1959-07-09

COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-70, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC    INQUIRY AS TO MEETING WITH PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he had a meeting with the premier of Quebec earlier this week and, if so, were university grants and hospital insurance questions discussed? If not, what questions were discussed?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is the custom when provincial premiers come to Ottawa to call on the Prime Minister. Yesterday the premier of Quebec as well as the premier of Manitoba and the premier of Nova Scotia called on me. As to the nature of the discussions, may I say that these were informal, in respect of which I have no report to make.



INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENTS BY FEDERAL TREASURY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is now in a position to answer the question I asked him yesterday about the payments made by the federal treasury to the treasury of Quebec.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: That answer will be provided in due course, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister
whether as a result of discussions among members of the cabinet, the Prime Minister and the premier of Nova Scotia it has been decided to have a royal commission make an inquiry into the coal industry? If so, will it be a federal royal commission or a provincial royal commission?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after the discussions have taken place, when government policy has been determined it will be brought to the attention of the house. I know the hon. gentleman will realize that until a decision is made the discussions in respect of possible decisions would not be revealed.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question arising out of the forecast by the Minister of National Revenue that such a widespread inquiry would be undertaken. Can the Prime Minister give the house and the people of Nova Scotia some idea as to when a decision will be made, and whether or not the government intends to follow the statement of the Minister of National Revenue that such an inquiry will be held?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have
nothing to add to what I have already said. When a decision is made it will be communicated to the house if the house is in session. If the house is not in session it will be announced in the usual way. No final decision in this regard has been made as yet; therefore any reply I might give to the question would be speculative and anticipative.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the Prime Minister saying that no decision has been made as to whether an inquiry into this important but lagging industry is going to be made?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made perfectly clear the situation in which the government is at this time with regard to this matter. In so far as the coal situation in Nova Scotia is concerned, this government has shown unusual interest and action.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising out of an announcement he made to the house on June 18, 1959, to the effect that

Inquiries of the Ministry Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was to begin immediately the final design and to plan for the early construction of a large scale atomic power station. The announcement was somewhat lengthy, but my question this morning concerns the choice of a site. Can the minister advise the house as to whether the site has been chosen for the location of the power plant?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, the site has not yet been chosen. This is not a matter which can be settled just in a day or two. The party chiefly concerned with the location of the site, I imagine, would be the Ontario hydro commission, because the power produced would be introduced into the Ontario grid; but as I mentioned on June 18, when I made the announcement, the federal government is concerned, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is concerned, the Ontario government is concerned, but the choice of a site would be made chiefly, I imagine, on the recommendation of the Ontario hydro electric power commission. They are making an examination of suitable sites, and in course of time we shall be hearing from them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Does the minister not realize that the perfect site for this power reactor would be the Blind River area, where there is lots of water, lots of rock and lots of uranium?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Some time ago Mr. Speaker rejected advertisements of that nature from one of our members who similarly had a very suitable site to recommend.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When did you reject that? CRIMINAL LAW



OBSCENE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur asked me a question arising out of an article in the Globe and Mail of July 8, 1959, referring to a judgment in connection with the alleged sale of an obscene book. The member asked me to inform the house what authority has determined or has the right to determine whether the book connected with that judgment is obscene.
I should point out that I have not seen a copy of the judgment. I have however had the opportunity to look at the press report, and it appears from the report that the magistrate in effect found the book to be obscene, but the accused was acquitted on other


grounds in connection with the provisions of section 150 of the Criminal Code.
The answer to the inquiry as to the authority having the right to determine whether a book is obscene is to be found in the Criminal Code and in the provisions of the Customs Act. Only the courts of Canada have the right under the Criminal Code to determine whether or not a book is obscene. Under the Customs Act, customs officers and the tariff board have the same right with respect to books being imported into the country, subject to an appeal now, which was provided last year, to the county or district court. So if there were an appeal the situation would then be that it is the courts of Canada that have final authority to determine whether or not a publication is obscene.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he tell the house what action his department is taking to provide shipping facilities to up-coast British Columbia communities which, because of an industrial dispute, do not have such service now?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we are not contemplating any action at the moment because we have great hopes that this strike will be over in the near future.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question. What does the minister intend to do? Is he making any plans in case the strike is not over in the near future?


George Harris Hees: We will face that eventuality when it arises.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government received a report from the civil service commission regarding increases in the salaries of civil servants?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have received a report from the civil service commission in this respect. However, the matter is not final as between the civil service commission and the government, because further discussions must be held with the commission on it

before I would be prepared to regard it as a final submission on the part of the commission to the government.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Does the government intend to act upon the said report before the end of the session, inasmuch as a supplementary estimate will be required?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if a decision can be made on this matter in time it will be communicated to the house in the usual way. At the present time the matter requires extensive inquiry and consideration.


George James McIlraith: That means no.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the decision taken by the NATO commander, General Norstad, to withdraw United States squadrons from NATO bases in France, was taken after consultation with all members of NATO, and if there was such consultation what was the attitude of the Canadian government in respect to this matter?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the decision was taken after consultation with the members of the permanent council. There has been no consultation as far as my department is concerned with respect to whether that decision should be taken.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what attitude was taken by our representative on the permanent council in respect to this very important matter?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: This, of course, is a matter of vital concern to all NATO countries. Certainly discussions have taken place, but I do not think it would be very helpful if I were to make any further comment on the question at this time.



CIVIL AVIATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether, in the interests of the future of civil aviation, the subsidy or grant of $100 currently paid to graduating
Inquiries of the Ministry students, flying schools and flying clubs will be continued beyond 1960? Has there been any indication that the government will withdraw such support?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. Both industry and government have for some time recognized that the federal grants for elementary flying training need to be reviewed because of changing technical conditions and requirements in aviation. The military portion of this grant was withdrawn some time ago, and the civil portion is under study. While no decisions have been reached, I feel that assistance in some form is likely to continue, though its nature and objectives may differ from the present scheme.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if he or his department has had any discussion with the government of Manitoba or any of the Manitoba authorities with regard to control of the level of lake Manitoba which, as the minister undoubtedly knows, has reached an alarmingly high figure.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The matter of the water levels of lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is lake Manitoba.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -is under constant watch by the department of northern affairs. There have been no discussions at my level but I have been informed of the high levels of the lakes.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I wonder if the hon. lady could tell us when the orders respecting the Chippewa Indian reserve at Sarnia will be brought down.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The staff has been working on the copying of these records,
5706	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry and I expected to have them some time this week. I will inquire as to the progress that is being made.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the hon. lady a question. In view of the immigration regulations as they now stand, is the hon. lady's department looking forward to welcoming the governor of Louisiana, who has announced a proposed visit to Canada?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Could the minister confirm that his request to the city of Toronto to consider alternatives in Moss park other than a low rental development resulted, as alleged in yesterday's Toronto Telegram, from representations made to him by the hon. member for Rosedale?


Howard Charles Green: Well, now, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure how many fishhooks there are in that question. The fact is that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation considers all redevelopment schemes with great care. They require a great deal of study. As the hon. member knows, some days ago a decision was made to go ahead with the clearance part of the project. In so far as the type of housing which is to be erected on the land is concerned, we have suggested to all parties concerned that they give further thought to the best use that could be made of the land under all the circumstances.
This is a matter upon which there have been various discussions and various representations made by all those who are interested, including the various members from the city of Toronto. My understanding is that at the present time these studies are under way, and eventually I hope it will be possible for the three levels of government to reach an agreement as to the type of housing that should be erected on this property. It is downtown property and, I understand, between two main highways. It is not in a desirable location for bringing up small children.
[Mrs. Fairclough.l


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister realizes that the purport of the question was to estimate just how influential representations are from certain members of parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: That is not the type of question the hon. member should expect to be answered.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the royal commission on freight rates. Would the Prime Minister give the house some idea of the progress the commission has made in obtaining a secretariat? Could the Prime Minister also say whether the royal commission intends to hold public hearings across the country and when, in view of the restriction as to time, the royal commission will get these hearings under way?


George Harris Hees: I shall answer this question. I was talking to the chairman of the commission a short time ago and he advised me he has got together a secretariat. He expects to be having an organization meeting of the commission the middle of this month and has been advised by many of the interested parties, the railways and other groups, that it will take them about two months to prepare their submissions. They requested that the hearings should not start until early September, and he has advised me that he plans to commence the hearings in early September.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether it is the intention of the royal commission to hold public hearings at various points across the nation, in western Canada, the maritime provinces and so on?


George Harris Hees: I have not discussed that particular aspect with the chairman. I assumed that probably would be his idea. I can assure the hon. member that this will be a very thorough inquiry.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the minister would again inquire of the commission whether it is their intention to have such public hearings across the country, and report to parliament with as much information on this matter as he can get?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Now that royal assent has been given to the measure, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to appoint parliamentary secretaries before the conclusion of this session?


John George Diefenbaker: Two or three weeks ago the hon. gentleman was advocating that the appointments be not made until next session, as I recall it. However, I think his zeal to have this answer will receive as early attention as possible.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the Prime Minister not realize that my zeal or interest in this matter is nothing to that of 24 of his friends opposite?


John George Diefenbaker: There again, Mr. Speaker, their interest is more impersonal than his.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether all differences have now been resolved between the province of Prince Edward Island and the government in the matter of the health insurance program, and when it is expected that the agreement will be signed, if that has not already been done within the past few hours?


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I think I informed the hon. member just the other day-yesterday or the day before-that this agreement would be signed in a very few days and that naturally negotiations had come to a successful conclusion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question was when would the agreement be signed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot say the exact date, but it will be in the near future.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Department and missions abroad-
76. Departmental administration. $6,319,803.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, in
opening my remarks today on the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs-
Supply-External Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid I have done so much talking in this house on veterans affairs in the last 24 years that I have become accustomed to referring to that department. However, my very old friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) objects strenuously to my interfering with his department. He is always annoyed when my old speeches when in opposition are quoted at him when he is putting his estimates through, so probably it is because of a guilty conscience that I spoke of the Department of Veterans Affairs. In any event, I will try another start.
In opening the discussion on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs I am deeply conscious of the sadness of the fact that the late Hon. Sidney Smith is not here to carry on with these estimates for which he had been responsible and in the presentation of which, some months ago, he had done so well. During the time I have been the minister of this department I have had confirmation of my opinion that Sidney Smith was making a great contribution to public life and was about to become one of the great foreign ministers in the world.
We all realize what a tragedy it was that he was taken from us so suddenly and perhaps the best way in which we can show our feelings in this regard is to keep in mind the unselfish contribution he made to the welfare of his fellow Canadians when he left such an important post in university life to enter the hurly-burly of political life. And he did so, I know, in the hope that he would be able to do something to further the cause of world peace. I shall be trying at all times to keep in mind the example he set in this department.
Before I go on to deal with foreign affairs I should like to thank the members of the House of Commons once again for the very kind reception they have given me today and for the encouragement they have given in the last few weeks. This is most helpful, and there has been similar encouragement from many other sources; for example, from Canadians in all walks of life and in all parts of the country. And it has been somewhat of a surprise to me to realize how deeply Canadians today are interested in what goes on beyond the borders of our nation, though I suppose one should have realized that that would be the case because of the terrific issues at stake in external affairs in a nuclear age. Certainly I have no doubt that Canadians today are very much concerned over the part their nation is going to play in world affairs and, in particular, over the part their nation will play in furthering co-operation among all the nations of the world.

Supply-External Affairs
I have also had understanding and encouragement from the representatives in Canada of other nations. Members of this house-and I include myself in that group-[DOT] sometimes do not realize that we have here leading men from all over the world, men who have made a success in their own country and who have come here to represent their nations. Each and every one of them is a friend of Canada, and each and every one of them has a great contribution to bring to the public men of Canada with whom they come into contact.
There has not yet been time for me to have a long talk with each of the ambassadors and high commissioners, but I have been able to talk to quite a few and in every case I have learned a great deal and have been greatly helped as I approach the problems confronting a minister of foreign affairs in Canada. I hope that from time to time it will be possible to meet these representatives in other places, perhaps at the United Nations or at NATO conferences or in their own homelands, and I would suggest to members of this house that they should lose no opportunity to get acquainted with the ambassadors and high commissioners, and the staffs of the various missions in Ottawa, in order not only to show that we are friendly to other nations of the world but also to learn, as leaders of the Canadian people, more of what is being done and more of the aims and ideals of those nations which are so ably represented in Ottawa.
Also, Mr. Chairman, as I expected, I have received very great help from the officials of the Department of External Affairs. They have had the difficult task of beginning the education of a new minister. There have been many memoranda prepared. Perhaps most of them would not have been necessary if I had been doing my homework during the last 24 years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You were doing your home work.


Howard Charles Green: In any event, the relationship between us has been very happy, and here again I doubt whether many members of the house have a clear idea of just what these Canadians are doing for their country. Two days ago I attended the annual picnic of the Department of External Affairs, and yesterday I attended the annual picnic of the Department of Public Works. In fact I am getting to be quite good at picnics. But at that picnic the families and particularly the children of these men who have represented Canada in places all over the world gave me a much clearer picture of what they are doing. One little girl, seven or eight years of

age, speaks four languages and I expect that before very long she will be learning a fifth.
Then there was a foot race on snowshoes for the heads of divisions; that is to say, for the men who are giving the leadership here in Ottawa in the Department of External Affairs. After seeing them in action I am convinced of their great vitality and vast speed, and I think the winner and the runner-up are very well qualified to be appointed ambassadors in Antarctica. These men and their families are great Canadians, probably more so from the fact that abroad, in these various countries, they have spoken for the people of Canada. I have the utmost confidence not only in the work they are doing now but in the work they will do in the years ahead.
In the external affairs debates I hope it will be possible to have frank discussion. The department would be very glad to have the suggestions and criticism of hon. members, provided there are not too many bricks in the criticism. There are a great many members of the House of Commons who are now well qualified to express opinions on external affairs. I think of those hon. members who have served on the standing committee on external affairs, which I believe is the topnotch committee of the commons. Many hon. members have been taking part in these committee meetings for a great many years and some have learned a great deal about external affairs. They are therefore in a position to make worth-while contributions in the debates in this house.
I think also of those hon. members who have participated in various conferences, for example, at the United Nations. Quite a large number of hon. members have taken part as delegates, alternates or observers, and there will be more going to New York in September. We plan to have observers, for example, from the two opposition parties in the usual way. There have been others taking part in NATO conferences. In fact, whenever I notice an empty desk in this chamber on the government side I wonder if the occupant who should be there is not in Paris, London, Ankara or somewhere else abroad attending a NATO conference.
I am sure these conferences are very enjoyable, but in addition to that they are beneficial to Canada and qualify the members who attend to give worth-while opinions here on the floor of the house. Just a week or two ago we had the interparliamentary conference attended by representatives from the United States congress and from our own parliament.

The hon. members who took part in that conference are also in a position to make a contribution here today, and I hope some will do so.
I would prefer to be able to speak today without notes or with very scanty notes. However-and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will confirm my findings in this regard-this seems to be a heinous offence from the point of view of the officials of the department, and they are most insistent that one's remarks should be very carefully weighed and that extensive notes should be used. I must admit that I have lost out in this battle and appear here today with a few notes from which I propose to read. I hope hon. members will bear with me, because I know just as well as they do that it is extremely difficult to read remarks and keep people awake. Perhaps, however, we will be able to do a little better in that regard this morning.
The first subject I plan to discuss is the Geneva conference. I am aware, as you are, Mr. Chairman, that Canadians have been following with close attention the course of the foreign ministers' discussions in Geneva. As hon. members know, the foreign ministers' conference adjourned on June 20 and will resume its sittings next Monday, July 13. It is disappointing that no agreement was reached during the six weeks of negotiations, but at the same time one should not underrate the benefits of the discussions which took place. The attitudes of both sides have been clarified, and there are some common elements in the proposals advanced on the Berlin issue which might possibly lead to progress.
This has been a period of re-examination for the west, both with respect to the attitude to be adopted in further discussions and with respect to the question as to whether the present discussions might usefully lead to a summit meeting. The United Kingdom, the United States and France, as the western negotiating powers, together with the Federal Republic of Germany, are examining the records of the discussion and are consulting to determine how best to proceed in the hope of making some progress. In addition- and this is important to Canada-to participation in consultations with the negotiating powers which are taking place in the NATO council, in which consultations, of course, Canada is at all times represented, the Canadian government will shortly have the opportunity of discussing these matters with the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Christian Herter. As I announced in the house yesterday, Mr. Herter will be here on Saturday.
Supply-External Affairs
It is to be hoped that during the period of recess of the foreign ministers' conference the Soviet leaders will come to realize that nothing is to be gained by an attitude of challenge and impatience. If progress is to be made it will be necessary for the east-west talks to be conducted in an atmosphere free of implied threats or peremptory demands.
As hon. members are aware, the Canadian government has consistently supported proposals for negotiation with the Soviet union on the question of Berlin, and on other issues. Since in this thermonuclear age war is unthinkable, there is no alternative to negotiation for the solution of these problems. In our view negotiation implies a preparedness on both sides to do more than exchange views across the conference table. Each side must go some way to meet the basic interests of the other. If it is possible to arrive at some settlement on the Berlin question, the way should be opened for the solution of broader problems.
For these reasons we have watched with satisfaction the patient and determined efforts of the three western negotiating powers at Geneva to find some basis for reaching agreement. We commend the willingness shown by the western powers to make modifications concerning the terms of their presence in Berlin, which take account of expressed Soviet concerns. At the same time we support the principle, on which the western powers have been united, that no agreement would be acceptable which placed in jeopardy the security of Berlin or the freedom of its citizens, or which could have the effect of foreclosing the prospect of the reunification of Germany. Unfortunately, circumstances do not seem propitious for great or sudden progress on the basic problem of reunification. This should not, however, preclude us from attempting to create an atmosphere in which reunification can more easily be brought about.
Where the resumed foreign ministers' conference will lead us cannot now be predicted. The Canadian government has held to the view that progress toward settlement of some international issues might be achieved by discussions amongst heads of government, in other words at a summit conference. It is the hope of the Canadian government that such a meeting can be arranged. Then there may prove to be subjects other than those relating to Germany and Berlin-I mention the suspension of nuclear tests and the peaceful use of outer space as examples-on which progress could be made by high level discussions. At this stage, I think as few preconditions and prior stipulations as possible

Supply-External Affairs should be placed in the way of a summit meeting. For example, there have been signs of some difference of opinion on the question of who should participate in a summit conference, and there are indications of a trend to increase participation. In the judgment of the Canadian government this is not likely to be a helpful development.
The suicidal prospect of global war must be apparent to all nations, and the need of finding some alternative for the settlement of differences must recommend itself to all statesmen. For a middle power such as Canada, with brilliant prospects of development, the international tensions which keep alive the threat of a nuclear holocaust are in themselves especially significant. The speed with which our hopes and prospects can be realized, however, will depend to an important degree upon the international atmosphere. We must work, within the western alliance of which we are a member, toward a reduction of tension if we are to be free to devote a greater part of our national talents and energies to constructive Canadian development.
Through NATO Canada is able to work intimately with the United Kingdom, the United States and the 12 European member states in the formulation of policies and attitudes which are designed to facilitate progress toward a settlement of some of the highly complicated issues dividing east and west.
Today NATO takes stock of the past decade and the plans for the years ahead. Nothing that can be seen on the horizon suggests or permits the luxury of a slackening in the preparedness of free nations. The need for vigilance and unity is as imperative now as at any time during the past decade. It is imperative not only for reasons of our security but also in the context of our never-ending search through diplomacy for peaceful solutions to the problems dividing the world today.
The presence of Canadian forces alongside their friends from the United Kingdom, the United States and Europe is both an earnest of Canadian intentions and an important cause of the respect accorded Canada in the daily conduct of international affairs. I might mention, in connection with the stationing of Canadian forces in Germany, that the negotiations concerning supplementary arrangements governing their status in that country have recently been concluded, and that signature is expected to take place next month. I regret that as the house will, I hope, have risen by that time, it will not

be possible to table the documents, but this will be done early in the next session of parliament.
Even though the initial emphasis in NATO was on military requirements, the members of the alliance have recognized the fundamental community of interests and aspirations shared by all parties to the treaty, and have fostered through the years the development of an Atlantic community of like-minded nations and peoples. Today, when the threat to the free world is not only military but economic, political and psychological, Canada is playing its part in stressing the need for consultations between member governments in the development of both the military and non-military aspects of the alliance. Support for NATO remains an essential cornerstone of Canada's foreign policy.
It is natural enough, Mr. Chairman, that with Her Majesty, by happy circumstance, in Canada when this debate takes place, the commonwealth and Canada's place in it should be foremost in our minds at this time. I recall with satisfaction the useful exchanges of views which have taken place here in Ottawa in recent months with a number of commonwealth leaders. In March we had the pleasure of welcoming the United Kingdom Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, and foreign secretary Selwyn Lloyd, and I would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the important part they have since played in preserving the unity of approach of the western powers in the difficult negotiations that have been carried on at Geneva. We have, in addition, had the privilege of welcoming here the Prime Minister of Australia and cabinet ministers or other distinguished representatives of India, the West Indies Federation, Pakistan and, only last month, Nigeria.
One has only to recite the far-flung territories from which these visitors came to be reminded of the vast compass of this friendly association of nations which continues to exercise a beneficent influence on the affairs of all mankind. It is an association, moreover, which is never static but constantly expanding and evolving as former dependent territories take their place in orderly progress as free and independent members of the commonwealth. As a member of the commonwealth we are justly proud of its record in facilitating the constitutional development of its members. For example, very recently we had the opportunity of welcoming a further step in this direction and yet another member, Singapore.
Similar developments are taking place today in another most important area of the world, Africa. In the welter of news reports

about problems and stresses in various parts of that continent I am afraid there has been a tendency to overlook a significant and happy commonwealth event in Africa. I am referring, of course, to the fact that recently powers of self-government passed to the populous northern region of the federation of Nigeria, thus completing the internal political evolution which is to culminate on October 1, 1960, when the large and important nation of Nigeria is scheduled to obtain independence.
I am happy to say that both the Prime Minister of the federation and the premiers of the regions have expressed the intention to remain in the commonwealth. I am sure all hon. members will wish to join with me in expressing to the Nigerian leaders and to the United Kingdom government congratulations for their respective parts in this welcome event. The Canadian government hopes to be in a position to establish suitable diplomatic representation in Nigeria and to take similar action with respect to the federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland as soon as circumstances permit.
It will be appropriate, I think, if I should say a word or two here about the assistance which Canada has been giving in recent months to the less developed countries under the various programs which have been established for this purpose, especially since most of Canada's assistance has gone to our partners in the commonwealth family. I refer, of course, to the Colombo plan. If the commonwealth association is to continue to have the meaning it now has, it is important that the less developed countries of the commonwealth should continue to be able to count on the active sympathy and support of those of us who are in a more fortunate position.
Since my predecessor last reviewed the position we have been able to carry to a successful conclusion our discussions with Pakistan and Ceylon with respect to their share of the Colombo plan appropriation voted by parliament for the fiscal year 195859. As a result of these discussions we have now agreed that $13 million in the form of Canadian commodities and equipment will be made available to Pakistan and $2 million to Ceylon.
Under the Pakistan program we have agreed to provide a further $2 million worth of wheat in addition to the $2 million of which the house was informed last November. The amount of $2,800,000 will be devoted to the provision of industrial metals which are urgently required for the industrial sector of the economy to help maintain reasonable levels of industrial activity and employment. Some $650,000 will be made available in the form of wood pulp which is required for a new newsprint mill being 66968-9-362
Supply-External Affairs constructed by a Canadian engineering firm. Then $120,000 will be provided for the purchase of pesticide spraying equipment and $200,000 for the purchase of three Beaver aircraft to help with the eradication of crop pests. The sum of $500,000 has been set aside to provide spare parts and to finance the cost of overhauling the equipment which has been used in the construction of the Warsak dam, and which will be turned over to the government of Pakistan as and when it ceases to be required on the project. An amount of $1,100,000 has been allocated to the construction of a transmission line from Karnaphuli to the port of Chittagong in east Pakistan. The balance of $3,630,000 available from the $13 million set aside for Pakistan is being allocated tentatively to two new projects, one in the construction field and the other aimed at creating additional electrical generating capacity in Pakistan.
Turning to the Canadian aid program in Ceylon, the government has approved an allocation of $710,000 to finance the continuation of the aerial photographic and resources survey which a Canadian firm has been carrying out in Ceylon under the Colombo plan. A second project, which has been tentatively selected, covers the construction of transmission lines in an area in the development of which Canada has already had an opportunity to participate.
We have also completed discussions with a number of non-commonwealth countries, notably Indonesia, Burma and Viet Nam, out of which has emerged a program that will absorb about $2 million of the Colombo plan appropriation voted by parliament for 195859, the last fiscal year. This program comprises the provision of Canadian foodstuffs, Canadian participation in a highway survey and a bridge building project in Burma and the supply of prospecting equipment to Burma and of three Otter aircraft to Indonesia to assist that country in the development of its widely scattered island economy.
We hope shortly to be able to commence discussions with our Colombo plan partners about the program to be financed out of our contribution for the present fiscal year, 195960, which as the house is aware will be increased from $35 million to $50 million. There are, however, two projects to which I might refer briefly today because they are projects of a regional nature which, because of their importance and the very substantial benefits that are likely to flow from them, have attracted wide interest and support from countries other than Canada.
The first of these is the Mekong river project, about whcih my colleague the Minister of

Supply-External Affairs Finance provided information to the house on March 12. I am glad to be able to say that the arrangements for Canadian participation in this project are moving ahead rapidly and that we expect the photographic surveying of the Mekong river basin, which as hon. members know affects several different nations, to get under way before the end of the year. In working out these arrangements we have had the benefit of the full and enthusiastic co-operation of the riparian states and the executive agent whom the United Nations has placed at their disposal to help with the administration of the project.
The second project about which I think the house would wish me to say something at this stage relates to the development of the Indus waters system. As the house is aware, the apportionment of the waters of the Indus system is one of the residual problems that has been left over from the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. This problem has been a source of continuing difficulty between India and Pakistan, and efforts to solve it had proved to no avail. Some years ago, therefore, India and Pakistan agreed to refer this problem to the international bank to see whether the officials of the bank could devise a solution which would be at once economically feasible and politically acceptable to them.
As a result of the negotiations that have been conducted under the bank's auspices, the elements of a solution have now emerged in terms of an engineering program that would safeguard the interests of both countries. The bank has asked the governments of Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States whether they would be prepared to cooperate in the implementation of this program, which is expected to extend over a 10-year period. The Canadian government agreed in principle to participate in the program that has been drawn up by the bank, on the understanding that the funds required for this purpose would be provided as part of our increased Colombo plan contribution. I am confident that the house will endorse the government's view that it is in Canada's interest to help in the solution of a problem which has stood in the way of better relations between two of our commonwealth partners in Asia.
One final commonwealth development certainly deserves mention here. At the commonwealth trade and economic conference held in Montreal last year a commonwealth scholarship scheme was agreed to by the governments there represented. It was envisaged that in time there might be as many as 1,000 commonwealth students studying under the auspices of the scheme in commonwealth


countries. At Montreal, Canada undertook to be responsible for one quarter of this total, or about 250 places at any one time. The cost of this commitment to Canada is estimated at about $1 million annually.
As I informed hon. members last week, detailed discussions about the implementation of the proposed scholarship scheme will take place at a commonwealth education conference to be held from July 15 to July 29 at Oxford; in other words, it starts next Wednesday. The purpose of this conference is to work out the scope and detailed arrangements of a commonwealth scholarship scheme. In addition, however, the conference will have a wider mandate:
-to review existing arrangements for commonwealth co-operation in the- field of education and to make recommendations for any improvement or expansion that may be possible, particularly in regard to the supply and training of teachers.
On July 3 I announced to the house the composition of the Canadian delegation to the commonwealth education conference. I indicated at the time that members of the delegation would be required to leave for the United Kingdom over the week end and that accordingly I foresaw some difficulty in adding representatives to the delegation at that stage. However, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggested that there should be a representative from a teachers' federation, and I am glad to tell the house today, as I have already been able to tell the hon. member, that through the good offices of the Canadian teachers' federation it has been possible to add Mr. G. A. Mosher to the delegation as a teachers' representative from the province of Nova Scotia.
Turning to our relations with our neighbour and good friend, the United States, I shall endeavour to confine my remarks to certain matters which are of current interest. Within the past two weeks a signal event occurred when the President of the United States joined with Her Majesty the Queen at the opening ceremonies of the St. Lawrence seaway. It was a happy occasion, and the importance of good relations between the two countries was underlined by the realization of what could be done to the advantage of both in co-operation. The personal and friendly relations which existed among Her Majesty, the President, the Prime Minister and the ministers of the two governments- and I might add the Leader of the Opposition and other very responsible citizens of Canada and the United States-were evident as together we took part in the opening ceremonies and other events of that day. It seemed to me that in many ways we were paralleling the experiences of numerous

families, business firms, service clubs and other organizations in our friendly approach to matters of common concern.
A particular parallel is, of course, present in my mind. The opening of the St. Lawrence seaway was chosen as a convenient occasion for a meeting of the legislators of the two countries, to which I made some reference in opening my remarks. May I take this occasion to pay tribute to the members of the interparliamentary group who examined together many of the facets of the relations between the United States and Canada, and whose serious and constructive approach will, I am sure, be reflected in discussions of matters affecting the two countries as these are dealt with from time to time in our respective legislative bodies. A sound basis of understanding one another's points of view together with an objective attempt to determine what is the real national and international interest in each question will, I am sure, pay untold benefits.
The boundary water problems between the two nations are receiving urgent attention, especially that concerning the development of the waters of the Columbia river basin, a problem to which the international joint commission has been devoting active consideration for some years. In January of this year, 1959, the two governments requested that the commission should report specifically and quickly with respect to the principles which might be applied by governments to two matters; first, the calculation of the benefits accruing in the downstream country in consequence of the storage and regulated release of water in the upstream country; second, the allocation between the two countries of these benefits.
Although no formal report has so far been made to governments by the commission, the chairmen are keeping their respective governments informed of the course of their deliberations. As hon. members are aware, the commission does not maintain an independent staff. Accordingly the facilities and the personnel of government departments and agencies of the United States, Canada and also of the province of British Columbia have been placed at the disposal of the commissioners. I am confident that it will be possible for the commission to report soon recommending principles which will be acceptable to the governments concerned. Such principles, with respect to the determination and division of benefits, should reduce materially the period required for completion of an international agreement.
The immense volume and complexity of Canada-United States economic and commercial relations inevitably create many difficulties and problems. These receive a great 66968-9-362J
Supply-External Affairs deal of publicity which sometimes tends to obscure the fundamental fact that our mutual economic relations are on the whole extremely profitable and advantageous to both sides. This is the starting point from which we must examine the particular, and often very important, difficulties which turn up from time to time, such as questions arising from the operation of Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies and, related to this, the problems sometimes encountered in the attempted extraterritorial application of United States legislation and policy.
I have in mind such matters as United States anti-trust proceedings and the effect of United States commercial or strategic policy on Canadian subsidiary companies. We have also had problems in our various agricultural sales and disposal policies and in connection with restrictions or limitations by one country on imports from the other. Such problems are a continuing and natural consequence of our closely interlocked economies. They are not problems which are susceptible of any general or final solution, and genuine differences in our interests must be faced frankly; but I believe most of these problems can be met to the mutual satisfaction of the two countries if we continue to tackle them in a spirit of good will and friendly cooperation, always bearing in mind the great mutual gain arising from our commercial and economic dealings with each other.
I am particularly pleased to be able to say that in recent months there have been a number of very important developments or decisions in the United States which have favourably affected Canadian interests and have reflected a responsible and co-operative attitude in the United States toward relations with Canada and other friendly countries. I have in mind, for example, the modification of the United States oil import provisions, as they affected Canadian oil transported by land; the removal of obstacles to transit shipment of certain goods-including, I think, canned shrimp-and the favourable modification of "buy American" requirements on United States defence orders.
Another recent example which was of particular significance to Canada was a ruling of the office of civil and defence mobilization that imports of large hydroelectric turbines and other related electrical generating equipment would not endanger the national security. As a consequence of this ruling a Canadian company will share in a very substantial contract for turbines to be installed at the Big Bend dam on the Missouri river in South Dakota. These are all matters on which we have had direct and friendly
5714	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs discussions with the United States authorities, and the outcome indicates what can be achieved by this means.
Similarly, our defence relationships with the United States continue to be close. These relationships stem from an identity of interest in the face of the possibility which exists, by reason of technological advances in modern weaponry, of a devastating attack on our two countries. Neither country can defend itself effectively in the face of such a threat without the co-operation of the other. This collective approach to the problem of continental defence is but one segment of a much wider collectivity of effort through the NATO alliance.
The military planning of joint defence activities and the implementation of specific projects in this field are of primary concern to the Minister of National Defence, who reported fully to the house during last week's defence debate. I shall not, therefore, comment on these strictly military aspects of our defence co-operation with the United States. I would, however, like to speak briefly on the other important factors which influence that co-operation. Our identity of interest with the United States in the defence field does not preclude our differences of emphasis on policies designed to serve our common objective. It is for this reason that the Canadian government insists that we be consulted regularly and fully by the United States government on a wide range of developments throughout the world which might bring with them the possibility of armed conflict.
In our bilateral dealings on defence matters with the United States the Canadian government does not hesitate to assert the requirements of Canadian sovereignty. Canadians are convinced, I am certain, that the best physical protection of our sovereignty lies in co-operative continental defence arrangements. Canada must insist, however, that such co-operation shall not jeopardize the political and economic objectives of our own nation.


The Chairman:: I regret to interrupt the minister, but I must inform him that his time has expired. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the minister be allowed to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: Once again, Mr. Chairman, may I express appreciation for the kindness of hon. members in giving me further time.
Most of us are inclined to overlook the fact that we have another great neighbouring state, the Soviet union. As has been mentioned on more than one occasion in this house,


Canada has a special interest in its relations with the Soviet union. Together our northern boundaries account for the major part of the coast line of the Arctic ocean. We share a deep interest in problems of northern development, transportation and communication across a large land mass, the exploitation of basically similar timber, mineral, agricultural and other resources. As a consequence, each has much to gain from drawing upon the other's experience.
In recent years interchanges between our two countries, particularly in the scientific, cultural and technical fields, have increased in a limited but encouraging way. The appearance in Toronto and Montreal only a few weeks ago of the famed Bolshoi ballet is a pleasant manifestation of this development. Exchanges of delegations and information are continuing in a variety of other fields.
The developments which have been taking place in Canadian-Soviet relations are in large part a reflection of the Soviet union's emergence into more active participation in the affairs of the world community. It has been in only comparatively recent times that the Soviet union has begun to take an active part in many of the agencies of the United Nations, at world conferences in various fields of science and technology and in such international co-operative ventures as the international geophysical year. Canada has welcomed this evidence of the Soviet union's desire to take up some of the heavy obligations which fall to a great world power.
Turning to a more remote corner of the world, I should like to say something about Indochina, where Canadian civilian and military officers continue to serve on two of the three international commissions which were set up by the Geneva agreements in order to maintain those agreements. I shall begin with Laos where, the committee will recall, the international commission adjourned sine die in July, 1958, following the conclusion of political and military agreements between the Laotian government and the dissident Pathet Lao.
Since the beginning of this year, when it was reported that north Viet Namese troops had crossed into Laotian territory as a result of border disputes, the situation in Laos has attracted some degree of public attention. There have been more recent troubles in Laos caused by the refusal of two battalions of the ex-Pathet Lao-I am not sure of my pronunciation, Mr. Chairman -to accept terms for integration into the Laotian army, which was provided for by the military agreement reached between the Laotian government and the former Pathet Lao in November, 1957. One of the battalions later accepted integration. The other refused

to do so and is now dispersed at the border of north Viet Nam. However, the situation has improved recently and the Laotian government issued a communique stating that this affair can now be regarded as closed.
The difficulties in Laos prompted numerous requests for reconvening the international commission for Laos, of which, as hon. members know, Canada is a member. The Canadian position, as stated by the right hon. Prime Minister in the house on May 8, is that Canada cannot agree to any commission action which would infringe upon Laotian sovereignty. The Laotian government is understood to be opposed to the reconvening of the commission, but has pledged itself to uphold the Geneva cease-fire agreement. We are in continuous touch with the Indian and United Kingdom governments on this question-India being another member of the commission, with Poland the third member- and we are watching Laotian developments closely.
As to Cambodia, it was stated in the house on July 25, 1958 that an adjournment formula similar to that used in Laos might be applied to the Cambodian commission. This has not proved possible, although efforts in this direction are continuing and the strength of the Cambodian commission has been reduced to a minimum.
In Viet Nam, the tension between south and north has not abated, unfortunately, and the Viet Nam commission-on which Canada is also represented, as she is on the Cambodian commission-continues to perform a valuable task in maintaining stability in the area. However, we hope that it might be possible to effect a reduction of the strength of the Viet Nam commission which would not impair its effectiveness.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the way in which India has fulfilled the difficult role of chairman of the three international commissions. Our work together in Indochina has been and will, I am sure, continue to be one of beneficial co-operation.
The policy of the Canadian government toward relations with communist China was examined at some length by the late Hon. Sidney Smith last February, and I do not intend to restate it here. Hon. members will find that statement commencing at page 1405 of this year's Hansard. The Peking authorities, however, do not make things any easier for us. Last year, for instance, when the Chinese question was being discussed in the United Nations, it had to be done against a background of communist attack on the nationalist-held islands of Quemoy and
Supply

External Affairs Matsu. More recently there has been the repression of Tibet, the attempt to tamper with its way of life, extinguish its religious values and destroy its autonomy. These actions are not conducive to the peaceful relations which we should like to have with the Chinese people. Let us hope that the situation in that respect will improve.
Finally, Mr. Chairman-last but by no means least-I have a few comments to make with regard to Canada and the United Nations. This is the season of the year at which foreign offices throughout the world begin to turn their attention to the annual general assembly of the United Nations. It is an opportune moment at which to give hon. members an account of some of the accomplishments of the agencies of that organization during the period since it last met in plenary session, and to give some thought to matters to which its attention will be devoted at the forthcoming fourteenth session.
First there is the matter of disarmament. Hon. members will be aware that during the past several months discussion of the substantive problems of disarmament has been limited to the negotiations at Geneva on the discontinuance of nuclear tests. These negotiations were begun among the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet union on October 31 last. The central problem separating the two sides became clear at quite an early stage. It concerns the procedures to be used for the dispatch of teams to make on-site inspections of unidentified events which could be suspected of being nuclear explosions. The United Kingdom and the United States position has been that inspection should be initiated automatically, on the basis of agreed technical criteria, by the administrator of the control system unless a contrary decision were taken by a two thirds majority of the control commission. The Soviet union has argued that such arrangements would enable the western powers to use the control machinery for purposes of espionage. The Soviet union therefore has demanded that the dispatch of inspection teams should require the concurrence of the three nuclear powers.
With a view to finding a way out of this deadlock Prime Minister Macmillan, during his visit to Moscow, suggested to Premier Khrushchev that each side should have the right to demand that an agreed annual quota of inspections be made which would not require votes in the control commission. Some weeks later the Soviet representative at Geneva introduced a proposal based upon this concept. I may say that the Canadian government considers that Prime Minister Macmillan's idea seems more likely than any

Supply-External Affairs other suggestion we have seen to provide the basis for a solution to this most difficult problem.
Following a short recess when the foreign ministers' meeting started, negotiations were resumed on June 8, and shortly thereafter the three representatives agreed to the formation of a working group of experts to study methods for detection of nuclear explosions carried out at high altitudes; that is, from thirty kilometres to fifty kilometres above the earth. The expert group met beginning June 22 and their report has just been received. I trust that its technical findings will facilitate political agreement.
Also during the past month the United States representative introduced papers relating to the problem of detecting underground nuclear tests. The Soviet representative has not as yet agreed to take these new data under consideration or to remit them to a group of experts.
While difficult problems remain to be resolved, it is encouraging to note that to date a total of 17 articles have been approved for a draft treaty on the discontinuance of nuclear tests. We are confident that with continued good will on both sides the conference will result in a workable agreement. Such agreement could hardly fail to give impetus to the renewal of negotiations on other aspects of disarmament.
In order to facilitate such other negotiations it would be desirable to reactivate the former subcommittee of the disarmament commission of which Canada was a member, or to provide in some other manner acceptable to the powers principally involved for a group of manageable size within the present 82-member disarmament commission. Hon. members will, of course, realize the difficulties involved in reaching any agreement in a commission composed of 82 members. I venture to express the hope that when the conference of foreign ministers of the four powers reconvenes next week it may give some consideration to the question of negotiating machinery within the United Nations.
And now a word about outer space. During May and June the United Nations ad hoc committee on the peaceful uses of outer space held a useful session. The committee was created at the last session of the general assembly in recognition, as the assembly resolution phrased it, of "the common interest of mankind in outer space", and "the common aim that outer space should be used for peaceful purposes only".
Canada was one of 18 members elected to the committee. Unfortunately the Soviet union, in order to demonstrate its disapproval of the composition of the committee, has refused to participate. In this policy it has
been followed by Czechoslovakia and Poland. India and the United Arab Republic have also felt unable to attend the sessions of the committee. The Canadian representative expressed this country's hope that at some time in the not too distant future all these countries would feel able to co-operate.
The committee nevertheless proceeded with detailed studies in accordance with its terms of reference. Technical and legal committees were formed to draft components of the report eventually to be made to the general assembly and, as hon. members are no doubt aware, Canada provided the chairman of the technical committee, Dr. Donald Rose of the national research council. The final report of the committee was approved on June 25. In addition to a number of conclusions relating to specific matters, it suggests that the United Nations might establish a committee suitably composed to carry further the investigations which have been begun. I trust that the general assembly will agree that such action is appropriate and that in the future Soviet co-operation will be forthcoming.
Here I should say a few words on the United Nations and radiation. I have already indicated one reason for our concern that the negotiations on nuclear tests should be fruitful; it is that their success might provide a turning point in the armaments race. A further reason is that a definitive agreement would avoid any increase in whatever hazard may be involved in radioactive fall-out. Hon. members will recall that last year the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation produced a valuable report, based upon the data made available to it by governments. Because the methods of collecting data vary from country to country, and because not all governments have instituted programs for the collection, analysis and reporting of appropriate samples, the data available to the committee necessarily was not as comprehensive as it might have been. In the Canadian government's view it is desirable that support be given to the efforts of the committee to enlarge and improve these data.
The next subject to which I should like to refer is the stand-by force. A further issue which received considerable attention at the last session of the general assembly and which may be up for consideration again relates to the many and varied United Nations activities as a peace-keeping organization and the possibilities that these will in turn evolve into more permanent United Nations stand-by arrangements. Canada's strong support for efforts undertaken under United Nations auspices to secure peace and stability in troubled areas of the world is

evidenced by Canadian contributions to, and active participation in, such bodies as the United Nations truce supervisory organization in Palestine, the United Nations military observers group in India and Pakistan, the United Nations emergency force, known as UNEF, and until its disbandment in November, 1958, the United Nations observer group in Lebanon.
UNEF represents the largest and most recent of these operations, and within its terms of reference has achieved notable success. I should like here to pay tribute to those young Canadians who have served in this UNEF force in the faraway deserts. They have been making a great contribution, and they have kept the name of Canada high. Naturally a good deal of attention has been given to the possibility of extending or transforming UNEF into a permanent United Nations police force. Last year's session of the United Nations general assembly requested the United Nations secretary general to study the experience of UNEF for any lessons which might be derived for future United Nations policy.
It is the Canadian government's view that experience has shown that United Nations requirements can involve a wide variety of types of service, designed to meet particular situations in particular areas, none of which may offer an exact precedent for a more permanent type of stand-by force. The Canadian government has emphasized the need for flexibility in our approach to breaches of the peace in view of the complexity and delicacy of the issues presented. During a recent press conference in New York, when the United Nations secretary general was asked whether he visualized a permanent United Nations force along the lines of UNEF, he replied in the negative and used the analogy of a tailor and his cloth in explanation of his position. Hr. Ham-marskjold said:
We need really to cut the suit to the body . . . more carefully In these various cases of which UNEF is an example than any other cases which are of concern to the United Nations . . . We cannot afford or usefully have a wardrobe sufficiently rich and varied to be able to pick out just the right suit as the situation arises. It is much better to have the cloth and go into action as a good tailor quickly when the need arises.
It would no doubt be agreed that in a world which is far from perfect we should not be dissatisfied if progress is made by a series of small steps. Nevertheless, these various United Nations operations in the interests of restoring and maintaining peace have provided a very useful body of experience out of which it is hoped to evolve more comprehensive machinery for strengthening
Supply-External Affairs the forces of peace. I can assure you that all proposals to this end are given the most careful study by the Canadian government.
I would be remiss if I were to omit from this account of United Nations activities reference to a most admirable humanitarian project which members of the United Nations are undertaking this year as a common endeavour. Recently I informed the house of the opening of world refugee year, which formally began in Canada on June 28 with statements on radio and on television by the right hon. Prime Minister. I must say that I have been gratified by the extent of public response to the statement I made at that time, and in particular by the numerous newspaper editorials which have expressed approval of the fact that the government plans to admit a number of tubercular refugee cases into Canada and provide for their treatment.
Arrangements for such a scheme are now under discussion. I am sure the warm hearts of the Canadian people from coast to coast will see that support is given to this plan and any other plans of a similar nature. Not only is the government interested, but there is also a Canadian committee for world refugee year which has already been doing excellent work. World refugee year began as an idea put forward by a group of private British citizens. Since then it has been given international approval by the general assembly as a means of facilitating its own task of permanently solving refugee problems. The government has been participating actively in United Nations refugee programs, and we shall continue to do so.
I have already occupied the time of hon. members too long with this statement, especially when it is my earnest hope that spontaneous and frank discussions on international problems will increasingly become the rule in this house. I really should have been setting an example in that regard this morning. I might mention before I close that I felt free to devote my attention entirely to international affairs rather than to details of the estimates in view of the thorough scrutiny given to the estimates of the department by the standing committee on external affairs earlier in the year.
Once again I invite hon. members to make their suggestions with regard to Canada's foreign policy and I am sure the result will be very beneficial not only to the government but also to parliament and the nation as a whole. My own belief is that Canadian foreign policy should be one that will reflect at all times the common sense and the courage, and above all the character, of the Canadian people. It will be my aim as Secretary of State for External Affairs to do

Supply-External Affairs everything I can to see that Canadian foreign policy will fit that pattern, and I am sure that in this task I shall have great help from all hon. members.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the Secretary of State for External Affairs at once in answer to his last observation that he will have at all times the co-operation and continuing interest of those of us sitting in this section of the committee with regard to a matter which, as he said at the outset of his remarks, involves questions that are of the greatest concern not only to the people of Canada but to the people of the world.
The minister will not now need to be convinced of the good will which attends his initial statement and the demonstration of that good will that attended the announcement of his appointment by the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for External Affairs of this country and indeed the foreign minister of any country in the world today occupies certainly one of the most important assignments in government administration. At a time when not only the peace of the world is involved but possibly the preservation of civilization itself, there can be no other assessment made of the responsibility extended to the person charged with the formulation of foreign policy. So the minister may be assured that in a matter of this sort, where fortunately the area of controversy is much more limited than in domestic questions, he will receive from us in full measure co-operation, understanding and collaboration, consistent only with our right of judgment and criticism.
I do not know if it is intended in the course of these estimates for the Prime Minister to give an account of the important exchanges that he had with heads of government and foreign ministers on his tour of Europe and Asia last fall. We had been assured by the Prime Minister that at some juncture in our deliberations this would be done, but we do appreciate the circumstances that have attended the minister's initial statement on foreign affairs in this committee. He asked us for frank discussion and he has extended that invitation with a modesty of his own position in this matter which I may say to him was attractive and only makes one feel all the more kindly disposed toward the minister himself. In a sense he has disarmed us, but because he cautioned us at the end that it was desirable that we should have frank discussions I know he would expect that we would accede at once to this invitation.
I want to suggest to the minister that so important is the portfolio that he occupies

that the country and this house will expect -and I know he himself wishes it-the minister to be free of all responsibilities which in any way preclude his giving the fullest time possible to the problems which confront the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Canada at this time. Important as the leadership of the house, the administration of the Department of Public Works and his deputizing for the Prime Minister may be, I am sure the minister will recognize the desirability of his being in a position to devote his full time to the administration of this department and to the consideration of the very grave problems that concern Canada and other nations in the world at this time.
There was a story in a Canadian newspaper the other day which disturbed me. I do not believe for one moment that the minister would in any way subscribe to this story; in fact I may say unhesitatingly that I know he would not. This story appeared in the Sudbury Daily Star of June 18, written by the the special correspondent in the Ottawa bureau of the Sudbury Daily Star. In this article is attributed to the Prime Minister an opinion expressed in the following language:
It has been his opinion-and he has made no secret of it-that in external affairs they didn't, as he put it, "do enough to keep themselves warm."
He found he could handle the job on the side atop all his other responsibilities as Prime Minister, head of the government and leader of his party.
And his appointment of Howard Green was made in the nature of arranging for the introduction of a little hard-headed common sense and above all, economy, in the operation of the department.
If there are occasions for economy, of course, they will be warmly supported by those sitting in the opposition, but the suggestion that this particular assignment to external affairs can be performed on top of other heavy obligations, including the task of directing the affairs of the government of Canada, is one with which I must express full disagreement. I am sure the minister in the light of his experience to date will fully concur with me.
This is a department in which the Canadian point of view is desirable as a contributing factor in the easing of international tensions, for the taking of important initiatives which might greatly contribute, as they have done in the past, to the solution of problems which are certainly first in our consideration and on which the resolution of all our domestic problems depends. The Secretary of State for External Affairs must be so disengaged from other responsibilities as to spend all his available working hours in the consideration of the important matters which affect our country and the peace of the world.

It is because I have noticed other indications of this estimate of the work of the Department of External Affairs and the place of foreign policy in a country like Canada that I venture to linger even a little longer on the point I am seeking to make. I have before me a copy of the London Times of June 26, 1959 in which, among other things, this is written, talking about the Canadian scene:
The greatest o f the difficulties confronting the new administration has been in the conduct of external affairs. It was no light responsibility for an untried man to take on the work of statesmen of the international reputation of Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Lester Pearson. It was a heavy blow therefore when the Prime Minister's first choice, Mr. Smith, died in March. The Prime Minister's choice has fallen on one of his closest political friends, Mr. Howard Green. It is widely believed in Canada that his appointment means that the final control of external policy will continue to be vested mainly in the Prime Minister, and that that control has hitherto been procrastinating and indecisive.
I have for the Secretary of State for External Affairs the greatest respect. I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as he now begins his important functions will, if allowed to, make a contribution that will be in the tradition of his great predecessors. It is because of my earnest desire that this be the case that I feel that at the outset of what I have to say I should mention these things that are being talked about in the corridors, and sometimes being written about in the newspapers, of which I have already given some indication, and urge the minister at this, in the initial proceeding almost of his ministry, to take into account what could flow from the strength of his personality and his well-known talents, complimented by his industry, devotion, and integrity, second to no other man in this house.
Now, we will all readily agree that in these days when world peace is still but an earnest desire and hope, when we realize that in spite of all the efforts made to achieve peace there still exists in Europe, in the Middle East and in Asia the potential spark of a final world war, our foreign policy and the work of the Department of External Affairs must continue to play an important part in the administration of government.
Perhaps the Department of External Affairs more than any other department of government must be centred around the minister in charge of our foreign policy. All the divisions of the department working as a team must channel to the Secretary of State for External Affairs the information for him to study, to analyse, to weigh and to judge world political trends. Only then is he in the best position to recommend to his cabinet 66068-9-363
Supply-External Affairs colleagues possible solutions to international problems of concern to our country.
But in order to be able to act efficiently in this exacting task his hands must not be tied by parliamentary obligations and duties that could be handed over to others, other than those, of course, that arise from his own department and understandingly his own constituency obligations as a member of parliament. He must be relatively free, of course within the limits of government policy, always sensitive to public opinion and desire, and given the necessary authority to speak on behalf of the government. He must be made to feel that the government has the fullest confidence in his ability, as I want clearly to indicate that I have; not only confidence in his ability but in his judgment, in his wisdom and that his role is not to be merely that of a messenger boy, something which I know the minister would find extremely distasteful.
It is only under those conditions, as I see it, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs can effectively discharge the difficult and delicate task which the Prime Minister has assigned to him. I believe that the present incumbent, my hon. friend, has these necessary qualities which I believe are required of a good secretary of state for external affairs.
Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Mackenzie King, in the tradition of their predecessors, made important contributions in the development of Canadian foreign policy at a time when great changes were being made in Canadian constitutional development. Mr. St. Laurent, as Canada's first full-time secretary of state for external affairs, left an imprint that flowed in part from his alertness and capacity to seize the initiative in needed and worthy situations; and he will long be remembered, of course, for his early suggestions which led to the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
All of us in this house and all of our fellow Canadians are only too well aware of the tremendous contribution made by the present Leader of the Opposition in the field of international relations. His contributions, I can say as one who was closely associated with him in much of this work, reflected the freedom, always subject to government policy, which was given to him in his operations, in his consultations with commonwealth governments, with members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and particularly at the United Nations.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-External Affairs AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman,
before the adjournment I had mentioned the initiative taken by the present Leader of the Opposition in international affairs. I am sure that his participation in those important events revealed that the boldness and the constructive quality of those initiatives, for which he continues to receive the gratitude of his fellow countrymen and the statesmen and peoples of the world, were the consequence of the freedom of operation accorded him by the prime minister of the day, Mr. St. Laurent; a freedom, of course, that was, as I noted earlier, always subject to the limitations and the requisitions of government policy.
To the present Secretary of State for External Affairs it seems to me that at this critical time in the history of the world there is given an important, delicate and difficult task. It is one, however, not without great opportunity, and that he will want to seize it I have no doubt. He no less than his predecessors is given the opportunity of bringing into play the force of his personality, his qualities of initiative and ingenuity. The absence in his case of undue interference and his freedom from domination could yield, I believe, constructive results in the development of constructive attitudes in Canadian foreign policy. By this I do not mean that he will not want to confer with his colleagues, that he will not want to have a special relationship, understandably, with the Queen's first minister. This goes without saying. But the very nature of diplomatic conversations and negotiations at NATO, in commonwealth matters and at the United Nations in particular demand a freedom of operation within the limits I have described.
My hon. friend takes over these heavy responsibilities at a time when, rightly or wrongly, many feel that the prestige of this country in the field of international diplomacy is not as great as it was two years ago. Whether or not that is the case, one can refer to many expressions of opinion in the newspapers and elsewhere to this effect. I shall refer only to one. I have before me the issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail of Saturday, June 27, containing an article written by its United Kingdom correspondent, Mr. George Bain, commenting on an editorial in the New York Times to which I have already made reference. The heading of the article, which appears on the first page, is "Canadian Influence Diminishing". The minister will, I know, wish to recover any loss of prestige if that is the case. He will want to make sure that the Canadian government is so constituted at present that it will be able to
[The Deputy Chairman.]

maintain the high level of contribution made by preceding administrations and particularly during the last decade.
I have, of course, had only a relatively minor role and experience in the conduct of international affairs, certainly not even second to that of my leader. But my experience as a member of the house, as one who attended the league of nations and who has been at many assemblies of the United Nations, is that in the United Nations Canada is afforded a very special opportunity of making useful and constructive suggestions and offering desirable solutions to many complicated problems; and not only in the United Nations but in the commonwealth and at NATO as we well know.
But because we enjoy a reputation for objective assessment in foreign affairs, because we have been looked upon by so many of the smaller powers as well as by most of the big powers as a country with an excellent permanent foreign service, and because we have less occasion for personal aggrandizement than almost any other nation, we have been given a special opportunity sometimes to act as an intermediary taking initiatives that have led to satisfactory solutions in many matters of the greatest import.
I am going to suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the light of my limited experience, that one of the things I hope he will be able to do at the outset is not only head the Canadian delegation at the next assembly of the United Nations, but spend as much time at the assembly as possible. I hope there will be no occasion for him to return to Canada simply because of the absence of the Prime Minister or of some other member of the government.


Mr. Pallell:: Do you want to get him out of the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe that if the former secretary of state for external affairs, now Leader of the Opposition, was able to play such a significant role as leader of the Canadian delegation on so many occasions, it was because he had become known as a great personality at the United Nations; and when the occasion was offered for a special participation by Canada it was possible to entrust to him responsibilities which might not have been entrusted by other nations if he had not been known so well and if his country had not enjoyed, in this particular area of action, such a high reputation.
Canada at the United Nations is, of course, freer than countries like the United States and Great Britain. Even though we have the closest ties with these two nations, we do not have their other responsibilities, in the one case because of colonial possessions and

colonial interests, and in the other case because of the pre-eminent place that the United States, because of her strength, occupies at this critical time in the history of the world. This very freedom gives us a unique opportunity to make the United Nations a more effective instrument, and to use that body for the discussion of problems the full settlement of which sometimes ultimately resides elsewhere.
I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will make the United Nations one of his main theatres of activity and use the general assembly, particularly at a time when Canada is a member of the security council and when her responsibilities are even greater than they normally would be. There will be opportunities for Canada to play the role she has played in the past in the evolution of the commonwealth.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs will more and more realize, as I am sure he realizes now, the place the Asian members take in the commonwealth. The important contributions which have been made by Mr. St. Laurent and the present Leader of the Opposition in helping maintain the unity of the commonwealth with the special understanding which they acquired of the problems, purposes and objectives of the Asian commonwealth members must stand as one of the notable contributions during the past decade.
We have taken from time to time through our permanent delegations and our permanent officials, as well as officials at the ministerial level, particularly in the case of the former secretary of state for external affairs, initiatives which have undoubtedly greatly affected the course of events during the past decade. One could mention the circumstances attending the setting up of Israel as a sovereign state under the United Nations, and the part played by Canada in the Korean discussions which led, first of all, to the setting up of the commission on the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Korea, and second the part we played in the terms of armistice which still prevail in that troubled sector.
I suggest further that the contribution made by Canada in connection with the economic and political aspects of NATO gives demonstration of the part smaller and middle powers can play. Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, the secretary general of the United Nations, said prior to his visit to Moscow about two months ago that his experience as secretary general had led him to the conclusion that the contribution made by a member state of that organization was not determined by its position in terms of power, military or financial. He thought a small nation, given proper dedication and wise policy, could play a notable and worthy part in the United Nations. I have a suspicion 66968-9-363J
Supply-External Affairs that when he made that observation he may have been thinking of a country like Canada.
In an earlier debate this session I suggested to my hon. friend's predecessor, before his regrettable death, that there was one area in which I thought Canada could play a useful role, at least of assessment and report. I refer to the Middle East. I acknowledge with satisfaction the setting up of a further mission in the Middle East, the raising of one of our missions to the status of an embassy, and the appointment of a new ambassador to the United Arab Republic. But it seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, that in the face of the developments which have taken place in the Middle East useful consideration could be given by the government to the establishment of a diplomatic mission in Iraq, where British and United States influence is at the present time not what we would like it to be, and where it is certainly not as strong as it was formerly.
I believe if we had a diplomatic mission in Iraq, through a personality capable of assessing developments there, we could make a useful contribution towards greater tranquillity in that turbulent area. It might even be that that kind of venture, associated with our other diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, complementary to the work being carried on particularly by the secretary general, would enable us once again, notwithstanding what are currently great controversies, between Israel and the United Arab Republic, to do what we did in 1952. Then along with some other countries at the United Nations, we took the initiative and called upon the disputants, the United Arab Republic, then Egypt, and Israel to resume discussions pursuant to security council decisions previously arrived at.
In any event, I am sure that if the minister takes advantage of the general assembly to make himself known and to get to know other personalities well, he will find that theatre of activity will give him a special opportunity of playing an increasingly useful role in the discharge of the functions which have now come to him.
I was reading the other day the evaluation of Canada's position among the nations of the world by Donald C. Masters, who, writing of the 1953-55 Canadian diplomatic period, said:
In evaluating Canada's part in world affairs one must always bear in mind the limited role which circumstances force upon us. Owing to limitations in power Canada cannot be an originator of basic policies in the same sense as are the great powers. Our role has frequently been to act as the executor of basic policies worked out by the great powers as in the cases of Korea, Indo-China and the Paris

Supply-External Affairs pacts of 1954 in regard to Germany and NATO. As an executor of predetermined policies Canada has a good record.
I think that, on the whole, is a fair statement of our position. It is a statement that recognizes that while there are limitations in the formulation of basic policy, there are no limitations in the way those policies, notwithstanding their authorship, are carried out in the interests of the preservation of world peace.
One of those problems now confronts us. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us that we are to have in Canada a visit from Mr. Herter, the Secretary of State of the United States. The minister did not expand at length this morning on the position Canada takes with regard to that matter. I assume from what he did say that the position continues to be, in principle, what his predecessor had already indicated in this house was the policy of the government. In any event, it seems to me that we have, with regard to the German and the Berlin problem, not only an opportunity but a responsibility to make our point of view known. While we are not participants in the four power meeting of foreign ministers, we are not denied the opportunity-and certainly this impending visit confirms this statement- of placing our point of view before those who will be more directly concerned.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sorry to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


Charles Edward Rea: Will the committee give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the committee for
giving me the opportunity of making a few further observations.
This situation in Berlin, which is the immediate problem confronting the nations of the world, is characteristic of the times in which we live. No sooner had the trouble in the Middle East been dampened last year than this was followed by fires in the Far East. Then when the conflagration in the Formosa straits was dying out the problem of Berlin and Germany arose.
This, of course, is the pattern of our times. Soviet union dexterity brings us from one crisis to another in rapid fire succession. However, we have an interest in this problem altogether apart from the fact that, as a nation among the nations of the world, we are interested in the preservation of good relations among states.
[Mr Martin (Essex East).]

Our interest in the Berlin situation has not only this wide political interest. It has as well a juridical or legal basis. First of all, we will all recall that it was in November last that the premier of the Soviet union indicated that the time had come for the western powers to leave Berlin; and on November 27 last he proposed the western withdrawal from West Berlin and the creation of a demilitarized free city. It will also be recalled that he had indicated that a settlement must be reached by May 27. That position was later modified, perhaps as a result of the intervention of Mr. Macmillan who, we all agree, took a wise course in going to Moscow, as he did, in order to make a fact-finding assessment of the Russian position.
But I say that our interest in this problem has a juridical basis as well as arising out of our existence as a sovereign state. It will be recalled that the three powers met in London on October 2, 1954, when they conferred to lay plans for the termination of the occupation of the Federal Republic of Germany and for the incorporation of that state into NATO. It was at this conference that they made this declaration:
The security and welfare of Berlin and the maintenance of the position of the three powers there are regarded by the three powers as essential elements to the peace of the free world in the present international situation. Accordingly, they will maintain armed forces within the territory of Berlin as long as their responsibilities require it. They therefore reaffirm that they will treat any attack against Berlin from any quarter as an attack upon their forces and themselves.
Canada along with other NATO powers on October 23, 1954 associated itself with this declaration. That Canada as well as the United States and other NATO powers have a stake in the problem of Germany and Berlin flows from this association with this declaration, and also from the obligation incurred under article 6 of the North Atlantic treaty under which an armed attack on the occupation forces in Europe of any party to the treaty constitutes an attack on all parties.
As I indicated a while ago, we approved the decision of the British Prime Minister to go to Moscow, and in so doing I take it that we wanted to assert that initiative of that kind could not be looked upon as an appeasing act. It was doing something which British leaders have done from the time of William Pitt when they have sought to deal with hostile foreign powers. This visit of Mr. Macmillan and further interventions of this sort need not be regarded as appeasement. They mean no more than what they have meant in the past. Certainly this visit on the part of the British Prime Minister did not

mean that the United Kingdom likes Mr. Khrushchev's communist imperialism any more than Englishmen liked Napoleon Bonaparte's revolutionary imperialism. I believe that association or intercourse with those who do not share our ideological objectives is all to the good, and that it is only by conference leading ultimately to adjudication and, let us hope, even conciliation that we can find, in the absence of war, a solution to these vital issues which affect us more than anything else either on the international or the domestic front.
We must not overlook the dangers in the situation. It must not be forgotten that Mr. Khrushchev in his note-I think some time in the month of February-to this government said that any attempt by the western powers to maintain access to West Berlin by force will be opposed by force and will lead to war. These statements must be assessed in the full context of the situation that confront us and in which they have been made. But I think all of us in this chamber will support the attitude taken by the government, certainly in the statement made by my hon. friend's predecessor, that we believe that negotiation even in this extremely difficult matter can lead to settlement.
I for one welcomed the statement made by the Minister of National Defence, when, speaking at the anniversary meeting of NATO, he indicated a possible ultimate role in this situation for the United Nations. This suggestion of a potential role for the United Nations had been referred to in this house in an earlier speech by my leader. It had been referred to, as my hon. friend will recall, much earlier by Mr. Khrushchev and by Mr. Macmillan. The Minister of National Defence, if I properly read his words as delivered in Washington, had suggested a method by which the United Nations might provide a framework for any four power agreement on Berlin. He saw that the basic role of the United Nations might be to verify that all parties were abiding by the terms of the agreement, the essential part of which would be a Soviet pledge by binding itself and its associates to permit full freedom of access to West Berlin and the acceptance of the United Nations presence on the lines of communication.
There are good precedents for the suggestion made by Canada, a suggestion that 1 hope will be followed up by the Canadian government if whatever kind of settlement is reached lends itself to such further persistency of suggestion. As I say, there are precedents for the use of the United Nations in this kind of role. There is, of course, no complete parallel between many other instrumentalities of the United Nations in this
Supply

External Affairs particular situation, but there are similar features of principle that I think serve as a precedent.
The para-military body, the United Nations emergency force with which the Leader of the Opposition, to the everlasting gratitude of the people of the world, had so much to do, is in itself in principle an indication at least of the potential role which in a situation such as that in West Berlin the United Nations might ultimately play. The work of the United Nations observation group in Lebanon is another example of the use of the United Nations in matters that have to do with conflicts either between groups within the same nation or between one nation and another. Certainly the work of the international supervisory organization under General Van Horne operating between Jordan, the United Arab Republic and Israel is an indication of the growing awareness of the usefulness of the United Nations in these situations. Perhaps the most effective and the closest parallel, however, was the formula devised by the secretary general of the United Nations last year when he suggested the idea of a United Nations presence located in the capital of Jordan, as a means to maintain tranquility, which has lasted even longer than its most ardent sponsors at the time thought possible.
So I trust the Canadian government in its studies of the Berlin situation and in the recommendations it will make during the discussions it will have with the Secretary of State of the United States will bear in mind the successful previous usages of the United Nations instrumentality, and will seek to impress upon freedom-loving nations the desirability of noting that in the charter of the United Nations are to be found many of the methods by which some solutions can be made easier and more lasting. I hope that in the matter of Berlin, Canada is using her best offices to make her concern felt and to indicate the result of her consideration as to ways and means by which solutions can be found which will lead to an easing of international tensions and not add to the turbulence which prevails in the world at the present time.
The hon. gentleman covered a wide area, and I naturally do not propose to attempt to do the same, except to say that he will find in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization the same opportunity for constructive statesmanship as I believe he will find at the United Nations. Canada has, of course, the greatest interest in this organization. It was one of our former prime ministers who first in the United Nations gave expression, in 1947, to
5724	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs the desirability of a defensive alliance of freedom-loving states within the terms of article 51 of the United Nations charter. It was a Canadian government backed by public opinion in Canada that caused demands to be made to expand the purposes and the functions of this organization.
But the hon. gentleman will perhaps want to remember carefully the words which were uttered by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke on April 14, 1959 taking as his subject "Ten years of NATO", and concluded what he had to say with these words:
The Atlantic nations are now facing a supreme test of their capacity to unite. If they fail in this, they may find it difficult to prosper and even survive as free nations. This test is the inescapable result of the tragic experiences of the recent past. Success in meeting it is made the more essential by the awful necessities of a thermonuclear future. Can we combine our national strengths, merge our national policies, and submerge our national prejudices to meet this test? If we cannot-or do not-then far more than NATO may be lost in the next ten years.
He was thinking not only of the failure to live up to the terms of article 2; he was thinking not only of the fact that the studies of three foreign ministers in the NATO group had not been implemented. He was thinking too of the stresses and strains that are being placed on this defensive alliance by the unfolding events of our time. Canada is not only a member of NATO; she is a member of that important triangular group of western nations which includes the United States and Great Britain. She is also a member of the commonwealth and as well, a member of the United Nations; and while she will wish in the interests of her own security to preserve the unity of NATO and to preserve the unity of this group of three nations, she will want at the same time to make a contribution to a wider unity, the unity of the world; and the opportunity for doing that will arise at the United Nations.
Not only is our external policy reflected in policy itself, but it is reflected in the permanent personnel of the Department of External Affairs. We can accept the judgment of those outside this country who speak of our public servants in this department in the highest praise. It is, of course, necessary to do everything possible to maintain the morale of those who are employed in this department and, of course, the organization within the department is a matter which the minister may want to look into carefully from time to time. He may want to examine, for example, whether or not the process of rotation of personnel is too rapid, particularly in the light of the loss of certain personnel in recent months. He may want to examine whether or not this acceleration in the process [Mr Martin (Essex East).]
of rotation has resulted in giving to personalities involved less opportunity for acquiring specialized knowledge in certain divisions of the department than they would otherwise have had.
I simply ask the minister to give consideration as to whether or not recent developments do not suggest that quicker rotation of personnel in the department may have resulted in less opportunity for the acquisition of specialized knowledge in certain divisions than we should like to see for instance in the trade division, the Middle East division, the United States-Canada division and, I should think too, the legal division. In any event the minister will find many things to do as he now takes on, free from other obligations, these responsibilities as the spokesman and chief formulator of government foreign policy.
The minister may be convinced, as I said at the beginning, of one thing. He will have the good will of every member of this house, as he has the good will, I am sure, of the great majority of the people of Canada. In this field of international affairs our differences are limited. This does not mean to say that there will not be occasions when we shall find it necessary to take strong issue with him; but as the Prime Minister indicated in his speech before the general assembly in September of 1957, the basic lines of Canadian foreign policy are observed by this as by previous governments.
We are living at a very difficult time. We have not the answer to many of the problems which confront us. We want to see our society remain free; we want to see the democratic way of life persist. We have to take into account the exigencies and the problems which confront us. We have a responsibility, regardless of power and position, to play a full and continuing role in the solution of the great issues which divide mankind.
There is a Canadian point of view. That point of view has been ably and vigorously expressed in the past. The minister's success in this portfolio will depend on his seizing the opportunity that is now his in the face of difficult situations, putting forward the considered judgment of the government of which he is a member, in the hope that an objective approach in these matters will be capable of preserving existing desirable unities and at the same time laying the foundations for a world that will be ruled by law and not by brute force.
In this connection the minister, I hope, will give consideration to what may be done about making the international court of justice a more effective instrument than I believe it is at the present time. In my judgment it is not the effective instrument

it was intended to be. It is certainly not as strong as the international court of justice created under the covenant. The United States now has taken an initiative in this matter. The vice president of the United States, and the President have said that the government of the United States is prepared to give consideration to the elimination of the optional clause and to recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the court. I would think that Canada, in spite of the difficulties arising because of the constitution of the court and because of the difficulties involved in matters of domestic jurisdiction under article 2(7) of the charter of the United Nations could, like the United States, give a lead in this matter.
The peace of the world is the most important consideration before all of us. That being the case the policy of the government of Canada in its relations with other states is the most important of any of the responsibilities of government. It is because of the tremendous responsibility involved that I sincerely trust that the minister will understand the spirit in which I have expressed some criticism and given some indication of my confidence that he approaches his task only with the desire to continue seeing to it that Canada makes worthy contributions to the preservation of peace.
Our contributions are not made for the purpose of increasing our prestige, but prestige and worthy contributions can go side by side. The result will be enhancement for this nation as well as the realization of a contribution made toward the solution of the great problem of our time, the preservation of peace among the nations.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I listened this morning very attentively to the comprehensive speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I intend to comment upon it later at various points in my remarks. I must explain, however, that I am going to do something this afternoon that I very much dislike doing, and that is rely on extensive notes. The reason I do this is that I want to have the opportunity in the time permitted me to deal with a number of subjects in this very important and wide field, and at the same time present the policy of this group on several aspects of external affairs.
The minister has assumed office, as was stated by the previous speaker, with the good will and best wishes of all hon. members of this committee, at a most critical and interesting time in international and Canadian affairs. I say that because we are on a balanced wheel where so little could mean
Supply-External Affairs so much in either direction. I would term this the period of the hush before the dawn or, if we fail to act with common sense, before the gloom.
Let me assure the minister before I proceed with my remarks that in this debate and on this question we seek no party advantage in this group but advance our policies, ideas, suggestions and opinions as a contribution to the common pool of our thought in an effort to do our part in establishing and maintaining world peace and stability.
I was very interested to note that the minister observed that Canadians are interested in foreign affairs and in the part that Canada will play toward developing world co-operation, or words to that effect. How true. I think Canadians generally are becoming more and more interested in foreign affairs because of their realization of the vital importance of the decisions that have to be made in certain fields in the near future by the major nations.
I noticed that shortly after that the minister invited suggestions and opinions. I was pleased to hear him do that, because as I said previously the minister enters office with the good will and best wishes of all hon. members of this committee. But as the hon. member who has just taken his seat said, when speaking for the official opposition- I always have to be so careful when I deal with them. You know, they are a little jealous of this little group at this end; they want to re-emphasize their importance. But I think I got it right that time. We will no doubt differ with respect to policies put forward in certain fields, but whether we agree or differ we are giving our honest opinions and putting forward honest suggestions and ideas as the result of thought on both sides of the committee, to the end that we seek a common objective and common goal.
During recent months Canada in our opinion has lost some of its former and close contacts in the field of international affairs, and unfortunately, to some extent, because of the death of the minister's predecessor which we all regret. We all miss him at this time. But this lapse in having an active secretary of state for external affairs has caused some loss of contact with the United Nations and with other capitals of the world. This will give the minister a somewhat strenuous time in the months ahead in his attempts to overcome the handicap in this regard under which he starts his new duties.
In supporting that point of view I want to quote an editorial from the Globe and Mail of Thursday, May 14, 1959 entitled "Defence and Sovereignty" to indicate the need for Canada to speak with a stronger voice and resume its former close contacts with the

Supply-External Affairs United Nations and with various countries and capitals of the world. This is what this editorial has to say:
Today, as never before, the world's eyes are upon Canada. In part, this is because of her progress and prosperity; in part, because of the reputation she has gained as a free and fair-minded middle power, respected by most nations, feared by none.
I want to pause at this stage to pay a tribute to the present Leader of the Opposition, who was for a long time secretary of state for external affairs. There is no question but that hon. gentleman made a great contribution toward the maintenance of world peace and recognition of Canada's status abroad. I continue:
From this, Canadians may take satisfaction. But there is another, more subtle reason why the world watches Canada; it judges us in order to judge the United States.
The world sees Canada working very closely with the United States. It measures the integrity of the United States by the extent to which Canada, in this situation, retains her own integrity. Assuming the United States wishes to keep and strengthen its position as leader of the western nations, it must govern its relationship with Canada so that Canada not only is, but gives every evidence of being, independent.
This is essential to Canada's world status, as well. If we wish to keep and strengthen our own unique position among the nations, we must constantly demonstrate our political sovereignty, our economic sovereignty-
This is the task that faces the new minister at the present time. This has been the spearhead, as it were, of this most important department for some months.
Then the Globe and Mail again, of Saturday, May 16 of this year:
It is just as essential to Ottawa's international status as it is to Washington's that Canada should not only be, but in all matters should appear to be, fully autonomous. To become a much respected middle power, this country had to gain its independence from Britain. To stay a much respected middle power, we must regain our independence from the United States.
This is an editorial in a paper that generally supports the party in power.
In our opinion the minister will require to spend considerable time at the United Nations, in the various capitals of the world and in other places in order to restore the personal contact which is so important for a person in his office. I might say, Mr. Chairman, he has to take advantage of every opportunity to win and influence friends. I will say this before leaving the subject. If the minister is as successful in the international field in winning and influencing friends as he has been in this house in the last 22 years, then our foreign policy will proceed with great success.
There is no necessity to speak at length with respect to the meetings of the standing committee on external affairs, Mr. Chairman


The committee held 10 meetings and dealt very thoroughly in detail with the estimates of the department. I must say at this time that the meetings of the committee and its proceedings were necessarily restricted and pervaded with a great sense of loss by the untimely death of the former secretary of state for external affairs, Dr. Sidney E. Smith. I should also say at this time how much the committee regretted the passing of Mr. W. D. Matthews, the assistant under secretary of state for external affairs, both of whom the committee in its deliberations found of great assistance.
I might say a word or two about the personnel of the department. You get a good idea of the quality of the staff of a department, Mr. Chairman, when you have had experience on a committee over a number of years, when the members of that staff representing its various branches come before the committee to give their explanations with respect to expenditures and forms of administration, give the reasons for this and that. I might say in passing that the minister himself has not been at all backward in digging into these matters during years past as a member of the standing committee on external affairs. As I said before, we get a good idea of the quality of the staff. There is no question about it, in my opinion after a number of years' experience on this committee, but that Canada is very fortunate in the quality of the staff who are administering the Department of External Affairs.
I will have some reference to make to the minister's remarks later, but I wish to take this opportunity to advance the views of this group on this important subject in several aspects. From this point on I shall be dealing with the C.C.F. policy with respect to certain aspects of foreign affairs. Naturally I can only cover the major points in which we are interested. No doubt there will be some other aspects of foreign affairs on which our point of view will be covered by other members of this group later on in this debate.
First we believe that Canada should maintain an independent, co-operative and constructive foreign policy of her own. We ought not, as has been too often the case in the past, simply to reflect the views of our southern neighbour, the United States. Certainly we in the C.C.F. are prepared, as I believe all Canadians are prepared, to work in close co-operation with the United States. We ought to make it perfectly clear that we have a mind of our own and certain ideas of our own which we think can he constructive international councils. We believe that the Canadian representatives at the United Nations ought to speak up more vigorously than often has been the case in the past for

constructive approaches to all these problems, even though those approaches may not always be appreciated by our United States friends.
Second, the fundamental tenet of our approach to international affairs is that we must expand and encourage the development of the United Nations. We know that the United Nations has had many failures, but we believe, too, that there are undreamed of possibilities for promoting international peace through the agencies of the United Nations, the constructive work of which is not recognized in many quarters. We hope, for example, that if the specific tensions can be eased the United Nations can eventually develop a world police force which will be responsible for maintaining the peace in critical areas. We have given a good lead in that direction with respect to the Middle East in the way of observer corps and things of that sort. We of this group hope that will be the development with respect to military forces of the future, used finally, we hope, purely to police the unruly people of the world.
We believe that the United Nations offers tremendous possibilities as a focus in channelling economic aid. Indeed, we dare to hope that one day the United Nations may become an effective world government, although we recognize that is some distance in the future. Perhaps these things seem visionary in a world of conflict such as ours. If we are to have a permanent and lasting peace, we in this group firmly believe that we must move consciously in those directions.
A third and an important point in our basic policy is that at all times we must be prepared to sit down and negotiate outstanding issues. Sabre rattling solves nothing; still less will atomic war solve anything. I was very pleased, in listening to the minister's remarks this morning, to hear his comments with respect to the need for patience and continued negotiations. I like his mood, his attitude and his frame of mind in that respect. It was interesting to hear the minister say that war is unthinkable. Apparently all of us in this house agree on these basic points at this time. What is required is a convinced determination to negotiate specific issues, such as Germany, in the hope that by solving one aspect of the problem trust will be engendered for tackling other aspects. The minister in talking about this problem of patience and negotiation, mentioned the hope that the summit meeting would be resumed and that all those meetings tend to work for a reduction of world tensions. I liked that very much indeed in his approach to these negotiations.
My fourth basic point, and undoubtedly the most important of all, is this. We in this
Supply-External Affairs group believe that the future of the western world as we know it, and indeed the future of the world itself, will hinge not so much on military might but on what we do to promote the economic and democratic development of those nations in the world which have come to be known as underdeveloped. Not only must we develop trade policies which will enable the western nations to compete with the Soviet union, but we must develop a much bolder and more imaginative policy with respect to promoting economic development in other areas of the world.
Now here is perhaps the most crucial point in the whole approach of the C.C.F. to the question of international affairs. We in the C.C.F. are democratic socialists, and if this party ever fails to be socialist I say right now that I shall be out of it, and quickly. We reject communism and the theories of communism. But we know too that our system of economics, known as capitalism, is also incompetent to deal with basic world problems.
Look at some of the contradictions that we have in the world today. You cannot blame them on individuals. They are the result of world revolution, historical development and so on. How can we expect the development of oil in the Middle East in the interests of the Arab people when we tolerate its exploitation by a few giant monopolies? How can we promote economic development throughout the world if we are prepared to tolerate an economy at home which operates away below capacity and during certain periods tolerates large scale unemployment? How can we expect people in other parts of the world to understand and believe in our democracy if we have great surpluses of food while there are people starving in other parts of the world? I am confident that by accepting our responsibilities in all these fields we will not only be helping these people of whom I have been speaking but we will be helping ourselves.
In that respect the committee on external affairs studied some aspects of international aid, particularly the Colombo plan, technical assistance and the refugee problem. I was very glad to hear the minister mention increased assistance to commonwealth countries under the Colombo plan and technical and similar assistance to the other countries he mentioned. These are continued steps in the right direction and I judge that the government, before making this decision, read the final report of the committee on external affairs because in that report the interest of the committee in this most important question is clearly indicated. We in this group simply say; Take every advantage of, shall I say, our favoured position in the world

Supply-External Affairs today to do more and more to assist these underdeveloped countries and in doing so assist ourselves.
We in the C.C.F. group urge the government to take advantage of every opportunity to strengthen the ties within the commonwealth and in doing so strengthen the spokes of this great balance wheel in international affairs. When the minister was speaking on the question of the commonwealth this morning I noticed that he said: "The commonwealth is foremost in our minds; it is a beneficial influence on the affairs of mankind." If that is the minister's opinion, and I know it is, we in this group stand together with the minister on his approach to developing closer ties within the commonwealth and strengthening the commonwealth because of its influence on the affairs of mankind. We wish him well in all he does in that respect.
I want to say a few words about European affairs, and I refer to western Europe. You know, Mr. Chairman, I have had the feeling at times when I glance up to the right that there are some pained expressions on some of the gentlemen's faces but I hope they will bear with me a little longer. In our opinion, first consideration should be given to a plan whereby troops would be withdrawn from an area in central Europe. This area should include not only East and West Germany but Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary as well. In brief, we believe there are great possibilities in what is known as the Rapacki plan and that its possibilities should be explored more and more in the days ahead. We believe there should be a belt through the centre of Europe which could be neutralized and demilitarized. We believe that this sort of neutral belt running through what we term the crisis area of Europe would make a real contribution toward the easing of tension in that important part of the world.
Our second proposal is that the western powers should be prepared to consider the creation of a loose federation of the governments of East and West Germany as a first step toward the holding of free elections throughout all Germany. In our opinion this could be a step toward breaking the deadlock which has been created by the west's insistence on free elections as a first step and the Russian determination to resist free elections. We offer these suggestions, Mr. Chairman, after much consideration of this very serious and delicate problem.
As I have said, we welcome the indications of a more flexible attitude on the part of both the west and the Soviet union. Regardless of, shall I say, the hubbub that has gone on, I think we must welcome the fact that the talks have continued and that there has been


even a minor degree of give and take on both sides, which I think is a hopeful state of affairs from which to view the future. We believe that the western powers could be still more vigorous in making specific proposals. It is through our grasping the initiative that there is the best possibility of our being in a strong position when we come to the negotiating table.
Here I wish to refer to the tribute the minister paid to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Right Hon. Mr. Macmillan. We want to join in that tribute. I think that in the recent negotiations and developments with respect to East and West Germany and western Europe he has given a most stable and commendable lead and has shown exceptional balance which has had a tremendous influence on the discussions at Geneva concerning this difficult problem. This is indicated, I think by the difference in attitude toward this conference between the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the secretary of state of the United States in their published comments with respect to the success or lack of success, whichever viewpoint they took, in connection with this most important conference of foreign ministers in Geneva. In that connection I want to read briefly from an editorial in the Globe and Mail of Friday, July 3. It is entitled, "Fruits of Negotiation", and quotes Mr. Macmillan as follows:
I feel this prize is worth waiting and working for, because it is the biggest of all.
I think these are very wise words indeed. It is easy enough to show impatience and have quick cuts to success and quick remedies for the disease of world instability, but I think those are very wise words indeed. "I feel this prize is worth waiting and working for, because it is the biggest of all."
I want to say a few words with respect to China. I have listened with interest to what the minister had to say. I understand that there is no change in the government's policy with respect to China since the statement made earlier this session by Dr. Sidney Smith. We fully appreciate the difficulties mentioned by the minister. I must say that the government of China does not make it any easier for the government to consider recognition. We quite understand that, particularly in view of the recent happenings in Tibet. But we who come from British Columbia realize that we now have a minister who comes from British Columbia and no doubt on that account he fully appreciates the opinion of a great number of important people in that province in industry, labour and agriculture with respect to the need for recognition of China.
Our policy in favour of the recognition of the communist government of China has

always been very clear. We believe now that the soundness of our position in this regard is all the more obvious. Many prominent Canadians, including industrial leaders and bankers, have visited China and all have come back with the conviction that the recognition of China and her admittance into the United Nations would be in the interests of world peace.
To us the case for recognizing Red China has always seemed an obvious one. No one, to our knowledge, has ever argued that recognition implies agreement with a government's policy. It simply means recognition of the existence of the effective government of that country and willingness to live together in the same world.
We must all realize that China is a developing industrial power-we are getting more evidence of that day after day-and that she is going to be a force in future world politics whether or not we like it. Surely it makes sense for us to recognize her and extend our trade with her, and to be prepared to discuss with her, through the United Nations, the issues over which she will have increasing influence. There is no doubt that that influence is going to increase.
Before leaving this topic we do urge the minister to give further consideration to this problem of the recognition of China, in the interests of world peace as a whole, in the interests of Canadians generally, and particularly in the interest of the province from which the minister comes.
I want now to refer to another vitally important area of the world, the Middle East. I am hurrying along because of the time and the vastness of this subject. During the last century the policies of the western nations in the Middle East cannot have been said to have been very honourable, and I think that is an understatement. We have dealt with the whole area in typical imperialist fashion. We cannot blame certain individuals for a particular period in history. We have allowed giant private oil monopolies to exploit the region and make tremendous profits at the expense of the local inhabitants. They continue to do this and to control and dominate their governments. This control by oil companies is the seed of all the unrest in the Middle East, and any form of democratic expression is virtually impossible. The policies of the Soviet union in the area in recent years have been no better. They have looked upon the countries of the Middle East as pawns in their game of international power politics. The unfortunate thing is that we in the west have responded on a number of occasions in much the same fashion.
This is a question beyond the capacity of Canada to solve. It is a very wide question
Supply

External Affairs which will only be solved as the result of the development of the lessening of tensions and a more constructive view of international problems on the part of a good many nations in the world. We in the C.C.F. advance the suggestion I am going to make as one end to which we could work, and we are convinced that as long as oil reserves and the vast natural resources of the Middle East remain in the hands of a few giant monopolies in western countries we will not have settled peace in the Middle East, and the people of those countries will not have the standard of living they are entitled to with the resources they enjoy. We believe that it is time to take a bold and courageously new approach to the Middle Eastern situation.
The key to our proposal is this, that the Arab people should be assisted, through the United Nations, to take over for themselves the ownership and control of their oil resources. I realize that the minister will say that that is a big order and cannot be done overnight. But it can be done little by little, giving these people a larger share of the wealth which is being exported from their country at the present time. We believe that through the good offices of the United Nations this could be done in a peaceful and orderly way over a period of time. The best method might be the establishment of an international Middle East development commission, which would be responsible not only for transferring the oil rights but which would also assist in the whole economic development of the area. What we have to work for is to give these people in the Middle East countries increasing control over their own natural resources, which in the first instance is oil.
If the western powers would take this type of imaginative approach we believe that many benefits could ensue. For one thing, it would wrest the initiative from the Soviet government and would reduce tension between east and west in so doing. It would help to offset the deep-rooted anti-western and anti-imperialist attitude which has made every past move on the part of western nations suspect among large sections of the Arab people. It would encourage Middle Eastern nations to develop along democratic lines and give them heart to throw out some of their despotic totalitarian rulers. We have countries in the Middle East where the great majority of the people live in poverty still, and a very small ruling class live in the lap of luxury, or I will say super luxury. Most important of all, it would raise the living standards of the Arab people and could lead to the transformation of Arab nationalism into a constructive world force for peace.

Supply-External Affairs
We are urging the government to give consideration to these proposals. As the last speaker on behalf of the opposition said, Canada can continue to play the role it is playing at the present time in the provision of UNEF, supplying the services of its countrymen to preserve peace in that area, and to act as an observer corps. It can also act in the assessment and the reporting of the situation in the Middle East, in counselling, advising and using its influence toward peace in the area.
Before concluding, I want to say a few words with respect to the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare. The minister said in his speech this morning that the Canadian people are interested in foreign affairs, and I think that increased numbers of the people are very concerned about developing a policy which will work toward building world peace. As far as Canada is concerned, I think that most of the religious bodies have made strong representations in this respect. I know the Anglican church, of which I am a member, and the United church have passed resolutions, both at the national level and the diocesan or regional level. I have a cutting from the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, July 2 last where the pope warns "Peace or Destruction; first encyclical appeals to leaders 'Try every approach'". Then I have another clipping from the Globe and Mail of May 16 last where Rabbi Abraham Feinberg suggests that a congress of all faiths could help prevent the drift toward war. In the report of his speech, I read this statement by the Rabbi, Abraham Feinberg:
I believe that religion has a call to leadership, to make science the servant of man rather than of homicide-
I think they are very forceful and well expressed words. I mention these statements made on behalf of churches and religious leaders to show the tremendous support the government has for all it does in working toward the maintenance of world peace. It has support not only from our religious leaders but also from our scientists. I want to quote briefly from an article in the Gazette of Wednesday, June 3, 1959 reporting some remarks of Dr. O. M. Solandt, who I think at one time was chief of our defence research board. The article is headed, "Mankind Must Alter Behaviour", and it goes on:
Dr. O. M. Solandt, vice president in charge of research and development of the Canadian National Railways, said yesterday that a global nuclear war "would certainly be the end of our present civilization and could conceivably wipe out the human race as we know it."
Dr. Solandt, former head of Canada's defence research board, told a meeting of the Quebec Heart


Foundation at the Queen Elizabeth hotel that "both sides could deliver crippling blows in spite of the advantage of surprise that would go to the aggressor."
In a strong plea for more emphasis on changing mankind's behaviour than on improving his knowledge of the physical sciences, Dr. Solandt said: "This generation is faced with a problem unique in human history. If we are to ensure the survival of our civilization we must try to ensure that our children do not behave the way we behaved."
Then he goes on to stress the need for every effort to be made to develop world peace. I am certain that the government, in view of public opinion generally in the country, has the opportunity to provide leadership of the most fruitful kind, and to speak up for Canada in this respect. I refer particularly, of course, to the field of disarmament and nuclear weapons and weapon testing. It should not be necessary for me to tell the house more of the dreadful effects that a nuclear war would have on the whole of mankind; we are all well aware of the physical devastation which would result. We are slowly coming to realize more clearly the horrible dangers from radiation which would profoundly affect all life everywhere on this planet of ours, following upon such a holocaust. The very thought should be sufficient to cause all nations to cease this hideous arms race as regards nuclear weapons.
As we informed the house at this time last week, we shall do everything in our power to convince the government of the utter futility, the horrible folly, of allowing ourselves to contribute toward this mad race -I refer to the nuclear arms race-which, in the end can only culminate in suicidal destruction for all living creatures. I shall not pursue this particular point further. However, I should like to draw the attention of the minister and of the committee to an article entitled "A Primer on Fallout", which appears in the latest copy-July 9-of the Reporter magazine, and which I feel strongly all hon. members should read. It is written by people who know. It seems to be a most objective and factual account of nuclear fallout and of the dangers from nuclear radiation.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the minister's comments on the disarmament subcommittee. I hope that the committee will be reconvened and will continue to function. We wish him well in everything he does in his high office to prod that committee into meeting and to prod it into action. As long as the committees are meeting and people are talking and negotiating, I think this indicates that we are getting somewhere.
I understand the disarmament subcommittee of the United Nations, on which Canada is

one of five members, has not met since September, 1957. From the minister's comments of this morning with respect to this committee I know he will do all he can and will use his influence to get the committee meeting again and discussing this most important question in the hope of making some progress in the near future. It must be remembered that much has happened during the intervening period since the committee met. For one thing the meeting of experts held in Geneva last year issued a promising report on the technical aspects of nuclear detection and control. There has been some technical advance since the committee last met. Mr. Chairman, you must excuse me, but I lost my teeth owing to war disabilities and have false teeth which bobble around, and I am having a great deal of trouble this afternoon. I hope you will forgive me for that fact.
As I was saying, for one thing the meeting of experts held in Geneva last year issued a promising report on the technical aspects of nuclear detection and control which may be of some assistance to the subcommittee should they decide to meet. But they must meet and talk and discuss. This is what we feel the minister should initiate, promote and continue to work for, in view of the privileged position Canada still has as a member of that subcommittee. Fortunately we are a member of that subcommittee. Perhaps as the minister becomes better acquainted with the problems of disarmament -and there is no doubt that the minister will be learning from day to day-he will be in a stronger position to bring influence to bear on the cabinet in order that they review what must be, from our point of view, a panic decision to introduce nuclear weapons into Canada. He should do this from the conviction that it will have adverse affects on Canada's ability to assume a leading role which should be hers on the disarmament subcommittee in particular, generally in the United Nations and thus in the world at large. We urge the minister to use his good offices in that respect to the limit.
The government must act and be sustained on the basis of humanitarian principles, particularly in this most important and serious matter. Only then will the government be able to surmount the hurdles which these intricate and complex problems erect on the course toward action to peace.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, the Atlantic congress of the NATO parliamentary association was held in London, England from June 5 to 10 of this year. I had the privilege of acting as the honorary general secretary of the Canadian delegation, and I am very happy
Supply-External Affairs to report to the committee at this time on Canada's part at this important gathering.
As early as 1957 plans were proposed that in 1959, the tenth anniversary year of the treaty, there should be a general congress composed of parliamentarians and distinguished citizens from the nations of NATO. The whole purpose and theme of the congress was to bring together the most distinguished and able citizens representative of the principal aspects of the NATO countries-politics, industry, commerce, finance, labour, education, mass media et cetera-to consider ways and means of developing closer co-operation between North American and European members of NATO in the fields of political, economic and cultural as well as military affairs.
In brief, the congress was to provide an opportunity of examining, on the one hand, the record of the NATO countries as members of an alliance and the prospects of their development into partners in a community and, on the other hand, the problems of relations between the NATO countries and the free and uncommitted world, and relations between the NATO countries and the communist bloc. The congress brought together 650 delegates from 15 nations of the alliance, the delegations ranging in numbers from 130 from the United States to 10 from Luxembourg.
I should like to take a few moments of the time of the committee to discuss Canada's delegation. Headed by the hon. member for Saskatoon, Canada's delegation totalled 56 and included 18 members from the 3 parties in the House of Commons; 3 members from the other place, namely the hon. senator from Ottawa West and the hon. senator from Lumsden, plus the hon. senator from Lunenburg who was one of the co-founders of the NATO parliamentary association and is now the honorary life president of that body. Then we had 36 distinguished Canadian citizens from all walks of life:-from the church, industry, the universities, the professions, the arts and sciences, labour and so on.
It was unfortunate that the secretary-treasurer of the Canadian NATO parliamentary association, who is also the second clerk assistant of this House of Commons, was not able to accompany us. This gentleman had rendered yeoman service in the organization of the Canadian delegation and his knowledge and experience would have been of inestimable value to us. Naturally, he could not leave while the house was in session. For six months prior to our going to England, the head of the delegation and other officers of the Canadian association worked to complete the organization which was so necessary if we were to do the job as we should.
5732	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
I should like to say a word at this point about the international officers of the congress supplied by Canada. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris was chairman of the very important political committee, one of the five major committees of the congress; the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency was rapporteur of sub-committee D-3-common economic policies of the west; Mr. L. Dana Wil-gress was chairman of the subcommittee A-3 -Atlantic institute; and Dr. Northrop Frye, the principal of Victoria College, was general rapporteur of the declarations committee.
The writing of papers on the subjects to be discussed at the congress was one activity in which Canada also played its full part. No less than eight papers were written by Canadians. Especially fine ones were contributed by the head of our delegation, the hon. member for Saskatoon; by the senator from Ottawa West; by Mr. Edward Nelson, the president of the united farmers of Alberta and others.
The work of the congress was divided into five major committees. These committees were as follows. The spiritual and cultural committee which was divided into 3 subcommittees; 1. moral and spiritual values of the Atlantic community; 2. information and education program; and 3. Atlantic institute. The political committee chaired, as I said earlier, by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris having as its subcommittees: 1. co-ordination of policies and settlement of disputes; 2. Atlantic institutions; and 3. military questions. The economic committee with its sub-committees: 1. resources and underdeveloped areas in the Atlantic countries; 2. scientific and technical co-operation; 3. implications of western European economic integration; 4. freedom of trade and problems of exchange and stability. The free world committee with its sub-committees: 1. conflict and community of interests; 2. common political policies of the west; 3. common economic policies of the west. The communist bloc committee with its sub-committees; 1. political policies; 2. economic policies; 3. soviet and western propaganda techniques. There was also, of course, the declarations committee whose report I plan later to read into the minutes of this session.
The congress was officially opened by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in the Great Westminster Hall beside the abbey. Plenary sessions were held, as I have mentioned, in Church House. I feel that hon. members of this house would be interested in knowing that it was the policy of the head of our delegation, and encouraged by the parliamentary members, that the non-parliamentarians be given every opportunity to express


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, recently I too had the privilege of attending the NATO congress in London, on June 3 last, and I would like to take a few minutes to tell the house the few personal impressions that I have kept from that meeting.
That congress of the nations which are grouped in the Atlantic community was held for the purpose, in my opinion, of reviewing the whole concept of NATO since its creation in 1949.
To achieve that purpose, the congress acted on six basic principles which, while summing up the action of NATO since its foundation, could also provide the organization with the necessary leadership to fulfil the objectives arising out of present requirements and in this way, adequately meet the views of member nations in the military, economic, political, social and scientific fields.

Supply-External Affairs
It is impossible for me, in the short time I have at my disposal, to comment on all the resolutions adopted by the congress, following the discussion of the principles I have mentioned. However, I would like to indicate the work and the important findings of the committee whose duty it was to make recommendations to the general assembly on matters of spiritual and cultural concern.
Following the committee's suggestions, the congress adopted the four following points:
1.	That the member states of NATO take efficient counter measures in order to fight against the Soviet ideological war, and that a formal international organization of free nations be established for the distribution of information towards that end.
2.	That it would be advisable to create a study centre of the Atlantic community to serve as information bureau and intellectual centre.
3.	That there should be greater integration of scientific research and particularly, of pure research.
4.	That it is advisable to strengthen and to expand the forms of action in the field of information and education, in order to impress more deeply in the minds and the hearts of the nations the meaning of the Atlantic community and its spiritual and moral principles.
Those resolutions clearly show that NATO must not limit itself to military considerations, but that the Atlantic community must also create organizations that would be able to think and to spread among free nations the ideas and the moral and intellectual concepts of member nations that want to work within the spirit and the framework of NATO.
What the Atlantic community wants to defend- said Mr. Jean Danielou, the French delegate,
-is not a particular civilization against another particular civilization; it is civilization period, of which the Atlantic community is the expression.
The Atlantic community, Mr. Chairman, should therefore be organized so as to be able to stand up to communist propaganda whose purpose is to attack and destroy the principle of liberty of nations that still believe in the peaceful co-existence of the peoples of mankind.
The great danger which the free nations of the world have to face today is communist propaganda in all its forms. At present the Soviets have 500,000 individuals at their service to make this propaganda system work, and they are spending 2 billion dollars a year to try and subvert a billion free men. Moscow is therefore spending $2 a year for each free human being it wants to subjugate. A U.S. ' senate commission recently informed us, as a matter of fact,

that the United States allow 1J cent a year per capita for their world propaganda.
Those figures clearly indicate that it is high time for the free nations to get together to meet the Soviet menace and fight the ideological warfare of the U.S.S.R.
During the congress, we heard pressing appeals made by several delegates, on the urgency of the situation. I remember, among others, the appeal of Mrs. Suzanne Lahin, who said:
I urge the delegates to open their eyes. The danger is a pressing and acute one, and it is dramatically urgent that the West should wake up, pull itself together, put all its intellectual and material resources to work and, rousing itself on the very fringe of the abyss it should not only avoid losing the cold war, but try to win it as well. It is just as fatal to die of cold as it is to die of burns. Our defeat would be particularly tragic in that the democratic West would die from a paralysis of the very things that once made its greatness.
In view of those facts so frequently expressed at the meeting, NATO decided to proceed with the creation of the Atlantic institute, or more accurately of an Atlantic community study centre which would serve as an information service and intellectual centre.
The Atlantic institute would exercise a certain number of duties, it would undertake certain projects on its own and co-operate with existing organizations in respect of certain others.
It would favour and support human exchange between the western nations, in order to contribute to greater mutual understanding. It would supply the machinery for the meeting not only of academic and intellectual people, but of leaders in every walk of life in order to stimulate a new knowledge with regard to problems of common concern.
The institute would serve as a clearing house and, on request, as co-ordinating centre for operations and projects connected with its basic interests. It would also initiate and support educational activities designed to promote understanding and to apply the concept of the Atlantic community.
It is in that spirit that the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty, in 1949, indicated the wider concept they had in mind when they referred, in article 2 of the charter, to the need for a better understanding of the underlying principles of the free institutions of the community.
Canada has played an important part in that congress and, in that connection, I

should like to quote from a report published in La Presse of July 4, 1959, and written by Mr. Roger Champoux, a newspaperman and Canadian delegate to the Congress:
People will ask what part Canada has played in this meeting of the free world, this soul-searching by 14 countries integrated into the most powerful alliance in the present world.
It was an outstanding part, because Canada is no longer a dependent country. Thanks to its highly informed and active delegates, Canada ranked high, and contributions by Canadian delegates drew attention; the same applies to the suggestions made by a number of delegates.
Speeches were made by several delegates, and the tasks assigned to a number of us were done quickly, efficiently and with a degree of integrity that was commended in the highest terms.
Mr. Chairman, Canada is no longer and will never be a silent partner in world meetings. It is realized in Europe that our country, whose stature always causes amazement, has become the pivot of a disturbed world, anxiously in search of a firm basis, a solid support and a reliable ally.
I can therefore fairly say, in closing, that this congress has deepened my understanding of international problems and has provided me with an opportunity of acquiring experience that will long stand me in good stead. (Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, before I venture upon the few observations I wish to make at this time I should like to express the gratification I felt when the announcement was made of the appointment of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to his present position. Hon. members will realize that the minister is held in respect and affection in his native province, and those feelings were mingled with pride at the knowledge that he would be guiding the foreign policy of the people of this country in the councils of the world.
When the announcement was made two and a half weeks ago that Canada was undertaking a special program with respect to the clearance of the refugee camps in Europe during this world refugee year, was considering new lines of approach to some of the problems that have been outstanding throughout the 14 years since the war, there was unanimous approval of the announcement in this house and I believe a general acceptance and approval across the country.
Hon. members will recognize, and I trust the people of Canada are persuaded, that the circumstances that have brought about the existence in Europe, in the Middle East and in the Far East of large numbers of homeless people, refugees, are a condemnation of the nations from which they have fled; but as long as they continue to exist in camps, or in other accommodations, unsettled, unaccepted, and, indeed, in many cases, unacceptable, then their existence under those
Supply-External Affairs circumstances is a reproach to the western nations to whom they have turned for haven. Therefore, I feel certain that there cannot be other than reason for congratulations to the government that it has decided to take certain steps to try to meet the problems of at least some of these people.
We know that among the hundreds of thousands of refugees there are those who at least still have their health; that given time, given favourable opportunities, they may find countries in the world that will accept them, where they can be assimilated, where they can once more stand on their own feet and find their own places in the world; but there are also many, far too many, unfortunately, who suffer from disability, or from illness, that makes it impossible for them to escape the conditions under which they now live because the illness or the disability makes them unacceptable in so many countries.
We in Canada have one of the best records in the world in so far as assistance in providing new homes for refugees is concerned, but we have not perhaps done as much as we might have done for those who are classified in United Nations parlance as difficult cases. In the minister's announcement there was reference specifically to tubercular cases. Those people face the most difficult situation of all; for there are relatively few places in the world where they are provided for, or where they are now accepted. Here in Canada there is, as all hon, members realize, a special difficulty in that the government of Canada itself has no hospital in which it can take care of such people, even if they came here; that any such hospitals as exist in the country come under provincial jurisdiction, and we can only introduce tubercular refugees into these hospitals if the provinces will agree to accept them. Therefore, I hope that in this year, when so much attention has been focused on the problems of refugees, the provincial authorities can be persuaded and will be willing to consider the possibility of accepting in each province where available space can be provided at least a number of the tubercular cases among the refugees in Europe today.
In solving the problems of any one tubercular refugee it often happens that the problem of a whole family is solved; for if any single member of a family unit is suffering from the disease they are not now acceptable to us. But if we accept the one, then it may be automatically supposed we will accept the rest of the family; the united family group can come into the country and that problem is solved for a deserving group of people who at the present time have very little hope. However, there have been indications during this year that this problem

Supply-External Affairs is receiving wider recognition than it has received in the past. In February the government of New Zealand accepted 20 handicapped refugees with their families, and in May the government of Sweden, which has done so much to pioneer the acceptance of tubercular refugees, accepted a further group of 54.
It may be pointed out that over the years that Sweden has been providing a haven for tubercular refugees, 649 cases altogether have been provided for in that country, and, with their dependants, a solution has been found for the problems of 1,500 people. Of that number only 649 were actually tubercular. It was reported at the 13th session of the United Nations last fall that in one particular group of 200 which was taken from the camps by Sweden and Denmark in conjunction, a group that included as well as tubercular cases some mental cases, there had been complete recovery and assimilation of that total number of 200.
It is not as though in undertaking such a program Canada would be embarking upon unknown ground. There is the example of Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand and the other countries which are dealing in difficult cases which we may follow, and from which we can gain experience and perhaps learn to avoid any pitfalls that may be inherent in such a plan. Therefore, the principle of the thing has been accepted by the government. I only hope now that every effort will be made to give it practical realization. I hope that the people of Canada will support this program; that the provincial governments will provide the necessary facilities, the facilities that only they can provide, and that perhaps in this way, at a time when considerations of compassion and humanity are so important in an unsettled world, this program will prove successful and provide the solution of the problems of people who now live with very little hope.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief in my remarks, but before I deal with the matter I wish to raise, I should like to congratulate the new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), and wish him to keep earning for Canada the reputation which she has always enjoyed.
Mr. Chairman, if I rise on the first item of the Department of External Affairs, it is to ask the hon. minister whether it would not be appropriate to consider the possibility of establishing diplomatic relations with the government of Ethiopia. It is not because I went to Ethiopia myself that I ask the government to consider that matter, but
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) .1

Ethiopia, like many other Eastern and African countries, is a country which is friendly to us, and where a great number of Canadians, both French-speaking and English-speaking, have taken up residence. Among the many Canadians who went to Ethiopia in 1945 at the request of Emperor Haile Selassie, there was Rev. Father Matte, s.j., doctor of science, who established the Tafari Mackonnen High School. Since then, University College has been founded, of which Rev. Father Matte is also president.
The part played by French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians in Ethiopia, in the field of education since 1945, has been enormous. Canadians who live in Ethiopia, and the Ethiopian government too, I am sure, would be very pleased indeed if diplomatic relations were established between our two countries.
I would not like to take more of the time of the house, but I ask the hon. minister to be so kind as to consider the possibility of establishing diplomatic relations between those two countries.
(Text):


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take a few minutes to mention certain matters. Along with other members who have preceded me I also want to wish the minister well in his new responsibility. His new department possibly involves more responsibility than any other department. Canadians will long remember his remarks of this morning when he said, if I have his words right, that in this nuclear age war is unthinkable and there simply is no alternative to continued negotiation. I hope I have his words right. I believe they will obtain for the minister the best wishes of 17J million Canadians. We have every confidence that the minister is going to continue to pursue that philosophy as long as he holds his present high office.
I wish to refer to a couple of matters which the minister may consider as relatively minor but which to me are of rather important significance. I should like to compliment the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke on the great interest he has exhibited over the past year or more in the question of the refugees of the world. Most Canadians recognize that we are either refugees or the sons, grandsons or greatgrandsons of refugees. Most of our forefathers left European shores because they found life and conditions unbearable there and they were political, religious or some other type of refugees.
I believe that we may have been following a wrong policy with respect to refugees in that in our openheartedness we have only been willing to supply money for the maintenance of refugees in other parts of the world. I know that money can salve our

consciences at times but in my opinion the move that was made a number of weeks ago when the government announced its willingness to accept a certain number of these refugees into Canada was a welcome one. However, I believe it was a very limited move indeed and I hope that in the months ahead the government will give serious consideration to ending once and for all the refugee camp problem existing in Europe and that we will not only be willing to accept into Canada cases involving tuberculosis merely because we happen to have empty sanitaria space but will also be willing to accept our fair share of the refugees still in camps in Europe 14 years after the end of the second world war. I hope that we will take our share and have an end to this continuing problem in Europe.
I also fail to appreciate Canada's continued willingness to pay money toward the maintenance of the refugee camp in the Middle East because the problem there is not being resolved by our continuing to feed, clothe and supply education, housing and medical care to these people. Even today there are several hundred thousand more refugees in the Middle East than there were after the formation of Israel. I believe that Canada should follow an aggressive policy in the United Nations toward the re-establishment of these refugees. I regret to have to inform the minister that I have spoken to a number of Canadians who have actually visited the refugee camps and who say that the state of demoralization that has now come about is simply deplorable. These people have been nursed, fed and supplied with all their basic needs, even though at a very minimum level, but some of them have now become so lazy that they are even unwilling to lift their hands to swipe away the flies that are feeding on their eyes.
I believe that if Canadians continue to endorse this refugee camp and the existing arrangements we will not be making our maximum contribution. In my opinion Canada should not only be willing to accept a number of these people into our country but Canada should follow a policy at the United Nations that will lead to the re-establishment of these refugees possibly in some of the arid regions of the Middle East which can be made into useful areas.
Another refugee problem exists, as the minister well knows, on the island of Hong Kong. I feel that the minister might use his good offices with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration so that Canadians of Chinese origin with near relatives in Hong Kong would have a little less tortuous path to pursue in obtaining the right to bring these people, who are refugees from the mainland
Supply-External Affairs of China, into Canada. The Canadian people, as the minister knows, are an open and kindhearted people and with respect to the whole question of refugees the minister will always find that the people of Canada will support him in any progressive move he can make.
Another policy about which I feel I have to complain a little is that involving the urging of Canadians to adopt an orphan overseas and to send $15, $20 or $30 a month to maintain an orphan in some other area of the world. I feel that orphans are the best possible kind of immigrant we can have in Canada, and once again I would like to appeal to the minister to use his influence with his colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to pursue a policy whereby all these orphans might benefit by encouraging the foster father, the foster mother or foster parents not to supply money to maintain the orphan overseas but rather to bring the orphan into Canada and to look after the orphan in their own home.
I would also like to appeal to the minister to do a little bit of investigating as to what happened to what the newspapers reported about a year ago was the Prime Minister's plan for a possible agreement between Canada and the U.S.S.R. whereby Canada and the Soviet union might agree upon an Arctic inspection plan and thereby eliminate the need for the vast armament expenditures within the Arctic areas. We have never had a report in the House of Commons as to why that plan suddenly disappeared. We have never had a report on the plan at all. I believed at the time I first read of it that the plan was an excellent idea, enough to be explored to the full, and I hope that the minister at some time will pay some attention to that and see whether or not it was the United States government that completely vetoed the plan and caused the Canadian government immediately to forget it, and also investigate whether or not it should be revived.
I would also like to appeal to the minister to pay some little attention to the quality of Canadians parliamentary representation abroad. I have been at a number of international gatherings, and I have always been very impressed with the quality of representatives at these international gatherings who came from either Washington or Westminster. I have always had the feeling that when Canada is asked to send 15 members of parliament here, five members of parliament there, and eight members of parliament somewhere else to international meetings, far too often what happens in effect is that the least able members of the House of Commons, the ones who are not needed at home, are
5738	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs available as our representatives overseas. I do not believe that this helps to enhance Canadian prestige at international gatherings. I do not want to pinpoint any one meeting or any individual or any group of individuals, but I have been amazed at the quality of the United States and British representatives at international meetings and have often had the feeling that we were not sending our best representatives abroad.
Mr. Pallet!: The hon. member was at two of them himself.


Erhart Regier: Yes, I was one of them, and I have been one of the worst I agree. However, I was with the hon. member for Leeds, I think it was, and I must say that he acquitted himself very well indeed when he headed our NATO delegation in Europe in the fall of 1957, even though he may have felt that I was not of much use to him.
I should like to express my appreciation to the minister at this time for going to considerable trouble in arranging for a representative of Canadian teachers to attend the meeting now taking place in London in connection with the establishment of a commonwealth scholarship program. I noted the minister said this morning that the Canadian government expected that it would have to spend about $1 million a year on this type of proposal, and that out of a thousand scholarships we would be expected to look after roughly 250 of them. I do not want to be too inquisitive, but it looks like a rather openhearted amount, $4,000 per year for each of them. Unless the overhead is unduly large, I feel that this is an amount which can hardly be compared with even a Rhodes scholarship or an I.O.D.E. scholarship. They certainly do not amount to $4,000 a year, yet the minister indicated there would be 250 scholarships at a cost of roughly $1 million.
I was a little disappointed at the amount which was announced. I had hoped that Canada would be prepared to spend at least $10 million or $20 million on this type of enterprise, and that Canadian universities and other institutions of learning might expect to receive not 250 but more in the neighbourhood of 2,500 commonwealth students who would be obtaining their education here. However, I heartily endorse the program. Our whole group heartily endorse this program. We only regret that it is not more extensive. However, we realize it is only the beginning and that it may be expanded in the years ahead. We feel that it is very important that the commonwealth nations help each other in this manner and thereby help to spread some of the traditions


that we hope will become firmly rooted in all areas of the British commonwealth of nations.
I have never expressed this sentiment in the house before. However, I would like to inform the minister that my great grandfather and my grandfather, upon the ascension of Mr. Bismarck in Europe, left European shores and chose liberty under the traditions which were established and recognized as the basic liberties of the individual in areas where the Union Jack was known. I personally would like to see a spread of this liberty, but not by imposition. We must realize that we have to live in a world with many others who have different attitudes and approaches to many of our main problems in life. However, we should by example help in every way we can to spread the basic traditions that have made the commonwealth, and especially the heart of the commonwealth, the United Kingdom, even though it may not be militarily powerful any more, into the most respected nation today in the world. I believe that the establishment of a commonwealth scholarship program will help very much toward the accomplishment of this aim that I am sure all members of this house endorse.
(Translation):


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, if I venture to take part in this debate, it is not so much that I am aware of the scope and difficulty of the subject-matter, but I consider it important for us members to discuss external affairs, certainly not as experts, but as representatives of the people. Indeed, it is our responsibility to inform those we represent of what is happening in diplomatic circles and on the international scene. Moreover, it is our duty to keep the government aware of the popular reaction to the international situation and to its own policy.
Hon. members must recall what is ultimately at stake in the secret struggle taking place at the diplomatic level. What is at stake is indeed the very survival of civilization and freedom for the preservation of peace. It is also our responsibility as members to remind the public that every single individual will ultimately reap the sweet or bitter fruit of official high level policy.
My intentions are of modest scope. I simply want to reaffirm what seems to me fundamental in the matter. But before dealing with the subject, I would like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to tender my warmest congratulations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). The way in which the announcement of his appointment to his present post was received told him, better than I can, the very great esteem in

which he is regarded by his colleagues. I want to tell him, perhaps on behalf of the younger members in this house, that we admire him very sincerely and that since our arrival in this House of Commons, he has been to us a model and an example. Because of his great kindness, his simplicity and sincerity, we would be inclined to consider him as a father if, on the other hand, his very great cordiality, did not make us consider him, instead, as an older brother. At all events, Mr. Chairman, together with all my fellow members, I welcome this appointment which, I am sure, will have happiest results for Canada. Mr. Chairman, last autumn, I had the honour to be invited to attend the 13th general assembly of the United Nations as Canadian delegate. I must say that my stay in New York has taught me a very great lesson. I was able to realize, on the spot, the importance of diplomatic debate and the efficient part played there by Canada. I listened, day by day to debates on the most vital principles. And, when I was a member of the fifth commission -the administrative and budgetary commission-I could see all the underlying factors of international policy coming up in the discussions, in the form of estimates introduced for approval. I was thus able to familiarize myself with external affairs and to understand the extreme difficulty of some situations and the importance of those discussions.
Today-and even more so today than before -the international situation cannot but cause the gravest misgivings, Mr. Chairman. If we remember the Middle East crisis in the summer of 1958, as well as the Quemoy and Matsu islands issue we realize that the events which troubled the world at that time made us fear the worse conflicts. Since then, there has been a settlement. It nevertheless remains that this settlement has a precarious character because of the very strategic withdrawals which made it possible, but which leave the positions with regard to principle absolutely unchanged in the two camps.
The recent Berlin crisis proved that the international situation is not yet settled and that security and world peace are still threatened at this time. As a matter of fact, the Berlin crisis is a menace which, according to experts, might very well be the final test of strength. Its character is tragic mainly because of the fact that it again brings a major issue to the fore. It throws new light on events that seemed already old, but which are again emerging as a stark reality. These events were those that marked the end of
Supply-External Affairs the 1939-45 war, and they are the consequences of the negotiations held at the time.
Mr. Chairman, what impresses me and what I want to stress when I consider those international events, is the meaning and the interpretation we are forced to give them.
Indeed, we are actually in a position of perpetual conflict opposing-one might as well admit it-communists and non-communists. That masked, underhand conflict has degenerated into what is now called the cold war. It is none the less extremely important and dangerous; as witness the various international developments to which I referred a moment ago. All those developments are increasing international tension and threatening the world with a menace of which our young men will perhaps suffer the dire consequences one of these days.
Those facts, which in reality constitute the international crisis, are an indication of Russia's and her satellites' intentions, and they reveal the character of the philosophy behind their diplomatic approach.
The heart of the problem lies in that opposition commonly called: East-West opposition. It lies in this fact that a fight, a fight to the finish, so it seems, is being waged between communist and non-communist countries. That opposition is one of principles, because it involves two opposite philosophies, two opposite civilizations, and because it is based on contradictory principles. It opposes an atheistic civilization to a civilization of faith, a deistic civilization; it sets a materialistic civilization against one based on the principle of priority of spiritual matters; a form of communism against a normal form of individualism; social planning against private enterprise, arbitrary state control against divine right, natural right. Also, if we care to take a closer and more realistic look at the matter, we realize that we are faced with opposition between tyranny and freedom.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the major objective that we must pursue, is the defence of our civilization, western and Christian civilization. The result will be a struggle not for geographical possessions, not for military supremacy, not for economic domination, nor for political hegemony, but a struggle for the survival of a civilization, its development and perfection. That struggle must be considered by us as of capital importance, since our civilization, which we seek to defend, must be rooted in fundamental principles which are like the mainstays of our lives; those principles are based on divine right, natural right, on freedom of the individual, and on individual and social ethics. It is a

Supply-External Affairs civilization which has historic achievements to its credit: its philosophy, its culture, its letters and its arts, its technology and science in all its forms. Consequently, it is that objective we must defend. We are defending acknowledged values, values which have been historically established and, in my opinion, that is an approach we should never lose sight of in any consideration of external affairs.
The defence of western civilization is not therefore based on sentimental reasons but on historic realities. I was saying a moment ago that this civilization we are defending is opposed by a materialistic civilization that can certainly produce astonishing technological achievements, and may even bring about a certain amount of well-being, but at an extremely heavy cost, the loss of individual freedom in exchange for purely material progress.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, our attitude must be a practical and realistic one, in view of the threat of war and particularly of a nuclear war that would dwarf any catastrophe ever recorded. Our attitude must be one of strength, and must prompt us to look for the facts behind the threats from Russia and the satellite countries, but it must above all be one of caution so that we may exhaust every diplomatic means at our disposal. In that regard, our membership in the United Nations and in NATO should always be viewed as a way of cooperating in the maintenance of world peace and security.
There are people today who favour cooperation in every field with those whom we must rightfully consider as enemies of our civilization. Such a policy might be largely a matter of political and diplomatic strategy; it might in some ways, yield excellent results, but it should not cause us to lose sight of the major principles involved. Fear of war must not make us lose sight of our goal, which is the defence of the values underlying our way of life and our community.
The Canadian government, through its membership in the UN and in NATO, must maintain a defence system and must, in cooperation with its neighbours and with the major countries of NATO, keep up a highly efficient protection system. That, of course, involves considerable expense, and it is our duty, as representatives of the people, to


explain to the people that Canada's defence system involves a measure of sacrifice on the part of the nation and its citizens.
Quite often, we hear complaints, we hear all kinds of criticism on the efforts Canada has to make to expand its defence system. It is our job to explain the meaning of that protection, which inevitably costs money.
However, it seems to me that there is one area where Canada's effort should be greater, and I refer to the help Canada must or has agreed to provide to underdeveloped countries. In countries of Africa and Asia, and in some countries nearer to us, there are people today who are yearning for social improvement and for greater personal and political freedom. To reach those goals, however, they need technical, financial and cultural help. Such is the context for our contribution to the various schemes aimed at helping underdeveloped countries.
I, for my part, know that this undertaking of the Canadian government has often been harshly criticized; but this criticism, which might in some cases be justified, is easily refuted-and this again is a responsibility of those who represent the people-provided we take the trouble of making the public understand that they are part of the family of man, of pointing out the interdependence of Canadian citizens and of all the citizens of the world who sincerely want to promote the cause of peace.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that just about everywhere in Canada there may be agents of disorder, agents who may be propagandists of subversive ideas. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) stressed today, some of these agents try to undermine our social and political institutions in Canada and are therefore, in fact, distributors of subversive political propaganda.
Those agents are preventing the creation and the implementation of defence and diplomatic policy which would be really efficient and produce all the results we expect of it.
We, in Canada, have a particular role to play; we must show the way we must set for other nations-more so perhaps because we are a young nation-the example of a true to life civilization which, to all practical intents, proves the historical and intrinsic value of the principles that we consider as the basis of Christian and western civilization. (Text):


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this has been for me, and I am sure for the officials of the

department, a very helpful discussion. Before the vote is passed I should like to deal very briefly with some of the points which have been made by the various hon. members who have taken part in this debate. There have been a great many useful suggestions made and they will all be given careful consideration because under the conditions which exist around the world today no idea can be overlooked or bypassed in case it might be of great value in helping to bring about world peace.
The hon. member for Essex East mentioned the importance of the forthcoming session of the United Nations which will be opening in September. I can assure him that I intend to lead the Canadian delegation at this session and will stay in New York as long as possible. However, there are various duties which come up from time to time in Canada or perhaps in some other part of the world and as the hon. member knows it is impossible for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be there for the whole of the duration of the session.
The hon. member mentioned the need for increased representation for Canada in the Middle East, referring particularly to Iraq. This is under consideration by the department. As the hon. gentleman said, there has been a mission set up in Iran. I believe the intention had been to have a charge d'affaires in Iraq. Then there was trouble in that country about a year ago. I am not yet in a position to announce just what steps the government can take. Our ambassador to the United Arab Republic will be going to Baghdad in a few days to attend the anniversary of the revolution of last year which was on July 14 and while there no doubt he will be able to look into the whole situation. I should like the hon. member for Essex East to realize that we are interested in the possibilities of establishing a further mission in this area which has been and is of such great importance in world affairs.
I shall not comment on the hon. member's quotations from the London Times. That, of course, is a great newspaper. I remember reading it with great confidence 45 years ago. But like all other newspapers it is not always right and perhaps the article from which he quoted was not as praiseworthy as he seemed to suggest.
He also mentioned the possibility of arrangements being made for what he called the United Nations presence in Berlin. There have been suggestions made that if the four negotiating powers could reach agreement then there might be a role for the
Supply

External Affairs United Nations in Berlin based on that agreement. This I believe is an idea which certainly merits careful consideration. It may be that the solution of the Berlin problem will be along that line. At the moment, however, I am not in a position to take any stand one way or the other.
The hon. member for Kootenay West advanced many suggestions and outlined the policy of his party on various questions having to do with foreign policy. I know he will not expect me to comment on these policies. He said he felt that Canada had lost her contacts in world affairs and hoped that we would now resume these lost contacts. I can assure the hon. member that the losses have not been as great as he thinks. I should be very much surprised if any contacts whatever had been lost. Perhaps he was reading speculative articles in some of the newspapers as well when he formed that opinion.
The foreign service of Canada has an excellent standing all over the world. He would be surprised at the number and the quality of the dispatches which come in to the minister of the department every day from all over the world although I do not think that perhaps more than 10 per cent of the total volume would be passed on to me. I can assure the hon. gentleman that Canada is very well represented in all parts of the world and I believe her standing in world affairs is as high as that of any other nation.
There are reasons for that, of course, beyond our own good qualities as Canadians. We are not in the position of having any past to explain nor do we have a record of wanting anybody's territory or of having designs on anybody. Our main ambition is to be friendly with all other nations and I believe that is characteristic of the Canadian outlook. This has been one reason why we have enjoyed such a high standing, as well, of course, as the fact that Canada has been very well served abroad not only on an official level but also in the public men who have represented this nation.
The hon. member need not be afraid that Canadian foreign policy will be merely a reflection of United States policy. We have great friendship and vast admiration for our cousins but we intend to stand on our own feet in foreign policy and try to take the approach which the average Canadian would take on these questions.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury and the hon. member for Charlevoix made very interesting reports on the Atlantic congress
5742	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs which took place a short time ago. In this connection I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam about the rather inferior calibre of the Canadian representatives at conferences were made seriously. It may be that the Canadian representatives are not expert on protocol. I find it quite a problem myself and I think any Canadian would until he had been in the diplomatic service for a lifetime. But I have no doubt that when it comes to good, plain, hardheaded common sense the Canadian members of parliament who attend those conferences are just as good as the representatives of any other parliament in the world.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke made a very thoughtful and appealing speech on the refugee problem. This was also dealt with by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. We are very interested to see just what the reaction of the Canadian people will be to the suggestion that a real attempt be made to get at the hard core of this refugee problem. If this is to be done it will mean bringing people to Canada who are not in good physical condition; it will cost money and it will require understanding on the part of our own Canadian people.
When I suggested a week or two ago that we were prepared to embark on a program that would help to meet this refugee problem I was not just sure what the reaction would be. So far it has been excellent, very gratifying, and the remarks made by these two gentlemen today will help a great deal to make it possible for Canada to adopt a worthwhile policy to deal with this situation.
The hon. member for Lapointe made a suggestion that Canada should have diplomatic representation in Ethiopia and others have come forward with the same proposal. We have always enjoyed the friendliest of relations with Ethiopia. Hon. members will recall, for instance, the welcome visit to Canada of His Majesty, the Emperor of Ethiopia, in 1954. The question of establishing diplomatic relations with this country is, of course, kept under review in the light of the requirements of Canadian citizens in Ethiopia and of the various demands on our financial and personnel resources.
As hon. members know, this department operates on cold, hard cash, and we always have to consider whether we can get the money to establish those missions. It is not simply a case of deciding that we would like a mission here and a mission there, and establishing them. We have to do business with the treasury board, just as do the other departments, and in my experience treasury board is sometimes quite a high hurdle to get over.


To get back to Ethiopia, I might say that the registration of such Canadians with the United Kingdom embassy in Addis Ababa is a normal practice in countries where Canada has no diplomatic mission, and this practice has proved to be generally satisfactory.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam referred to the plan proposed by our own Prime Minister for inspection of Arctic regions, both of Canada and of the Soviet union, and he seemed to think that that plan had been put away in a filing cabinet and forgotten; but such is not the case. Canada was associated with the original proposal of a regional disarmament inspection zone in Arctic areas. No agreement has been reached with the Soviet union on such an area, but the Canadian government remains today ready to co-operate fully in any such plan that may be worked out between the nations.
That hon. member also mentioned the cost per student under the commonwealth education plan. The meetings to discuss the details of such a plan will not be held until next week. The figure of $1 million is an estimate. However, I point out that these students will be graduates taking post-graduate courses, and that the cost will include travel, maintenance and contributions to the universities. Also, of course, Canada will have to pay her share of the administrative expenses in connection with the plan. But the hon. member can be quite sure that there will be no money thrown away. In my experience this seldom happens under any scholarship plan.
Finally, the hon. member for Roberval made a very thought-provoking speech, as he always does, and his comments, too, will be given very careful consideration by myself and by the officials of the department.
I think that covers many of the points which were raised by the different members, and I shall be very glad to try to answer any other questions as we go through the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
77.	Representation abroad-operational-including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $9,606,439.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I did not burden the minister or the committee with a speech when we were discussing the estimates in a general way, but I should like to say a few things about some of the individual items, including this particular one. However, before I do that, perhaps the minister would permit me to add my congratulations and good wishes to him which were given to him on behalf of our party by my colleague, the hon. member for Essex East.

Those good wishes are as sincere as they are in a sense repetitive because he has already heard them. I lament, of course, as we all do, the tragedy which required the minister to take on this portfolio; but he can, as my colleague from Essex East has already said, count on our good wishes and support for every move that he makes that we feel is in the interest of our country and of peace. That will not, as has already been stated, prevent us from speaking frankly, as he used to speak when he was in opposition, on some foreign affairs questions.
He mentioned that he has already been at a picnic of the Department of External Affairs. I assume he has already also found out that external affairs is not a picnic, and I can only underline the thought, which has already been expressed, that perhaps he will soon be relieved of some of his other important activities so that he can devote all of his time to this important portfolio which he now has and which I know he will honour.
The item that we are now considering has to do with representation abroad. I was very happy indeed to hear the minister pay his sincere and generous tribute to the work of the officers of the department, both at home and abroad, and I join with him in that tribute.
He mentioned that they were a great band of Canadians, perhaps even better Canadians because they have had the privilege and the responsibility of living, working and speaking for Canada abroad. Sometimes it makes you a better Canadian than if you have to spend all your time at home. I prefer, incidentally, the minister's reference to the departmental officials to that which was quoted by the hon. member for Essex East from a press column. The item shows an increase of $859,000, and f should like to ask the minister whether this increase is in part at least to take care of new posts abroad and, if so, what these new posts are. .
The other day the minister indicated in reply to a question that there were eight missions, 1 believe, where the headships were now vacant. I should also like to ask him whether the government contemplates filling those posts in the near future because I think it is important, particularly in these days, that these vacancies should be reduced to a minimum within a short time. I know that the minister will agree with me there. Perhaps there is less reason for vacancies now than there may have been at one stage of the development of the external affairs department because the department has now grown to the point where it has in its senior officers men of experience and capacity who 66968-9-364
Supply-External Affairs are quite capable, I am sure, of filling any diplomatic vacancy that may exist. In the earlier days of the service, of course, before there had been time and opportunity for the development of officers with seniority and experience, it was often necessary to go outside the service to fill these vacancies. I agree that from time to time it will always be necessary in an efficient foreign service to bring into the ranks of that service in top posts men of special capacity and experience for a particular job. But I would hope that these vacancies, eight in number, will soon be filled because it is difficult for a diplomatic mission to function as effectively as the minister I know wishes it to function if the headship remains vacant too long.


Howard Charles Green: The increase in $859,034 in this vote is chiefly caused by the added requirements of $440,590 for salaries, $371,669 in allowances, $24,655 in freight charges, $35,999 in telephone and communication services and $30,885 for office stationery and supplies. While I think the return to which the Leader of the Opposition referred showed that there were eight offices of heads of missions vacant, in some cases one representative is to be accredited to more than one country so that there are not actually eight vacancies. One example is the case of Cuba. I understand that there are only five vacancies and I hope to have appointments made at least to some of them in the very near future. They are in the course of going through the necessary procedures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister say whether or not the appointments he has just mentioned will be made from the service itself?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
78.	Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works land equipment and furnishings and to the extent that, blocked funds are available for these expenditures, to provide for payment from these foreign currencies owned by Canada and provided only for governmental or other limited purposes, $1,565,405.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not want to detain the committee but may I ask the minister whether the increase represents the construction of some new embassies abroad and, if so, where are they?


Howard Charles Green: This vote shows an increase of $152,717 over 1958-59. The dominant factor in the increase is the requirement of an additional $76,950 for the acquisition, construction and improvement of properties. This item makes provision for the following principle projects:	A chancery at Canberra,
$100,000; official residence, Brussels, $150,000; chancery, New Delhi, initial cost, $60,000; staff

Supply-External Affairs quarters and service building, Tokyo, $70,000; chancery, Ankara, intial cost $60,000; official residence, New York, $60,000, for a total of $500,000.
Then, as to procurement of motor vehicles and other equipment, the increase of $31,900 reflects normal replacement mainly of automobiles, of which 34 are to be replaced in 1959 and 1960 and eight added to the establishment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
79.	Official hospitality, $40,000.
Mr. Forgie:: I should like to ask the minister if he is sure that the amount of $40,000 for hospitality is adequate?


Howard Charles Green: The purpose of this vote is to provide for the payment of accounts for dinners, luncheons, local transportation, miscellaneous expenses, etc., in connection with the entertainment of distinguished visitors, most of whom are from abroad. It also provides for the cost of gifts to distinguished visitors from abroad who may decide to confer gifts on the Prime Minister or other members of the cabinet. That is also chargeable to this vote up to a maximum of $3,000 per year. In the year 1938-39 the expenditure was $2,825;	in	1943-44,	$12,810;	in1950-51,	$19,667;	in	1951-52,	$39,620;	in1952-53,	$9,965; in 1953-54,	$23,955; in1954-55,	$31,315;	in	1955-56,	$41,988;	in
1956-57, $46,679; in 1957-58, $37,087; and for 1958-59 the forecast is $40,000. We will try to keep these expenditures down well below $40,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister repeat the expenditure for 1957-58?


Howard Charles Green: The 1957-58 expenditure was $37,087, almost $10,000 less than the year before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister indicated that the expenditure for 1958-59 was an estimate but the fiscal year ended on March 31.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
81. Canadian representation at international conferences, $243,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister tell us with respect to delegations to the international labour office as well as delegations to the world health organization, in other words delegations that represent functionally other departments of government, whether it has been the practice during the past two years-I hope this is not an unfair question to ask a new minister-to have the appointments made on the nomination of the Secretary of State for External Affairs or

are the appointments made on the nomination of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Labour.


Howard Charles Green: The ordinary practice is for the recommendations to come from the department or departments concerned to the Department of External Affairs. Then formal approval is obtained by the Department of External Affairs and usually an announcement is made by our department.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister tell me whether this vote is for the expenses of delegations to the United Nations assembly?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Could the minister give the committee the figures of expenses for the assembly delegation for last fall, September, and the September before that?


Howard Charles Green: The cost for the session of last fall was $125,320.23. With regard to the fall of 1957, my officials do not have the figure available at the moment but I will be glad to get it.


Mr. Crestohl:: I wonder whether the minister could tell the committee whether the expenditures of the conference recently held in London of the NATO parliamentary association, and also of the prominent Canadians who attended, came out of this fund.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
82. Grant to the United Nations association in Canada, $11,000.
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us when was the last increase given to the Canadian United Nations organization, and what was the amount of that increase?


Howard Charles Green: The last increase was in the fiscal year 1954-55, when the figure was raised from $10,000 to $11,000.


Leon David Crestohl: May I say a word on that. I think the position of the United Nations is becoming much more important, and Canadians are becoming much more conscious of the existence and effectiveness of the United Nations. I think we should encourage that, and perhaps a more substantial grant should be given to the organization in Canada in order that it may continue to spread the gospel amongst Canadians of the usefulness and importance of the United Nations. I do not think that $11,000 is a large enough contribution for the government of Canada to make to this all important organization in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the United Nations association in

Canada has been and is doing very good work, and I will be very glad to have a look at the question of whether or not the grant should be increased. The hon. member, of course, will appreciate the fact that here again we have to do business with the treasury board.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might engage the attention of the committee for a few minutes in connection with this item. Up to a few months ago I had very little knowledge of the extensive work that the United Nations association in Canada does, but last week I had the privilege of attending as a guest a seminar that is held by this association in Canada. This was a new seminar started at Geneva park on lake Couchiching, about 20 miles from my own home town. At this seminar there were approximately 70 high school students from grades 11 and 12. They were picked from among the most intelligent members of the schools in their grades to come down to this conference and study work undertaken by the United Nations. There were actually six from Powassan high school in my own riding. This conference lasted six days, and these young people were brought together for the six days and they were taught one particular subject. This year they spent six days on the subject of the emergence of Africa, and even the minister's departmental officials admitted that this was a terrific undertaking.
I was asked to attend this conference and speak because of the fact that I had been with the Canadian delegation at the United Nations last fall and had spent six weeks with the committee dealing with trusteeships and mostly with African problems. The association now holds seven other seminars across Canada each summer and they bring together some of the best students in Canada to be taught about the problems of the United Nations. There is one held at Sack-ville, New Brunswick, one at Kingston, and at London, Ontario, one at Winnipeg, Manitoba, one at Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, one at Banff, Alberta, and another at Vancouver, British Columbia. I concur that the association is doing an excellent job of making our young Canadians aware of world problems.


Leon David Crestohl: I think the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat can really serve as an object lesson, and if the minister is having difficulty with treasury board perhaps they might attend a seminar like that and realize the importance of the United Nations in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: It might do them a lot of good.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
66968-9-364i
Supply-External Affairs
85. Canadian government's assessment for membership in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates including authority to pay such estimates in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied; amount required in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1958, $3,838,519.
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I thought perhaps I might have made my remarks with regard to this item on item 1, but I find that perhaps they will be more appropriate under this heading. I think that our country should be a little more concerned than is manifest about the Suez canal difficulty which is interfering with world shipping. Canada is gradually becoming more of a chartering country than ever before. Our merchant marine is not as effective or as new as it was. We have pretty nearly disposed of our entire merchant marine and shipping companies I imagine are resorting more and more to the use of chartered bottoms for the shipping of Canadian goods throughout the world. I think it is an undue interference by any one country to dictate to other countries in the world who they can and cannot deal with, and I think the government should perhaps express itself on this question.
I think there is no necessity for anyone to discuss the importance of freedom of the seas, which is an important part of shipping rights. If this is interfered with, certainly our shipping capacity or our trade is interfered with; and because our trade is interfered with I think Canada should take some stand, either through the United Nations or otherwise. It is true that the secretary general is over there now attempting to iron out these things but I think the hand of the secretary general would be much strengthened if countries requiring the freedom of the seas and the use of the seas for their trade would express themselves. Perhaps some form of protest is being transmitted to which publicity is not given. But I feel that a country like Canada which has always championed the rights of free trade and the right of using the high seas should most certainly now take some stand. We depend upon the right to use the sea. We depend not only on Canadian vessels but upon foreign vessels and chartered vessels. I think we shall be seriously prejudiced if we do not speak up for them.
I have the feeling that our representative at the United Nations should be especially briefed on this subject. When there was difficulty in the Middle East it will be recalled that troops were withdrawn, peace was adjusted, and armistice was created, one condition which was that the Suez Canal and the gulf of Tiran would be kept free for shipping. There has been an invasion of that condition. I think that Egypt has not lived

Supply-External Affairs up to her obligation as to which she gave a pledge to the United Nations. I am drawing this matter to the attention of the minister who, I realize, will be facing this problem now himself and urging him to take the stand, on the lofty level that our country has always taken, to see that right should prevail; that the freedom of the seas, above all, should be maintained; and that Canada's foreign trade should not be interrupted by the intransigence of any one country.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member is quite right. We place great importance on freedom of the seas. Of course this applies in the case of the Suez canal. Canada has always taken the position that there should be free transit of that canal. At the moment the secretary general of the United Nations is in the Middle East and is endeavouring to get this difficulty ironed out. We are hopeful that he will have some success in this endeavour.


Leon David Crestohl: Has the government made its opinion known in this matter? Has it transmitted any protest to Egypt that it is in contravention of this undertaking to the United Nations?


Howard Charles Green: We have made it clear throughout all this difficulty that we place great importance on the right of free transit through the canal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As the minister has said, the secretary general of the United Nations is, I think in Egypt at the moment-Cairo, to be specific-doing his best to help to solve this problem. He is a man with great experience and great capacity in these matters and he has a very detailed knowledge of this particular problem, I am sure. As my hon. friend has pointed out, it is a very important problem, that one member of the United Nations should interfere with shipping through the Suez canal because that ship is carrying goods from another member of the United Nations, even though it may not be in a ship of that particular country. I am, of course, talking about Egypt and Israel. The grounds that have been given for that interference are, I believe that a state of belligerency still exists between those two states and has existed for many years.
I know as well as does the minister of the delicacy and difficulty and, indeed, the danger in this position. But I am impressed by the fact that if this interference continues these dangers will grow. I can only express the hope that the secretary general will find some way of solving this difficulty which, if it is not solved, may cause a good deal of trouble before the next assembly meets. Anything

that the Canadian government can do to strengthen his hand in the efforts he is making I am sure would be well done.


Howard Charles Green: As the Leader of the Opposition has said, this is an extremely difficult position. It involves the steamship Inge Toft. We have been doing everything we could to help the secretary general arrive at a settlement of the difficulty.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall vote 85 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. When I was speaking earlier, Mr. Chairman, I had casually mentioned the international court of justice and I had indicated that the president of the United States and the vice president, Mr. Nixon, had in the past few months made rather important statements with regard to the compulsory jurisdiction of the court and the position of the government of the United States in connection with this particular matter.
Since the end of the second world war, as compared with the situation that attended the court under the covenant, I think there has been a tendency-in which our country has participated-for countries to avoid opportunities of recourse to the international court of justice for the settlement of their disputes. I think that Canada ought to join with the United States in seeking to give this matter of compulsory jurisdiction at least further consideration, notwithstanding the attending difficulties.
Part of this problem, of course, is expressed in the reservations to the optional clause of the statute of the court as stated in article 36 of the statute, where states are permitted to submit to the jurisdiction of the court subject to certain reservations. In the case of Canada, in 1929 we made a declaration containing a number of reservations that perhaps have less relevance today than they had at that time. The situation under which we are prepared to accept the jurisdiction of the court is attended by certain reservations and certain conditions. We will accept the jurisdiction of the court where there is reciprocity, where there is ratification and where there is reservation as to a time limit. Then we also have made reservations as to other possible methods of settlement to which the parties have agreed to have recourse. Of course there is the reservation as to domestic jurisdiction and the reservation excluding disputes arising before the making of a declaration.
I suggest to the minister that I think the time has come to look at our position with regard to this situation, and to try and give the court increased status by giving it more to do. I think we might perhaps meet the problem involved in the domestic jurisdiction

clause by realizing that many matters of domestic jurisdiction now have become of serious international concern. In any event, I think that Canada ought not to be behind the United States in a matter of this sort. It does not mean that we have to make a final decision but we ought to make at least a pronouncement as strong as that made by the vice president of the United States, one which I think would give much encouragement to those who believe in the gradual building up of the processes of law and adjudication in international affairs.


Howard Charles Green: It is the first time that this question has come to my attention. It is under study in the department. I am not in a position to make any statement on it at the moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps at eight o'clock the minister might be able to do so.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: At six o'clock my colleague from Essex East brought up what I consider to be an important question in connection with the use of the world court. I should like to support what he said and express the hope in doing so that this would perhaps be a suitable initiative for the Canadian government or a delegation of the Canadian government to pursue at an appropriate place, and I think the appropriate place might well be the forthcoming assembly of the United Nations.
Last April the vice president of the United States, I think at the Academy of Sciences at Princeton university made a speech which in my opinion was of considerable significance and in which he put forward this idea. It was a speech which obviously had the support of the United States administration because it had been referred to in approving terms by the attorney general and, indeed, the president himself has mentioned it. I should like to quote one paragraph from this speech:
We-
Meaning the United States.
-should take the Initiative in urging that in any future agreements provision be included to effect, one, that disputes which may arise as to the interpretation of the agreement should be submitted to the international court of justice at The Hague and, two, that the nations signing the agreement should be bound by the decision of the court in such cases.
Supply-External Affairs
This means that in any international agreements which may be made in the future there should be a clause to the effect that the signatories of the agreement would be bound by the decision of the international court of justice with respect to any dispute which might arise with regard to its interpretation. That would be one step in putting international law behind international policy.
I know that if the United States puts forward a proposal of this kind at the United Nations it would be suspect in the sense that it might become mixed up in the cold war and power politics and all sorts of things like that. But if a middle power, a power with a reputation such as Canada has, felt that this was a good proposal and felt that it should be followed up and put forward formally at a United Nations Assembly, that might be a very useful thing to do.
Possibly there are arguments against this proposal of which I am not aware, and the minister may wish to say a word about that. I am not asking him, naturally, to make any statement of government policy at this time, but I am asking him to give consideration to this question.


Howard Charles Green: The points raised by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Essex East, while they both deal with the international court of Justice, are quite different in context. I have the answer now to the questions asked this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East.
There appears to be a rather widespread feeling that the international court has fallen somewhat short of expectations. This is not due to any lack of high qualifications among the 15 judges of the court, who represent the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world. Rather, this feeling seems to stem from the fact that in the past 13 years there have been only 30 contentious cases submitted to the court and many of these have been stricken from the list due to objections made to the court's jurisdiction. We should, of course, remember that during this same period the international court delivered 10 advisory opinions. It is none the less difficult to dispute the fact that the machinery of the court has not been sufficiently employed either by the United Nations or by the member states themselves.
Recently, there have been signs of a resurgence of interest in the court's work. In the United States there have been suggestions by the United States attorney general, the vice president and by President Eisenhower himself that the United States should reexamine its relationship to the international court, particularly as regards the domestic jurisdiction reservation attached to its declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of

Supply-External Affairs the international court. This reservation excludes disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States as determined by the United States. Now, that is a very big reservation which was made by the United States.
Canada does not have a reservation of this kind. The Canadian declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the international court excludes disputes with regard to questions which by international law fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the dominion of Canada. In other words, we leave it to the international court to decide whether it has jurisdiction in any particular case and we do not reserve to ourselves the determination of whether the matter falls within domestic jurisdiction. It is to be hoped that in the future more and more states will come to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court with a minimum of reservation.
With regard to the aspect raised by the Leader of the Opposition, this proposal is being studied in the department at the present time. It brings up a number of different considerations, and the officials are not yet in a position to make any recommendation as to what the attitude of Canada should be. But it is a very hopeful sign, as the Leader of the Opposition points out, that the United States is apparenly planning to move for the strengthening of the jurisdiction of the international court and we shall certainly go into the whole question very carefully. If there is some change that can be made which will strengthen the court and help dispose of some of these disputes, the Canadian government would certainly be in favour of such a change.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not rise again to provoke further comment by the minister. It is apparent that the administration is giving consideration to this matter which has been further emphasized by the observations of the Leader of the Opposition. But I do feel so keenly about this particular question and the court generally that I beg leave to say one or two words more.
I am sure that in the processes which are evolving toward the building of international organization it will be recognized that the judicial process is an important one. But if the court has fallen short of expectations, as the minister has just indicated, I think there are reasons other than those he has enumerated. I regret, as one who has followed the procedure of the court both as presently constituted and as it was under the covenant, that I must say that while Canada has been careful in the nominations she has made to the court, that cannot be said for

all other countries. Canada, of course, had a nominee of her own on that court for nine years in the person of Mr. Justice John Reid, formerly head of the legal division in the Department of External Affairs. There have been some great jurists on the court, men such as Sir Arnold McNair and Professor Basdevant. Obviously I am not going to name individuals but anyone who has followed these matters knows perfectly well what I am talking about.
If the court has not been seized with more cases-the minister has mentioned 30 in all and 10 advisory opinions-the reason for it is that a number of decisions of the court -and this is certainly not an overstatement -have had more of a political than a judicial character. The fact that there have been only 10 advisory opinions in a period of 10 years compared with the number of advisory opinions of the older court is an indication that what I am saying is apparently at least worthy of examination.
It may be that at first glance the argument I am now putting forward is an argument against too active consideration at this time of the removal of the compulsory jurisdiction clause. I do not believe that is the case because the removal will not take place forthwith. If we could give some leadership along the lines we have suggested, that together with further emphasis on the desirability of a high calibre of members on the court, will I think strengthen that body. It is noteworthy that students of international law complain bitterly along the lines I have indicated in these few words.
There is one further observation I should like to make on another matter altogether which comes under this item and that is that in the likelihood of a summit meeting or a series of summit meetings, meetings which possibly will be outside the United Nations as such, there is a strong argument for these meetings possibly taking place at the United Nations. Anything that gives additional authority and prestige to the United Nations is, I think, desirable. The meetings in 1954 arising out of the Geneva conference did take place in Geneva at the United Nations building. I simply express the hope, that now that Canada must become reconciled to the fact that the Prime Minister's invitation for the holding of the summit meeting in Canada will not bear fruit, it might be desirable for the minister to give consideration as to what steps Canada could take toward clothing the United Nations with this additional prestige. "Prestige" is hardly the word because the United Nations itself has acquired prestige by its great accomplishments. While all matters having to do with threats to the

peace or with the maintenance of the peace need not necessarily be dealt with under the direct aegis of the United Nations, it seems to me that as much as possible matters of international concern should find a place for discussion within the precincts of the United Nations either in Europe or New York.


Howard Charles Green: The situation is not quite as the hon. member has suggested in that there have been no decisions made as to where a summit meeting would be held.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know.


Howard Charles Green: The holding of such a meeting in Canada has not been ruled out at all.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I am sorry, I did not know that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I have a few observations I should like to make on the United Nations aspect of this vote. Perhaps I might add to what my colleague the hon. member for Essex East has just said in support of bringing the United Nations into the summit conference to the maximum possible extent. I know the difficulties on that score but I hope they can be overcome and I hope that the secretary general of the United Nations himself could be associated in some way with a summit conference of that kind.
As the minister said in his statement this afternoon this kind of conference is desirable. Perhaps it would have been a good thing if we could have held it a year ago. We would not have had so much talk about it now. I believe it was Earl Atlee who said the other day that he was all for conferences -on the summit, on the slopes, or even on the level-and perhaps they are not always any easier on the level than they are at the summit.
Mention was also made this afternoon of the possible relationship of the United Nations to the Berlin difficulty. That difficulty will again be on the agenda next week at Geneva. The minister said this afternoon there are western rights in Berlin which must be protected. We all agree with that, but the problem is how are these rights going to be protected without causing trouble? How are they going to be maintained in the circumstances in which we find ourselves provided that those who are anxious to weaken or destroy them take steps to that end? And while the United Nations has no direct relationship to this particular problem, and while the secretary general as one would expect has been extremely cautious in any observations he has made-I think confining those observations to the willingness of the United Nations to take any action that is required of it as a result of a four-power
Supply-External Affairs agreement-it may well be that in some form or other, if a deadlock is reached the United Nations will have to be brought in, perhaps through the secretary general again who is a great international trouble shooter, in a form which will make it possible to resolve that dilemma.
There are one or two other United Nations matters which the minister talked about this afternoon. He mentioned the progress that had been made at the Geneva conference in regard to nuclear tests. I confess that that progress has not really been very encouraging though perhaps if there is any progress at all we should take some encouragement from it. The minister expressed the hope that the technical findings which had been agreed upon there might facilitate political agreement. It is not perhaps a matter now for technical findings but for political agreement. I am not sure whether technical agreement, important as it may be, will facilitate political agreement unless there is a will to agree and if there is not a will to agree on this particular problem of nuclear tests, how can we take much hope out of other negotiations for broader progress in disarmament?
The minister mentioned, I think, that 17 articles of a draft treaty had been agreed upon. He knows what the 17 articles are. Most of them, I should think, are the articles that matter least. That would be the normal course of things. There are articles you agree on first and you reserve the difficult ones for later discussion.
This leads me to the subject of disarmament generally which is also in a rather discouraging situation at the United Nations because as a result of all the talk and all the negotiations and all the efforts of the last 10 years we have now reached the position where the agency for further progress is a committee of 83 members of the United Nations. One would have to be very optimistic indeed to get much comfort out of that alteration from a small committee to one of 83 members.
It seems to me that the situation which has resulted in the constitution of this committee of the whole-because that of course is what it is-is one that we should do our best to avoid in the future. The minister knows that the difficulty has been over the kind of balanced representation which the communist bloc at the United Nations will accept and which will also be acceptable to the United States and the western delegations.
There has been a strong effort made by certain of the delegations on the western side in the United Nations to make sure that all the representations should be on a kind of proportionate mathematical basis as a result of which there would always be a predominant majority of non-communist powers. That,

Supply-External Affairs of course, is perfectly reasonable in terms of mathematical representation at the United Nations. But it has resulted in a disarmament committee of 83, and it has also resulted in an outer space committee on which the Russians and their friends will not sit-and indeed where the Indians, as the minister pointed out, will not sit-because the communist delegations have felt they were not given adequate representation. Surely, it is more important at this stage to get general participation in this effort than to worry too much about the exact mathematical proportions of representation on all sides. I throw out the idea to the minister for consideration, whether in the future it might not be a reasonable position for a delegation to adopt, including the Canadian delegation, in order to avoid this kind of deadlock.
The reasonable position is that in principle representations on these United Nations committees, which have a definite political significance, as so many of them have, should be divided, one-third, one-third, one-third- one-third from the western side, one-third from the communist side and one-third from the uncommitted side. There will be very strong objection levelled at that kind of proposal from certain delegations at the United Nations and it does not reflect, I realize, the feelings of the membership of the assembly at the present time, but it is a very reasonable reflection of the division of the world into three camps, the uncommitted camp, the communist camp and what we call occasionally a little loosely the free world. Perhaps the time has come when it is more important to accept that kind of agreed representation in numbers than to set up a committee, one so important as a committee on outer space, which is now working and working very effectively within the limits imposed on it by non-participation of the Indian and the communist states. Perhaps it is more important to get those states participating than to insist on that absolute mathematical proportion of membership which we found so desirable in the past to insist upon. I do not know whether the minister would like to say something about these points before I go on to another matter.


Howard Charles Green: I think I dealt with most of them in my remarks this morning.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister also mentioned this morning something about a permanent stand-by force at the United Nations, a matter which was on the agenda of the United Nations assembly last year, as he pointed out, because of a report of the secretary general. This is a matter on which no progress was possible then for reasons which I think were mentioned in some detail last April when we discussed this matter.


The minister has pointed out an objection to pursuing this question at the present time. In that connection he mentioned that the secretary general himself, who has had a great deal to do with this, of course, has expressed some doubt as to the practicability and the desirability of pushing this issue of a permanent United Nations police or peace force, or stand-by force, whatever you want to call it, at this particular time. The argument that has been advanced not only by the secretary general but by others is that the circumstances which might arise might be of such a character that it would not be possible to organize and constitute a permanent force which would be suitable for all those different situations.
I do not think myself, Mr. Chairman, that that is a very impressive argument. I am not thinking of a United Nations permanent stand-by force which would be trained to meet every emergency which might arise but I am thinking of a United Nations permanent stand-by force which would be on the job ready to go into action if a situation arose which would require that kind of intervention. I have often asked myself in the last year or so what might have happened if we had had that kind of permanently organized and trained and equipped United Nations peace force at the time of the Hungarian uprising. If action could have been taken at the United Nations assembly at that time by a two-thirds majority of the assembly-and I think it would have been possible to get that two-thirds majority- which would have resulted in sending to Hungary a couple of thousand or 1,500 men who would have represented the United Nations as an international force which had been dropped there, if they had gone there, it would have been infinitely more difficult, I think, for any invader or aggressor from the outside to ride roughshod over the freedom fighters in Budapest.
I hope it will be possible in the future to organize and have ready that kind of contingent, ready for action in the various nations which subscribe to the force which could be called upon because they would have made their contingent available in advance. I hope it will soon be possible to have that kind of contingent in being.
When the secretary general put forward the objections which he did, as I understand them-there is a far greater objection, of course, which he has not mentioned because he is a servant of the United Nations and the United Nations consists of 83 members- perhaps the basic objection is that from the communist powers, who insist that this kind of thing would become the agency of what they call the imperialist powers. That is the

reason why when this proposal was made at the last assembly and put forward by the United States it got such a very cold reception in certain quarters and that is why a country like Canada, middle powers like Canada, can take the initiatives in this field which are not open to the big powers. I have already made the suggestion that if it is not practical at the present time to make progress of this kind at the assembly, and it may not be because I know of the difficulties-no one wants to break up the United Nations because of division over this kind of thing-if it is not possible in this way perhaps it would be possible for certain middle powers, six, seven, eight, nine or ten of the status and stature and reputation of Canada to get together and see whether they could not work out some agreement by which they would themselves, through an international agreement binding only on themselves, equip and train certain contingents for international service which would be available to the United Nations if a United Nations assembly resolution was ever passed to call on them for that service. That is the kind of initiative, perhaps, that Canada could take, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would this be an armed force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It would be a para-military force, I think, a police force which would not have heavy equipment, or anything like that, because this kind of force would be of no use whatever if any country wishes to declare war, or go to war openly against any other country. It would only be of value, -but I think it would be of great value- in policing armistice arrangements, in patrolling disturbed areas such as they are doing now in the Middle East. They could symbolize the United Nations presence when a government of the United Nations wishes to have some kind of United Nations presence on its territory. For instance, when the king of Transjordan thought himself in great danger a year or so ago he considered it a help to have a United Nations presence there on the spot, and they are still there; and it might well be that some one country finding itself threatened could ask for this kind of United Nations intervention. Whether the men would be armed or not perhaps is not so important. They certainly would have side arms; they are not likely to have anything else but they would be there available on the spot. They would be serving under the blue flag of the United Nations. They would represent the international conscience and by their very presence in a disturbed area they might hinder an aggressor's intention. If however an aggressor did decide to move, well, the die would be cast and the United Nations could 66968-9-365
Supply-External Affairs not do very much about it. But that other would be the main purpose for a contingent of this kind.
While it may be difficult to make much progress in this matter at the present time,
I think this is an objective which is worth pursuing and I think it is one that perhaps the Canadian government can pursue as effectively as any other member of the United Nations.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I want to say that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are constructive remarks to which the new Secretary of State for External Affairs should give very serious consideration. I think Canada's position in international affairs has been growing in prestige over the years and, with the exception of some recent temporary setbacks, Canada's influence has been growing. If I can judge the mood of the Canadian people they are far more inclined to support action by the United Nations and by a police force than they are action even by such a group of powers as the NATO alliance. Therefore I think this is an opportunity for Canada to give leadership to the world.
We should not only say to the United Nations and campaign in the United Nations for the creation of a permanent police force to which Canada would make a substantial contribution but I think we should go even further. Although this further step might be considered only a gesture, although it might be considered rather impractical at this time, I think it would create a real impact in the world if a middle power such as Canada, a power that is identified with the west, a power that shares the northern regions with the Soviet union, were to announce by way of a national policy that Canada was prepared to place all of her troops and armed forces at the disposal of the United Nations for such a police force.
I am hopeful that the day will arrive when national armaments can be cut back, indeed that the day will arrive when nothing more than a national police force will be necessary and that national armed forces and national defence as we now know it may become a thing of the past. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, such an Atlantic Nations police force could not withstand a nuclear attack or attack by a major power. It seems to me that in this day and age defence against nuclear attack is becoming more and more difficult. That being the case, an international police force comprising defence forces having at their disposal in the main or perhaps exclusively conventional weapons is an important need to protect the world against brush fire attacks, as they are called, and is also important as a gesture to all the nations
5752	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs of the world that collectively the United Nations is prepared to defend the peace.
I view with great misgiving any decision by the Canadian government to permit nuclear and thermonuclear weapons within Canada, and I think this kind of gesture by Canada, this kind of idea advanced by the new Secretary of State for External Affairs would be the type of bold and imaginative action that might receive far more support at this time than we might expect. Canada would be taking a leading and forthright position by saying to the world that we are prepared to forgo national unilateral defence if our armed services and defence budget can be used by the United Nations to constitute part of an international police force.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in other days, whenever there was a statement made by me on external affairs, the present minister always began his observations by reproaching the minister of that day for not saying anything about Pacific security. He used to say that we had a phobia about Atlantic security but when it came to the Pacific we were cold and silent. I used to spend a good deal of time defending the policy of the government then in respect of Pacific security, and the present minister used to say, "Well, why does Canada not join the southeast Asia treaty organization or ANZUS?" I was somewhat surprised this afternoon that the minister spent little time on Pacific security. I wonder whether he would like to say a word about the two organizations and whether our policy in this regard is likely to be changed in the near future.


Howard Charles Green: This is another example of one's sins finding one out. However, one of the great attractions to me in being Secretary of State for External Affairs is that at long last I am able to do something to look after the Pacific.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Inasmuch as the minister has had years to think this out he must know exactly what he wants to do, and I wonder whether he would tell us at long last what he is going to do.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
88. Canadian government's contribution to the United Nations special fund in an amount of ;$2,000,000 U.S., notwithstanding the payment may exceed or fail short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1958, which is. $1,931,250.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister say something about vote 88 because it is a contribution of nearly $2 million to a new and very important development, the United Nations special fund?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the United Nations special fund, the establishment of which was decided by the twelfth general assembly, will begin operations in 1959. The new fund is designed to assist projects in the fields of resource surveys, technical training, demonstrations, education, public administration, etc. The fund will concentrate on relatively large projects so as to avoid undue dispersion of its resources. It will be controlled by a governing council which will consist of 18 states elected from members of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and will provide for equal representation of economically more developed countries and underdeveloped countries. Provision has been made for a close working association with the international bank.
The United States is prepared to give up to $38 million to ETAP and the special fund taken together, on condition that the United States contribution is not more than 40 per cent of the total pledged to both programs. United Kingdom authorities have in mind a contribution to the fund equal to approximately 7 per cent of the fund's total resources, that is, $2.24 million if total contributions amount to $30 million. The Netherlands are pledged to make a contribution of $2.4 million, while the contributions of France and the Soviet union will be of the order of $1 million each. Italy has pledged $1 million to be divided between ETAP and the special fund. Japan has pledged $480,000 to the special fund. Some of the pledges contain matching provisions. Cabinet decided on September 30 that, subject to the approval of parliament, Canada will contribute $2 million U.S. to the special fund in 1959-60.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How is the fund to be organized? Is there to be a special agency or special organization set up by the United Nations? Is there a director of the fund appointed yet? How is it to be administered?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently this is a separate entity, but not a separate agency. It works very closely with the international bank under the guidance of the general assembly, and there has been an administrator appointed, Mr. Paul Hoffman, who was director of Marshall aid. Actual operations under the fund commenced a week ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
89. Contribution to the United Nations children's fund, $650,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: All I want to say about vote 89 is that I cannot think of a better way of spending $650,000 in the discharge of our international obligations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization-
90. Special administrative expense including payments of remuneration, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the international staff of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (part recoverable from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), $60,245.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Vote 90 deals with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and perhaps this provides an opportunity for me to say a word about the organization and perhaps ask the minister a question or two. There is no need for anyone in this committee to elaborate on the importance of this organization, both in a military and nonmilitary way. The minister told us about that this afternoon. But I think that anyone who appreciates, as we all do, the importance of NATO and who reflects on what might have happened to the western world if NATO had not been founded 10 years ago, must worry about some of the developments that are now taking place which, on the face of them, and with the information that is available to those who have not other sources of information, seem to threaten the vitality and development of the organization.
There is bound to be, of course, difficulty in the development of an organization of this kind. Perhaps we get a little too impatient and we think that in 10 years we should do that which has not been done in hundreds or thousands of years before, the building up of a collective organization not only for security but for nonmilitary purposes. In the context of history, we have undoubtedly made progress but I worry, as I am sure other hon. members worry, that we may lose some of that progress. If we do not move forward in NATO, we are not going to stand still and undoubtedly we will move backward.
Some of these things that worry us have come to a head, for instance, as illustrated in the decision made yesterday and which was announced in the house today, of the withdrawal of United States NATO squadrons, on orders of the NATO commander, from the NATO airfields in France to airfields out of France because of a dispute between France and the United States over the control and possession of nuclear weapons to be used in an emergency by those squadrons or to be used perhaps from those air bases in the form of missiles. I think the minister referred to this matter as one of vital concern when I asked him this morning in the house whether or not there had been discussions about it in the NATO council, as I expect there had been, and he said there had been.
It certainly is a matter of vital concern. I wonder whether it would be appropriate for him to say anything about the Canadian view 66968-9-365J
Supply-External Affairs in regard to this decision of the NATO commander, and in regard to the questions which made that decision imperative in the eyes of General Norstad. We cannot forget that as these United States squadrons move out of France, I think it is nine Canadian squadrons that remain on French NATO air bases. If this dispute is not settled in a way which is satisfactory to France, the possibilities of further damage to the solidarity of the alliance are considerable. Surely, therefore, it is of the greatest possible importance that this kind of dispute should not arise again, and that some arrangement be made for the care, control and supervision of nuclear tactical weapons if they are to be used by the NATO powers.
Then, there is another matter, not so immediate and not so dramatic a danger, in what I think is the growing pressure on the collective system of considerations of national prestige. I sense a departure from the collective attitude of 10 years ago and an emphasis on returning to national control, national sovereignty over national forces. If that kind of thing continues, in the long run it will be an even greater threat to NATO than any particular dispute of the kind which I have just mentioned.
There is, too, the development of political consultation. Perhaps it is not fair to ask the minister too many questions on this because I realize he has just taken over this portfolio and it takes a little time to get into these things. If he feels these questions are not quite fair, he will naturally avoid them.


Howard Charles Green: No, go ahead.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like, if he has the information, to give me his impression of the development of political consultation inside the NATO council. I think progress has been made in that regard in the last year. I hope it has. I hope that all these questions of Berlin, nuclear warfare, and all the rest of it, a summit conference and everything else that concerns the NATO countries, are discussed in a NATO conference before the United States and the United Kingdom make up their mind. Because consultation, if it means anything at all, does not mean the United Kingdom and the United States going into the council and telling other members what they have decided. It means the representatives of these countries going into the NATO council and saying, this is the problem; how do you think we should deal with it?
I should like to think of that kind of consultation developing in NATO, because if it does not, then as a political agency NATO will weaken and as the atmosphere of crisis disappears, NATO will disappear with it.

Supply-External Affairs
Finally, there is the question of economic co-operation, not inside NATO itself because NATO perhaps is not the right agency to act for its members in respect of economic questions. However, if economic matters develop in Europe in such a way that we have two European economic groups and a North American economic group, and economic conflict develops between those groups, or if nonco-operation develops between those groups, then NATO as a political and military agency is going to feel the effect of that development. It will weaken the organization.
Those are the three main dangers, as I see them, which confront this essential collective security organization at the present time. There is the military threat because of the tendency now to split apart rather than to come together, and look after our own defences. This tendency was also illustrated a few months ago when the French government felt it necessary to take part of its Mediterranean fleet out of NATO control. I do not criticize the French for that because the major part of the British fleet and the major part of the United States fleet are not under NATO control.
If we criticize the French for that, we should remember that the whole question of our continental defence was taken out of NATO control or, indeed, was never under NATO control. The French probably thought of that when they began to make their own adjustments in the Mediterranean. So there is this military danger to collective action, there is the political danger of nonco-operation and then there is the economic danger of conflict between the two European economic areas which may be developing and a North American economic area which may be separating from Europe. I do not know whether it is asking too much to ask the minister at this time to say something about this matter but I will do so just the same.


Howard Charles Green: I think the Leader of the Opposition is unduly pessimistic with regard to NATO and the activities under that alliance. I have, of course, only been in a position to read the dispatches for about the last five weeks but I can say there is close political consultation in the permanent council of NATO on which our Canadian representative is very active. For example, the council has been following closely the activities of the conference at Geneva so that it may be in a position to give assistance or give advice and also to keep the respective governments aware of the trends.
I see no sign of the disintegration of NATO. "We all understand that if there were to be such a disintegration it would be disastrous


not only for Canada but for all the other nations which are in the alliance. It is true that from time to time difficult problems arise, and the one raised by the Leader of the Opposition on the orders of the day this morning is a difficult one. However, I do not consider that it would be of much help in the solution of this difficult problem for me as the foreign minister of Canada or, for that matter, for the other foreign ministers to start placing blame or being critical. In these questions I have found that there are always two sides, and sometimes more. Of course, that statement applies to domestic issues as well as to issues in the foreign field. However, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that this government has done and will continue to do everything possible to assist in getting these problems ironed out. As hon. members know, we even have problems in Canada between ten provinces. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is an expert on problems of this sort. Wherever there are human beings trying to work along together, I suppose there are bound to be problems.
With regard also to co-operation in the economic field, I think there is no reason for discouragement. Two or three weeks ago we had a visit from the presidents of the three European communities. To me it was quite startling to realize to what extent these six European nations had been able to work out methods of co-operation, especially the French and the Germans. I found it almost beyond comprehension when I learned of the extent to which they have gone in working out methods for co-operation. We have had reports here this afternoon from two of the members of the house who attended the Atlantic congress. They have reported that the meetings of this conference were highly successful and that is the opinion of the government. The whole trend is toward more co-operation.
I realize that the Leader of the Opposition is wise in drawing these dangers to the attention of the government. I can assure him that we have them very much in mind. I do not think there is any difference between our objectives and the objectives which the Leader of the Opposition has in mind. I should not like to have the impression go abroad in Canada that the NATO alliance is faltering or that it is in danger of breaking up. I do not believe such to be the case. I think that this second ten years of the alliance will see even greater strides made than was the case in the first ten.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should merely like to say that I am glad to get the minister's reassuring

statement. I would not wish him or the committee to think that I myself have felt that the alliance was disintegrating or breaking up. I hope I did not give that impression. I said that there were pressures against the alliance that were becoming noticeable, as was inevitable in the development of any alliance. Indeed, one of the reasons why some of us have been worrying about this matter is the speech made by the secretary general himself. I refer to the one which he made in London in which he pointed out that there were these problems, difficulties and pressures. It is just as well to recognize them so that we can do something about them and make the alliance stronger by meeting these difficulties before they become dangers.
I am glad the minister feels the way he does. I am sure there is no difference between the government and us on this side in our general determination to make this North Atlantic Treaty Organization work not only for defence but for the development of the Atlantic community.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
92. Further contribution by the Canadian government towards the cost of constructing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization permanent headquarters in an amount of 54.072,000 French francs, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December 1958, which is, $124,420.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister tell us when these headquarters will be completed? I know their construction has been a long and difficult operation. Is this the last vote we shall need for this purpose?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. It is hoped that these headquarters will be completed in October.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International joint commission-
96. Salaries and expenses of the commission including, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, as amended, payment of salary of the chairman at $17,500 per annum, $112,124.
Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister I think mentioned the work of the commission in respect of the Chicago diversion and the Columbia river references. Is there anything more he can add to what he said? It is one of the most important matters before the country now. Can he elaborate on what he said about the Columbia river reference?


Howard Charles Green: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the government in January or, as a matter of fact, early in December decided that the practical thing to do in order to reach some agreement with the United States about the development of the Columbia river was to have a reference made to the international
Supply-External Affairs joint commission for the working out of the problem of downstream benefits or, in other words, what compensation should be paid to Canada for storing water in the Columbia river north of the boundary. We suggested this procedure to the United States government and they agreed and, as I outlined in my remarks this morning, a reference was made to the international joint commission. Since that time they have been holding meetings to deal with this subject. We have been able to bring about the close co-operation of the province of British Columbia which is directly involved because it has control of the water, the dominion having control over the projects that are put on the river because the Columbia is an international river and there was an act put through the house some years ago giving the dominion a licensing control over such projects.
Considerable progress has been made in the course of those discussions, and as a matter of fact I believe that today General McNaughton and other members of the commission are meeting to study reports which have come in from their technical advisers and to further work out terms for an agreement in respect of the downstream benefits. In addition to that, the Department of External Affairs has been working with the state department of the United States on the terms of an overriding agreement which will have to be signed once the downstream benefit problem has been settled.
This is a great project. I believe that the power possibilities of this co-operative development are a great deal larger even than those of the St. Lawrence seaway. So we are not dealing with a small question at all. This is of vital importance to Canadians who live in the province of British Columbia and also to Americans living in the northwest states. I am confident that we shall reach agreement and that eventually these projects can be undertaken. It is the policy of the government to assist the province of British Columbia in the construction of projects on the Columbia river in Canada. Not only does it mean a tremendous development in Canada but it will be another example, like the seaway project, of co-operation between the two nations resulting in great benefit to the peoples of both. It looks as though it will be possible to reach a satisfactory solution in respect of this question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As one who comes from the district of the Columbia I listened with great interest to the minister's resume and report of happenings in connection with the discussions on the Columbia since the end of last year. I want to congratulate the government on taking the course of action they have in resuming the discussions. The report

Supply-External Affairs of the discussions and of the developments to date is one which is of great interest. I assume it is true to say that the discussions have been proceeding satisfactorily.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has given us an encouraging report on this very important matter, and if these negotiations work out satisfactorily, as we all hope they will, no doubt a great deal of the credit will be due to the persistence, determination and energy of General McNaughton who has worked so hard and so efficiently in connection with this operation. It is true that an agreement has been reached on a 50-50 division of downstream benefits, or is that matter as yet undecided?


Howard Charles Green: There has been no questioning a division along those lines. The problems arise in connection with the cost of installations and the cost of additions to existing power plants below the border, and who is to pay for transmission lines carrying the power which is given in the form of downstream benefits, back to the Canadian border. There are various other questions of this kind which get too deep for politicians and have to be digested by the engineers.
I am very glad that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned General McNaughton. He is in charge of these negotiations for Canada, and has been doing a splendid job.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister if he could tell us with regard to the Chicago water diversion what is the situation in the United States regarding the suggestion, or the steps which have been taken, for the judicial determination of the rights which the corporation of Chicago has sought to exercise as to the waters of lake Michigan? What is the status of the proposed judicial proceedings at this moment?


Howard Charles Green: I have not the answer to that question available at the moment. I will be very glad to get it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can very well understand the minister's immediate problem. I heard him say, when talking to his officials: "Was that not a matter of legislation?" It is true that there have been bills before congress with regard to this matter, some involving presidenial veto, but as the legislative process is not likely to yield results for Chicago there was a suggestion made that the matter might be referred to the supreme court of the United States for an advisory opinion. What I wanted to indicate to the minister was this. If that does eventually come about-if it has not already done so-I take it the Canadian government would object to a procedure of this kind because we could not possibly be

bound in a matter of this sort by a decision handed down by a court in the United States. The only effect such a decision could have would be on the nationals of the country in which the court resides and it would, I think, be an occasion of international discourtesy if any attempt were made by the United States to have the problem resolved in that manner.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. gentleman can rest assured that the government will be watching any movement of this kind. I have received the answer to his question. There are two issues before the United States courts in connection with this Chicago diversion, but they are comparatively minor matters and they do not affect Canadian interests at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
98. Colombo plan, $50,000,000.
(Translation):
Mr. Deschaielels:: 
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the question of helping provide funds for the development of these countries would really be a matter of private investment. The Colombo plan is a government plan and is not designed for actually putting up the money for private construction in these countries. It is an arrangement between governments.
Supply-External Affairs
The second question as I understood it was for the amounts that had been expended by each country contributing under the Colombo plan. I find that those figures are not available at the moment, one reason being that some of the countries contribute in sterling while Canada contributes in dollars. Apparently there has been no table worked out to show how each country is contributing. Canada's total expenditures to March 31 of this year have been $231 million. The contribution of the United States amounted to $2,676 million.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about this vote for the Colombo plan which represents an increase of $15 million bringing our contributions next year up to $50 million. I can assure the minister there is no objection on this side to that. I believe it is a good move. As the minister knows, the Colombo plan is a plan for technical and capital assistance to the countries receiving help under the plan. It has been a great success and one reason for this is that there has been co-operation between the receiving and the giving countries. There is no feeling of give on the one hand and take on the other. As far as I know, everyone has worked together, and I hope we can keep it that way.
Another reason for the success of the plan surely has been that it has been a capital and technical assistance program. But it seems to me-and perhaps the minister will have something to say about this-that the plan is becoming increasingly, as far as Canada is concerned, one for the donor country to give consumer goods to the receiving country. I would like to know what the figures are in that respect for the current year. I think the minister mentioned some of the figures in his statement this morning. If this program becomes one for surplus disposal of agricultural products it will not be fulfilling the objectives of the plan as it was conceived in the agreement in the first place.
I frankly realize that in other years consumer goods have gone to Asian countries under the Colombo plan; but in the cases where that happened there was a real need in the sense that there was a famine or something of that kind, or there was a strong request made by the receiving countries for the assistance given to take that form, and which resulted in every case in counterpart funds being set up in the receiving countries. But if we as a donor country take the initiative in persuading-perhaps the minister will tell me this is not being done-but if we take the initiative in that regard in persuading the receiving countries to take surplus wheat, surplus flour, skim milk or even dried

Supply-External Affairs codfish, then we are not, I suggest, carrying out the original purposes of the plan.
I am not opposing the gift of those consumer goods to countries in Asia that need them. That is quite a different question. Perhaps we can do this in some other way, but I am questioning the use of the Colombo plan as a mechanism for surplus disposal of agricultural products unless that is a real need in the receiving countries, unless it is as the result of a strong demand from those receiving countries that the assistance should take that form. The minister knows that it is a capital assistance and technical assistance program and I hope it will be kept that way. In connection with the Colombo plan, will the minister tell me how it is being administered at the present time in Ottawa? Have there been any changes? Who now lays down the policy which governs what form the Canadian contribution will take?


Howard Charles Green: In Ottawa the policy is worked out by an interdepartmental committee on which the main departments represented are trade and commerce, finance and external affairs.
The Leader of the Opposition has been somewhat critical about the fact that a portion of the contributions to the Colombo plan has been in foodstuffs. Apparently this has always been the practice. For example, wheat has been given often in times when wheat was scarce in Canada, and we have given wheat both within and outside the Colombo plan. Furthermore, there is a real need in at least some of those countries for meeting the pressure of expanding population on the food supplies. Always the goods supplied are to be provided and worked out by agreement. I think the receiving countries appreciate the situation in which Canada finds herself, just as we appreciate the situation in their countries, and in each case it has been possible to work out amicably an agreement as to just what would be supplied under the Colombo plan. Further, when wheat is supplied, I believe the usual practice is that it is sold domestically by the country which receives it, and then the proceeds are invested in furthering some development project.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope I did not leave the minister under a misunderstanding. I was not complaining that consumer goods, especially wheat, had been given to Colombo plan countries by Canada. I was expressing concern that the proportion of consumer goods was increasing, and I asked for some information on that score, and also that, whereas to my best recollection in earlier days the consumer goods were requested by the receiving country, now perhaps the

initiative in respect of the consumer goods of the plan was coming from the donor countries. That was the only concern I had because, as the minister knows, the initial purpose of the plan was one of capital and technical assistance. While it is at times absolutely necessary to send wheat and flour to those countries, in the long run perhaps it is more important to give them help in the form of capital assistance which will increase agricultural production in those countries in the future and then this kind of consumer help will not be necessary.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It seems to me there is a very important principle involved in the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. We do not hold the Secretary of State for External Affairs accountable for what may be the situation which however, deserves careful consideration by him.
As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the Colombo plan owes much of its success from the initial period to the fact that the assistance given to the receiving countries has been on the basis of bilateral arrangements following the council meetings where the general principles of policy are laid down. Each donor country-Canada being among the major donor countries- makes its arrangements on a bilateral basis with the receiving country. Now, it seems to me the question that is important in this particular discussion is, was a request made by any receiving country, for instance, for dry skim milk, or did the Canadian government feel that because of the particular situation basically conceived that dry skim milk should be disposed of through a surplus disposal policy such as we have complained of in the case of some other countries.
Any country in Asia that needs dry skim milk ought to receive it from a country such as Canada if we are in a position to supply it. The first question is, was there a request from the receiving country, because I was told by the Minister of Agriculture when I discussed the representations made by the Ontario dairy producers who had suggested a disposal program for dry skim milk that there was no demand on the part of those receiving countries. Within a short time the government announced a policy in which a certain percentage of dry skim milk was going to be given to certain countries that are the beneficiaries of Colombo plan aid.
Is the minister in a position to tell us whether or not there was a request made? What prompted the government to reverse its policy and to announce that it was going to place in storage an available quantity of dry skim milk for countries in Asia? I do not quarrel with the practice but I think it is important to observe the principle carefully

followed in the Colombo plan operations. If the minister cannot give us the answer right now I will understand, but I do think that the matter is one of importance.


Howard Charles Green: I believe that no dried skim milk has been given under the Colombo plan at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Agriculture announced it.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member need have no worries on that score. Any dried skim milk has been given under different schemes, for example, through UNICEF. I also understand that the requests for other foodstuffs have come from the recipients under the Colombo plan.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, on this item and dealing with the question that has been raised, I want to say as I have said on previous occasions that I think the government would not be following the purpose of the Colombo plan and the intention of the people who initiated it if capital assistance under the plan were withdrawn and the moneys were used extensively for the provision of foodstuffs. On the other hand, it is perfectly correct, as the minister has said, that under this vote in previous years certain sums have been used for the purchase of foodstuffs.
There is no question but that the nations within the Colombo plan area need great quantities of capital equipment. It is also just as obviously correct that these people are undernourished and have need of food. I would be very much opposed if Canada did anything to restrict the kind of action we have had in the past in either direction, either by restricting the capital contribution or restricting the quantity of food that is sent.
The fact that there is a substantial increase in the item is very encouraging and as long as the increase in the item rather than the former original vote is being used for additional foodstuffs I cannot see that there should be any objection either by Canada or by India. We are a very prosperous nation in relation to the Indian economy. I believe we can certainly spare capital equipment from this country in the amount set forth in this estimate, and it is a perfectly obvious fact that Canada has excessive surpluses of certain agricultural commodities. What under the sun can be wrong with the Canadian nation, by way of a vote in the estimates, spending Canadian money to pay our agricultural producers for valuable foodstuffs in order to improve the nutritional standards of the people of the Colombo plan countries?
Supply-External Affairs


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is nothing wrong when you state it that way.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the only way I have stated it, and I want to state it in this positive way in order to remove any feeling of a negative approach that might have been generated by the comments that have already been made. As the Prime Minister has said about me on former occasions, I want more and more and more, and that is exactly the point I am making to the minister now. If the moneys that are made available for foodstuffs are in addition to the normal amount that Canada has provided by way of capital equipment, then I believe it is a very excellent move and will be supported by the Canadian people. Certainly a contribution of $50 million from a nation with a gross national product of $30,000 million cannot be considered overly generous.


Mr. Garland:: Mr. Chairman, when this item was before the external affairs committee I recall that it was indicated in the discussion there by a witness whose name escapes me that a public relations program was to be started with respect to this item in order to familiarize the Canadian public with the various ramifications of the plan. On the surface it seemed to me to be a rather unnecessary expenditure. Would the minister care to comment on whether any progress has been made?


Howard Charles Green: There was a recommendation from the standing committee in connection with giving more publicity to the work being done under the Colombo plan, and apparently the matter is being studied at present by the interdepartmental committee.


John Richard Garland: Has any amount of money been set aside for this promotion?


Howard Charles Green: No, it would be done within the normal information activities of the Department of External Affairs.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister say what media would be used to inform the public?


Howard Charles Green: All available means would be used, including the facilities of the missions abroad and, of course, the press and the C.B.C. and also through exhibitions. I understand that there will be an exhibit at the finest exihibition in Canada, the Pacific national exhibition, which is to open next month.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the Canadian share of the cost of the nuclear reactor being built in India come out of this vote and, if so, how much is involved? Can the minister also tell us how the project is getting along?

Supply-External Affairs


Howard Charles Green: The Canada-India reactor which is being installed at Bombay will be completed next year and the cost is to be met out of the Colombo plan. To date about $8 million has been expended and it is expected that a further $1 million will be necessary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With relation to India and the Canadian companies concerned, is the project working very smoothly or has there been trouble?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently there were some initial difficulties. Some of the Canadian companies had some problems in meeting the local situation in India but all of these difficulties have now been overcome.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, the last year the Liberal party was in power the amount of the vote was $25 million. At that time Quebec Conservatives criticized the amount, stating that the federal government was giving to strangers. In two years the amount of the vote was doubled. Can the minister tell me if those Quebec Conservatives who are now members of parliament approved the increase?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, 1 think it would be spoiling a lovely day to drag in a political note of that kind at this particular time.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It was dragged in by the Conservatives when we were in power and the minister at that time did oppose the idea. I should like to know if he is still opposing the idea that we help those in need.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
100. Grant by the Canadian government to the United Nations refugee fund, $290,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say just -one word about this. I understand that the minister said something this afternoon, and I came into the house just as he was in the midst of saying it. He mentioned the efforts the government was proposing to make to do more to assist refugees coming to this country in order to help clean up the refugee problem in Europe. I do not think there is anyone in the house who is more interested in this problem than I am.
I noticed also the minister said something at an earlier stage, if I remember correctly when he made an announcement the other day on orders of the day, about sounding out provincial governments concerning the possibility [DOT]of taking some of these refugees who could not satisfy immigration regulations on the grounds of health, particularly those people who were tubercular. The minister may or may not know, but the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration certainly would know, that in the case of the Hungarian refugees whom we took in in considerable numbers who could
not satisfy immigration health regulations, the federal government undertook, and I believe is still carrying out the undertaking, to look after whatever medical care was necessary. I should like to express the view that if you expect the provincial governments to undertake this as a provincial charge, we will get absolutely nowhere. It is not unreasonable that the provinces should take that view, and for this reason: We want people who come to live in Canada to be mobile and able to move freely from one province to another. It is, therefore, not reasonable to expect the provincial governments to provide these facilities free. I am sure most provinces would provide them at cost, or at a very reasonable rate.
I think if we are serious about doing something about this problem, and I hope we are, the federal government will have to undertake to reimburse the provinces for their out-ofpocket costs in connection with the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
102. Contribution to the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East, $500,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I regard this as an important vote. We have, under vote 100, talked about assistance for some two million refugees, other than those who come under the operations of the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East. It is about the latter that I wish to say something. There are some one million of these refugees, and as I had the opportunity last September of visiting three of the camps where hundreds of thousands of these refugees are to be found in the Gaza strip and in Jordan, I believe we ought to have this matter projected for the consideration of the government in terms of a definitive solution.
This problem of one million people is now almost 10 years old. It is one of the most difficult problems of its kind in the field of current international responsibilities. The matter is one now that has risen beyond the capacity of the country from which most of these refugees have come. Whatever may be the moral obligation of Israel, the problem now has assumed proportions that give it a true international character. I would say that the work of this agency, in terms of providing maintenance, shelter and food is not wanting, but there remains bitterness and dissatisfaction on the part of these refugees whose numbers are increasing by natural growth. Unless the problem is met with some resoluteness, not by one nation or by two nations in the Middle East but by all of the nations, we are allowing to evolve a problem that may increasingly add to the troubles of that turbulent area.

Now, as I understand it, the work of this agency is to be reviewed or terminated in 1960. I would be interested in knowing what the view of the government is with regard to the continued operations of this organization. What steps are being taken by Canada as a member of the United Nations to seek to resolve the problem in some way. It cannot be allowed to continue in its present state without creating complicated problems for the future. I wonder if the minister could tell us if he has had an opportunity yet of reviewing this situation, and what he thinks government policy in Canada should be? How long should we continue to provide financial assistance, and to what extent are we prepared to play our part in bringing some solution to this very difficult problem, one that is involving day by day great human tragedy. This is a question to which a country like Canada should address itself with forthrightness and with a resolution to seek a solution of the problem. I ask the minister if he would care to comment on what I have said.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this of course is a world problem and not a problem which Canada alone must solve.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course not; it is a collective responsibility.


Howard Charles Green: As the hon. member knows, there have been very substantial amounts of money paid to help meet this situation, and there is no intention of withdrawing. I would point out that in addition this year to the $500,000 covered under the vote now under review, there has been a total of $1.5 million worth of wheat flour provided as a special contribution.


Murdo William Martin: If the minister feels he cannot tonight deal with this, I hope he appreciates what I am saying. Of course, that is not what I wanted to ask. Canada has made a great contribution, but there will be no contribution to this problem if all we do is continue to give money. We decided in 1958 to give $500,000. Other nations have taken a similar generous course, but that is not resolving this problem.
In 1960 the matter is to be reviewed. Surely, at this time we are now consulting with the other donor protecting countries, along with the United Arab Republic, Israel, the government of Jordan and others, to see how this problem can be resolved? It cannot be allowed to fester. Anyone who has been there and seen the tremendous human tragedy, as I have, would join with me tonight in a filibuster, because no one could see this problem in its physical form without
Supply

External Affairs feeling keenly, as I do tonight. If it is possible for these few words to cause us to realize the situation that attends this problem, and what will have to be done not later than 1960, I am sure that the minister will see why I feel that merely giving money, merely giving assistance of one kind or another, is certainly not contributing basically to a solution that cries for settlement as few problems that have faced this world since the end of the second world war.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member will be glad to learn that the secretary general of the United Nations has recently brought down a report on this question and that report is now being studied by the department. He can rest assured that we shall do whatever we can to help to work out a permanent solution to the problem.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
103. Canada's civilian participation as a member of the international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $270,984.
Murdo William Martin: I have just one question on this item. In the report of the department at page 37 I notice the following paragraph:
In the Cambodian commission the Canadian delegation, which was sharply reduced in strength, continued to maintain the position that Cambodia also had fulfilled its obligations under the ceasefire agreement and that the international commission in that country should wind up its activities. It was not possible, however, to effect withdrawal of the Cambodian commission.
Today the minister told us that the commission in Laos continued to function in principle but that it had adjourned sine die. But he will note that both the Indian and Polish representatives on that commission a few weeks ago sought to have the commission in Laos convened. This commission is not, I believe, in residence in Laos but the commission in Cambodia has practically ceased its operations. It is not only a question of adjourning sine die; it is about to be liquidated. I do not understand the sentence in the report which suggests that notwithstanding that situation it has not been possible to effect withdrawal of the Cambodian commission.
I have this one further observation to make with regard to the commission in Viet Nam. That commission continues, I take it, to function precisely as it did when first set up. What are the prospects of that commission discontinuing its operations or have we decided to withdraw until such time as relations between north and south Viet Nam have
5762	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs so developed as to permit the holding of elections? Is that the situation in Viet Nam?
Finally, I am sure the minister will agree that this is a further example of the effectiveness of collective action. It is not a United Nations operation. These three commissions were set up under the Geneva accord of 1954. But these commissions took their place alongside of the various United Nations organizations in the Middle East. They take their place alongside the suggestion made for the establishment of United Nations personnel in Berlin. I think these commissions reflect the contribution that Canada, as a member of one of these commissions, has made; and I think it also indicates clearly the effectiveness and value of international action.


Howard Charles Green: That is very true. The position in Cambodia and in Viet Nam is not yet such that the work of the commissions can be wound up. As a matter of fact, I believe that within the last 24 or 48 hours two lives were lost in Viet Nam, although evidently they were not members of the commission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In Viet Nam that is the situation. I can understand why there is continued reason for operation there. But as to Cambodia, certainly when I was there there was little apparent need for the continuation of the commission at that time. I do not understand this statement in the report that, notwithstanding this situation, it is not possible to effect withdrawal of the Cambodian commission.


Howard Charles Green: In Laos the government no longer wanted the commission to function.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that.


Howard Charles Green: But in Cambodia the government is anxious for the commission there to continue functioning. India and Poland are both of the opinion that it should continue. Canada, being the third member and wishing to co-operate with these two other nations, is agreeing with that position, but with the commission at a greatly reduced strength.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope we are not going to agree to the use of a commission for the purpose of settling boundary disputes. That procedure certainly would be an unconstructive contribution by the commission.


Howard Charles Green: There is no prospect of that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
105. West Indies assistance program, $2,100,000.
James Moffat Forgie: Will the minister give us an explanation of this item?


Howard Charles Green: As the hon. member will recall, the Canadian government agreed to give the West Indies federation a total of


$10 million which is to be spread over a period of five years. This vote of $2,100,000 is the amount that will be required during the current fiscal year.


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


Howard Charles Green: Before the committee rises, Mr. Chairman, may I express thanks to hon. members for the extremely co-operative day, one in which so many splendid suggestions have been put forward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister rises may I ask whether hon. members on the other side of the chamber would consider sitting for a while in order to deal with the estimates of the Minister of Defence Production. We want to show co-operation.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Charles Edward Rea: I hear an hon. member call "ten o'clock". I am in the hands of the committee. Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall I proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Proceed.


Charles Edward Rea: Is it agreed that we proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION 6*. Departmental administration, $7,507,609.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall item 68 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister was going to give me a few answers about the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. O'Hurley:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a correction in an answer I gave to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I want to thank him very kindly for his suggestion. He is very popular tonight. I made a mistake when I said that this destroyer that is being built in Halifax was commenced at the beginning of January. It will commence at the beginning of April. It is the fifth, not the fourth. I want to make that correction. It will commence in April, 1960.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It will not be any part of any winter works program in Halifax next winter?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: No. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised a number of questions concerning our procurements in the Atlantic provinces. First, he asked for the dollar increase in 1958-59 for all defence

purchases in the Atlantic provinces. As I reported on June 3, head office purchases from Atlantic province firms last year amounted to $21.8 million, and district office purchases for this area-the vast majority of which were from local firms-were over $15 million. These give a combined total of $37 million as against $30 million in the previous year.
I must qualify this-as I did before-in several ways. First, as I have indicated, the district office purchases include a small percentage of orders placed with firms outside the area, but our records do not give precise information on this point. Second, the figures do not include defence subcontracts within the area

which excludes, for example, the work being done by Enamel and Heating Products on the CS2F program. Third, as the hon. member for Ottawa West observed on Wednesday, the addresses on contracts- which provide the basis of our regional breakdown-often do not show the actual site of production. For example, many of our purchases of Nova Scotia coal are made from firms with a Quebec or Ontario address and are not, for this reason, included in the figures I have given.
Second, the member asked what proportion of the increase was on construction, what on ship building and ship repairing, and what on procurement of an industrial character. Construction figures, of course, have been excluded from the amounts I reported for purchasing. In 1958-1959 construction orders, including a small amount of maintenance, amounted to $20 million. In the previous year, the corresponding figure was only $6 million, and it is because I did not feel that this offered a fair comparison that I did not include these figures in my June 3 statement.
Ship building and ship repairing orders in the Atlantic provinces last year were $12.5 million, and in the previous year $8.5 million. The increase is therefore $4 million, which represents 57 per cent of the total increase in purchases.
Unfortunately, I am unable to say anything about procurement of an industrial character. However, it may be of assistance to the hon. member if I give as much of a breakdown as our records permit.
One category, aircraft components and overhaul, which is readily shown by our records, accounted for $5.1 million last year and $3.8 million the year before; giving an increase of $1.3 million which is 18 per cent of the total increase. Coal purchases directly from Atlantic provinces dealers actually show a decline from $2.4 million to $2.2 million, although there was, in fact, a substantial increase in our total purchases of maritime
Supply-Defence Production coal over the period, which does not show up because the actual contracts were, in many cases, placed with firms in central Canada.
This, then, leaves only a residual amount of $2 million for 1958-59 and $1.7 million for the previous year, excluding district office purchases. Presumably the figures wanted by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate representing purchases of an industrial character, lie within these totals, together with a portion of the amounts I reported for aircraft parts and overhaul.
The last part of the hon. member's question had to do with a distinction between projects initiated by the present government and those started by the previous administration. I regret that I have no figures to answer this, and I would point out to the hon. member that he has, in fact, directed his question to the wrong source. As he knows, my department and Defence Construction Limited do not initiate any projects-we simply contract for the supply or construction of the goods, services and defence works which are requisitioned by the Department of National Defence. I might repeat, however, what I said on June 3, that within my own sphere of responsibility, as the minister charged with procurement, I have sought to improve the Atlantic provinces' share of defence contract expenditures. I believe that the figures show that we have made progress in this direction, and I would assure the hon. member that we shall continue our efforts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have one observation to make, and a couple of questions to ask. First, I may say I think it is very commendable that there were slightly higher expenditures, but these are obviously, as the minister has quite honestly said, of precisely the same character as they were in the past. He said that in his answer on June 3, and he was very honest about that when he said: "My department continues to rely wherever possible on country-wide competition." The minister is, of course, not responsible for this, because he was not here in those days, but we were for years continually given advice by hon. gentlemen who sat over here who said they would establish munition plants and procurement programs in the maritime provinces when a Conservative government came to power. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that more than two years later there has been no change in the situation whatsoever.
One question I wanted to ask the minister is this-and I am not pressing for an answer at this moment; the minister can give me an answer at some later time if he wishes- has the minister any estimate of the increased

Supply-Defence Production expenditures on general procurement resulting from the establishment of camp Gage-town? That is to say, here is a very large body of men now established in New Brunswick who were not there before this camp was established. Everybody who has visited Fredericton or Saint John knows that it has had a very stimulating effect on the economy of that area. It will be interesting to know the purchases made in that area for housekeeping, maintaining the camp, and looking after the troops.
The other question is this: what proportion of the expenditures for the Atlantic provinces in the last fiscal year was spent in the province of Newfoundland?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: As the hon. member has said I can give this information later and I will give this information later.


James Moffat Forgie: Mr. Chairman, I asked some questions regarding airport contracts at Foy-mount, and I asked that the information be given to me today. I understand, however, that the minister does not have the information. On this subject I should like to read to him a report which appeared in the Renfrew Advance of February 12, 1959 and ask him whether this represents the policy of the present administration.
Renfrew and Arnprior contractors are assured of federal government contracts amounting to $880,000.
The contracts are in connection with a $1,500,000 expansion project at the Foymount airport.
The general contract for the erection of 41 permanent living quarters has been let to M. Sullivan and Son of Arnprior. Roy Goodfellow of Renfrew has the sub-contract for the plumbing.
Another contract for $58,000 for a new school had been given to Adam Laird of Renfrew.
A third contract is certain to go-
And I emphasize the word "certain".
-to M. J. Sulpher and Sons of Renfrew. It is for a tower. The Sulpher bid was in the neighbourhood of $125,000 and it is said to be the lowest received.
Other contractors for radar equipment, a school extension and a church are still to be let. They will amount to about $800,000 and are expected to go to South Renfrew contractors.
James W. Baskin, member of parliament for South Renfrew announced Wednesday afternoon the contracts had been let.
Mr. Baskin announced several weeks ago that an expansion was planned for Foymount and that the contracts would be confined to South Renfrew firms.
I should just like the minister to explain whether that is the policy of the present administration, to prevent firms outside the districts from making tenders for these contracts.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The procurement policy remains unchanged. We have no specified area for contractors. Of course, we cannot control any information which may be given out by

certain members. We cannot control any information that they may want to give out to their ridings. But no contracts are given out on the basis of ridings only. It is true that work is given to certain areas, when we want the best work at the best prices, but it is not done by ridings.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister now has the result of the study he made with reference to the cost of continuing to completion the 37 Arrow CF-105's which were on the production line?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Trinity raised several questions relating to the CF-105. He asked, first, what would be the cost of continuing to completion the 37 aircraft for which orders had been placed. Our estimate of the additional cost of doing this is $257.8 million. The airframe represents $173.2 million of this and the Iroquois engine, $69 million. The remaining $15.6 million would be required for the electronic systems and some lesser miscellaneous items. No allowance is made here for any armament. I might point out that the first 20 aircraft were required for the development program and that, at most, only 17 would have been classed as operational.
The member for Trinity also had several questions about the tooling requirements for the F-104G. I might elaborate slightly on the answers which I gave at the time, and perhaps clarify certain points. First, however, I would remind the committee that I did try in my opening statement to give all the information I possibly could about the production program which we expect to achieve. I would emphasize that detailed questions of cost are central to the negotiations in which we are now engaged, and it would be unwise for me to speculate too much on the results which we expect these negotiations to produce. I can only say that we expect total tooling costs for the airframe, engine and electronics to amount to something over $20 million. I would prefer not to disclose the way in which we have arrived at this figure. This does not include certain tooling for the fuselage, horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer, rudder and wings, which is being provided free of charge in order that we may produce 66 sets of these components for the German requirement. This tooling will also meet Canadian requirements for these parts and any subsequent requirements that may develop. The value of this tooling is estimated at approximately $2.25 million.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With respect to the tooling that is being supplied free by the Lockheed

Aircraft Corporation, could the minister tell us if this is being done because that corporation has no further use for it?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The reason is that it is part of the deal that was negotiated with my officials.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I appreciate that, but I am wondering if the reason we were able to get the tooling free of charge is because the corporation has no further use for it. I have another question the minister perhaps could answer. How close to completion is the Lockheed corporation in its existing U.S.A.F. orders for the same aircraft?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: 1 do not have the answer to the last question. As to the first question, as to whether the order is completed, they gave us only part of the tooling under the production sharing deal.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister tell us how he is getting along in obtaining the picket plane order for Canadair, Montreal, or if this order has been awarded to a United States aircraft company?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The negotiations have been going on in the United States for some time. The latest information I have is that negotiations are still continuing. They are asking for new tenders on the various equipment different from what they asked for the first time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Are the minister and his staff working assiduously to try and obtain the prime contract for Canadair? Canadair already has equipment particularly well suited for this particular role.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I cannot give to the committee the assurance that they will obtain this order but I can say that Canadair is certainly in the running and we are certainly optimistic about it.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for the explanation he gave concerning questions about the mid-Canada line. In his answer there is an indication that some consideration may be given by his department to some of the failings his answer indicates he and his department know about. This of course was a large contract of $200 million. It is charged that $30 million was wasted. Some investigation should be carried on in view of recent developments that have taken place in that area. I am thinking of my own experience. I was in James bay and Hudson bay last summer and in the Moosonee area. The Bell Telephone company now owns several large housing units which it has up for sale. They have a small plant there and
Supply-Defence Production a number of buildings. 1 suggest to the minister this property should belong to some government department such as national defence or defence production.
Construction will be required with respect to Bomarc sites. If this property were put in the hands of a crown corporation it could be turned over for use in that connection.
There were a number of things in the report everybody knows about. It is true as the minister said in his answer that when you are working against time, cost is not always a major factor. An investigation should be made into the method of allocating the prime contract although not necessarily with a view to attaching blame to anyone.
There are other projects of this type and magnitude taking place in the area. I suggest that the committee on public accounts or some other government agency take a look at the situation next year and make recommendations for more suitable methods of keeping the control of the administration in a tight unit so the left hand will know what the right hand is doing and probably save time and money.
I can think of one instance in connection with the mid-Canada line. At considerable cost equipment for harnessing boilers was moved into the site. Someone else ordered boilers from another place and the type of fittings supplied were of no use. This could have been avoided if the recommendations made by the committee last year had been implemented.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I want to thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I have given the committee the report prepared by my officials concerning the mid-Canada line. I am looking further into this matter and wish to assure the hon. gentleman that other reports will be made on this important matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
69. Care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling, $882,011.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us where these storage barns are and what type of equipment is stored there?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Here we have the ammunition branch contracts for preservation, storage rental and incidental expenses, $65,000; general purchasing branch, $8,511; Longueuil plant, $84,000; machine tools and tooling, preservation and storage: aircraft branch, guided missile program, tooling and test equipment, $50,000; engine program, machine tools and tooling equipment for R1820, R1340, and Orenda engines, $189,550; Avro, CF-100 tooling $200,000; instrument manufacturers,

Supply-Defence Production
Ferranti Electric Company Limited, tooling, will be very large contracts for this job. $25,000; De Havilland Aircraft, Chipmunk Other contractors in the area will be invited
+o"nrJ or*
tooling, $10,000.
Then, we come to the ammunition branch, transfer to storage of production $22,500; electronics branch, tooling and test equipment for Sparrow II program, V.T. fuse production, 3/s Mortars, $130,000; gun branch, 105 mili-meter and 155 milimetre howitzer production tooling at Sorel Industries Limited, $147,000; machine tool branch, warehouse and transportation charges, $40,000; inspection and reinhibiting new machine tools at Long Branch, $25,000; rebuilding machine tools, $60,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
B-Crown companies-
73. Expenses incurred by defence construction (1951) limited in procuring the construction of defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence and procuring the construction of such other projects as are approved by treasury board, $3,349,237.
John Richard Garland: I wonder whether I might direct a question to the minister in connection with the work that is being undertaken by his department in the North Bay area? I recognize the difficulty in making a statement on this subject because of the nature of the installation, but it is a matter of real concern to the people in our area. I recognize the minister is perhaps limited in the information he can give, but within the framework of this limitation can he give us anything that would be of interest to the people in the area?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In reply to the hon. member may I say I cannot give him very much information. This is a new project and I cannot give the details of it. Much care has been taken in the selection of contractors by defence construction. They have been people who have experience in this type of work. There has been an amalgamation of different companies with different experience to do this work. We have asked several companies to tender. Because of the amalgamation, perhaps, there will be 20 companies, including the company recommended by the hon. member, from whom tenders will be coming. The greatest care will be given in considering these tenders to the quality of the contractors and the experience they have in this type of work.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister give us assurance that wherever possible northern Ontario firms will be given an opportunity to tender on any part or portion of this particular work?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Yes, they are certainly given the chance to tender on all possible work that can be done by the contractors in northern Ontario. As I said before, tenders were requested from other contractors because there


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
74. Administration and operation, $2,000,000.
(Translation):
Mr. Bourgei:: Mr. Chairman, I find that the report from Canadian Arsenals Limited mentions no successor to Brigadier Theriault. Is it the minister's intention to appoint a successor to Brigadier Theriault, who was on the board of directors? If I recall correctly, he was vice chairman of the board.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Chairman, I must say to the hon. member that the job of Brigadier Theriault has been abolished by Canadian Arsenals Limited. Therefore, no appointment has been made to that post.


Maurice Bourget: Does the minister intend to appoint a successor for him on the board of directors? In my recollection, the 13th annual report of the board listed no Frenchspeaking Canadian among the board members. Again if I remember correctly, Brigadier Theriault was one of the directors a few years ago. That is the reason why I ask the minister whether he intends to appoint a French-speaking Canadian to the board of directors of Canadian Arsenals.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I am pleased to inform the hon. member that a French-speaking director is to be appointed shortly.


Maurice Bourget: With regard to the federal arsenal at Quebec, could the minister say how many workers are now employed in the three plants, namely those at Cote du Palais, at Bassin-Louise and at Val Rose?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I am sorry, but the only figures I have here concern the total number of employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited. However, I could obtain this information for the hon. member. The total number of employees is 3,547.


Maurice Bourget: Does the minister not have the figures for the Quebec division?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Does the hon. member wish to know how many workers are employed by Canadian Arsenals Limited in the Quebec division?


Maurice Bourget: Yes.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: My officials inform me there were 863 employees on April 1, 1959. They did not think they had the figures in their records.


Maurice Bourget: Does the minister expect any increase in activity at the Quebec arsenal?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: No, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Bourget: Might it not be possible to obtain contracts from abroad for the arsenal? That plant used to have such contracts in the past. However, I understand conditions have changed.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: That is quite possible. We may occasionally pick up a contract from a foreign country. We are trying to get such contracts, so as to provide employment for the workers now employed at the arsenal. It is a possibility, but I do not expect it. According to one of the directors of Canadian Arsenals, no additional work is anticipated for the time being.


Maurice Bourget: Is there no possibility of getting a few contracts from the United States, in the circumstances, in view of all the negotiations going on between the two countries?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be very difficult to obtain contracts from the United States in this field, because they are just loaded up with unemployed over there.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the permission of the committee to go back to item 71 for one very short question.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to go back to item 71?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
71.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $100,000.


Augustin Brassard: Would the minister be good enough to tell the committee why this item of $100,000 for grants to municipalities does not come under the special division of the Department of Finance?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: This item deals with grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown owned defence plants operated by private contractors. I understand the hon. member would like to know what municipalities receive these grants.
Supply-Defence Production


Augustin Brassard: No. Would the minister tell us why this does not come under the jurisdiction of the special division of the Department of Finance which deals with grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The Municipal Grants Act does not specifically cover these plants but provides for taxes on federal property to be paid in full subject to adjustment with respect to services rendered. It is intended that the grants with respect to the said plants be in conformity with this legislation. It is legislation that exists. The plants covered by this provision have been acquired under the department's capital assistance program and title in each case is vested in the crown. The plants are operated by private contractors on the same basis as industrial plants.


Maurice Bourget: Are the grants paid on the same basis as for other buildings of the federal government?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I am talking about my department. I cannot explain what the arrangements are in other departments. This is a grant in lieu of taxes and it comes under my department. There is legislation covering it and I do not know if the legislation applies elsewhere. We pay the same amount as we would pay if we were paying taxes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before you rise, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have assurance from the minister that the answers to my two questions will be given in the house.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate has been so co-operative tonight that I certainly am not able to refuse him. I should like to give one more answer. I was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South whether it would be possible to send some of the senior officials of my department to the west coast to make known the production sharing program and to meet industry. I wish to inform the house and the British Columbia members in particular that in October I will be on the west coast with some of my officials, and at that time we hope to get in touch with the board of trade and meet the industrialists of the area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister would do the same thing in Newfoundland.


George Randolph Pearkes: They have no industries in Newfoundland.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has got me in a good mood tonight so I think I will have to accept also.	1

Business of the House Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman who is leading the house in what order estimates will be taken tomorrow and Saturday?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. The house leader asked me to announce that the estimates of veterans affairs, northern affairs and national resources, trade and commerce, mines and technical surveys and fisheries would be taken in that order.
At 10.38 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	Who is the actual person in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who has authority to employ musicians and orchestra leaders in the city of Winnipeg?
2.	What are his qualifications for this position?
3.	What are the basic requirements needed by a musician or orchestra leader in order to be employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
4.	When choosing between two or more musicians or orchestra leaders of equal ability, is preference given to a war veteran?
5.	When choosing between two or more musicians or orchestra leaders of equal ability, is preference given to Canadian citizens?
6.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have any restrictions with regard to employment of musicians and orchestra leaders in particular with regard to political or other affiliations?
7.	How much did the present concert master of the Winnipeg symphony orchestra, Mr. Richard Seaborn, and the various leaders of the string sections receive from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the years 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959 to date?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister
of National Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows:
1.	The director for the prairie provinces.
2.	As the representative of management in the region he is required to be an experienced and competent administrator.
3.	Demonstrated or established ability and experience.
4.	In the engaging of conductors and soloists, the situation has never arisen.
In accordance with the letter of understanding between the corporation and the American federation of musicians, the conductor, not the C.B.C., chooses the individual players that make up an orchestra from the roster of available, professional, union musicians.
5.	See No. 4.
6.	No.
Questions
7.	It is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose amounts of payments to individuals as it would affect the position of the corporation in a competitive business in negotiating for services.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  WIRE ROPE FENDER DEFECTS
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any wire rope fenders on the St. Lawrence seaway pulled apart or been broken since installation?
2.	If so, (a) how many have been so affected; (b) why have they done so; (c) at what locations has this happened; (d) on what date?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows, insofar as the new seaway facilities are concerned.
1.	No.
2.	Answered by (1).


JANITOR SERVICE, FEDERAL BUILDING, NEWCASTLE, N.B.
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Were the services of one full time and one part time assistant janitors recently engaged for the federal public building at Newcastle, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, was a civil service competition advertised and were they selected by a civil service commission board of examiners? If not, how were selections made?
3.	Are these men now under the Civil Service Act?
Answer by:	Hon. Howard C. Green
(Minister of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	No. (i) The caretaker 3 was appointed to this position on February 1, 1959, on promotion from the old building where he had been employed since April 1, 1955, as caretaker 2. (ii) The cleaning service man (part time) was appointed on May 8, 1959, by the department.
3.	The caretaker 3 is under the Civil Service Act in all respects. The cleaning service man (part time) will be under the Civil Service Act in all respects as soon as the civil service commission issues a certificate confirming his selection.

Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
A-Department and missions abroad-
76.	Departmental administration, $6,319,803.
77.	Representation abroad-operational-including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $9,606,439.
78.	Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land equipment and furnishings and to the extent that blocked funds are available for these expenditures, to provide for payment from these foreign currencies owned by Canada and provided only for governmental or other limited purposes, $1,565,405.
79.	Official hospitality, $40,000.
80.	Relief and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens abroad and their dependents, and the reimbursement of the United Kingdom for relief expenditures incurred by its diplomatic and consular posts on Canadian account (part recoverable), $15,000.
81.	Canadian representation at international conferences, $243,000.
82.	Grant to the United Nations association in Canada, $11,000.
83.	Grant to the international committee of the Red Cross, $15^000.
84.	Grant to the Canadian Atlantic co-ordinating committee, $2,500.
B-General
85.	Canadian government's assessment for membership in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied; amount required in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1958, $3,838,519.
86.	Canadian government's contribution to the United Nations expanded program for technical assistance to under-developed countries in an amount of $2,000,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1958, which is, $1,931,250.
87.	Canadian government's contribution to the United Nations technical assistance administration training centre at the university of British Columbia, $10,000.
88.	Canadian government's contribution to the United Nations special fund in an amount of $2,000,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1958, which is, $1,931,250.
89.	Contribution to the United Nations children's fund, $650,000.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization-
90.	Special administrative expenses including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the international staff of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (part recoverable from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), $60,245.
91.	Canadian government's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's science fellowships and advanced studies institutes programs in an amount of $44,060 U.S., notwithstanding that
payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1958, which is, $42,545.
92.	Further contribution by the Canadian government towards the cost of constructing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization permanent headquarters in an amount of 54,072,000 French francs, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December 1958, which is, $124,420.
International civil aviation organization-
93.	To provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates, $214,594.
94.	Payment to the international civil aviation organization in part reimbursement of compensation paid to its Canadian employees for Quebec income tax for the 1958 taxation year, $9,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
95.	To authorize payment of a pension during the current and subsequent fiscal years, notwithstanding anything contained in the Financial Administration Act or any other act or law, to Hilda L. Waddell, a former locally-engaged employee, at an annual rate of 60,000 Brazilian cruzeiros, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1958, which is, $412.
International joint commission-
96.	Salaries and expenses of the commission including, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, as amended, payment of salary of the chairman at $17,500 per annum, $112,124.
97.	Canada's share of the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations of the international joint commission, $116,110.
Special-
98.	Colombo plan, $50,000,000
99.	Canadian government's assessment for membership in the inter-governmental committee for european migration in an amount of $234,875 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1958, which is, $226,801.
100.	Grant by the Canadian government to the United Nations refugee fund, $290,000.
101.	Canadian participation in the work of the European productivity agency of the organization for European economic co-operation, $20,000.
102.	Contribution to the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East, $500,000.
103.	Canada's civilian participation as a member of the international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $270,984.
104.	Technical assistance to Commonwealth countries and territories other than those eligible for assistance under the Colombo plan or West Indies assistance program, $500,000.
105.	West Indies assistance program, $2,100,000.
A-Department and missions abroad-
505.	Departmental administration-further amount required and to authorize the governor in council, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act-to appoint a chairman of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence and

to fix his salary; and the person so appointed shall not be a contributor under the Public Service Superannuation Act, $65,250.
B-General-
North Atlantic Treaty Organization-
506.	Purchase and transfer of wheat flour to assist in the establishment of strategic stock piles of food supplies in member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes $10,000,000.
International civil aviation organization-
507.	To provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates-further amount required, $1,500.
Special-
508.	Grant to the commonwealth institute in an amount of £500, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1959, which is, $1,353.
509.	West Indies assistance program-further amount required, $583,500.
510.	To reimburse the agricultural commodities stabilization account for dry skimmed milk donated to international relief agencies, organizations and governments, $2,500,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
External Affairs-
604. Additional advance to the working capital fund of the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization in the amount of $300 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1959, which is, $289.
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
68.	Departmental administration, $7,507,609.
Supply-Items Passed
69.	Care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling, $882,011.
70.	For the establishment of production capacity and for capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by crown plants operated on a management-fee basis, or by crown companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to the approval of treasury board, $2,907,000.
71.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $100,000.
72.	To establish qualified sources for the production of component parts and materials subject to the approval of treasury board, $500,000.
B-Crown companies-
73.	Expenses incurred by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in procuring the construction of defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence and procuring the construction of such other projects as are approved by treasury board, $3,349,237.
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
74.	Administration and operation, $2,000,000.
75.	Construction, improvements and equipment, $1,128,288.
A-Department
[Stage Direction]
502.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $41,500.
503.	To establish qualified sources for the production of component parts and materials subject to the approval of treasury board-further amount required, $450,000.
504.	To sustain technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence development programs on terms and conditions approved by the treasury board, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $4,000,000, $5,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 10, 1959