried out so very successfully the task of undertaking the "practical arrangements", to use the words contained in the resolution.
It has been possible, under that resolution and through the activities of the secretary general, for the United States and the United Kingdom to withdraw their troops from Jordan and Lebanon respectively. That was done by November with the consent of all the powers concerned. The improved situation in Lebanon has enabled the secretary general to return to their national homes the units which made up UNOGIL.
On the other hand, on the Arab-Israeli front, there have been most regrettable incidents which indicate a certain amount of unrest between those two countries, and I am thinking not of the UNEF front but more particularly of the boundary between the region of the United Arab Republic and Israel. Nevertheless I think we can be reasonably confident that if Canada and other countries give continued support to the United Nations activities, and if there is shown a continued willingness on the part of all concerned to resort to United Nations machinery, no general deterioration should ensue.
The moderately encouraging developments to which I have referred have given us an opportunity to take stock and do some careful thinking about what should be our future attitude to events in the region as a whole. I am thinking of Canada in this context. We must, of course, realize that the relationship of the Middle East countries to one another

and to the outside world is undergoing a very rapid transformation. The trends of thinking which we loosely describe as nationalism and neutralism are spreading widely and rapidly. In these countries these trends are there to stay.
No country could resist an evolving nationalism any more than Canada could. We must recognize these forces, which animate the leaders of the present in that particular area. These powerful tendencies may not always manifest themselves in a way that we would welcome, but we must accept the fact that they will continue to animate the new leaders who have arisen, and will therefore inevitably dominate the Middle East scene for some time to come. We cannot, of course, oppose this evolutionary process of change but there is an international responsibility to see that if change comes, it comes peacefully, with the consent of those concerned and without menace to the security of others.
Yet if we are justified, as I am sure we are, in our efforts to ensure that change is peaceful, we must recognize for our part that one of the chief causes of instability in the area as a whole has been a profound lack of confidence of each country in its neighbours, and a mutual lack of confidence between the countries of the area and those lying outside of it. Western countries may be able to help in establishing a basis on which that confidence can grow, though this will require restraint, patience, impartiality and a willingness to approach the countries of the area on a footing of equality and respect. It may be that, as in other areas, the United Nations can offer the best medium through which adjustment to the new order of relationships can take place; for this adjustment must be accomplished without sacrifice of principle and without too close involvement in the regional tensions which political, economic and social forces still at work in the area are bound to engender.
Canada's own policy continues, as in the past, to be one of firm support of United Nations institutions in the area. We were, for example, one of the main contributors to UNOGIL-that is, the United Nations observation group in Lebanon-and Canadian officers continue to serve with the United Nations truce supervision organization in Palestine. Support for Palestine relief and rehabilitation is also to be maintained this year, subject to parliamentary approval, at our annual rate of $500,000. Finally, we can derive great satisfaction from the contribution that Canada continues to make to the United Nations emergency force in the form of a large Canadian contingent. It is, I think, a remarkable tribute to the success of
External Affairs
this unique United Nations peace-keeping activity that the secretary general was able to refer in his 1958 report on UNEF's activities to the "virtually unbroken quiet" which had prevailed "along the entire line between Egypt and Israel" during the period covered by the report.
Mention of the secretary general prompts me to pay once again the highest tribute to the selfless and tireless personal contribution that Dag Hammarskjold has made to the cause of peace throughout the world, and nowhere more successfully than in the Middle East.
This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to some brief comments on the last regular session of the United Nations general assembly, at which I had the honour to head the Canadian delegation. As there are many important matters to be considered during today's debate, I shall confine myself to one or two items and impressions of special concern to Canada.
Having just referred to UNEF, it is appropriate that I report at this point on the related question of a United Nations stand-by force. Hon. members may be aware that at the 13th session of the general assembly the secretary general presented a summary study of the operation of UNEF, out of which he drew a number of observations and principles for consideration as a guide to future United Nations action in preserving peace through its own instrumentalities. The secretary general's conclusions reflected the tenor of the discussions concerning a United Nations peace force at both the special emergency session of the assembly in August, 1958 and at the 13th regular session in September, 1958.
In these discussions attention shifted from the possibility previously considered of establishing a permanent stand-by force as such,, or earmarking national units for service with such a force; rather it was directed toward, first, the desirability of developing arrangements and planning procedures which would enable the United Nations to meet swiftly a wide variety of possible situations and, second, the need for agreement on a set of basic principles to govern the operation of whatever United Nations instrumentality might be created. In supporting this approach, the need for flexibility in the planning of stand-by arrangements was particularly emphasized by the Canadian delegation at both sessions..
In the course of the meetings of the external affairs committee last summer, I had occasion to review the history of attempts to establish an effective United Nations stand-by peace force. Opposition has been based on

External Affairs
many grounds and the problems and difficulties have been legion. They relate primarily to the concern with which a number of countries regard the implications of such a force for their national sovereignty. Others have been reluctant to contemplate the financial burden which the support of a permanent force would entail. Still others have been dubious of the feasibility of creating a permanent force capable of meeting the various and unpredictable situations that could possibly arise. These are legitimate apprehensions and practical problems which may prove difficult to dispel and resolve completely.
It is my impression that although there was apparent a new note of concern in the approach of a large number of nations toward the concept of an armed stand-by peace force, awareness continues to grow amongst the United Nations membership, despite the opposition of the Soviet bloc, of the overriding need for machinery of some sort to permit quick and effective United Nations action to prevent the development of conditions which could result in armed conflict and the needless sacrifice of human lives. As I said, there seems to be developing in the general assembly a growing general awareness that the United Nations must be provided with instrumentalities for quick and collective action that would prevent the outbreak or the extension of hostilities.
Just think of the great variety of agencies for the preservation of peace that the United Nations has had under its supervision, ranging from armed units, with respect to which I have spoken proudly as far as Canada is concerned, right down through observer groups to the mere token presence of the United Nations evidenced by only one person. It does seem to me that in this age, when we are likely to have indirect aggression, that the United Nations may be called upon to a greater degree to make provision for procedures of investigation. The secretary general is continuing his study and I can assure the house that Canada will be interested in his study and his further recommendations when we have some clear idea of what they may be.
I know that the thirteenth session of the general assembly has been dubbed an unspectacular one but in that regard I make the observation that dramatic quality is not a criterion of success. It is also not the sole test of the success of a session of the general assembly to ask the question, how many final agreements were reached on any particular set of subjects at a particular time? I was not able to attend the session of the general assembly for longer than seven weeks but I did sense a spirit of compromise,
[Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac) .1
a seeking for solutions, a climate of reconciliation of conflicting interests. True, as I have already stated, no final agreement was reached with respect to disarmament. No final agreement was reached with respect to Cyprus but this is an example of what I had in mind when I said that dramatic quality is not the criterion of success.
Undoubtedly the reasonable discussions that took place in the thirteenth session of the assembly provided a climate-to use the word I invoked a moment ago-of compromise, that outside of the United Nations came to fruition. I am sure we all join in congratulating the statesmen of the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece on the solution of that problem which was of special concern to the NATO allies. I have sent, as I know the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has, congratulatory messages to the prime ministers and foreign ministers of these three countries, and it is our wish and our hope that the spirit of reconciliation will continue in that island which has been so unhappy.
Perhaps the most significant discussions at the thirteenth session of the assembly had to do with matters in the economic and social fields. There was manifested to an encouraging degree a willingness on the part of the industrially developed countries to assist in the development of the economic and social potential of their less developed fellow members. I think it is opportune for me to mention at this stage what Canada is seeking to do in the way of helping underdeveloped countries, particularly our partners in the commonwealth, to solve their problems of economic development.
The problem, of course, can be stated in very simple terms. It is astonishing, it is distressing to realize that close to three-quarters of the human race live in conditions where poverty, hunger, disease and illiteracy are endemic. Many of these countries have emerged recently from colonial status. They now have their political independence and they are seeking, quite properly, not selfishly but in terms of the development of their own countries, to bring the standards of living of their people closer to those of the industrially and technologically advanced countries. Translated into economic terms this means that these underdeveloped countries must invest enough of their resources year by year to reach the point where economic growth can begin to sustain itself. It can be done in either of two ways. It can be done by their investing their own savings but when they are beset by impoverishment, illiteracy, disease and hunger how can they do that? They might do it under some leader who would adopt totalitarian processes and would

seek to take whatever savings they had. We would not be happy about that type of government growing up in these new nations. The alternative is for the west to invest in this great human endeavour. Otherwise these underdeveloped countries which have recently gained their independence may be prone to accept blandishments and offers from other parts of the world. Surely Canada is justified in making contributions to assist these countries. Indeed, to do otherwise would make it difficult for us to reconcile our actions with the principles for which we in the free world stand. I also suggest that it would be difficult to reconcile with the concept of the partnership of the British commonwealth as a community of free and independent nations.
I am glad to say over the past year the government has endeavoured to play an increasing part in helping underdeveloped countries. We have undertaken, subject to the approval of parliament, to increase our contribution to the Colombo plan from $35 million to $50 million a year for a period of three years beginning with the next fiscal year. We have also recognized the needs of emergent nations and territories in the commonwealth which are not eligible for assistance under the Colombo plan. I am thinking particularly of the African area. We are proposing to extend the benefits of our technical assistance program to commonwealth areas in that region.
We have embarked on a five-year program of aid to the West Indies. This does not come under the Colombo plan program, but a major part of the contribution of $10 million will be used in the building of two steamships in Canada for inter-island service. These ships should represent to the West Indies what the building of the railroad meant to Canada in helping our nation to become more united.
I recall to the house that on July 25 last year the Prime Minister advocated that there should be an increase in the capital of the international bank and the international monetary fund. That has come about and proposals will be placed before parliament respecting Canada's subscriptions to these institutions which are allied with the United Nations for the purpose of helping underdeveloped countries.
There was established last year by the United Nations general assembly a special fund to which Canada has promised to contribute $2 million, subject to the approval of parliament. The objective of the special fund will be to provide for surveys of natural resources, manpower, skills and industrial potentials, to the end that there can be established in many countries of the world a sound basis for economic growth.
External Affairs
There is one factor that I mention, not in a selfish mood, but when Canada makes a contribution of this kind, in a large measure the contribution in money is translated into Canadian goods and services which these countries need, for which they have asked. There is in this way a mutuality of interest, because our friends can be helped and our own economy sustained.
I have been discussing the Colombo plan, Mr. Speaker, which forms one of the particularly productive bridges of friendship between Canada and our friends in south and southeast Asia. It is a trend of thought which inevitably brings me to the less happy and less satisfactory relationships which exist between Canada and the millions of Asians living on the Chinese mainland. In view of the lively interest that is shown by the Canadian people in the future of our relations with the Chinese people, I feel sure that the house will expect me on this occasion to discuss in some detail the government's attitude toward the recognition of the government of the Chinese People's Republic. As this house knows this government, as did the government which we succeeded, has been giving continued consideration to the advisability or otherwise of extending recognition to the Chinese communist government. We are aware of the arguments in favour of such a step. It seems to me, however, that in discussing this question we must make a clear distinction between the legal factors which apply whenever Canada extends recognition to any new government, and the national and international considerations.
Let me deal with the legal aspects of the question first. It is true that recognition is usually extended to a government when that government exercises effective control over the territory of the country concerned, and when that government has a reasonable prospect of stability. Then, there is a second legal factor. The government of that country should indicate its willingness to assume international obligations inherited from its predecessor. So far as China is concerned, there is some doubt about the Peking government's willingness to assume the obligations and responsibilities of its predecessor. The Peking government made known, in September, 1949, that it would, in effect, regard as binding only those obligations which it considered to be in its own interest. There is little doubt, however, that the Peking government commands the obedience of the bulk of the population. It must be admitted, therefore, that most of the legal requirements for recognition have been fulfilled by the government of the people's republic. In any event, I say this: the Peking government has

External Affairs
have been protracted discussions on the cessation of nuclear tests. There has been a road block in the way of reaching agreement on machinery for the use of outer space. There is not much comfort to be gained from the difficult starting point from which discussions on Berlin and Germany may begin. But, Mr. Speaker, I do think that there is some evidence that the international climate may be improving. The U.S.S.R. wants to discuss with us many problems. Certainly it should be evident to all sane men that there is a great interest in avoiding the mutual destruction of mankind in a nuclear conflict. May the desire for discussions on the part of Mr. Khrushchev and his comrades be a genuine readiness to negotiate in this particular instance of Berlin and Germany, rather than an attempt to impose their will on the three occupying powers and the two and a half million people in West Berlin to whose security we have pledged ourselves.
I conclude by saying that we wish and hope, as I am sure does every member of this house, that a meeting or meetings between the west and the soviet bloc will provide a greater mutual trust and confidence, even if that desideratum be reached only gradually.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
house will have listened with great interest, and I believe also sympathetic understanding, to the comprehensive statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) as he told us something about the international problems that we are facing today. They are problems just as complex and difficult as they have been at any time in our post world war II history. The minister ended on a note of at least qualified optimism. He did not think things were any worse; and I think he was realistic in this. He did not indicate that they were much better, and perhaps we have to leave it at that. He covered-I think the house will be grateful to him for so doing-a good deal of ground. Of course, the world is big and he could not deal with all the problems facing it. There was, I thought, one notable omission, and that was the relations of this country directly with the United States of America, and not relations merely arising out of our association with the United States in an alliance of free nations.
I was glad to hear the minister give his good wishes, and I am sure we all join him, to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in his current mission to Moscow, which is turning out to be, perhaps I can call it, a somewhat rugged one. However, Mr. Macmillan is well able to stand that kind of thing.
[Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac) .1
I am sure we also agree with the minister when he gave his good wishes and sympathy to the secretary of state for the United States in the illness which has taken him out of action for the time being, and we hope it is only for the time being. I have had my differences of opinion, Mr. Speaker, with Mr. Dulles. I remember once when I felt doubtful of the wisdom of the doctrine he had been preaching of what came to be known as massive retaliation. I went down to Washington and quarrelled with that doctrine in an address to the Press Club there, right in the grounds of the other side, and after I had spoken Mr. Dulles asked me to come and have dinner with him so that he could tell me how much he disagreed with my disagreement. After a very good dinner, because Mr. Dulles is a very good host, I was subjected to some massive argumentative retaliation by the secretary of state of the United States.
As the hon. minister has pointed out, Mr. Dulles is a man of courage. His courage is indomitable; his energy is unbelievable; his integrity and sincerity are unquestioned; and his knowledge of international affairs is certainly unrivalled. Perhaps the greatest tribute that can be paid to the importance of the part he has been playing now for so many years is the universal recognition of the vacuum in the United States foreign policy -if that is not too strong a word-which has been created temporarily, we hope, by his departure from the state department. We hope that his recovery will be early and complete.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the situation that faces us as, the hon. minister has said, is a serious one. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), as recently as Monday of this week in a debate on another matter, indicated his view of that seriousness. It was so serious last September that it was considered undesirable-and I recognize there were other factors involved-to interfere with a contract for the production of manned interceptors, and it is equally serious now. I think the minister will agree with me when I say that it is not wise, and I am not suggesting he is doing it, to base one's foreign policy on the oscillations of an international situation which has remained serious ever since world war II, and will remain serious as long as we have what is known as the cold war: the east-west conflict. The minister quite rightly spent a good deal of his time telling us of that conflict and I will have something to say about it a little later.
He mentioned the commonwealth. We on this side would have been very interested on the occasion of this debate to have heard

from the Prime Minister a report of his recent journey to the nations of the commonwealth.
I know that this would not be possible in a one-day debate, but I hope that before long we shall be able to have such a report as I have suggested from the Prime Minister. In the uncertain and, indeed, the dangerous world in which we live, one of the more encouraging aspects of the international situation is the part which the nations of the commonwealth are continuing to play in working together for peace and for constructive purposes. Of course, the commonwealth has its difficulties also, and yet it is amazing to see how it adapts itself to these difficulties and to a changing world.
The commonwealth itself is changing so rapidly and so noticeably in my view that the difference between the commonwealth we see today and the commonwealth of just a few years ago is about as marked a difference as the difference between that older commonwealth and the still older British Empire. Four-fifths of the members of the British commonwealth are now Asian. Of the ten countries presently composing it only four have indicated their desire to remain monarchies within the commonwealth. So that bond of unity which we still cherish and which other members of the commonwealth cherish does not apply in the same way to all the members. Three of them have indicated their desire to become republics. Two of them are republics and one, indeed, has an elected monarchy. I am thinking of the Federation of Malaya, where an elected monarch accepts another monarch as head of the commonwealth, certainly something new in international relations. Nevertheless, this strange machine, if I can call it that, works and is perhaps as important as it has ever been in the part it can play in acting as a link between east and west, between Asia and the west, when there are all too few such links.
Now may I say a few words about the relations of this country with the United States of America. I recall that five or six years ago I said the days of relatively easy and automatic relations between the United States and Canada were over. I got into a good deal of hot water by making that statement at the time but it is obvious now as a result of the events of the last few years that the statement was quite accurate and remains quite accurate. I suppose we now have in this country more problems with the United States than we have had at any time since we as a Canadian nation through a Canadian government became solely responsible for our relations with the United States. That does not mean, of course, that we cannot solve them;
External Affairs
it does not mean we shall not apply to them the same frank and friendly treatment, as the phrase goes, that we have applied in past years. But it is just as well to recognize that in spite of the fact that the plants in the garden are now being more carefully tended there are a great many difficulties in respect of this situation. These are pointed out very clearly in the Hays-Coffin congressional report which also says that while the difficulties may be great and increasing there is perhaps a greater awareness of those difficulties than in past years.
Certainly there is a greater awareness of them on the part of our friends across the line and I think that is all to the good. But I think there is also a growing awareness on the part of the members of the government-an awareness which was perhaps not so obvious to them when they were sitting on this side of the house-that it is not so easy to stand up to the United States. Or, rather, I might put it this way: it is easy enough to stand up to the United States, but it is not so easy to stand up to them for the only purpose worth while-the achievement of good results for our country.
The experience of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) with regard to his intervention on the application of the anti-trust laws of the United States to this country is a good illustration of the difficulty that we encounter in this regard. The Minister of Justice, reporting on his journey to Washington on February 3, said that the reaching of an understanding on prior consultation on this particular problem was a real accomplishment. It was an accomplishment, but I would point out that in the statement made by the President of the United States in this house last summer an assurance was given in very formal words- and I quote from President Eisenhower's statement-that it was "the desire and intention of the United States to keep the doors of consultation fully open." And later in his speech, President Eisenhower said:
Yet despite these dissimilarities in form our two governments are developing and are increasingly using effective ways to consult and act together.
I know that when he said that, he was being perfectly sincere. The Prime Minister of Canada has also on more than one occasion expressed his view that progress is being made in regard to consultation between the two governments in order that difficulties which are encountered in our relations may be speedily and effectively overcome. I have mentioned only one such difficulty. And as late as January 6 of this year, not long before the Minister of Justice went to Washington,

External Affairs
the communique issued by the United States-Canada committee on economic affairs which met in Ottawa on January 5 and 6, said:
It was also agreed that wherever feasible there should be close consultation in advance between the two governments whenever it seemed necessary for the government of one country to take action which might affect the commercial and economic interests of the other.
That seems to me to be a less forthright declaration with regard to consultation than the one we received earlier. Hon. members will notice that the communique said:
It was also agreed that wherever feasible-
And so on. Mr. Speaker, there should not be such a qualification regarding the relations between our two countries. In every case where the interests of the other are affected- and this applied to us when we introduced the new customs regulations last year-there should be consultation. There is no excuse for it not taking place. Not only should there be consultation but it should be continuous and effective to prevent to the fullest possible extent those difficulties arising. We know what some of the difficulties are. One is restrictions on our exports of oil and strategic base metals to the United States, restrictions which do not reflect the theory of unity in continental defence. Another problem is that of the surplus disposal of agricultural products concerning which it was hoped by the government last summer that some progress had been made in preventing United States policy in this matter affecting unfairly our own exports but concerning which at the present time there are many ominous signs that that kind of action may still be taken.
There is also the whole question of defence relationships between our two countries. I shall not go into this question in too much detail at the present time because when the defence estimates are up for consideration we will have ample opportunity to discuss this matter.
There is also the question of the relationship between our two countries and peoples in regard to control of our Arctic territories. I know that the Prime Minister said in this house last summer that whereas these arrangements to ensure Canadian control and sovereignty over her Arctic territory had not been satisfactory when the government came into power-notwithstanding the feelings of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton)-all difficulties had been removed and everything was changed because of new regulations. Ever since that date-I believe it was last September-I have been trying to get these regulations which brought about this changed situation but without any success whatever.

We are going to have these problems and I think we must assume that the good sense and the realization of our interdependence on both sides of the border will ensure that while these difficulties will arise, with good will and practice they can be solved. We have to face the problems involved in these relationships with a sense of realism and with evidence of maturity. We must search for solutions to these problems that will maintain Canadian rights and protect Canadian interests but we must do this while recognizing that our two countries in the world in which we both live must inevitably work closely together; that isolation of either one from the other is made impossible by geography, economics, enlightened self-interest and by, as I have expressed it, the very nature of the world in which we live with its tensions and deep conflicts between two struggling systems of human and political organization.
We can never forget as we try to solve these problems with our neighbours that the United States remains the foundation of our defence for the western world and its ideals against those who would destroy them and by its very power it is the only western country qualified in the material sense to give the kind of leadership and the kind of strength without which we would be in a bad way in the western world today. We should talk up and talk straight and if necessary we should do more than talk when our rights and our interests are being overlooked in Washington. But that surely does not mean petulance, pettiness or-to use a word of which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) is so fond-whining. We are supposed to be grown up now nationally and one indication of maturity is a combination of firmness with steadiness and understanding.
I have been wondering whether the time has not now come for a top level formal conference between the leaders in Canada and the United States to see if some formal agreement could not be reached and embodied in a formal convention, perhaps for ratification by legislatures-because this would be one way of bringing these matters to the attention of congress as well as parliament-embodying principles that should govern our relations. We had such an agreement in the Hyde Park arrangement. We had an enunciation of principles, as the minister knows, repeating the principles of the Hyde Park agreement, I believe in 1950, but it was an informal document with no binding effect in any formal sense. Perhaps the time has come when we should try to work

out some arrangement of that kind with a more formal and binding effect than the documents I just mentioned so that when one government takes action without consultation or even with consultation that seems to controvert the principles of this particular agreement it could be appealed to in order to restore the position.
As the Hays-Coffin report says, Canadian and United States interdependence demands a new category of relationship. That kind of relationship which is perhaps becoming necessary can certainly not be worked out at the kind of meeting held in Ottawa in January, and I am not depreciating the importance of that kind of meeting. It requires, as the minister undoubtedly knows, a great deal of continuous preparatory work before documents can be produced. The main purpose from our point of view in any such arrangement would be to ensure that Canadian rights and interests and our separate national position would be protected as the compulsions and the necessities of interdependence become more and more apparent, as they are becoming increasingly apparent every day.
I suggest that the present machinery is not adequate for that purpose. I also suggest-and I would not wish to be misunderstood in this regard-that important as is the recognition of this continental interdependence in such a way as to protect Canadian interests, that would not go nearly far enough. One important aspect of the kind of negotiation and conference I am talking about would be to discuss the relationship of this interdependent continent, especially in the economic field at the present time, of course, with western Europe which is now recognizing the interest of its own interdependence through the common market and the European free trade area. If we on this continent do not give some degree of consideration to and take some action about this development which is taking place in Europe-and I have said this a good many times-we will perhaps one of these days be faced with the division of the Atlantic world between the North American and European segments. No one will gain from any division like that except those who are attempting to destroy the whole Atlantic community.
Perhaps the time has come, Mr. Speaker, to lift the consideration of these matters to the highest level of examination and collective action both here and in western Europe in order to try to frustrate what is possibly the first objective of Soviet policy today, the splitting of the Atlantic nations-the western nations-into this European and North American division.
External Affairs
The minister had a great deal to say about NATO and European problems and more particularly about the Berlin and German problems. The minister could not cover everything even in an hour and a half and perhaps on another occasion he will let us know something about the operation of the NATO organization during the last year. He might tell us, for instance, how the earlier recommendations for consultation are working out and how the NATO council is performing as an agency for the co-ordination of western foreign policy. It is not enough in an international organization of this kind to take pledges to consult.
Consultation can mean many things but it does not mean very much if it means only that one member of the coalition confronts the other members with decisions taken and documents drafted and then asks for the help and co-operation of the other members in finalizing the decision. I get the impression that NATO through its council is making progress in this regard. Perhaps the minister will have an opportunity before long to tell us about that.
The situation in Berlin seems to me to deserve all the attention that the minister gave to it. It is difficult to visualize any more dangerous position than that which we find in Berlin at this time. I do not want to be unduly alarmist. We have had these crises, we have had these situations before and somehow or other we have at least overcome them to the point that they were not permitted to degenerate into conflict.
But it is hard not to be frightened about the developing possibilities of tragedy in Berlin at the present time, especially in the light of the words that are now coming out of Moscow. The minister had a good deal to say about the statements of last November and December and they, of course, were important, but some of the statements that have come out of Moscow and other places in the last week or two have been more frightening. We must hope that they are only, as the minister indicated perhaps they might be, merely political statements for domestic consumption. But it does look as if we may have a situation develop in Berlin where an irresistible force will find itself up against an immovable object, and when that happens something has to give.
I agree entirely with the minister and we on this side certainly will support the government in any steps it takes to make the position clear that the western powers must stand absolutely firm in regard to the situation in Berlin, that they do not dare yield to blufl or blackmail on that particular issue,

External Affairs
that the right of free access, a right which the occupying powers were granted at the end of the war in return for very great concessions made to the Russian side, must be maintained and cannot be unilaterally abrogated. But, Mr. Speaker, standing firm is not enough, as the minister himself indicated. Indeed, he supported his statement by reading from the NATO council communique of last December.
So the question arises, when do the risks from immobility exceed those from flexibility? A refusal to yield on Berlin which is justified must surely be coupled with a demonstrated willingness not only to consider proposals but to initiate proposals for an agreed Berlin settlement within, as the minister pointed out, the framework of a German settlement which itself must be within the framework of a European security settlement. I think it should be made perfectly clear to the other side by the western powers most concerned that that includes a willingness on our part to talk about disengagement. 1 know that disengagement can mean many things. I think it was a mistake to dismiss so quickly the Rapacki plan which was one form of disengagement, a plan which did not seem to me to be satisfactory to accomplish the purpose it may have had in mind but which perhaps might have been used as a basis for discussion. I do not think that disengagement would be too high a price to pay if it could be brought about in a way which really would ease tensions and strengthen security on the European continent.
All I am suggesting now is that Canadian policy should encourage a willingness to discuss disengagement and should encourage the putting forward of proposals to that end. When Mr. Dulles visited Europe a few weeks ago just before his illness-and it is an indication of the courage of the man that he made the visit at a time when he must have been suffering a good deal-he said on his return that his visit reconfirmed the unity and the firmness of the western position. I quote from his statement:
We are resolved that our position in and access to West Berlin shall be preserved.
I certainly do not quarrel with that. He went on:
We are in general agreement as to the procedures we shall follow if physical means are invoked to interfere with our rights in this respect.
It would not be proper, of course, to ask what those procedures would be but one cannot help but wonder on what this unity and firmness is based. One cannot help but wonder what these procedures are on which the four western powers are united. It is certainly appropriate that the Canadian government should know all about them and

I hope they do because this is no occasion for keeping any member of the western alliance in the dark in respect of measures of this kind which could have such far-reaching consequences.
It would be interesting to know-perhaps the minister will be able to tell us this- whether the unity to which Mr. Dulles referred includes the Federal Republic of Germany, whether it is based on a recognition or a refusal to recognize a transfer of authority to control access to Berlin from the Russian government to the East German government, something which the Russians have said they are going to do by May 26 of this year, not so very far away.
If such recognition is then laid down by the East German communist government as a condition for passage through or passage over the corridor, where are we then? Are the powers most concerned agreed as to what they will do if a convoy on land or in the air is interfered with? Mr. Khrushchev has made some ominous statements in Moscow as to what he thinks will happen if any effort is made on the part of the west to run a convoy through in spite of interference.
The minister said this afternoon that Canada's responsibility in this matter is clear, and I agree. As he pointed out, it was established in London some years ago. It is because our responsibility is clear, it is because our commitment in this matter as a NATO member is clear that the government has a right to know every plan and every intention of the four countries most concerned and this parliament has a right to know everything that the government feels that it is appropriate to tell it. We have no right to ask for any more than that in a matter of such grave importance. That makes the situation very different indeed from the last time we had to face the situation of a blockade of Berlin which was met by an airlift conducted by two powers alone. At that time Canada had no special responsibility, no special commitment, and Canada was told absolutely nothing in advance of the decision which brought about the airlift to meet the blockade. We were told about it after the decision had been taken. The situation is very different now. We know in advance, presumably what may happen and we accept -I certainly do not quarrel with it-the responsibility that goes with that kind of commitment.
The minister went on to talk about the United Nations assembly. He made the best case he could for the results achieved by the recent assembly of the United Nations, and so would I if I had been in his place. It did, of course, accomplish some useful things;

every United Nations assembly does. But I got the impression that this was not one of the more stimulating and constructive meetings of the United Nations.
I note also, and this has a bearing on what the minister said about Red China, that when the question of whether the United Nations assembly would discuss the admission of China came up, it was supported this time by 32 delegations-I believe that was the number. This was many more than had taken that position in the previous assembly. The motion was opposed by Canada and the majority of the delegations.
The minister had a good deal to say this afternoon about the recognition of communist China. I am not quite sure from what he said just where we stand on this very important matter, and perhaps that was the purpose of most of his observations. I do not want to be unfair to him, but I will say that I feel he nailed our colours firmly to the fence in regard to this matter. Perhaps, however, the nail has been moved up a few notches toward the top of the fence. I should like to ask him a few questions in a friendly and constructive vein. I do not know whether or not he will be able to answer this one, but how long are we going to be able to support the United States position, because it is a United States position, that this question cannot even be talked about at the United Nations.
The reason given by the Canadian delegation for not supporting this motion at the last assembly was that discussion at that time could not help and might hinder the settlement of the very dangerous position which had been created in the Chinese offshore islands. Perhaps by the time the next meeting of the assembly occurs things will be reasonably quiet out there and that reason will not be present. I got the impression from listening to the minister this afternoon that he thought there had been a change in the picture in so far as the position of the Chinese communist government is concerned. Certainly that position, in my view, is not now the same as it was a few years back when Chinese aggression in Korea was an obvious reason, even if there had been no other reason, for preventing diplomatic recognition and membership in the United Nations. The minister indicated that the technical and legal criteria which generally govern diplomatic recognition of a regime had been materially fulfilled at the present time. In this regard it is interesting to quote a paragraph from a book written by Foster Dulles called, "War or Peace", published in 1950. At page 190, Mr. Dulles gives this assessment of the situation in regard to recognition:
External Affairs
If the communist government of China, in fact, proves its ability to govern China without serious domestic resistance, then it too should be admitted to the United Nations.
He went on further:
However, a regime that claims to have become the government of a country through civil war should not be recognized until it has been tested over a reasonable period of time.
It does not seem to me that these observations have been followed, either in the first sentence in respect of China or in the last sentence in respect of many Latin American countries.
The other day I noticed a statement bearing on this question by Mr. Walter Robertson the assistant secretary of state in Washington, who is perhaps the strongest opponent of any form of diplomatic recognition of the communist government of China. He said that, nevertheless, if there is to be any international agreement on disarmament or any aspect of disarmament which requires international control and inspection-the minister mentioned this this afternoon though not quite in the terms I am using now-Red China would have to be included in that agreement and discharge its own obligations in that regard. This raises a question at once. How could Peking be asked to accept and carry out any such obligations, take part in control and inspection, which we rightly claim to be essential, and yet be considered as unrecognizable. It does, to say the least, present a dilemma.
The minister said that one of the obstacles to recognition was the fact that from the point of view of the Asian countries it would look as if we were deserting them in the face of communist Chinese subversion and pressure. The fact is, however, that most of these Asian countries have themselves recognized the communist government of China. I recall that when the Prime Minister was using that same argument during his tour in every case he had to use it in a country which, while strongly anti-communist, had recognized this particular regime. We really do not, therefore, solve many of our problems it seems to me with that particular argument. I am not sure whether the minister referred to the United Kingdom, but he said that some countries which had recognized communist China had not been treated very well by the Chinese communist government after recognition. No doubt, he may have had the United Kingdom in mind, and that is quite true. This has a bearing upon the action which this government should or should not take.
Diplomatic recognition of the Chinese communist government would be pointless, and I think worse than useless, if it were not followed by support for Chinese communist admission to the Chinese seat at the

External Affairs
United Nations. One reason why the United Kingdom government, in my view, got the worst of both worlds was that it recognized the communist government in Peking diplomatically, and then voted against the communist government of China taking the Chinese seat at the United Nations and voted in favour of a moratorium on the discussion of it. Naturally this action was not well received in Peking and the United Kingdom was not able to get any advantage, if advantage was to be received, from recognition.
Then the minister brought up the question of trade. He said we must not attach an exaggerated expectation to increased trade because of diplomatic recognition, and of course I agree with him. There has been a lot of loose talk about what recognition would do to trade. It would be some help, but it would be making a mistake to in any way exaggerate the nature of the trade that would follow from recognition. Nevertheless, it is going to be increasingly difficult to push trade in a country to which you do not give recognition and where the words-I am talking about our country-of the Prime Minister still stand on the record that there could be no recognition until this regime has expiated her wrongdoing.
Then, what should we do? The minister and the government are no doubt giving consideration to this matter. Perhaps he will pardon us for being a little confused on this side as to the nature of that consideration because of certain contradictory statements which emanated from various members of the government last autumn.
I suggest we should do four things. I suggest that we should send not a trade commissioner from Hong Kong to Peking-useful as no doubt that visit was-but should send a trade mission; I refer to a governmental trade mission. Second, if this has not been done by the government, I thing the position should be made perfectly clear with regard to Formosa, namely that recognition or no recognition of the government of Peking, the people of Formosa should not be handed over to that government without some opportunity to express their own views on the matter. By that I do not mean-and I would not wish to be so interpreted-that we recognize what has come to be known as the doctrine of the two Chinas. That doctrine will never be accepted in Peking and it will never be accepted in Formosa. But by the same token we do not recognize that doctrine of the one China if it means the transfer against their will of nine million Formosans to the communist regime in Peking.
The third thing that I think should be done is this. Any influence which we may have on those most concerned-and by that

I mean the United States-should be exercised to persuade the United States to persuade the government in Formosa to evacuate the positions in the offshore islands Quemoy and Matsu. If, as Chiang Kai-shek now has formally stated-and the minister repeated it this afternoon-that government has no intention of using force to get back on the mainland, what possible good can these islands be to that government except for the maintenance of face which is the Chinese word for our word prestige.
If the situation becomes quieter out there in respect to those islands, surely it would be possible then to evacuate those islands. As I see it, it would strengthen the defensive position of the government of Formosa. It would be possible to evacuate those islands without any great loss of face, as I think we were told by the United States government some years ago would be done. As long as those islands which are two or three miles off from the continent of China are heavily armed and are facing the mainland and as long as the Red government in Peking interprets the arming of those islands and the dispatch to those islands of a relatively large army from Formosa as a threat to its position on the mainland, it does not seem to me that there is going to be peace in that particular area.
Then the fourth suggestion I make to the minister is this. Why should not our government now initiate discussions with a few friendly governments which have not recognized Red China in order to try to work out an agreed attitude and agreed approach before the next assembly when this matter is certainly going to come up for serious consideration. I am thinking of such countries -and the list is certainly not exclusive-as Ireland which supported discussion of this matter at the last assembly France, Italy, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand. It seems to me that might mean a useful initiative for Canada to take in this matter.
The minister mentioned some other questions that came up for consideration at the United Nations assembly and I was interested-


Sidney Earle Smith: I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition would permit a question at this stage?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; of course.


Sidney Earle Smith: I am trying to phrase my thoughts in the form of a question. Is the Leader of the Opposition advocating immediate recognition? He paid me the compliment of being mystified. I do not know what he stands for. Can he help me?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister apparently is not quite as clear about what I am advocating as I was about what he was advocating. He was advocating an extremely cautious policy of doing nothing at the present time but keeping all considerations under examination so that when the time to do something arrived the right thing would be done. I am making certain proposals which will help the minister in the achievement of that policy and perhaps go a little further, so that if this situation has to be faced at the next assembly of the United Nations-as undoubtedly it will- perhaps Canadian policy will have been considered in the light of the policy of certain other friendly countries and perhaps a careful and constructive attitude may be adopted. I am trying to suggest that it is not going to be easy to avoid a decision on this matter much longer because-and this is a most important consideration-the events in Korea which made recognition out of the question up to a few years ago no longer have much bearing on this particular problem.
Perhaps when the time comes when we discuss this matter on the estimates, in the light of the advice I have given the minister perhaps he will be a little bit more concrete and perhaps I will also be a little bit more concrete.


Sidney Earle Smith: I thank the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister indicated that at the last assembly not much was done to carry out the idea which I know he has very much in mind as a great many of us have. I refer to the idea of taking advantage of the experiment which has been so successful with respect to the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East in order to establish something of a permanent organization on which, if the emergency arises in the future, we can arrange United Nations intervention more speedily and perhaps more effectively than would otherwise be possible. I had hoped that this could be done, and none of the arguments that have been put forward that I have been able to discover, seem to me to be valid. I am not now suggesting any great international army. That would be out of the question. I am not now suggesting an international police force which would be able to stand up to any national aggressor if that aggressor was determined to commit an aggression. I am thinking of the kind of force which proved to be so useful in the Middle East and which might be required again-it might even be required one of these days in Berlin or some other 66968-9-901
External Affairs
danger area-to police a settlement which has been reached and which cannot be policed by national forces.
If that is to be done-and when the crisis arises and when the emergency takes place, the people down in New York say, "That is a great idea; let us do it"-why not prepare for this situation in advance by setting up a small permanent organization in New York for which those governments which so desire would earmark certain forces which would be trained and made ready for this particular purpose.
The minister has said that at the United Nations people are worried about the variety of situations that the United Nations may have to face. That is one of the reasons that we should have this kind of permanent arrangement because it would be flexible and I am sure it could be made adaptable to the kind of situation which he has in mind. We on this side had hoped, as I am sure had the minister, that at the last United Nations assembly something could have been done. If we do not soon take advantage of the situation created by the first successful United Nations initiative in this field the opportunity may be lost and it may not recur for a long time. I know a proposal was made at the last assembly and it was extremely discouraging that nothing could be done about that proposal.
I think I know the main reason for the failure of the secretary general's proposal. Once it ceased to be the proposal of the secretary general-that great and objective man-and was taken up by the United States of America -and I can speak perfectly frankly about this matter because all this information has appeared in the press-that fact aroused all the suspicions on the other side of the iron curtain and it even aroused in the minds of people in uncommitted nations some doubts which would not have been there if it had been either on the initiative entirely of the secretary general or the initiative of a delegation of a middle or smaller power. I therefore hope that in spite of this setback at the last assembly, perhaps some progress may be made at the next one.
The minister had a good deal to say about nuclear disarmament, and those of us who have been following these interminable discussions at Geneva, which seemed to start off in an atmosphere of hope, have some right to feel discouraged. It does not seem to me that there is much likelihood of achievement as long as it is recognized, as it now seems to be recognized by everybody in the discussions, that there must be some ironclad system of inspection and control, and as long as the Russians will only accept it at the price of having a veto over the control agency.

External Affairs
I remember last March during the election that the minister did not go nearly so far as insisting on inspection and control to accompany at least a temporary suspension of tests, and that was the position I myself took at that time. The reason I felt it would be possible at that time perhaps to agree to a temporary suspension of tests, with all the danger which now seems to be developing in the atmosphere as a result of the tests, is that I had read, and I have studied the matter a little, that there is no way by which you could violate an engagement of this kind not to explode nuclear missiles without having that violation detected by someone in another country. I have since been again told by very high scientific experts that such an engagement could not be violated without it being known.
Now that position seems to be changed. Indeed, while the Russians must take the main share of the responsibility for preventing an agreement, with inspection and control to go with it, the hon. minister must recall that only a few weeks ago there were some statements from Washington to the effect that even international control and inspection might not be ironclad enough to permit the United States government taking part in this kind of agreement, because it could be violated without any international control organization knowing anything about it. So it seems to have become a very confused situation, and those of us who felt that perhaps something could be done in Geneva to deal with this important and serious problem have some right to be discouraged.
Disarmament itself is bogged down worse than ever. Instead of having a United Nations disarmament sub-committee, which was a small group, Canada being one of the five, which could at least make some progress with regard to clearing away some of the technical underbrush as a result of all these discussions in the last two or three years, we now have a disarmament commission consisting of 82. We are not likely to make very much progress with a disarmament commission of 82. I know how difficult the matter is because it is tied up with political considerations. It seems to me that the only proposal for disarmament that made much sense in terms of its practical realization was one made by the prime minister of France, Edgar Faure, a few years ago, when he suggested that every country should agree to devote a percentage of its previous year's expenditure on armament to a great world development activity through the United Nations. This proposal, as he said, would be at least self-implementing to this extent,

that if you agreed to transfer 20 per cent of your previous defence budget to the United Nations or some international agency for development, you might cheat in regard to the amount of money which you spent on armament but you could not cheat on the 20 per cent turned over to the development authority. However, there have been a lot of other proposals which have not seemed to come to anything, and I do not think the outlook for the immediate future is very hopeful.
All these problems, and many others which I could touch on if I had time, are reflections, and some are rather sombre reflections, on what the minister called the east-west conflict. A basic reason for the conflict between communist imperialism and those countries who are determined to protect their free institutions, their democratic processes and their way of life against reactionary totalitarianism, is to my mind fear. I hope that the free people of this world are willing to pay the price in defence costs which are necessary in this situation and also in terms of an imaginative and flexible diplomacy, which is also a very important part of defence. But there is no doubt in the world, as I say, in my mind that one of the bases of this conflict is fear combined on one side, combined with a confident, at times a crusading, and an aggressive, ideology. The problem we face is the same problem we faced last year, the year before, and the year before that. It is how to break through this fear.
As we discuss this matter tonight, Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Macmillan are talking about this matter in Moscow. It is being talked about in Berlin, Paris, and in Washington. They are discussing conferences which might get these two sides together. So our minds inevitably go back to proposals for a conference at the summit between those men who have the destiny of the world largely in their hands. Yet as soon as one of these men proposes a conference, the three or four on the other side react against it because they are afraid of that proposal. That is true when the proposal comes from the western side, and you get the same reaction when it comes from the communist side.
What can we do about that? I have only one idea to put forward. This matter is certainly not the responsibility of the Canadian government, but it might be something perhaps in which the Canadian government would see some advantage if it were followed up. If there is to be a summit conference, as there will have to be one of these days, surely it must be convoked by someone and held in an atmosphere which does not arouse suspicion on either side. It seems to me there is one country and one man peculiarly

qualified to do this at the present time. That country is India, and the man is Nehru. If the prime minister of India, whose bona fides in regard to objectivity certainly are not questioned because he is criticized on both sides, would take the initiative and responsibility of summoning a conference at the summit, perhaps there would be more possibility of successful results from that kind of conference than one called by either side to the east-west conflict. He could take complete charge and decide who would be there. He could decide what the agenda would be if an agenda were required, and he could determine the basis on which the conference would be held. This is asking someone who is not directly committed to either side to take a great deal of responsibility. Well, the stakes are very high and the reward would be very great if a conference of this kind would make some contribution toward cutting through the circle of fear which now surrounds us.
The minister talked about the implications in the future in regard to the conquest which had been made in outer space. It does indeed mean that we are approaching an entirely new dimension, one which frightens us as well as entices us. It is a new dimension of politics, of strategy, of economics, and indeed a new dimension with respect to population. But while it is a frightening and alluring prospect for the next ten years, with the effect it may have on all our worldly conflicts, I am inclined myself to agree with the remark made by the Right Hon. R. A. Butler in the house of commons in London the other day, when he said:
I don't want to go to the moon or the sun, I only want to find peace on this earth.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest this afternoon to the comprehensive and general review of international affairs given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith). I must say that at some points in his speech I was very pleased while at others all the members of this group were, I am sure, somewhat disappointed. I will deal with the disappointments later. I was also interested in the speech just completed by the leader of the official opposition. I was very interested to note his increased flexibility since he became Leader of the Opposition with respect to certain important international questions and also his progressive advance, shall I say, toward the view taken by the C.C.F. on the recognition of China and the composition of the United Nations.
Although we are small in numbers it seems we are having a definite influence on
External Affairs
the official opposition and I hope this influence will continue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope it works both ways.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hope it does as far as an increase in our numbers is concerned after the next election.
I must frankly confess that I rise to speak in this debate with a considerable sense of inadequacy, and I say this in all sincerity. The issues raised when we discuss international affairs are so profound and so complicated and involve so many facets of human behaviour that I feel unable to discuss the question with the competence it demands. All I can say in justification of my plunge into the stormy waters of international affairs is that a study of history, speeches-excluding the speeches to which I listened this afternoon

writings and documents on this subject convinces me of the equal inadequacy of many others who have dealt with international affairs throughout the years.
I might say that this afternoon I am speaking for the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation-long may it live-and I am expressing the views of the members who represent that organization in this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some of them are trying to break up that federation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do wish the farmer member for Essex East would confine himself to international affairs this afternoon.
First of all, I must stress the fact that the power relationships between the NATO nations have drastically changed within the last two or three years. If it ever made any sense for the western powers to negotiate on the assumption of United States military superiority, this approach has now become totally untenable. A second major development, and a much more hopeful one, is the evidence of a greater flexibility in approach on the part of both the Soviet union and the United States. Coupled with this is the apparent desire of the Soviet union to wage its battles more and more, according to the reports we receive, on the economic front. There was a day when the United States could answer most of its critics, at least to its own satisfaction, by stating that it was its military superiority that saved the non-communist world from being seriously challenged by the communist military might.
While western military strength may still be a deterrent to communist ambitions it is becoming obvious now in the opinion of an increasing number of people that the power of the west to deter is shrinking rapidly, particularly if we look at both the western side

External Affairs
of the world and at the Far East. Russian successes in the launching of sputniks and the lunik, and her adventures into planetary space, indicate quite clearly that this country has the know-how and the productive capacity to turn out destructive weapons just as effectively as our friends to the south.
The successful testing of ICBM's and the prospect that they will soon be produced by the Soviet union in operational numbers, according to the best information we can get, makes any theory of dependence upon massive retaliation as a basis for negotiation very shaky indeed, in our opinion. I might say here that I was very pleased to hear the remarks made by the leader of the official opposition on this subject.
From a longer term point of view, perhaps an even more significant development of recent years has been the emergent industrial development of China. While China offers no military threat at the moment, no one who has viewed her development can deny that she may well become one of the great industrial powers of the future. Clearly this development calls for a re-thinking in the field of international relations such as we have not been forced to undertake since the end of *world war II.
No doubt these developments are the important ones if one is pessimistic enough to believe that the major issues of the world must be settled by negotiations based on armed strength. However, there are other developments, I am glad to say, which indicate that both sides are more interested at the present time in a different kind of battle. I think we should promote this interest. The Soviet union appears increasingly concerned in developing its industrial potential in order to catch up with the United States in the field of economic production. That country, too, appears to be showing an increasing interest in international economic competition. We in this group hope that co-existence and competition can be developed on this basis.
The western powers, on the other hand, appear, especially on the Berlin and German question, to be willing to consider a more flexible approach. If this greater flexibility on the part of the west can be broadened to include a serious re-examination of the problem of world economic development as an alternative to continued military strength we may truly be on the way to a new and more hopeful era in international relations.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure it is a little difficult to hear the hon. member while so many conversations are going on. I wonder whether hon. members on my right would moderate their tone.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In summary, in our opinion, three things are clear as a result of any study of international developments:
1.	The power to destroy is now so great on both sides that it is no longer possible for one side to depend upon superior strength alone as an effective deterrent.
2.	This development, coupled with an increased emphasis on economic competition, may well have led to a genuine desire on the part of both power blocs to approach problems more flexibly.
3.	The present international situation and these developments offer a new opportunity for socialists, like thinking people and genuine Liberals to express their ideas with emphasis on the possibilities for peaceful negotiations based on a reconsideration of the circumstances today which, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out in dealing with one or two aspects on international affairs, have been quite numerous in the last two or three years.
To that end I advance in my remarks during this debate the policy and views of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I want to emphasize that. The minister suggested there should be positive proposals made with respect to the solution of international problems. I aim to place before the house a few positive proposals that the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation group in this house has to make toward the solution of international problems.
I must say first of all that we continue our whole-hearted support of the United Nations. Before proceeding I might also comment that we wish to congratulate our permanent staff at the United Nations. We believe that throughout the years they have done a splendid job. I had the opportunity of being there for about one month during December of 1956 and I did all I could to learn what happened in the general assembly and the various committees. I attempted to take full advantage of what I considered an excellent opportunity. I feel that only those who have attended the United Nations and listened to the debates in the general assembly and in the committees fully realize the tiring nature of these continuing talks on international affairs under what are at times very frustrating conditions. The work done throughout the years by our permanent representatives at the United Nations deserve the thanks of the Canadian people for their constant attention to a duty that requires continuous application, constant study and, shall I say, an abnormal degree of human patience.
In my opinion the value of the United Nations has been re-emphasized by events of the past year. I should take this opportunity

to congratulate the government for the part it played in connection with the difficulties in the Middle East over the past year. There is no doubt but that the United Nations played a most constructive, worthwhile and positive role in those developments and prevented a wider spread of the area of conflict.
The composition of the United Nations is changing owing to the addition of new members of the commonwealth and other Far Eastern nations. One might say that the balance of power is changing so that the United States is not as certain as it was in years past of getting a vote satisfactory to them on issues that come before the United Nations. I understand that is causing some concern in some circles but as far as we are concerned we feel it is a most healthy development and one that will serve, shall I say, to speed the life blood of the United Nations and provide greater opportunities for an understanding of world events and for the achievement of solutions satisfactory to a larger and increasingly wider area of the world's people.
We also think the United Nations offers a splendid opportunity for continuing negotiations. There are people who criticize the continuous talk and I admit it can be very boring just as it can be very boring in this house on occasion. I certainly trust I am not boring hon. members at this time. We believe that it is far better to keep on talking for years than to have a third world war. I am sure that all hon. members of this house subscribe to that relief. The value of the United Nations has been proven in terms of it having provided through discussion solutions to problems that otherwise would not have been solved peaceably.
The United Nations also provides the opportunity to render technical assistance to underdeveloped countries in the form of gifts and loans. I was very glad to hear the minister say that Canada is supporting an increase in the capital of the international bank. We in this group believe that is a worthwhile and forward step. We are anxious to see the development of a permanent international police force. The value of an international police force was well demonstrated in the Middle East during the crisis there. We think Canada should become a stronger voice and make greater efforts toward establishing a permanent police force-*


Erhart Regier: Take the initiative.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Canada should take the initiative as my friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) suggests. I cannot resist saying at this point that while the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) took a very good stand on that question we
External Affairs
must not forget that when the Liberals were in power there was nothing done at the conclusion of the Korean war to maintain the sort of military force in being that could have been called upon quickly to meet a similar situation.
We all know that a permanent police force does not mean the organization of large armies. I do believe the force should be permanent and its numbers strengthened. Member nations of the United Nations would be willing to supply the necessary contingents to meet a situation such as that which developed in the Middle East area or which might develop in other parts of the world.
Finally, we in this group suggest that Canada should work toward getting member nations of the United Nations to be willing to submit their difficulties to the arbitration of the international court. I know that is not an immediate possibility but it is something we should work toward as people who believe in the rule of international law.
I have almost concluded what I have to say about the United Nations, Mr. Speaker, and as it is fifteen seconds before six o'clock, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on external affairs was temporarily halted to permit members to attend to internal affairs I was presenting to the house various aspects of the foreign policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and I now want to continue. I dealt briefly with our approach to the United Nations. I now want to say that the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation is very keen on strengthening the commonwealth. We believe that this unique, this intangible organization, this group of nations whose structure and whose behaviour is almost misunderstood by many nations in the world, is a balance wheel in the whirling machinery of international affairs. We believe that our government should do everything it can toward strengthening the ties within the commonwealth. We believe that the government should seize every opportunity for co-operation and consultation with other commonwealth nations.
I must say that we were particularly pleased to hear the minister say that there were going to be increased grants toward assistance under the Colombo plan and particularly that the government was making provision to assist some of the recent additions to the

External Affairs
commonwealth, those young and immature Asiatic nations to whom we can be of great assistance at this time. We believe that this type of assistance is one way in which we can certainly strengthen understanding between various members of the commonwealth and strengthen the commonwealth itself. In addition, we believe that the government could be a little less niggardly in its contribution to the commonwealth parliamentary association with which this parliament is connected. Its membership is composed of the majority of the members of the House of Commons who are interested in international affairs, and if that association is going to function satisfactorily and make the contribution it should toward understanding between the various nations of the commonwealth it could do with a little more financial assistance than has been extended to it by Canadian governments.
I want to refer briefly now to the European situation. In that connection I was interested in a press report this morning on Mr. Macmillan's visit to Moscow, to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) referred this afternoon. At the time the minister emphasized its importance and said that he was following the visit with interest. I want to quote a short paragraph or two from the report because I think this also indicates the stability of the British prime minister's outlook and his unruffled approach. That is the sort of approach which goes a long way to finding solutions to difficult problems in international affairs rather than blowing off steam and talking about massive retaliation. The report has this to say in part:
Mr. Macmillan's speeches have been marked by an unusual combination of admiration and jibes.
A delightful combination.
He has referred to Russian misconception of Britain as a land of Dickens; or the fact that he, unlike other prime ministers, is answerable to questions in parliament.
I think that is a wonderful little dig in the right spirit.
At the same time he has praised the achievements of the Soviet union with a lack of inhibition which has surprised both Russian and British listeners.
Here he shows his fairness.
"The rate and quality of your progress are indeed extraordinary and, so far as I know, unparalleled in history."
Both Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Khrushchev have referred in very similar terms to the splendour of the British-Soviet alliance in the war-*
We should not forget that.
-and worsening of relations since. The prime minister's speech at the British embassy dinner has been treated by the Soviet press with obvious respect.
[Mr. Herridge.l
That is the sort of approach that engenders respect in any country. We in this group hope, regardless of the surface ruffles on the sea of diplomacy, that Mr. Macmillan's visit to Moscow will have some fruitful consequences and be part of the long and tedious period of negotiation to which we must inure ourselves.
So far as the European situation is concerned, I wish to say that there are growing indications that the vested interests of monopoly capitalism are beginning to have a serious influence on world affairs at this time and particularly in recent years. I think that that is indicated by the finger in the pie that the oil interests have had in the Middle East. We would not have had half the trouble we had with the Arabs if it had not been for the oil industry and their greed.
We also have the record of monopoly capitalism in South American countries throughout the years and recently in Cuba. So far as Cuba is concerned, we hardly heard a word about the frightful Batista regime until it was overthrown. The press kept almost complete silence on the tyranny of that regime. Now, and I am always aroused when I think of it, some of these birds are wanting to put their filthy paws on the natural resources of British Columbia.
These small groups in Europe, the Middle East and the United States are having a very serious effect and an undue influence on international affairs at this time and all democratic parliaments will have to keep their eyes open in that respect. I want to quote an editorial from the Christian Science Monitor of Monday, February 16, 1959. The Christian Science Monitor is a very well balanced and thoughtful paper, by no means radical. The editorial is entitled, "The Krupp Puzzle", and reads as follows:
Very few persons outside the Krupp family and some employees can be happy at news that the Krupp industrial empire in West Germany is apparently being put back together and even enlarged. Yet several very practical questions are involved in whether the world war II allies can or should hold Alfried Krupp to a postwar agreement to break up and dispose of his coal and steel enterprises by 1959.
Two views of the matter are presented on this page. To those still seared by memory of Nazi cruelty, the role of Alfried Krupp's father as armorer to Hitler is not easily forgotten. But today the most serious threat of dictatorial rule comes not from a revival of Hitlerism but from a Soviet empire devoted to the spread of communism. Against that threat the west needs strength in West Germany.
Herr Krupp points out factually that there is no one in West Germany with money enough to buy him out.

Of course, what should have happened is that the allies should have collared the whole lot and given it to the German people as a nationalized industry.
The smaller Mannesmann syndicate has already been reorganized. The six parts of the former
I.	G. Farben chemical combine are likely to be reintegrated soon.
Anyone with a knowledge of history knows what the I. G. Farben chemical combine did before the war to play all sides against the middle.
The Krupp industries, of course, have made their postwar recovery without armament manufacture.
There is a certain irony in the United States assenting to the reconcentration and expansion of Krupp holdings while its department of justice carries on an anti-trust investigation of General Motors.
I think that is a very good comment.
But the West German government now has its own laws against the revival of cartels and economics minister Prof. Ludwig Erhard is a vigorous advocate of competition. There are also strong controls applicable under the relatively new European coal and steel community.
The misgivings raised by imminent revival of the Krupp industrial empire are that it will wield monopoly powers in trade and that it may form part of a remilitarized Germany.
Do not forget that the Krupp family were armorers for Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler.
As to both these hazards, the best hope lies in democratically strong German government and a peace-serving sense of European unity.
Unless these can really be depended upon, this newspaper believes there is ground for the deepest reservations against permitting a revival of far-flung power in the Krupp industrial empire.


William Joseph Browne: What paper is that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The Christian Science
Monitor, a paper with which I am sure you would be somewhat in agreement. We in this group view with alarm the rising power of these people who created so much misery in the world in years past. We can readily understand the reservations expressed by the editor of the Christian Science Monitor. The point I was making is that these various spots in the world are having a terrific influence in the direction that serves the development of their own economy, industrial plant expansion and so on. We should be very careful and watch these developments, not only in Germany with respect to the Krupp interests but with respect to other interests in the Middle East and the United States.
I want to quote briefly from the Foreign Affairs magazine which contains an article by Mr. George F. Kennan entitled "Disengagement Revisited". It is contained in the January 1959 issue. In this article Mr. Kennan 66968-9-91
External Affairs
deals with the question of the policy of disengagement which we in the C.C.F. feel should be given some consideration and which is mentioned, I think, as the Rapacki plan. I believe the leader of the official opposition mentioned it this afternoon and said he thought there should be some investigation of the possibilities of a plan of this type, if I understood him correctly. We, in the C.C.F., believe in that, and this is what Mr. Kennan has to say in dealing with that in Foreign Affairs magazine. I am only going to quote a paragraph because my time is running out. I have to deal with it quickly because I am only about 10 per cent through in presenting C.C.F. foreign policy. The paragraph reads:
If, of course, the new German army were to become in organization and conceptual principle as dependent on atomic weapons as is the American defence establishment of this day-were the Germans, in other words, to place themselves in a position where they could not dispense with atomic weapons without generally emasculating their over-all military capability-then the chances for any change in the present status quo in central Europe would be practically non-existent. Confronted with such a force on the western side of the Elbe, the Soviet government, which will presumably observe a much greater prudence than has the American government about putting atomic weapons in the hands of its allies, will see no choice but to keep its own forces, themselves armed with atomic weapons, in substantially the positions they occupy today. The atomic armament of Western Germany is in fact the enemy of any real progress in the matter of unification. The western chanceries could not have been oblivious to this fact when they refused even to consider the Rapacki proposals for an atom-free zone in the centre of the continent, and when they took the decision to introduce atomic weapons into the NATO defences on German soil.
I had more to say on that, but time will not permit. We in this group do urge the government to give consideration to the possibilities of developing the plan for disengagement and to provide this zone in central Europe of a neutral Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary, and in so doing provide a buffer which will also permit further opportunities to deal with reunification.
In that connection, I want to place on the record the resolution adopted by the C.C.F. national council at a meeting held in Ottawa on January 24 and 25. It reads:
The C.C.F. believes that the present Berlin crisis should be seized upon as an opportunity to reopen negotiations on the whole question of Germany. In their approach to new talks the western powers should be prepared to consider, as a basis for negotiations, some of the new proposals that have been put forward in recent months.
As a prelude to negotiations and as a basis for approach in negotiations themselves, the west should make clear the following:
1. That the unilateral action of the Soviet union in insisting upon withdrawal from Berlin is to be condemned, and that the other occupying powers are obligated to maintain their position in Berlin

External Affairs
and their support of the democratic socialist government of West Berlin until such time as an overall settlement is reached.
2.	That the Berlin crisis be considered within the framework of the German question as a whole, and that a summit conference, or at least a foreign ministers' conference, be called at the earliest possible date, for this purpose.
3.	That the western powers will consider new approaches with respect to at least two matters on which our attitude hitherto has been rigidly inflexible:
(a)	proposals for withdrawal of troops and creation of a neutral, demilitarized zone in central Europe.
(b)	proposals for a loose federation of the governments of West and East Germany as a first step toward the holding of free elections throughout all Germany.
The C.C.F. firmly believes that a more flexible approach along these lines is the minimum to be expected from the west as an indication of our willingness to negotiate outstanding problems and to seek out every possible path to a peaceful solution.
The minister asked for positive proposals, and that is another positive proposal I present on behalf of the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation who sit in this house at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, I have a word or two to say about the Middle East. A development plan of broad and imaginative scope, using oil revenues and international loans, might yet prove the salvation of the situation, both from the viewpoint of internal Arab needs and the western stake in a peaceful non-communist settlement in that area. But it is likely that at this stage something even more far-reaching is required, something along the lines of the 1958 C.C.F. national convention resolution. This resolution proposes that the Arab peoples should be assisted through the United Nations to take over full ownership and control of their oil resources in a peaceful and orderly way, so that the wealth accruing from oil could be used for the welfare of all the people in the area.
This major step is certainly more far-reaching and imaginative than anything yet suggested. It could serve a multifold purpose. It would enable the United Nations to give much more assistance than has hitherto been possible by the establishment of an international Middle East development commission to assist the economic development of the area and ensure the raising of living standards for the peoples of those areas.
The C.C.F. proposal could serve as a positive step toward wresting the initiative in the Middle East from the soviets. It would help to offset the deep-rooted anti-westernism, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism, which makes every western move suspect. Properly planned, it could encourage the

Middle East nations to develop along democratic lines and halt the totalitarianism, which is a serious threat to political, economic and social progress. It could turn Arab nationalism to constructive objectives, keeping their peoples so occupied with their own advancement that they would cease to aggravate and be aggravated by the various conflicts in the area, including their bitter feuds with Israel. It could ensure the availability of oil and oil products to all nations which require them at world market or contract prices, without fear that the flow would be cut off. For if the west needs eastern oil, the east needs the west as its customers. One cannot get along very well without the other; and western oil resources and control of oil tankers are good enough to give the western nations reasonable bargaining power in determining the conditons of their petroleum purchases.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time has almost expired. I do want to say how disappointed we were to hear the minister say that the government has decided not to recognize China at this time. I listened to the minister's reasons with interest. I thought his legal reasoning was somewhat faulty when he said they refused to recognize all their international obligations. I think the minister will recall that we recognized the Soviet union before it recognized its international financial obligations with respect to foreign loans abroad, and that has happened with one or two other countries. In any event, we are very disappointed because we believe that there is, shall I say, a growing demand from the Canadian people generally for recognition of the government of China and its admission to the United Nations. I could quote from various periodicals, and I have a number of them here, but I will not have time to quote them.
We believe we should recognize the government of China. We should finally arrange with the United Nations to take over the operation of Formosa and have a free vote so that the people of the island of Formosa could determine the form of government under which they wish to live. In Canada labour organizations, industrial leaders and bank managers, particularly Mr. Muir who made a visit to China, and representatives of all groups have urged the recognition of China as being in the interests of world peace and the admission of China into the United Nations.
This afternoon the minister stated that you cannot deal effectively with such problems as disarmament, control of nuclear weapons and so on until they are part of the United Nations and that our efforts in that direction

will be very limited and not at all effective. Therefore in concluding my remarks may I say that we in this group urge the government to give consideration to the recognition of China and the admission of China to the United Nations in response to the growing demand on the part of an increasing number of Canadians in all walks of life who apparently have a better appreciation of the realities of the situation than has the government at this time.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) in his most interesting statement this afternoon dealt with many of the most important international matters in which Canada is interested. I should like to join, first of all, in the tribute which he paid to Mr. Dulles, the secretary of state of the United States, and in the good wishes which he expressed for his speedy recovery from his illness. To my mind it has been most heartening to see the change in attitude that has taken place in the press concerning Mr. Dulles. Last year, when the world was going through various crises, many of the newspapers were heaping scorn and ridicule on Mr. Dulles and were criticizing him for being so uncompromising. Letters were sent in-and these could easily have been sent in by supporters of the communists-to the state department in the United States criticizing him and asking that he be removed. His reply was that he was not engaged in a popularity contest but in work of an international character of benefit to the whole world. I am sure we all hope that his disability is only temporary. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been an admirer of Mr. Dulles for a long time because of his great devotion to principles. Certainly the world owes to him a great debt for the stand that he took and for the character that he displayed despite the tremendous pressures that came from all sides against him last year.
When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was speaking about China I took down what I thought he said as to the number of supporters that backed the United States in supporting their motion not to have the admission of China considered at the United Nations, and I thought he said 32.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; it is quite the reverse. I said I thought there were 32 members that supported discussion of the matter in the United Nations.


William Joseph Browne: I have here the account of the United Nations proceedings when this matter was brought before the general assembly. I have here a list of the


G69G8-9-91J
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
votes. The final vote on the United States motion that the question of China should not be considered was 44 votes in favour of the United States motion to 28 against, with nine abstentions. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, it is necessary to have a two-thirds vote in order to change the position as it is today.
I also noticed that the Leader of the Opposition referred to the offshore islands in an extremely offhand manner and indicated that they should be returned to the mainland. He spoke about their menace to mainland China. I expect he will agree with me when I suggest to him that maybe both Mao Tse-tung and Chiang Kai-shek attached the same importance to Quemoy and Matsu as Mao Tse-tung attached to the area that Mao Tse-tung occupied back in 1934 and 1935 when he was driven to the province of Shensi with only 5,000 followers at that time; from that small nucleus he built up an army with Russian help and was able to conquer the mainland. Maybe both of them had that in mind.
I was interested to note his generous concern that Formosa would not be put under Peking. I am glad to know that he feels that way. My friend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) was even more considerate and thought a referendum should be taken on Formosa. But what about having a referendum on mainland China-did either of the hon. gentlemen propose that procedure -in order to see where those people would like to go?
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the minister propose it?


William Joseph Browne: I believe both of my hon. friends supported a summit conference. I wonder whether Mr. Khrushchev's eagerness for a summit conference derives from the success which his predecessor had in summit conferences at Yalta, Potsdam and Geneva. I think the Leader of the Opposition certainly must be aware of the fact that it was as a result of Yalta that Russia occupied the strong position vis-a-vis Germany that she does today.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I heard of a summit conference called by those who did not want Newfoundland to enter confederation.


William Joseph Browne: I did not
know about that. There are dangers in summit conferences, I think, unless the ground has been properly prepared by a foreign ministers conference in the first place and I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West stated that during his remarks. I tried to follow the hon. member for Kootenay West in his suggestions.

External Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am honoured.


John Ferguson Browne: I tried to follow them carefully I must say. I note that his party supports the United Nations. I think we all support the United Nations so there is no disagreement between us on that point. He speaks about strengthening the commonwealth and he said that our government should do everything that it could. I think there was never a government in the history of Canada that has the commonwealth so much in mind as has this government.
And with regard to the Colombo plan, it was announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon that we are giving $50 million a year for three years for the assistance of those countries under the Colombo plan. That is the greatest amount that has ever been given as yet.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad.


John Ferguson Browne: The hon. member for Kootenay West I think made reference to peaceful coexistence between .Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Khrushchev and he spoke about the nice words they said to each *other. That was not peaceful coexistence. I can give him a better example than that. That was good neighbourliness, talking like that. If you want an example of peaceful coexistence you only have to read the paper tonight to find one, where the two of them sat together during a Romeo and Juliet play without speaking a word to each other. Mr. Khrushchev walked out of the show and stayed outside during one of the scenes of Romeo and Juliet. That is peaceful coexistence. I do not think we could get a better example of it than the two of them sitting side by side and not speaking a word to each other.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But not fighting.


John Ferguson Browne: But not
fighting.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is better to talk than fight.


John Ferguson Browne: I do not
know about that. The hon. gentleman referred to West Germany and he read something from the Christian Science Monitor about the Krupp interests. I was wondering what lesson he wanted us to draw from that. West Germany today is not the Germany it was prior to 1939 nor yet is it the Germany it was prior to 1914. In the first place Germany has been divided into two, namely into East Germany and West Germany. In the second place, West Germany has a different type of government entirely from that which it ever had before. In the third place, it is a member of NATO and is on our side.

In the fourth place, we have armed Germany. We have control of the arming of Germany and therefore West Germany is an ally of the west. I gathered from the gist of his argument that he dismissed West Germany as an ally. I think it would be a fundamental mistake if we did, because West Germany possesses great bodies of skilled people, people who are amenable to discipline, and who could put strength on our side.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was quoting what the social democrats in Germany were saying.


William Joseph Browne: The social democrats are the same as the C.C.F., and the same as Mr. Gaitskell in England.


An hon. Member:: And Willy Brandt.


William Joseph Browne: Willy Brandt too. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege last fall of acting as vice-chairman of the Canadian delegation at the thirteenth session of the United Nations which opened in New York on September 16. The chairman was, as he himself told you this afternoon, our Secretary of State for External Affairs. The other members of the delegation were the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Vivian), the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Mac-quarrie), the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), Senator Gunnar S. Thorvaldson, Mr. Jean Morin of Montreal and Mrs. W. T. Hayden of Halifax, Nova Scotia. The members of this house who attended as observers at various periods were the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming), the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) , the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Regier), and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
This was my first visit to the United Nations, and I hope the house will bear with me while I give some impressions of some of the issues which were discussed at this session. I had imagined before I went to the United Nations that it was something like parliament, and I was not disappointed. There are three main buildings down there. There is the secretariat with 38 storeys; the conference building with a great number of conference rooms, a1] of which are fitted for sound and provide simuUaneous translation into five different languages, English, French, Spanish, Russian and Chinese. Then there is the main building, the general assembly, where on opening day 81 nations met from the

different parts of the world under the chairmanship of Sir Leslie Munroe, the chairman of the New Zealand delegation. The great hall was overcrowded on that opening day. I believe there were 58 foreign ministers in attendance, together with several hundred delegates, observers and advisers from the five continents.
The meeting opened with a minute of silence for prayer and meditation and then Sir Leslie Munroe, who was retiring from the office of president, addressed the assembly. One thing he said which I remember was that "it was not so much in what they said but in what they did that the members of the United Nations would prove that they adhered to their charter undertakings". The assembly then elected Dr. Charles Malik of Lebanon as its president. Dr. Charles Malik has been a delegate to the United Nations for many years, and I am sure most hon. members have heard him on the radio from time to time. He is well equipped by knowledge and experience, as well as ability, to fulfil competently the requirements of this exalted office.
The assembly then proceeded to a general debate much like a debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Our Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke vigorously at considerable length on various important international matters which were to come before the organization during the thirteenth session. A general committee was then appointed to consider the items on the agenda. There were 73 different items, and the duty of the general committee was to allot them to various committees.
There are seven committees, and most of the work, after the general debate has taken place in the general assembly, is done in these seven committees. There are two political committees, the first committee and a special political committee. Then there is the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth committee. The first committee deals with political matters and so does the special committee. The second committee deals with questions of technical aid to countries who need it and economic assistance to the same countries. The third committee deals with economic and social organization, with refugee problems and with drafting the covenant for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The fourth committee deals with trusteeships and the non-self-governing territories in Africa. The fifth committee deals with financial and budgetary questions, and I might say that that is a very difficult committee on which Mr. Tremblay served so well. The sixth committee deals, amongst
External Affairs
other matters, with the question of the law of the sea, a subject in which Canada was greatly interested.
In addition to the members of the delegations and the observers from the House of Commons, we were accompanied by expert advisers from the Department of External Affairs. Canada, as the hon. member for Kootenay West pointed out this afternoon, has a permanent mission to the United Nations like other countries. Mr. Charles Ritchie is our present ambassador there, and he and his very competent staff joined with those who came from Ottawa to constitute the Canadian, delegation.
Here I should like to do as the hon. member for Kootenay West did and pay a well deserved tribute to the diplomatic and general ability of the external affairs officials for the keen and well informed interest they are taking in international affairs. I am sure all members of the House of Commons who formed part of the delegation will endorse what I am now saying. I should also like to thank the other members of the delegation for the excellent manner in which they performed their duties.
Canada was honoured by having the hon. member for Durham elected vice-chairman of the second committee. Some of the delegates had to work harder than others. I am referring especially to the hon. member for Queens. His committee worked mornings, afternoons, nights and sometimes late into the next morning on the very contentious problems which arose in connection with the trusteeships and the non-self-governing territories in Africa. Personally, being a newcomer to the scene, I thought I would devote my attention to the work of the special political committee, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some observations on the problems which were considered there.
We dealt with the policy of apartheid of the government of the Union of South Africa. I will explain that in a moment. We dealt with the United Nations emergency force, with the progress report by the secretary, and also with the summary study to which reference has been made by previous speakers. We dealt with the report of the director of the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East, as it is called. We dealt with the very interesting academic question of measures aimed at implementation and promotion of peaceful and neighbourly relations among states. We also dealt with the question of the treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa. That question was very much

External Affairs
like the first question I mentioned, the policy of apartheid in the government of the Union of South Africa.
Apartheid means separation of the races. It is very much like the dispute which has been going on in the southern states of the United States-segregation. It is the policy of the government of South Africa that white people and coloured people should live apart, living according to their own traditions, cultures, and have a separate civilization. They have taken positive legal steps to see that that is carried out. The representative of the foreign minister of the government of the Union of South Africa objected to this being considered, and he raised the point that this was beyond the powers of the assembly. Since this is a matter which is frequently brought up, I think I should read the section of the charter to which he was referring. Article 2, section 7, says:
Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter.
Mr. Louw contended that this was a purely domestic matter, that these questions of apartheid and the treatment of South Africans of Indian origin were both domestic. He refused to attend meetings when these matters were being discussed. The attitude of the South African government was shared by very few members of the United Nations. May I say at this point that the white population of South Africa amounts to only three millions compared with 11 million non-white inhabitants. Our delegation recognized that a solution of this problem which has been in existence for many years, was not going to be easy. Nevertheless we in this country have no sympathy with such a policy as that which the government of South Africa is pursuing.
We have before us now a bill of rights which will grant formally to our citizens the rights which are being taken away from residents of South Africa because of discrimination on grounds of colour in the Union of South Africa. We consider, also, that the policy of apartheid or segregation is contrary to the spirit of the United Nations charter, because several of the sections of the charter say that the purpose of the United Nations is to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
We knew that the policy of South Africa had become set and that it would be very

difficult for them to change it. Certainly they could not change it over night. We remembered, to, that the white population in South Africa numbering, as I have said, three millions, is the biggest white population on the whole continent of Africa and must be compared with a population of 200 million people who are not white in colour. Thus the position of the government of South Africa is a very difficult one and those hon. members who have been reading the newspapers in the last few days will have noticed that there have been uprisings in various countries in Africa and that the people there are clamouring increasingly for independence. The spirit of nationality which was talked about so much after the first world war in terms of self-determination has certainly broken out anew in Africa, as it erupted in Asia previously.
All over the world there is concern about South Africa's racial policies and this was evident in the debate which took place during the thirteenth session. It was our opinion that any resolution to be brought in should take into consideration that the position in South Africa was exceptional and very difficult, and that we should not expect too much at one time. The resolution when drafted read something like this:
In a multi-racial society, harmony and respect for human rights and freedoms and the peaceful development of a unified community are best assured when patterns of legislation and practice are directed towards ensuring equality before the law of all persons, regardless of race, creed or colour, and when economic, social, cultural and political participation of all racial groups is on a basis of equality.
This is an ideal to which all members of the United Nations are striving, and since it is spoken of so freely in the charter it appeared to us that all members of the United Nations were bound to practice what they subscribe to. General Smuts was one of the original signatories to the charter of the United Nations, but it seems that since his day the government of South Africa has altered its views somewhat.
We regretted that this matter was being considered so frequently year after year. We have a special interest in South Africa because, like ourselves, South Africa is a member of the commonwealth of nations and in two world wars our forces have fought side by side. Ties are strong, so it was difficult for Canada to take a positive attitude in this matter against South Africa. However, we felt that this principle was very important and we did support the resolution. It was very moderate in tone and the whole tenor of the debate was very temperate. We took a part in drafting the resolution so that it would be inoffensive to South Africa. We pointed out in our

statement that if South Africa would take a second look at its policies, and reconsider them in the light of the universal opinions which had been expressed on all sides against the policies they have been following, we believed they would change their policies, and that the world would congratulate and praise them for changing their attitude in this respect. The resolution was, of course, adopted. This was the first time Canada had supported a resolution of this kind. I am sure all members of the house will appreciate that we have nothing but good wishes and good will for the government of South Africa. We trust that before the fourteenth session of the United Nations comes around the change we hope for will have taken place.
The special political committee had before it for consideration a progress report of the United Nations emergency force to which reference has already been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. members will recall that this emergency force was formed very quickly in 1956 when the United Kingdom and France attacked Egypt and when Israel attacked Egypt at the same time. Within a very short time the force was in action separating the combatants. It has been there ever since, and during the past year it has done exceptionally good work. About 5,500 men are in the force at the present time. India has the largest number but Canada has the second largest contingent, about 1,000 men. All are under the command of Lieutenant General Burns who has been in charge of the force since it was organized.
The report showed that the force has functioned smoothly. General Burns himself was present and gave evidence and I recall him saying: "You can go to the demarcation line and you can see Egyptians on one side plowing their land and on the other side you can see the people of Israel going about their business." General Burns and his force were the recipients of congratulations from a great many delegates for the splendid work they had done since the force was established.
In addition to this we have another report from the secretary general of the United Nations. This was also referred to earlier this afternoon in support of the argument that there should be a permanent international police force. I have in my hand an advance text of the report of the secretary general which he calls a summary study of the experience derived from the establishment and operation of the force. This is a lengthy document containing approximately 75 pages and it refers in detail to all features of the experience of the United Nations emergency force. Actually it would seem
External Affairs
unwise for the secretary general and the staff to let the opportunity go by of studying carefully the various features of the operation of the emergency force: what were the defects of its organization and operation? But let no one think it is easy to keep the force going. In the first place it is difficult to get personnel. They are limited for you cannot take them from any permanent members of the security council nor from the countries that are concerned and the host country may have serious objections to any particular country that wishes to supply troops.
When it comes to the question of paying the shot toward the United Nations emergency force there are various matters to be considered. I could not help smiling this afternoon when the hon. member for Kootenay suggested that the force that was used in Korea might have been kept going. That would have cost billions of dollars instead of millions and I think it would have been extremely difficult if not impossible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I explain to the hon. gentleman that I did not intend to convey that meaning. I suggested that it could provide the foundation for such a force.


John Ferguson Browne: A foundation is something to build on and if you were to take the troops that were in Korea and build on them you would have a big army. I do not quite understand what the hon. gentleman meant.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was referring to the principle.


John Ferguson Browne: However, I know what he had in mind. The hon. member feels there should be a permanent force. That is what the secretary general attempts to discuss in this study but this report was never debated. We were to consider it in our committee but word got around that we were going to have an opportunity to discuss it before the general assembly. We went before the general assembly where the secretary general made another brief statement in which he gave some reasons why he made this study. He indicated that there was no need for the assembly or the committee to take further action. The president then did a strange thing. He said, "You have heard the secretary general and I suppose there is no one who wishes to speak," and so the matter was concluded and no one had anything to say about this valuable report. However, it has been compiled and is available and all those who are interested or concerned may obtain a copy and draw their own conclusions. In the meantime there is nothing to prevent General Burns or the secretary general from making further observations as

External Affairs
time goes on, although we must keep in the back of our minds this question: how long will the emergency force be an emergency force and how long will it stay there?
I am sure hon. members will agree that the action of the secretary general was dictated by wisdom. It would be unfortunate indeed if the experience gained during the past two years should be lost.
I do not know how much time remains at my disposal.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may continue for approximately five minutes.


William Joseph Browne: I did not
realize the time was going so fast. Another matter that we considered was the question of UNRRA-a most interesting subject-the United Nations relief and works agency in Palestine. Hon. members may recall that in 1948 the United Nations set up the state of Israel and as a result of the division of Palestine to provide for the establishment of that state there are now one million refugees in the four neighbouring countries of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The number of refugees in Jordan constitutes approximately 33 per cent of the population and they have been living in misery at the expense of some of the members of the United Nations. At this point it comes to my mind that the soviet bloc has not contributed one cent to the cost of the United Nations emergency force or to the cost of UNRRA. It costs $36 million a year to operate UNRRA and that must come from voluntary gifts from different members of United Nations.
This subject was particularly interesting because the Arabs felt that this was a United Nations problem. They seemed to be against any solution but one and that was that the refugees should be re-established in their homelands. They felt they should be sent back to Palestine and given their land back again. Israel, of course, does not want that. In the thirteenth session, for the first time, Israel made the offer to pay compensation to the dispossessed refugees. They did impose certain conditions under which compensation should be made but it was important to note that the offer was forthcoming. They also offered to take a certain number of the refugees who had relatives in the state of Israel. The chief spokesman for the refugees was Mr. Shukairy the representative of Saudi Arabia at the present time. I do not know if my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition knows him, but in very dramatic appeals-


Lester Bowles Pearson: He used to represent Syria in my day.


William Joseph Browne: Yes. He himself is a Palestine refugee. He made
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West).l
some very pathetic speeches in support of the refugees. The permanent representative for Israel and the ambassador to Canada were also present and spoke on behalf of Israel. It seems to me that the Israeli government having made the offer of paying compensation provided a basis on which to work. I feel that the governments of the countries where the refugees are now stationed should discuss with the government of Israel how this question could be resolved because each year the number of refugees is growing and the cost is $36 million annually. The acting director of the agency, Mr. Leslie J. Carver, said there were some bright spots. People who had been living winter and summer in tents, numbering hundreds of thousands, were now willing to accept permanent buildings which he thought was a good sign. Also, through a system of loans he was able to establish some people in business which was also helpful but he did not have enough money to carry this on on any grand scale. In any case, it was decided that the agency would carry on for this year but as the mandate of the agency will be up in 1960 it will be extremely important in the session that will take place next fall to try and find a solution to this very serious problem.
There was one subject discussed at the United Nations which seems to me merits some attention. The delegate from Czechoslovakia sponsored a resolution dealing with the question of peaceful coexistence between states but in the general committee which was appointed to consider the items this was amended to read, "Measures aimed at implementation and promotion of peaceful and neighbourly relations among states." I feel that most people prefer that language because "peaceful coexistence" is a mysterious expression which members of the soviet bloc are continually using. They have some meaning of their own which they apparently attach to those words. They appear to have a certain understanding of that expression. Members of the soviet bloc attached great importance to the debate on this subject in its original form. They attended with their speeches all prepared and delivered them despite the fact that there had been an amendment.
But it seems to me that is a subject on which we should be well instructed. It seems to me also that hon. members should remember that the aim of the communist countries is world domination. Communism was established by Lenin in 1917 with one object in mind, controlling the whole world. Even at that time he thought there were going to be revolutions in neighbouring countries such as Germany and offered assistance to them.

He thought that in his lifetime a considerable portion of the European area outside of Russia would become communist, and it was at that time that he rendered assistance to the people in China who formed the communist party of that country. The communist party in China still contains many of the original members. I am sure there must be 20 or 25 of the top brass in the communist party in China who learned their communism from Lenin or his immediate successor and of course a great many of them were sent to Paris to study communism in France. Chou En-Lai was one of those.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), Minister without Portfolio, will not expect me to comment on the speech he has just delivered. However I should observe, as the first speaker after him, that I was disturbed by his response to the intervention made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who said, while the hon. gentleman was speaking, "Better to talk than to fight." The minister replied: "I don't know about that". I should have thought that by this time-


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, may I make an observation? I do not think I heard what the hon. member for Kootenay West said. I did not realize what he had said until afterwards and it certainly was not my idea that it was better to fight than to talk.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was about to observe that it would be regrettable if any hon. member today, in the face of the tragic events that pursue us, took the view that we should resolve our disputes with other countries not by pacific means but by the use of force. The correction that the hon. gentleman has made is, of course, fully accepted.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) covered a wide front today. I thought I would deal tonight with one phase of the situation in the Middle East. Before doing that, I should observe that we might have taken advantage of this debate today to hear accounts of the experiences of some members of the government who in the course of their duties have visited foreign lands since the last session. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) made an extensive visit to the Far East and this might have been an appropriate occasion to hear about the conference which he attended and likewise some of the other experiences which were his during that trip. The Prime Minister
External Affairs
(Mr. Diefenbaker), of course, could not be in the house after the orders of the day because of an indisposition but, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said, we will look forward to a report from him on the tour he made not only to the Far East but to Europe as well, a report which at the beginning of the session he intimated would be given at the first opportunity when there was a discussion of international affairs.
Last August I decided, as some hon. members will remember, to make a private, personal trip to the Middle East to formulate some impressions and to gather information about a situation which at that time occupied our attention in the house, later in the United Nations, and which for some time after the month of September continued to occupy the attention of those who are interested in the easing of international tension in the peaceful relations of states.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Did the hon. member travel as the hon. member for Essex East or as minister of national health and welfare? There was a report came back about that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I could not very well travel as minister of national health and welfare.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There was a report came back.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are many reports. I hope by hon. friend will take advantage of the opportunity to improve his mind by engaging in some travel. In commenting on the Middle East today the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a number of observations. He said first of all that we can now look at the situation in that sector with cautious satisfaction. He also observed that on the Arab-Israeli front some unrest prevails, particularly on the Israeli-Syrian border. He further observed that we must continue to support the work of the United Nations in that area as an effective agency for providing peace and international collaboration.
Then he gave what I thought was a satisfactory account of the neutralist policy and neutralist tendency of certain countries in the area. I must say that I thought his statement with regard to the Middle East was one with which I would generally concur.
I went to the Middle East at a time when there was civil strife in Lebanon, shortly before the revolution in Iraq which had been marked in its initial stages by the assassinations of King Faisal and his prime minister, Nuri es-Said, events which had caused the government of the United States to dispatch marines to the shores of the Mediterranean at Beirut in Lebanon and Her

External Affairs
Majesty's government in the United Kingdom to send forces to protect King Hussein of Jordan and provide for stability in that little country. These events were discussed in this house, last summer, as indeed they began to be discussed in the United Nations on August 13 last.
I want to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his co-operation in facilitating my access to certain individuals in some of the countries I visited. I wish to acknowledge at once the co-operation I received from Canadian personnel in every place I went where we have missions. I visited Lebanon, the United Arab Republic, Jordan, Iraq and Israel. I was afforded the opportunity in all these countries to see the heads of governments and in all cases but one the foreign ministers and as well, of course, other individuals from whom I was able to gather impressions and ideas. I believe that the house would expect me to say something of these impressions and this journey.
In Lebanon the government of President Chamoun was one that had not been disposed during its tenure of office to give support to the over-all objectives as stated by President Nasser, both with regard to the matter of Arab unity and certain aspects of Arab nationalism as enunciated by President Nasser. President Chamoun, in the conversation which I was privileged to have with him, had no hesitation in affirming that he did not share the objectives of President Nasser nor his general policy toward the Soviet union. On the other hand, the present president of Lebanon, General Chehab, who had not yet been installed in office, told me that he felt that in the interests of Lebanon itself there should be support by Lebanon for the general purposes of Arab unity and Arab nationalism as stated by President Nasser. General Chehab indicated his desire to do everything that would assist in the establishment in fact, if not in law, of the neutral position which Lebanon feels she should occupy vis-a-vis Europe and vis-a-vis her sister Arab states.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs will remember that when he spoke on this question last summer he put forward the view that by some form of international guarantee an attempt might be made to bring about the neutralization of Lebanon. My view is that it is not possible to do so in the manner suggested, and that the best we can hope, for some time at any rate, is the sort of informal arrangement which General Chehab is now pursuing as president of the little state of Lebanon. There can be no doubt that President Nasser is the single, dominant

figure in the Arab world. While at the present time the lack of full accord between the government of Iraq under Prime Minister Kassam and President Nasser would seem to indicate that Prime Minister Kassam is undoubtedly a personality of the greatest significance in the area, I do not think that anyone will deny the great influence which President Nasser occupies generally throughout the Arab world.
I would not want the house to think any impressions I have are based solely on the talks which I had the privilege of having with President Nasser. However, undoubtedly one is influenced by one's conversations with individuals who have, at the moment, great authority in their respective countries. I would not be true to my impression if I did not say that I was impressed with President Nasser. This does not mean to say that I do not have great reservations with regard to some of his policies, but I think I should say in this attempt to be objective, trying to fully assess the problems of the area, that there has been some misunderstanding of his motives and policies. I am satisfied that while the commitments he has made to the Soviet union are great, those commitments do not amount to his acceptance of the communist ideology. Indeed, only a few days ago, at a meeting in Damascus with President Tito, he made clear what his position was with regard to communists, both in Syria, now an integrated part of the United Arab Republic, and in Egypt.
As a matter of fact, I think it could be established that the integration of Syria with Egypt was largely brought about because of the fear Syria had become dangerously committed to the Soviet union and that this form of union would be one method by which the dangers of such a commitment could be mitigated. In any event, I think that we will not serve the cause of peace if, in the absence of a careful assessment of the situation, we charge the present government of the United Arab Republic as being fully in sympathy with communist ideology. I am sure that that is not the case.
There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the United Arab Republic is receiving great assistance from the Soviet union. President Nasser told me that it was only after the refusal of the government of the United States to maintain its policy of financially assisting the Aswan dam project, its refusal to extend credit terms to Egypt to permit that country to buy wheat, the intervention by the government of the United States with regard to the volutary CARE program designed to feed the children of Egypt, that as a matter of last resort he appealed to the then Premier Bulganin, for assistance

from the Soviet union. I am sure that economic and other assistance will be welcomed by Egypt and other Arab countries from the United Nations or from individual governments.
But it was pointed out to me, both by President Nasser and by Dr. Fawzi, his foreign minister, that under no circumstances were gifts being received from the Soviet union, nor were they going to be solicited from any other quarter. What they wanted was satisfactory credit terms to enable them to make purchases. In any event, the situation now is that the United Arab Republic, and particularly Egypt, a country with a very low standard of living, does need assistance. The same impelling motives that caused us to give assistance to the countries of south and southeast Asia will, I am sure, cause us in due time, possibly through the intermediary of the United Nations, to give assistance under satisfactory conditions to undeveloped areas in the Middle East.
Indeed, President Eisenhower on August 13 did propose to the United Nations that there should be set up an Arab development institution for the purpose of providing economic assistance to the Arab countries. He indicated that the government of the United States would be prepared to give assistance through that body, an organ which should be operated by the Arab nations themselves and which should be based on a concept which they, themselves, should initiate. On this point President Nasser indicated, in welcoming the suggestion of President Eisenhower, that the Arab league itself had some two years before set up an institution of this very kind for the purpose of providing a vehicle to give assistance which might be given from any quarter. I have since examined this, and I find that it is true that the Arab league did set up such a body and at least one Arab country, Saudi Arabia, did make some contribution out of its resources toward the objective intended.
But I fully agree with what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, that there will have to come to that area, I would think through the United Nations and a body such as that suggested by the President of the United States, assistance for the people particularly in the transit countries to enable them to improve their standard of living. If we do not do that, what the Soviet union has begun to do it will continue to do on an increasing scale. Certainly no one could visit Bagdad, the capital of Iraq, as I did without seeing the evidence, even six weeks after the revolution, of the assistance being accorded by the Soviet union to that country, a country in population as great as
External Affairs
Egypt and economically more powerful because of its oil resources; a country that is now becoming the object of the attentions of the Soviet union on an alarming scale as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with his access to sources not now available to us, knows even better than I.
The west, whatever may have been the mistakes in the past, and I am sure we will all agree that there have been mistakes and misunderstandings, will have to recognize that it has an obligation to these people just as we have an obligation to certain other undeveloped countries of the world.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? It is this: Did he find in the president of the Arab republic any desire to move toward a less despotic and more democratic form of government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may say that I suggested to President Nasser that the Syrian parliament was no longer in existence. There was the statement of the former foreign minister, Mr. Batar of Syria, who had a notable part in bringing about the union, that there would be set a deliberative assembly of some kind at the earliest possible moment; and President Nasser did say, as he subsequently announced only about ten days ago, the intention to set up some form of deliberative body that would bring together not party opinion-because party opinion is not tolerated under the law-but some kind of body that would permit popular discussion under certain limitations. But I think I must say at once to the hon. gentleman that no one would pretend for a moment that with the high measure of illiteracy-almost 80 per cent-it is possible in those countries, basically feudal in character, to develop the kind of demoratic representative institutions that we have without great preparation. I think that we have to realize that one of the misconceptions under which we have suffered in the past is that we have thought that in the Middle East, and in the Arab countries in particular, it would be possible forthwith to establish democratic parliamentary systems such as our own. I am sure that is one of the misconceptions under which we have pursued our analysis.
The situation at the present time is that it would seem that the government of Iraq is not likely to give effect to the bold declaration of intended union with the United Arab Republic made by Prime Minister Kassam, with whom I was given the opportunity of conversation. It would seem that there is no likelihood, notwithstanding the

External Affairs
declarations made on the night of the revolution, that there will be any merger in the foreseeable future between Iraq and the United Arab Republic.
The house will recall that a few weeks ago Prime Minister Kassam caused to be dismissed from his government some five or six ministers, some of whom were protagonists of union with the United Arab Republic. The deputy prime minister, one of the leaders of the resolution, General Aref, has been found guilty of treason-and I believe his sentence has been already imposed-because it was alleged that he and some others had taken a strong stand once the new government was formed to bring about a union with the United Arab Republic.
I agree that it is no concern of ours whether or not Iraq joins with the United Arab Republic. That is not the point. I would say that if we want to give evidence of our good faith in this matter we should recognize that that is a decision that belongs to the people of Iraq and the United Arab Republic. It is a decision that belongs to the people and the governments of the countries concerned. By these observations I am not suggesting any form of intervention whatsoever.
Then the situation, of course, at the time was aggravated by the disturbed conditions in little Jordan, a country that is divided against itself, a country that was set up in 1921, with much artificiality I think, in spite of the great qualities of courage and adventure which the little king possesses, and which are serving as an important stabilizing factor at the present time. But Jordan, a country of about one and one-half million people, one-third roughly of whom are refugees-a country, as I say, that is divided against itself-is a key territory in the disturbed situation that prevails in this section of the Middle East.
When I was in the Middle East, everywhere I went the argument was made that King Hussein's regime could not last very long, and that we would see a combination of the forces of Iraq and of the United Arab Republic on the west bank, a situation which would provide for Israel important and dangerous security circumstances which would cause her to give careful consideration to the action she should take.
Since that time nothing serious has eventuated-and I agree again with the Secretary of State for External Affairs-because of the work of the secretary general of the United Nations in particular and the great authority

given to his endeavours by the resolution proposed by eleven of the Arab states some time about the middle of August at the special general assembly, and the wide support given to that resolution by the general assembly itself with, I think, only one abstention.
I come back to this point. I endeavoured in the small and limited way that I had at my disposal to impress upon those with whom I came into contact that the intentions certainly of Great Britain and those of the United States were honourable. We knew these countries and we wanted the Arab people to understand that there was no desire to impose any form of colonial control in any step or policy being pursued by western countries. I am satisfied that in order to impress that fact upon the people in the Arab countries we must realize that we have suffered under certain great misconceptions. It is often suggested that if President Nasser were overthrown and the Soviet union were rendered impotent, tranquility would reign in the area. That is a great misconception. We should remember that history and the mercurial temperament of the Arab countries, not President Nasser, are responsible for the churnings among the Arab people which are, in part, the product of empty stomachs and old resentments.
Then another misconception is that the Middle East can still be dominated by the traditional ruling classes that have held sway in that sector for centuries. I think it is true to say that the growing middle class is now more representative of the new aspirations and of the old resentments. Another misconception is that the Middle East is ready for representative government as we understand it. I dealt with that misconception a moment ago when I told the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) that I was sure that in comparing the freedom and the high standards of literacy we have with those obtaining in these countries and in thinking that we could expect them to have the same form of democratic government forthwith in the face of their long history of domination we were being unrealistic.
We would all hope, I am sure, that the work of scholars in the Middle East, of intellectuals and of responsible statesmen will result in the creation of the conditions which obtain in this country and in so many nations of the west. I believe that the United Nations has done its best work in the Middle East, on the political side. I wonder whether or not the interventions of the United States in Lebanon and of the United Kingdom in Jordan were wise. I understand the provocations; and the fears that spread throughout the world particularly after the incidents

in Iraq were perhaps understandable. Even President Nasser, while he did not agree with the dispatch of troops to these countries, looking upon that dispatch as a form of intervention that was the stamp and mark of the old colonial period, nevertheless recognized that there was no justification but, if I may use the word, that there could be some understandable provocation. I am sure that if the west has learned anything now as the result of the experiences in Lebanon and Jordan, it is that if there is to be any intervention hereafter that intervention should come not on the part of any one nation but by the United Nations.
That, I think, is the lesson of these last few months, and the record of achievement of the United Nations in the area confirms this. For we have in the United Nations emergency force under General Burns, which I visited in the Gaza strip and in the Sinai desert, the embodiment of a successful venture which I am sure must occasion satisfactory pride to the Leader of the Opposition because of the great part he played in its establishment.
Many thought that the way to bring about stability in Lebanon, in Jordan, even in Iraq, was the creation in the area of another paramilitary body, something like the United Nations emergency force. I think quite wisely the secretary general took the position that, certainly as far as Jordan was concerned, that was not possible or desirable. That might be a violation of article 2, the domestic jurisdiction clause, of the charter of the United Nations.
In so far as Lebanon was concerned, while that clearly was, at least in form, an international dispute involving an alleged infiltration from Syria of bodies and arms, the situation in Lebanon at that time did not lend itself to intervention, because of the successful work of another United Nations organization, UNOGIL, the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon, which I think completely rendered unnecessary even the further consideration of the establishment there of a paramilitary body.
I must say that until I saw President Nasser, and later Mr. Ben-Gurion, I myself wondered whether the reported formula which the secretary general had in mind would ever work in so troubled and so highly explosive an area. We all know what the formula was. There was to be established in Amman, the capital of Jordan, a representative of the United Nations; sometimes called, using the French word, "presence". His powers were vague. They were never defined. They were described, I believe, on
External Affairs
September 30 or thereabouts in the United Nations by the secretary general, but they were never properly defined, and many in high places in the Middle East told me, "We accept this recommendation of the secretary general, but it will never work in the face of the armed forces of the United Arab Republic, in the face of the forces of Israel and of the circumstances in Iraq."
The fact is that by patient negotiation and diplomacy, by winning the confidence of President Nasser and of Mr. David Ben-Gurion, the prime minister of that dynamic and impressive little state of Israel, the secretary general has been able to do what many so-called practical people thought at that time was impossible. Peace generally continues to reign, except principally for the state of affairs mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on the Syrian border. Peace reigns in the area. King Hussein's regime continues to assert its authority, true with the financial assistance of the government of the United States in terms of some $67 million provided annually. But nevertheless the dangers which existed on th west bank, the danger of aggression from any quarter, have thus far not taken place. I think the world owes to the secretary general its deepest gratitude for this high form of statesmanship, which of course establishes the United Nations in the minds of all people who follow its achievements as an organization so indispensable at this time to the preservation of peace in the world.
Mr. David Ben-Gurion, the prime minister of Israel, as I said a moment ago, is a most impressive man. I must say that I do not think there is anyone today at the head of any government in the world who made such an impression on me as did Mr. David Ben-Gurion. He said the other day that if he could only have an hour with President Nasser he was sure that he could resolve the dispute which exists between Israel and the United Arab Republic. I formulated the view, after seeing President Nasser, Mr. David Ben-Gurion, and talking to others, that it was wrong to insist, as so many people with the best of intentions had, that the conflict between Israel and Egypt was insoluble. I do not think that is the case. This may not be the moment, but I am not sure that it is not the moment to seek a solution. In any event, given the right set of circumstances and the right climate, taking into account facts as they are in Israel and elsewhere, and recognizing the problem of the million refugees in the Gaza strip and elsewhere, I am satisfied that this problem can be resolved. I believe Canada as a member of the United Nations, along with other

External Affairs
countries, and with proper initiatives taken at the right time, can play an important part in providing a solution to the Arab-Israel problem.
I am wondering now if the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not think it desirable to give consideration to the establishment of a mission in Baghdad. We have missions in Cairo, and we have raised the status of our missions in Israel and Lebanon; but it would seem to me that this is an area where we might do some useful mediation and reporting. I am of the view that there is an opportunity present now to try and confront this Israel-Egyptian or Israel-United Arab Republic or this Israel-Arab problem, depending on how you look at it. The armistice agreements of 1949 have on the whole provided a certain minimum of stability in the relations between Israel and the Arab countries. But they have not prevented periods of acute tension, as we were reminded today. These have at times erupted into actual military hostilities.
The Cyprus development suggests what many of us have long contended, that perhaps the only hope for basic improvement in what has become a chronic situation must be sought in getting the parties concerned to meet together and to work out a solution in direct negotiations. The Cyprus situation, too, involves strongly conflicting national ambitions and deep and bitter resentments, which were fanned by the winds of the cold war. But for the courage shown by the respective leaders of the Greek and Turkish people in agreeing almost at the twelfth hour to explore together in privacy and seclusion the possibility of a solution, the situation might already have moved toward irretrievable disorder.
The relative calm which, despite occasional outbursts of violent rhetoric on the part of certain of the Arab leaders, has marked Israel-Arab relations in the past months suggests that it may not be untimely to promote again the idea of direct talks between Israel and the Arabs. Canada once before actively associated itself with a proposal for such direct negotiations when, in December 1952, together with seven other countries it sponsored a resolution in that sense at the seventh session of the general assembly of the United Nations. I refer the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the resolution A/AC.61/L.23 revised 4, of December 10, 1952 in which, among other things, Canada reaffirmed the principle that the governments concerned have the primary responsibility for reaching a settlement of their outstanding differences, and with this

in view urged the governments concerned to enter at an early date, without prejudice to their respective rights and claims, into direct negotiations for the establishment of such a settlement, bearing in mind the resolutions, as well as the principal objectives, of the United Nations on the Palestine question, including the religious interests of third parties.
This resolution was adopted by a majority in the assembly's political committee. It failed, however, to receive the required two-thirds vote necessary in the special session of the general assembly. Since then there has been no further progress in this direction. I am impressed by moves of this sort. I do not want to exaggerate their importance, but they deserve our attention. They suggest that the time is right, or may shortly be right, for some new initiative on these lines. I believe that there are leaders of stature on both sides in the Arab world and certainly in Israel who have the vision, the courage and the statesmanship to see that an Israeli-Arab peace would bring untold benefit to the entire region and also, if the ground is suitably prepared, to take practical steps to that end. Obviously this is something which can not be forced, but I would hope that Canadian policy is directed to this objective.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and I notice that once again the United Nations expeditionary force attracted his attention. In this connection I think I should mention once again that it would be quite impossible for a force such as UNEF ever to intervene in a dispute. I am sure the hon. member for Essex East would agree. UNEF was able to establish itself successfully in the area because a way has been made for it. It was never a force which could forcibly intervene.
Hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) mentioned in this house on July 25, 1958 our need for the closest possible diplomatic relationship with the countries of the Middle East in order that Canadian views might receive full consideration by the governments concerned and in order that political and commercial relations might be strengthened and our knowledge and understanding of the area increased. It was for this reason we established a diplomatic mission in Iran last October, and in addition to recognizing the political importance of that country and that area of the Middle East and the favourable prospect of developing Canadian trade, we also acknowledged the

keen desire of Iran, which has had a mission in Ottawa for two and a half years, for closer relations with Canada.
We also strengthened our relations with other parts of the Middle East by appointing full time resident ambassadors to Lebanon and Israel. In the latter country, I am pleased to say, Canada is represented by our only woman ambassador, Miss Meagher.
The task of extending and improving Canadian and diplomatic representation abroad is a continuing one, presenting a problem in terms of trained personnel and of finance. There are, of course, other areas of the world which need to be considered. I am sure the government is fully conscious of the importance of Iraq in the Middle East scene and intends to keep the question under close review in the light of priorities which must be established between this crucial area and other countries and regions which are also of importance to Canada.
With regard to some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), may I say that I noticed he joined forces with the C.C.F. group and, as one hon. member was saying during the supper intermission, the Leader of the Opposition led the Liberal forces into the Red China bed with the C.C.F. We all hope the bed does not break.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned at some length a suggestion with regard to the formulation of a new group-a formal conference, I believe he called it-to deal with problems relating to the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, I wish the hon. member would explain what he means, because I made no such suggestions, nothing remotely approaching it.


Henry Frank Jones: If I understood the hon. gentleman right, he proposed that there should be a top level conference between the United States and Canada at which there would be set up an agreement or treaty which would have to be ratified by the legislative bodies of the two countries, and the purpose of this agreement, if I understood him correctly, was to establish certain principles which would govern the relations between the two countries.
I gathered from his remarks that he had in mind three types of principle. The first would be the definition of the manner of communication between the governments and the means of providing continued consultation on all questions of common interest. The second was a set of principles to cover matters of defence procurement and, thirdly, there was a set of principles relating to trade and commercial questions, looking forward, as the hon. gentleman described it, to very close and continuing economic interdependence.
External Affairs
If I have understood the Leader of the Opposition correctly, I must say that on the surface the suggestions of his may sound very attractive, but when one comes to consider the various commissions, committees and points of contact with the United States, both formal and informal, which already exist, it seems to me that he is adding to the confusion of the relationship between the two countries rather than otherwise. I am reminded of the story of the old farmer who brought in a hired man from a strange country who did not know much about horses. By the time he got through harnessing the horse could not be seen for the harness.
As I understood it, the first principle referred to by the Leader of the Opposition was with regard to consultation. Hon. members are aware that the normal channels used for consultation are those through which diplomatic business is conducted through our respective ambassadors. To this must be added the facilities for consultation at ministerial level on economic and trade matters and the recently formed ministerial council on defence, in addition, of course, to the many agencies I have already mentioned-commissions and so on, such as the fisheries commission-which deal with particular areas in which frequent consultation is desirable. Every piece of new machinery proposed must, I suggest, be examined with great care. I think that by adding to the existing arrangements one might give rise to the danger of losing control and finding that the channels of communication between our two countries have been clogged and confused rather than clarified. In short, I believe the hon. gentleman's proposal would result in the over-formalization of our relationship with the United States.
I was somewhat surprised at the length of time which the Leader of the Opposition devoted in his speech to this matter of Canadian-United States relations. I find it strange that at this time above all times when the free world is facing a compelling challenge the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) should have chosen to devote an extraordinary amount of time to the question of Canadian-United States relations. I am sure all hon. members of the house agree with me that we view the United States in a different light from what we refer to when we are dealing with a crisis brought about by the communists. I submit that the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition is one that would cause a loss of the flexibility and informality which now characterize the whole concept of our friendly relations with the United States. I noted that the Leader of the Opposition said in respect of our relations with the United

External Affairs
States that we should talk up, talk straight and if necesssary do more than talk. I cannot imagine what he might mean by that, whether he was referring to economic retaliation or worse, but that is what he said according to the reference I have.
It seems to me that in considering this matter, if we give too much weight to the few isolated points on which we have disagreement with the United States and set aside cognizance of the many points on which we enjoy a happy relationship it is tantamount to ignoring a healthy body to probe at a pimple. Indeed, although some of the areas of disagreement are great from time to time they are very small in comparison with the vast areas in which difficulties and problems are lacking in our relationship. Consultation is certainly an excellent objective and we are seeking to make it more and more effective but any country that adheres to democratic principles, I would submit, encounters difficulty in maintaining complete consultation.
Our public men in the United States and in Canada are not insulated from the people of the country or from the press. Indeed the government is not insulated from hon. members of this house who seek daily to ply its members with the penetrating questions that come up on orders of the day. In consequence of this there are bound to be occasions when one country gets out of public step with the other. The important thing is to recognize this concept and not automatically castigate the other nation when this happens.
The second set of principles mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition related to matters of defence procurement. In respect of this question I can merely say there has already been a very wide measure of consultation as to the setting up of principles. I mentioned in this house the other day that I find it difficult to see what sort of principles could be established that are not summed up by saying we will keep in constant touch with one another and actively seek to coordinate our defence production and defence procurement activities. It occurs to me that if we were to carry further the principle I have enunciated we would be in danger of placing our economic activities in a strait-jacket. Although it might be in accord with the views of the third party in this house it seems to me that the measure of control over private industry required by this proposal if carried further than the degree I mentioned would be unacceptable even to those in the Liberal party who share with us support of the free enterprise system.
The third principle mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition would, I take it, establish continental interdependence in trade and economic relations. Regardless of the desirability
of these principles I submit that there is difficulty in application. One of the first and most important stumbling blocks would be the acceptance and implementation of these principles in the United States. As my hon. friend is well aware the exercise of discretion by the executive in that country is limited by law and constitution in matters of trade and economic policy. For example, there are legislative applications concerning such matters as an anti-trust suit to which my hon. friend referred this afternoon. These applications leave little room for the exercise of discretion by the United States executive. With respect to the legislation on the disposal of surplus agricultural products and the clear indications we have had of points of view with respect to imports of petroleum and base metals, the legislative branch in the United States, as a part of the government, seems to play such an important role that agreement of the kind foreseen by the Leader of the Opposition would have to require a self-denying ordinance restricting that body's freedom of action.
Perhaps the more effective, less formal means of achieving that objective will be through the inter-parliamentary group recently established for in the legislatures of the two countries. There is an opportunity to learn and recognize how much we have in common and how serious it is for us if either country acts in a manner detrimental to the interests of the other.
I have a great deal more to say but I see that it is ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock it is my duty pursuant to unanimous consent given yesterday to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the motion now before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there has been any change in the program the house leader indicated last night or if it still stands?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we shall commence with third reading of the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act. We will then take the amendments to the National Housing Act and the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government still intends to proceed with the supply motion on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not know yet what the business will be on Wednesday. That is a long way ahead.


[Stage Direction]
At 10 o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 163
Paul Joseph James Martin: 1.	Did the Canadian government formally or informally approach the Japanese government with a view to initiating negotiations for a bilateral uranium agreement?
2.	If so, when did such negotiations begin?
3.	With what additional countries are negotiations for a bilateral agreement being conducted?
Answer by: Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary
of Slate for External Affairs):
1.	Yes.
2.	There have been preliminary conversations; the formal negotiations have not yet begun.
3.	The answer to this question, to the extent that it can be given at this time, will be found in the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs recorded on page 571 of Hansard for February 2, 1959. The negotiations being conducted with other countries are of a confidential nature and it would be inappropriate to refer to them
Questions
without the consent of those countries. However, the house will be informed whenever bilateral agreements are negotiated.


EURATOM
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Did the Canadian government formally or informally approach the european atomic energy community (EURATOM) with a view to initiating negotiations for a bilateral uranium agreement?
2.	If so, when did such negotiations begin?
Answer by: Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):
1.	Yes.
2.	February 10, 1959.


GOVERNMENT BUTTER HOLDINGS
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	What were the government holdings of butter as of May 1, 1957, May 1, 1958, December 31, 1958?
2.	How much butter was purchased by the government under the stabilization act during the calendar year 1958?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	May 1, 1957, 25,036,245 pounds; May 1, 1958, 25,194,071 pounds; December 31, 1958, 79,339,941 pounds.
2.	71,466,653 pounds.

Friday, February 27, 1959