1960-07-15

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: There have been a number of questions asked with regard to the brief of the Canadian welfare council respecting refugee year, and with the leave of the house I will table a letter which sets forth the viewpoint of the government. The letter is directed to Mr. K. Carter, president of the welfare council.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: I wonder whether in view of the widespread interest in this matter the Prime Minister would consider having the letter made an appendix to Hansard or Votes and Proceedings, whichever he thinks would be more convenient.


John George Diefenbaker: I have no objection to that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hansard would be more convenient for the public.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that this letter be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of document referred to above, see appendix.]



ANNOUNCEMENT OF DONATION OF WHOLE MILK POWDER

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the government has authorized the agricultural products board to make available for international welfare purposes, through approved international relief agencies, a quantity of whole milk powder purchased by the board as part of the program for the utilization of surplus dairy products.
The whole milk powder will be made available to these organizations by the board in consultation with the Department of External Affairs, whose officers are conversant with the various international relief programs. An initial donation of approximately two million pounds is being made available
to the United Nations international children's emergency fund for immediate shipment to 12 different countries.
Because of its butter fat content whole milk powder is one of the commodities most urgently requested by international welfare agencies to assist them in carrying out their welfare programs, particularly in the underdeveloped countries.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to put several questions to the minister. What is the surplus of powdered milk now, and is what is now proposed going to be done within the appropriation already provided for by parliament?


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in recent years milk powder has proven to be a product that lends itself to the use the minister has announced. Its reconstitution is very simple, and undernourished people are able to readily make use of the product. I therefore believe that the government has made a wise decision in making 2 million pounds of whole milk powder available to international relief agencies.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is just immediately.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes. I can remember that in this house a number of months ago, when there was a large surplus of skim milk powder, it was the minister's opinion that it would be difficult to dispose of that large quantity. I think the minister will agree that he was as pleased as the rest of us were that we were able to dispose in a desirable manner of large quantities of surplus skim milk powder. The continuation of the policy announced some time ago is most desirable and I am sure will commend itself to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister would agree to answer the questions later, when we reach orders of the day.

On the orders of the day:


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the financing of this donation, and subsequent donations which will be made, of whole milk powder will be done through the stabilization board, but of course there will be supplementary estimates at some time in the future to cover these donations, as has been the case regularly in the past.
I should like to emphasize the fact that this

Income Tax Act
is whole milk powder, not skim milk powder, and therefore a different program from the one which was carried on last year and the year before of donations of dry skim milk powder.
I think the hon. member for Essex East asked another question but I am not quite sure what it was.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the state of the surplus?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We do not really know what the state of the surplus is. As hon. members will perhaps recall, last year we were able to export through normal commercial channels something in the nature of 17 million pounds of dry whole milk powder. We expect to be able to reach approximately the same amount, or perhaps up to 20 million pounds or even more, this year. The amount of whole milk powder which will be surplus to the amount which can be sold in Canada and exported in a normal commercial way I do not know, but whatever that surplus is we are prepared to donate it in substantial amounts to international relief organizations.



INCOME TAX ACT


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-84, to amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the resolution of the house adopted on May 9 on the report of the committee of ways and means, I ask leave now to introduce a bill to amend the Income Tax Act.
If the house will permit me a word of explanation, this is a bill to amend the Income Tax Act in respect of profit-sharing plans. As I said in the budget speech on March 31, because of the complex nature of the problem and the somewhat involved nature of any legislation to deal therewith, it is not the intention of the government to ask that legislation should be adopted at the present session, but rather to introduce a bill embodying the legislative proposals in order that interested organizations and individuals may have ample time prior to the next session of parliament to study the matter and bring forward their suggestions, all of which will be welcomed and carefully considered.
I now ask leave to introduce this bill and have it given first reading, on the understanding that it will not be proceeded with at the present session.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the house to speak to a matter that arose Wednesday on a starred question standing in the name of the hon. member for Essex East. The hon. member asked that question No. 199 be answered before the estimates of the Department of Finance are called for consideration in committee of supply. I was absent on Wednesday attending the Canada-United States defence committee meeting. The answers are available, and if the house would give leave I would ask you to call starred question No. 199 so that the answer might be tabled. Perhaps on account of its length and the number of figures involved it might be included in the Hansard report without actually being read. It will then be available before the estimates of the Department of Finance are called.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give its consent to the proposal that starred question No. 199 be taken before orders of the day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the suggestion of the minister that the answer be printed In Hansard at this point?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give its leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mariin (Essex Easi): 1.	Was there any actual loss during the fiscal year 1959-60, in the unemployment insurance fund?
2.	If so, what was the amount of the loss?
3.	What was the actual loss, if any, for the months of April and May, 1960?
4.	What was the market value of the securities in the unemployment insurance fund on March 31, 1960?
5.	What was the amount of the advances by the government of Canada to the unemployment insurance fund from April 1, 1980 to May 6, 1960?
6.	Were any further advances made after May 6, 1960 up to the present time? If so, in what amount?
7.	What is the present market value of the unemployment insurance fund less advances?
8.	Are there any securities left in the unemployment insurance fund that mature before 1968?
LEditor's note: The answer to starred question No. 199 referred to above is as follows:3
1.	Yes.
2.	$133,918,924.56.
3.	April 1960-61 (preliminary, subject
to adjustment)-$39,572,963.02; May 1960-61 (preliminary, subject to	adjustment)-

4.	$295,564,292.25.

6.	Yes. $17,000,000.00.
7.	$251,805,741.13.
8.	Yes. $11,500,000.00.
(All advances under 5 and 6 were repaid in full by May 31.)



INQUIRY AS TO PROCEDURE RESPECTING B.N.A. ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, having to do with the legislative program for the remainder of this session. Is it the intention of the government to ask the House of Commons to amend the humble address that has been passed by this house, having to do with the constitutional amendment to set a retirement age for county and district court judges, in order to harmonize our resolution with that passed by the other place, or does the government intend to have Her Majesty confronted with two opposing addresses?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the novel situation to which the hon. member refers is under examination.



REQUEST FOR LIST OF OUTSTANDING RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Acting Secretary of State if he would be good enough to do what he was good enough to do last year at about this stage of the session, that is, furnish the house at the first convenient opportunity with a list of the returns that have not yet been made.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of Stale):: I will be very pleased to do that, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he inform the house whether he has made a request to the Minister of National Defence for the Department of National Defence to examine into the possibility of reduction of the personnel strength of the armed services?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is a most extraordinary question; it is inviting one minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of the government to disclose to the house communication not only passing between departments but passing between ministers.
I think on reflection the hon. gentleman will realize that it would be made impossible to carry on the business of government if discussions between ministers were expected to be disclosed on the floor of the house. I do not recall that the hon. gentleman, when he was a minister of the crown, ever came into the house and discussed exchanges of views between himself and his colleagues in the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Because of the impropriety of my earlier question, may I ask the Prime Minister whether an examination is being made by the government into the possibility of reducing the personnel strength of the armed services.


John George Diefenbaker: Appreciating the admission of the impropriety of the question, may I say at the same time that the answer is in the negative.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport. I understand it is in his field because it relates to the elusive chemistry of hydro carbons in relation to jet aircraft fuels.
In view of newspaper reports to the effect that Lord Brabazon, chairman of the air registration board of Great Britain, yesterday in London accused the United States, Canadian and Belgian air lines of disgraceful practices by using highly inflammable fuel for their jet aircraft instead of the safer but more expensive kerosene, would the parliamentary secretary inform the house whether the use of the fuel known as JT-4 meets the regulations established by the department and is considered as safe a fuel as kerosene?


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving notice of this question, although I did hear about the matter on the television news last night. The use of the jet aircraft fuel commonly known as JT-4 is a practice on the part of numerous air lines and aviation interests throughout the world. It has some advantages and some disadvantages compared with kerosene, and the choice of which of these fuels is used in jet engines is a matter of technical and company judgment in each case. However, it is not considered unsafe and, in fact, would

Inquiries of the Ministry not be in use extensively by air lines and aviation interests and indeed by this government if it were considered unsafe.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare, in the absence of the minister. Has his attention been drawn to an Associated Press dispatch from Nairobi in which a Dr. Michael Wood claims that by use of a new drug named methotrexate a/'considerable break-through" seems to be taking place in attempts to develop a drug to cure cancer? I should like to know whether the department has any information on this reported discovery.


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, owing to the absence of the minister from Ottawa, when the hon. member gave notice of his intention to ask this question a report by the scientific staff of the health department was referred to me as acting minister.
I am informed that the drug referred to in the article in question is not exactly a new discovery, having been under study over the past two years. It is one of a series of related compounds that exert the same effect, and has been employed experimentally in the treatment of acute leukemia. Its action has been to delay the course of this disease, but the procedures used to date have brought only relief of a temporary nature, as in time the leukemic cells develop a resistance. No findings of this new project seem to have been published yet in medical journals, but reports indicate that a new method of giving the drug is being used. Naturally the senior departmental officials in this field will be following developments closely.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State. On June 8 question No. 405, which I had placed on the order paper, was made an order for return at his request. May I ask the acting minister whether the return will be made within the next few days?


Léon Balcer: I will make inquiries, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Gloucester concerning an application for certification of a bargaining agent for C.P.R. merchandising services in British Columbia, I am advised that the Canada labour relations board held a hearing on the application on July 13. I am also advised that the decision of the board will be mailed to the parties today and will be released publicly in the early part of next week, by which time the parties will have received it.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE POSSIBLE DISCUSSION OF PROGRAM TO INCREASE EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to take advantage of the presence in Ottawa the week after next of the provincial premiers and other representatives to discuss with them a co-operative program to increase employment?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I will not be among the members of the government who will be meeting the provincial representatives.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the Minister of Labour has a reply to a question I have been raising in the last couple of days concerning a complaint from the British Columbia federation of labour to the national employment service in relation to the hardware firms of Mac and Mac and Marshall Wells?


Michael Starr: I forwarded to Mr. O'Neal of the British Columbia federation of labour a letter which embodies the report I received from the unemployment insurance commission. The best manner in which I can explain this situation is, with your permission, to read the letter which I addressed to Mr. O'Neal. It reads: With reference to your telegram of July 7, I may say that I have asked the regional director of the unemployment insurance commission to ensure that

commission policy concerning the referral of workers to employment that is affected by an industrial dispute is being fully observed in the case to which you refer.
In these matters the commission's policy is to maintain a position of strict impartiality as between employers and workers. In doing this, the commission accepts employers' orders and refers applicants. But in offering referral, applicants are carefully advised in every instance that the employment is involved in a dispute and further that because of this, refusal to accept the referral will have no effect whatever on either the applicant's right to benefit or his right to other referrals. Applicants are then referred only in those cases where they express a desire to apply for the employment in question. Moreover, where workers on strike or locked out seek alternative employment, whether permanent or temporary, employment offices will in those cases not refuse to serve the applications of such workers.
This policy stems from the commission's obligation to find employment for applicants who register and to find workers for employers who list vacancies-as long as in doing so the commission violates no legal requirement affecting employment.
There is no legal requirement to prevent workers accepting employment that is involved in a dispute and none that prevents employers from hiring such workers. Thus there would be no legal status for commission refusal to refer workers or accept employers' orders where the only reason for such action is that the employment is affected by a dispute. The commission would be in anything but a neutral position if it were to refuse to accept orders and refer workers since such action would favour the interests of the workers involved against those of the employer and indeed against the interest of other workers who are registered at the local office.
This policy is one that has been followed since the beginning of commission operations and one that has had wide acceptance. I am sure that you will appreciate that to change it would place the commission in a position where it could not act impartially and one that it could not defend on any legal grounds.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
75. Departmental administration, $6,370,736. (Translation):
Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, it is with a little apprehension that I take part today, for the first time, in the debate on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. During my few remarks, I shall probably not put forth very new ideas, but I shall at least have the opportunity of expressing my views.
When, in 1958, I was present for the first time at the debate on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, I was far from thinking that one day I would have the opportunity of taking part in it. I was probably mistaken in feeling, at the time, that to participate in such a debate, one
Supply-External Affairs had to be an expert on external affairs. I have changed my mind since, and I have realized that it is possible to learn something about external affairs by reading, and especially by listening to others who take part in such debates.
I had the opportunity in the last two years of being a delegate of our party on the joint Canada-U.S. parliamentary committee which, as you know, is composed of 24 members of the Canadian House of Commons and Senate and of 24 American senators and representatives. As a member of that committee, I had the opportunity, in Montreal and in Ottawa, for instance, to meet with members of the American committee and to form a friendship with them that will prove very useful, I think, and promote a better understanding of Canadian and American interests with regard to matters under consideration.
I also had the advantage, during the present session, of being a member of the same committee and to visit Washington, Omaha, Nebraska, and Colorado Springs, Colorado. We had the opportunity of meeting with the same American legislators and to renew our friendships.
Those trips are very instructive; those of us who go on them do not have to speak all the time and, besides, that is just what I did by applying the maxim: "Speech is silver, silence is golden."
I also had the privilege-and I thank the leader of my party for having selected me for that purpose-to attend the United Nations general assembly, in 1959, when I stayed in New York from November first until nearly the end of the meeting of the general assembly.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, in the United Nations, we meet people from almost all countries in the world, and there too we form solid friendships.
One thing which surprised me most agreeably at United Nations was the large share given over to French and to English at meetings of United Nations committees. I especially attended the meetings of the fourth committee, the trusteeship committee, where I noted that the French language, as well as the English language, was a diplomatic language par excellence.
In the course of the few minutes that will follow, I intend to deal more especially with those new peoples, those new African nations which, in recent days and particularly this year, have achieved either partial or total independence. I have acquired some

Supply-External Affairs familiarity with those things while attending the discussions of the fourth committee, and I was deeply interested in this question of Africa and of the independence of those countries peopled by the black race.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, in addition to those fully independent countries and countries under trusteeship-I refer particularly to Great Britain, France, Belgium, Italy and others I need not mention-there are also territories which lack a government of their own and are, in fact, only colonies or territories settled by other countries.
This year there have been remarkable changes in Africa. World opinion, it might be said, has been stirred by those countries. In 1960 they decided-and this I repeat with special emphasis-to take the leap from colonialism to independence. The people of Canada, whether French speaking or English speaking, or even of other ethnic groups, have lived through such periods in the past, although there was less agitation here in North America than there is in Africa at the present time. This country has slowly but surely developed from the colonial system to the complete independence we know today. Those African countries are perhaps passing more rapidly from the colonial system to freedom or independence, and that may be why they are meeting with greater difficulties. But we must not view with disfavour the rapid rise of those African people towards independence, and their wish to attain it more quickly, nor must we ignore the situation. Not only must we not disapprove their attitude, but we must realize that they are right and that it is up to us to help them. I am happy to note that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), stated yesterday, if I understood rightly, that the policy of Canada was to help those countries attain their independence by all possible means.
At this stage of my remarks, Mr. Chairman,
I want to voice a criticism which, I hope, is a constructive one, and which is directed both to the present government and to the former, which I did not have the honour to support in this house but whose virtues I have proclaimed in my riding and in my province.
Whenever, at meetings of the fourth committee of the United Nations, or of the trusteeship council, there was discussion on proposals submitted by member states, and more particularly by Asian countries, to accelerate the attainment of independence by those African countries, such as the Cam-eroons, Nyasaland and others, I believe that it was generally the policy of Canada to abstain from voting.
[Mr. Roberge.)
I know that there were such abstentions at the time when the external affairs policy was decided by the Liberal administration, but I think it was a mistake.
It is true that, at the time, the trend of those countries towards independence was perhaps less marked than today, but this mild reproach which I am now addressing to those who were then managing the affairs of our country, is also meant for those who are doing so now; indeed, I have noticed that more often than not, and, too often in the last year, in my opinion, Canada failed to take an official stand when those African countries were clamouring for their independence.
There probably was a good reason for taking such a stand, and it is possible that Canada was more inclined to make its influence felt behind the scenes than to do so officially, by casting a vote. However, those countries are looking to Canada, and their people know that Canada has no territorial economic or commercial ambitions with regard to their countries.
Of course, Canada would gladly trade with them, but such is not the ultimate purpose of Canada's policy. Canada's aim is to enable the peoples of Africa to live at last as we do here in Canada, and when I say live, Mr. Chairman, I do not mean our way of life but our standard of living.
I made some study of the situation in those countries, especially of a table published in Le Devoir of December 24, 1959, which had published several articles on the international situation with respect to countries of Africa.
I noted that some of the countries of Africa are very large in area, and that others are smaller. I also noted that those countries that are now independent, or will be so later this year or in the future, are linked about equally with the two large groups in the civilized world. Eighteen are in some way or other linked with France, through bonds of friendship, or by political or cultural ties.
Sixteen are linked with the United Kingdom by identical ties; three are linked with Italy, two with Belgium, two with Spain, three with Portugal, one with South Africa and one with the United States.
On the whole, we find that those countries are divided about equally between the Latin or French culture and the Anglo-Saxon culture.

A study of this table leads to the conclusion that Canada, being bilingual, will have a specific part to play with regard to those English or French speaking nations.
And so, what should Canada do to help those countries?
On that same day, Le Devoir published an article signed by Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop of Dakar, under the following heading:
The duty of Christian states towards new Africa.
This article had the following subhead:
Warning to the West.
The attitude of countries which, in spite of many reservations, have retained Christian civilization as the basis for private, public, national and international law, should be unanimous:	they
should support those governments which have adopted, as the basis for their constitution, those principles which safeguard man's spiritualistic nature and, therefore, his fundamental freedoms.
This distinguished churchman refers to the part that Canada could play. I quote:
Canada, and particularly French speaking Canada, could play a leading part in building up those new African states.
There is no doubt, as I have indicated, that those nations are looking our way. They possibly do not ask us for directives with respect to their international or internal policies, but they certainly expect our moral and even material support. Thus they could hope to achieve not only political independence, but also spiritual, industrial and commercial independence.
Mr. Chairman, if we really believe in the intrinsic value of our way of life, in Canada or in western countries, it is our duty to protect it, and not by forcing our views upon other countries, but by showing them that we are right.
I do not want to take issue with the attitude taken by my colleague from Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). The solution he suggests is perhaps the best. Personally, however-and I repeat this-I say that if we really believe in the value of our way of life, let us protect it and let us act in such a way that others may benefit from it.
At the beginning of my remarks, I dealt with the Canada-United States parliamentary group of which I was a member. I had the honour to meet one of the American legislators, Senator Frank Church, of Idaho, who this very week made the opening speech at the Democratic convention just held in the United States.
Here is what the senator said Mr. Chairman, according to the New York Times of Tuesday, July 12, 1960:
Supply-External Affairs
(Text):
We live on a shrunken planet where the prevailing order of the past three centuries has been destroyed. New nations rise from the wreckage of old empires, so that our world, like ancient Gaul, lies divided in three parts; one part consists of the western countries led by the United States; one part of the communist countries dominated by the Soviet union; and the third part of the newly emerging nations in the old colonial areas of Africa, Asia, and the southern seas.
These underdeveloped and uncommitted countries constitute the "no-man's lands" on which the fate of the human race will be determined.
(Translation):
A little farther on he stated:
(Text):
Two ways of life-communism and freedom- are thus locked in a mortal competition. Until the debris from the broken summit conference in Paris has been cleared, until the tumult that turned the president back from Tokyo has been better understood, we cannot know for sure what form this competition will take. But this we do know. We will either win it or lose it. There is no way out of it.
(Translation):
A moment ago, I was asking what attitude bilingual Canada should take towards those countries. One way of helping those African countries would be to establish frequent contacts with their national leaders; visits by high officials, ministers and members; exchange of personnel, either French speaking or English speaking.
That is what is being done in the case of Ceylon and Israel, and other countries whose names I forget. The commonwealth affords opportunities for such contacts, regardless of the colour of the peoples concerned.
In my opinion, the field in which Canada should take the lead would be in countries that are not yet part of the commonwealth or of the French community. Those countries are completely independent. It is with such countries, more than anywhere else, that exchanges of personnel should take place, at the university level. Graduates of Canadian universities could be sent out there to teach, while those Africans could come here to supplement their training.
In the administrative field, our assistance would no doubt be appreciated. It would not be a matter of imposing on them an administrative machinery identical with our own, but one which, firmly established, would meet with their principles and their needs. The most direct way would be to exchange officials at either the federal or the provincial level.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I say we must not try to impose our own ideas; rather should we seek to understand the needs and aspirations of those peoples, and to give them appropriate advice.

Supply-External Affairs
The present situation in the Congo seems to be a denial of the policy I am now advocating. But the exception is not the rule.
I am convinced that African peoples want our counsels. They know that we have no territorial ambition, and that the ends we pursue are unselfish ones.
Canada is not a newcomer in this field. It co-operates in the Colombo plan.
I understand that a similar plan for Africa is now under consideration. Such plans are always worth while and we support them. It would also be desirable to make a greater contribution in the form of personnel. As a result, those new countries which have gained independence this year, or will do so in the coming months or next year, will be inclined to draw closer to the west and the free world.
It is not through warfare, Mr. Chairman, that we shall win the peace; nor is it the war of ideas or ideology that could assure a just and lasting peace in the world. If we want freedom for all human beings, the free world must win its campaign of mutual help and Christian charity.
(Text):


Mr, Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of the present debate to stress the influence of the relations between our country and Latin America. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other officials of the Canadian government have recently visited that part of the world and on their return expressed unanimously their enthusiastic views concerning the relations of Canada and Latin America. The Prime Minister has even gone further in saying that Canada should have an observer at the next inter-American conference, the eleventh of its kind, which will open in Quito, Ecuador, next March 1. I think all Canadians are deeply interested in any possibility of bringing together the nations of our continent.
(Translation):
The present situation is such that the whole world is looking with anxiety towards Latin America where, in addition to the difficulties encountered in countries with inadequately developed economies, the specter of communism now rears itself. All those reasons, however, should not prevent Canada from assuming its responsibilities; on the contrary, they should impel our leaders to take a realistic view of the situation and to assign to Canada its true and rightful role, that of a great American power which could significantly contribute to the cause of peace and justice on this continent.
The rational and intelligent integration of our country in the inter-American system has


been too long deferred. Today, we know that Canada is master of its own destiny, that it may join any international organization it chooses and may, at any time occupy the chair that awaits it in the organization of the council of American states.
We know also that continental security will not be fully assured until we have merged into a single unit the Canada-United States international defence commission and the inter-American defence commission.
We are also aware that continental solidarity will not be achieved, and that the nations of America will not all fully co-operate in the peace and progress of the continent until Canada, conscious of its responsibilities in the face of the reality of political and military requirements of our times, decides to become a full-fledged member of the inter-American system by signing the charter of the organization of American states and the interAmerican mutual security treaty, not with a view to interfering in domestic conflicts in Latin America but, on the contrary, so as to place all its prestige, its experience and its conciliation spirit, at the disposal of the organization.
(Text):
I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will soon have from the Secretary of State for External Affairs an explicit statement in connection with the organization of American states and about the participation not of an observer but a group of real delegates to the forthcoming conference in Quito.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, never before has Canada come so close to achieving continental solidarity. Let us not miss this opportunity of reasserting the position and prestige of our country.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think the objectives of our foreign policy are agreed upon. We hope Canada can make its full contribution toward the maintenance of the peace of the world, toward improving the economic standards of people everywhere, and toward increasing freedom for all mankind. Within that framework I think we are all agreed.
I listened very carefully yesterday to the speech delivered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and in connection with the disarmament negotiations and in connection with the experience in attempting to improve consultations at NATO the minister was quite comprehensive and frank. There are certain aspects of the disarmament talks that I wish he might have elaborated on somewhat further: for instance, the concrete

proposals that Canada put forward, and whether we took any decided independent initiative or whether in the main we copied ideas already put forward by others and then put them forward as our own proposals. However, Mr. Chairman, I really do not want to deal so much with what the minister said as with some of the things that were not said or dealt with in his speech.
There are many grave threats to peace in the world today; there are many grave situations. One of them is the situation in Cuba and Cuba's relations with other nations in the world. I think the Cuban situation is a powder keg that could explode at any time; yet there was not a single word in the minister's statement having to do with this most urgent question. I had expected that that kind of statement would be embodied in the minister's speech, because on July 11 I asked him a question on the situation in Cuba to which the minister replied as follows, as reported at page 6017 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows we have an ambassador in Cuba, so we are being kept informed of the situation. There have been no representations made by the Canadian government with regard to the situation which has arisen within the last day or two, particularly arising from the threat by Premier Khrushchev.
I had asked whether any representations had been made within a day or two of the date mentioned. Then I asked a supplementary question as follows:
Has Canada given any consideration-and if the answer is no, will consideration be given by the government-to raising this question and advancing positive proposals at the Canada-United States ministerial committee which is meeting on July 12 and 13?
The answer of the minister was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, Canada is of course very much concerned about the situation, and the discussions in the Canada-United States defence committee will probably cover world affairs generally. But I am not in a position to say at the moment just what particular subjects will be raised at that meeting.
I should like to know now whether this question was raised by the Canadian government, whether it was discussed, whether Canada made any particular proposals, whether Canada made any protest against the threats which had been made by the United States regarding armed intervention, or whether there was any statement of Canada's position in relation to the threats made by Premier Khrushchev.
It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that the minister might have included some discussion of this subject in his talk, because he ranged far afield; he went into many aspects of Canada's foreign policy, and he congratulated-I am not criticizing him for this; I associate myself with him-the people
Supply-External Affairs in his department. He took time to congratulate ambassadors and their staffs who are resident in Ottawa, and I associate myself with those remarks; but it would seem to me that when the world is faced with a threat to its very existence, in an explosive situation such as we have in Cuba, we might have looked to our minister of external affairs for a comprehensive statement on Canada's attitude to this particular situation.
Another great controversy has been very much to the fore in recent days. It has to do with the shooting down of another United States plane by the Soviet union and the claim by the Soviet union that this United States plane had invaded Soviet territory in the vicinity of the Barents sea. One would have expected from the minister a statement as to Canada's position in regard to this situation. I asked the Prime Minister a supplementary question on this general topic which had been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The supplementary question was as follows, as reported at page 6100 of Hansard:
In view of the fact that such flights over Soviet territory are in fact taken to be provocative, and in view of the assurance President Eisenhower gave the world that these flights would be discontinued, can the Prime Minister say whether the Canadian government has made any protest or any statement that such flights should not be undertaken in the future?
The answer of the Prime Minister was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the view expressed by the President of the United States when he made the statement in question is, according to the information that is available, still the case. Therefore anything in the nature of a statement of the kind indicated by the hon. member would not be in order.
When the peace of the world is being threatened, when the Soviet union and the United States apparently are on the verge of locking horns, when prominent Canadians and prominent newspapers in this country deplore the fact that the United States plane was at least in the vicinity of Soviet territory, what do we get as a reply from the Prime Minister to a question on this grave situation? We get the following:
Therefore anything in the nature of a statement of the kind indicated by the hon. member would not be in order.
I think this is a statement of sheer irresponsibility in relation to the state of the world today. I want to know from the minister of external affairs whether this question was discussed at the ministerial meeting between Canada and the United States. Surely this is a situation sufficiently perilous that it behooved our minister of external affairs to make some comments on it, to tell the Canadian people of the position

Supply-External Affairs that is being taken by the Canadian government and more particularly, and even more desirable, to tell the Canadian people what proposals or what statements have been made and what position Canada has taken in this regard.
In a comprehensive statement that he made earlier this session we were told by the minister of external affairs that Canada was no longer going to play the role of honest broker; that henceforth Canada was going to take an independent stand. I suggest that from the lack of a policy and the lack of a statement in regard to the explosive situation in Cuba, in regard to the United States misdirected flights over the Barents sea, it has been demonstrated that Canada today is neither following the role of honest broker nor taking an independent stand. I want to know what if anything Canada did as an honest broker to bring about some agreement on this second threat to the peace of the world constituted by the flight of this United States plane. I ask what Canada did to take an independent stand, to say that we are opposed to armed intervention by the United States, by the Soviet union or by any other country in the affairs of Cuba.
Nobody likes expropriation, nobody likes confiscation, nobody in this country is happy when blood is shed as it has been in that country. I can take some satisfaction today from the fact that in the early days of the Castro government, following the revolution, I protested against the spilling of blood through the execution of so many people; but I do say that the President of the United States is making a great error in uttering threats of military reprisals because some United States property in Cuba has been taken over. The peace of the world and the independence of nations should supersede the property rights of companies, whether they be United States companies or others.
When the minister replies I should like him to tell us the position of Canada in relation to these great and important questions. I do not want to be unfair. The minister said something about this Canada-United States meeting when he made his statement. As found on page 6297 of Hansard he used these words, and these are all his words in relation to this ministerial meeting and in relation to these great problems affecting the United States:
A word or two about Canada's activities vis-S-vis the United States. We have just returned from a very successful conference of the ministerial defence committee.
I should like to know what was so successful about it. There was no agreement on nuclear weapons. The secretary of defence of the United States said on our soil that

if nuclear weapons are placed on Canadian soil it will be the President of the United States who will have control of them. God forbid that this should ever happen. I do not think nuclear weapons on Canadian soil are advisable at this time, and I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs agrees with me in that statement.
He may have some difficulty in the cabinet. The Prime Minister is taking his usual position. He has no policy with respect to whether or not nuclear weapons should be on Canadian soil. He merely says that we are negotiating with respect to control if we have them, and that when these negotiations are completed we will then decide whether or not to accept them. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs is continuing, as I believe he is, to oppose nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, and I wish him success in the opposition that I believe he has undertaken.
With regard to this meeting the minister went on to say:
Ministers and their officials at these conferences are able to discuss problems in an informal way. There is no big table with one group lined up on one side of the table and the other group opposite them, with briefs and so on.
Maybe they sit there without tables and without briefs; I do not know. The minister went on to say:
There is no formality of that sort. The participants are able to review situations in the world which are of interest to both countries and of course they are able to review such questions as defence, NATO, disarmament, defence production sharing and all the questions which are of interest to the two countries. These are reviewed in a most informal and helpful way. I do not believe it would be possible to bring about such frank exchanges of views in any other way. These meetings are particularly helpful.
There is the sum total of the government's contribution on the results of this exceedingly important meeting. I feel that is a most inadequate reference. I think the minister was ill advised in not spending much more time on these questions to which I have been referring, and was ill advised not to have taken the Canadian people into his confidence.
The Canadian government has made no protest over the United States plane either violating or being in the vicinity of Soviet territory, but others in the country have protested. I have in my hand the Ottawa Journal of July 13. In the first paragraph of its editorial it has this to say:
It may well be true ... that Premier Khrushchev Is trying to stir up an international incident.
Then it continues with these words in the second paragraph:
Nevertheless, we have the idea that a lot of people in a lot of the world would feel happier if they could be sure that from now on United

States planes, whether U-2's or just peaceful reconnaissance planes, would give Russian territory and waters a wider berth.
The Globe and Mail of July 13 in an editorial entitled "Playing with Fire" concludes with these words:
There have been too many reports of Russian submarines being seen in or near United States waters, too many reports of United States planes being brought down in or near Russian air space. Both Moscow and Washington are playing with fire and the whole world is in danger of getting burned.
An editorial on this subject in the Ottawa Citizen of July 13 had this to say in part:
Flights are made near Russian controlled territory in central Europe, but this is done by agreement, and authorized air corridors are carefully laid out. The same principle should prevail with respect to flights near Russia itself. If an agreement can be reached which would allow United States or other western aircraft to make flights near Russian territory for scientific purposes, well and good. If an agreement of this kind cannot be reached, the flights should not be made.
I am proud of the voices raised in protest by our Canadian newspapers. They are showing that Canadians are exceedingly disturbed and are opposed to this type of flight. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs as the spokesman for the Canadian federal government to associate himself with these excellent statements to which I have referred. I tell the minister that he will be abdicating his responsibility if he does not tell the house in clear language what the government has done about these provocative flights. The daily newspapers of Canada should not be the repository of our foreign policy.
The minister went on to tell us of certain other experiences the government has had. It seems to me that to a very large extent the foreign policy of any given nation is an emanation of the economic life of that nation. In the United States the economic life of the nation is controlled by giant corporations, and I make the statement that there is too much thought and too much concern about protecting the economic welfare of these giant corporations by the government of the United States.
One of the areas of the world where there is danger of explosion, where dictatorships have grown and are in danger of growing even more and being strengthened is in the western hemisphere. I think it behooves the government of the United States and the government of Canada to do everything within their power to raise the level of the economic life of the people in these nations. Unless we accept our responsibility and do something to improve the economic conditions of the people in the nations of this hemisphere, what has happened in Cuba could happen in other American states.
Supply-External Affairs
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has demonstrated that Canada is concerned in a way with this question, in that we are sending an observer to the next meeting of the organization of American states. I think we should speed up our recognition of the problem and take the seat that has been held for us in the organization of American states. I believe the liberal elements in the United States would be exceedingly pleased to see Canada in that organization, in the hope that we would use our influence with the United States government at a time when it was necessary to try to get them to put on the brakes to be less militaristic and much more interested in the economic welfare of the people in those states. So I suggest that Canada should accept membership in the organization of the American states.
I should like to see the Canadian government do much more in the field of economic assistance. I think perhaps in this area more than in any other Canada has a particular role that she is able to play. I was glad to see that we were taking part in the discussions concerning economic assistance for the underdeveloped countries in Africa, a type of African Colombo plan. Let us do everything we can in that regard.
We in this group have supported in recent days commonwealth scholarship funds. I believe I have the distinction of having been the first person in this parliament, in a public way, to make the suggestion that the people from the French community should be associated in this particular venture; that there should be more French speaking students brought to Canada under this plan; that the government should give every encouragement that this be' done. Of the 104 students, I believe-the minister can correct me if I am wrong-the minister said there were seven French speaking students who were coming to our universities under this plan. I believe we could obtain a much larger number of such students without diminishing the numbers of English speaking students who come under this plan. We could increase the number of French-


Mr. Pigeon:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does the hon. member think the hon. member for Port Arthur would share his opinion on this topic?


Hazen Robert Argue: All I can say is that I would hope so. As a good Canadian I believe this is a good policy. I hope it would receive the unanimous support of all members in this house, and it is my conviction that it would receive just that kind of support.
Canada has a reputation for being a rather generous nation in the provision of economic assistance. I do not want to belittle that reputation. I do not want to try to tear it

Supply-External Affairs down, but I say that this year the government is not doing as much in this regard as it did two years ago. I do not like to see the government reduce this economic assistance, but it has been reduced because in 1957-58 under a $35 million loan program, plus ordinary economic assistance, we exported some 31.1 million bushels of wheat. This was reduced to 18.2 million bushels in 1958-59, and it is going to be an exceedingly small figure in 1959-60. I am talking about the wheat board-


Mr. Green:: May I just ask the hon. member for Assiniboia, is he referring to Canada's economic assistance or is he only referring to wheat?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am referring to both. I am referring to the total picture. In so far as the economic assistance Canada is giving is concerned, as outlined in the estimates, there is a very slight increase. Bearing in mind that Canada provided a $35 million loan in 1957-58 along with other assistance one realizes that total economic assistance is down this year.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member, then, is trying to add in the loan with the economic assistance?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not trying to, I am; because I think this is economic assistance. The United States government this year, by means of loans, has negotiated a deal with India for the sale of 585 million bushels of wheat over a four-year period at a rate of about 150 million bushels a year. Do you know what Canada is selling? We are selling 20,000 tons or just over half a million bushels; because this government says to India, if you want our wheat, put up the dollars. The United States government says, we will provide a generous loan program-part of it is a gift and part of it is a loan-and we are going to supply you with the wheat.
What is happening? We have hopes of getting a record grain crop in Canada this year, and this government is reducing its program of economic assistance in the way I have demonstrated.


Howard Charles Green: I must ask that the hon. member stick to the facts. He is talking about two different things; one is a loan program and the other is economic assistance.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know, but I have-


Howard Charles Green: He should make it absolutely clear that he is adding the loan to the economic assistance.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have the floor and I hope this interruption will not be taken from my time. The minister did not rise on a point of order. I would ask the minister to look at the tables


that were produced in the committee studying the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. He will see that under the general heading "Financial Assistance" this government has included hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of loans. I want to make a distinction in so far as one loan to India is concerned, part of which was a gift, but I call all this economic assistance. The minister can quarrel with my definition if he wishes. I say that on the basis of my definition our economic assistance has been reduced, and I believe that is a most deplorable situation.
I believe the Canadian people will support the government and support parliament in anything that is done to strengthen the independence of Canada's foreign policy and make it clear we are not in the pocket of any foreign power; that our foreign policy is designed to enable us to play our part in giving economic assistance to the peoples of the world and to strengthen the freedoms of the underdeveloped and underprivileged countries. I say that on the basis of the minister's statement our economic policy contains too much of puff, guff and bluff and too little of real substance.
I have said on former occasions that I do not believe we, as a country, should be in the hip pocket of another nation. I do not like to see our foreign policy resting quietly in President Eisenhower's golf bag, as I feel it has been in recent days in view of the lack of a clear policy enunciated by this government.
I believe the United States, under what is now a lame duck administration, have lost prestige in the world in recent years.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: That is what Khrushchev says.


Hazen Robert Argue: I abhor communism; I always have and I always shall, but I shall never be blind to the mistakes that are -made by our friends. I say that our friends, the United States government, have been making colossal mistakes which have resulted in a tremendous loss of prestige in the eyes of other countries. Hon. members can inject this kind of smear if they like, but I can tell them that many Canadians are not happy and many of my friend's colleagues are not happy with many of the statements that have been emanating from Washington.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to conclude my remarks. I have been interrupted a good deal and I have not many minutes left. After I have concluded my remarks I shall be most happy to hear any question from the hon. member. There is a lack of a clear-cut global policy by the United States and a


[Stage Direction]
consequent loss of prestige. I hope that unfolding political events in the United States will recover some of this loss.
I hope when the next administration takes office in the United States it will be an administration more capable of securing peace, more determined to improve the economic lot of the underprivileged of the world, and more interested in fundamental democratic principles than in trying to prove the size and strength of its military establishment. We now have a new combination for president and vice president, candidates of the Democratic party. If I had been in the United States they would not have been my choice. I would have liked to see men like Adlai Stevenson or Hubert Humphrey in these positions. I cannot help but have a foreboding that this new team, which undoubtedly is exceedingly strong politically, is an unhappy combination of money and reaction.
Mr. Chairman, I have been forthright in my remarks today. I have not spared any nation from criticism, no matter what that nation may be. But I am hoping that our government and our friends in the western world will so conduct themselves in the future as to inspire support and good will amongst the emerging nations of the world, so that instead of seeing the prestige of the democratic countries of the world being eroded away we shall take that course which will strengthen democracy, strengthen freedom and strengthen the economic life of people all over the world.
William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the hon. member a question now?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: Why does the hon. gentleman repeat so much communist propaganda but not say something more against those who are putting it out?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of slur which-


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Chairman:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has said-


Jacques Flynn: Order. The minister is rising on a question of privilege, and I recognize him first.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I asked the hon. gentleman whether I could ask him a question. He told me I could, and now he comes back and accuses me of slurring him.
Supply-External Affairs


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the Minister without Portfolio asked me why I was repeating communist propaganda. I think that is an implication that should not be made. I think-


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor now, if necessary on a question of privilege. I think that is an implication which is ill becoming a minister of the government. It is in direct contradiction to the statements of the minister of external affairs and the Prime Minister, when they said on so many occasions that every single member of this house without any exception supports the democratic principles which govern in our country. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the communist line, and I resent the inference to be drawn from the question of the minister. I say that he will damage himself and nobody else by that kind of undemocratic, unparliamentary and unbecoming implication, in which of course there is no substance and which is a complete lie.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is saying that the question or what he is saying is a complete lie. Is he saying that the propaganda put out by Khrushchev is a complete lie? I heard him refer to some very important international matters, but I did not hear him condemn the people who should be condemned.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I cannot help it if the minister does not hear. I have said in this house this afternoon that I criticize any action, whether it be by the Soviet union or by the United States, which endangers the peace of the world; and as I have already said, when Premier Khrushchev threatened Cuba it was a mistake. But that does not stop me from saying that in my opinion President Eisenhower should not have raised military threats with regard to Cuba.


William Joseph Browne: When
Khrushchev threatens the United States what do you say?


Mr. Stinson:: Mr. Chairman, the main reason I wish to enter this debate is to express my view on the proposition which has been put forward in many places that Canada should take a neutral role in world affairs. In the course of my speech I also hope to deal with what I consider to be the ill founded indictment of Canada's economic aid program which has just been made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, and also to deal with what I conceive to be his ill founded criticisms of the foreign policy of the United States.
6354	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
Before I go into those subjects I should like to express the appreciation of both myself and my constituents of the fine work being done for Canada in the field of foreign policy by that great Canadian, our Secretary of State for External Affairs. Three years ago when we were on the hustings I would frequently be asked at public meetings, "If you people came to power who would be your foreign secretary?" I would say "The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, Mr. Howard C. Green". I said that he would be a great secretary of state for external affairs, a prophecy which has been borne out by events.
In recent months there has grown up in this country what I would call a campaign for neutralism. Unlike many campaigns this is not a co-ordinated effort, but the activities of many organizations and groups and individuals have given the impression that a large number of Canadians is in favour of Canada assuming a neutral role in world affairs. I think in fact this is a very small number, but those who are engaged in this campaign have been given a lot of attention.
I think one reason is that the dissenters are usually more newsworthy than those who support existing and traditional policies. Another reason is that the policies we have followed do not seem to have relieved the threat of war. The newspapers and magazines have played up other proposals which some people thought might be more successful.
The campaign for neutralism is supported in whole or in part by people of greatly different interests and political views. It is spurred on, of course, by the communists and fellow travellers associated with the Canadian peace congress which had its annual rally in Massey hall in Toronto on February 7 of this year. The president of this congress, Mr. James Endicott, had some astonishing things to say that night, including the following:
I believe that our movement fulfils the righteous purposes of God in history and that God uses the communists for the establishment of peace, whether they know it or not.
He also argued that Canada should withdraw from NATO and NORAD and proclaim its neutrality. It is not surprising to find this kind of thing coming from the Canadian peace congress, but it is very disturbing to find the proposal that we should withdraw from NORAD coming from quite a different body, the committee on nuclear disarmament at the University of Toronto. On page 16 of this committee's brief to the Prime Minister is this recommendation:
The committee therefore recommends that Canada should abrogate the NORAD agreement, making it quite clear that, in so doing, Canada's intention is not to cease co-operation with the United States


in matters of North American defence, but rather to regain its freedom to determine those policies within the framework of which it will co-operate.
This recommendation is made because the committee thinks Canada is permanently subordinated to the United States in the matter of North American defence.
Another voice which speaks in favour of a break with the United States is that of people who think if a war came it would be fought by Washington and the Kremlin, and that Canada would have no part in offence or defence. Since we are destined only to be a victim, why should we have any part in the defence preparations?
Still another group takes the position that by becoming neutral Canada could become the arbitrator between the United States and Russia. This group has become noisier since the U-2 was shot down over Russia. The Americans have been accused of taking unnecessary risks and of fumbling when they are caught. Canada is invited to stand between these adversaries and say "a plague on both your houses". Typical of this argument is the statement of a Toronto rabbi, Rabbi Abraham Feinberg, writing in the Toronto Globe and Mail on June 4, as follows:
I for one am not content to let the future of mankind and my children be decided by the blundering incompetence of the striped-pants brigade and military brass in Washington, or by the blustering hyprocisy of a diabolically shrewd and ruthless cabal in the Kremlin.
I think it must be said, Mr. Speaker, that while some of the promoters of neutralism are sincere people, most are status-seekers looking for an audience or acclaim. A recent book by an American commentator, Mr. James M. Minifie, has become the bible for the neutralists. Some reviewers have pronounced this a book that every thoughtful Canadian should read. Well, all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that if a thoughtful Canadian begins to read this book he will have picked up very few thoughts of any value by the time he gets to the end of it. The purpose of this book is to show that Canada could contribute more to the peace of the world by adopting a policy of neutrality in place of continuing its association with the United States under NORAD and with the western powers under NATO.
The NORAD agreement is described as a contract which makes Canadian air defence services subservient to the United States, with the result that Canada has become a satellite of the United States. The argument goes on that because of this satellite status, Canada cannot express at the United Nations views that differ from United State views, and when our statements are the same as

those made by the United States they do not have the force they would have if Canada had proclaimed neutrality.
The NATO principle, says this author, has been prostituted and betrayed. The organization is now set up exclusively for the defence of the United States, with bases established in other countries for the sole purpose of diluting an attack on America. According to this writer the Americans have promoted defence installations in Canada so that the warheads will be dropped on Canada before they reach the United States. He put it this way:	"Better Saskatchewan than North
Dakota; better Winnipeg than Chicago". By taking the road to neutralism it is said that Canada would attract the support of other middle powers and this new force would put the brakes on imperialism and aggression.
The essence of all these arguments, Mr. Speaker, is that since present policies do not seem to be reducing the possibilities of war, Canada should take on the role of a neutral peacemaker. Well, the simple fact that the neutralists do not see is that the western countries are now facing a political and economic offensive of terrible proportions, .guided by men with a philosophy which goes against all traditional western values. We are all in the same boat. This is a time for unity and co-operation, not for petty dissent.
We all have some idea of the Russian and Chinese military strength. In 15 years the communists have taken over a dozen countries. We have been surprised and shocked by the Russian successes in space. We are bewildered by the recent tirades of Mr. Khrushchev, which are quite out of tune with his line of the past two years in favour of peaceful coexistence. But if you go back to Marx and Lenin and Stalin, the political manoeuvres should not be surprising. The communist goal is to dominate the world by using economic means, and war if necessary. This fact is frequently brought home to us by our own Prime Minister, who has said many times that while the tactics may be changed from time to time, the goal is the same.
I think this is a very good time for us to take another look at this definition of communist aims and the tactics they are prepared to adopt to reach their objectives. The objectives of the communist party were well expressed by Dmitri Manuilski, who in 1931 said in the Lenin school of political warfare:
War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 or 30 years. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep, so we will begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There
Supply-External Affairs
will be electrifying overtones and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice and co-operate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down we shall smash them with our clenched fists.
The time has come for closer co-operation, not neutralism; closer co-operation in politics, in military planning and in trade. Americans are our best friends, and the fact is that United States military strength is now the only deterrent to further military adventures on the part of the communists and perhaps the only deterrent to a third world war.
In the defence efforts of the west, Canada must do her share in providing conventional arms and in helping to equip Canadian and American and western European forces. We must continue to hold to the principle that defence of the North American continent is indivisible. We must continue to make it clear that in the ideological struggle we are proud to stand up and be counted with the Americans.
I think however, we can do more than this. I believe we have to show the people in Asia and Africa that we sincerely care for them. We have to recruit foreign service officers who are prepared to spend their lives in those countries. We have to be prepared to make great increases in our grants of economic aid, and I shall have more to say on this point in a few moments. Here again we must find Canadians who will go abroad and live for long periods while the Canadian projects are brought to fruition. We must support the work of raising the standards of literacy in these countries and making available the results of our research.
Most important, we must get to work on these things immediately. There is too much talk about a national purpose and an international policy. What is needed is concrete and immediate action. Since Canada cannot be a major military power, I think we should give greater attention to helping to build a peaceful world by assisting less developed countries.
In a recently issued pamphlet Paul G. Hoffman, director of the United Nations special fund, has pointed out that 1J billion people in 100 countries in the world are by any standard terribly poor. He points out that, apart from political and moral considerations, the western countries should be concerned with this problem. If the per capita income of these people could be raised by only 1 per cent a year over the coming 10 years, they could offer to the United States alone a market for an estimated $14 billion of its exports in 1970.
These nations, he says, have become a great new economic frontier. He points out

Supply-External Affairs that the aid programs of the fifties in terms of improved living standards have not been very impressive. In these 100 countries the average per capita income in 1950 was approximately $90. Probably it reached slightly over $100 per person in 1959. The gross income grew at the rate of 3 per cent a year, but because the population of these countries increased in this decade by 200 million people, the net increase in income per person was only about 1 per cent or $1 a year.
Hoffman's objective is that the western countries assist the people of these underdeveloped areas so that the annual growth of the per capita income is increased from 1 per cent to 2 per cent each year for the next 10 years. This would raise the present level of about $100 per capita per year to approximately $125. He points out that one important part of the work is in the surveying of natural resources and in training people in the less developed areas in the skills they must develop so that they can make good use of their natural resources.
In a 10-year period the less developed countries should be able to earn around $378 billion through the sale of their goods in world markets. He goes on to say that a reasonable estimate of the total in the decade for these countries, if they are to double the per capita rate of economic growth, is about $440 billion, which means that some $62 billion in investment capital will be required in addition to estimated earnings from exports or, on the average, about $6.2 billion a year. He says that an additional $8 billion at least over the 10 years might be required to cover other costs, such as debts, service charges, transportation charges and other services.
A total of $70 billion would thus seem to be needed, or about $7 billion a year. This is about $3 billion more than flowed to the less developed areas in 195758. To make up this $3 billion a year, increased private investment and bankable loans might account for about $1 billion a year, leaving $2 billion a year, or $20 billion over the decade, which will have to be raised through other means. Repayment of many of the loans that must be made should not overburden the economies of these countries; they must be for long terms at low rates of interest with the beginning dates of repayment of principal deferred. Hoffman hopes that at least half of the $20 billion needed for the coming decade may be channelled through the proposed international development association, or $10 billion over the period or $1 billion a year.

All of us supported the bill recently brought before the house relating to Canada's participation in the newly established international development association, and I think we would all associate ourselves with what was said in that connection in this chamber by the hon. member for Essex East, that this measure was perhaps among the most important proposals the Minister of Finance has laid before this house.
In addition to the moneys that may be provided by way of loans through the international development association we can, of course, look forward to the continued use of the facilities of the international bank for reconstruction and development and to the continued use of the international monetary fund.
Canada, of course, will continue to support in a financial way and by providing technical assistance the agencies of the United Nations engaged in assisting these areas in the matter of surveys, fiscal policy, public administration, industrial development and in other fields as well. It seems to me that we are moving much too slowly in this field, however. According to the best informed opinion, that of Mr. Hoffman, some $10 billion will be required over the next 10 years from the international development association, yet the total subscription to this fund is $1 billion.
As far as we could ascertain at the time the bill which had to do with Canada's participation in the fund was before us, no specific plans have yet been made for the use of the subscriptions to that association, and it appears that for the time being at least there are no plans for increasing the total subscriptions. So here we are providing a fund which seems to have a total anticipated subscribed amount of $1 billion, while the best expert in the world in this field says that this sum of money could be used effectively and absorbed to advantage in the very first year. I believe that Canada has a great opportunity and obligation to increase its assistance in these fields, even if it means greater sacrifices on the part of the Canadian people imposed by taxation.
I must say that when I read the results of the private campaign carried out for world refugee year I get very discouraged about the proposition that very much can be done by voluntary activity having regard to the greatness of world problems. If we are going to go into economic and other aid to less fortunate people in a large way it seems to me the initiative has to come from the government and the funds have to be taxed out of the people.


[Stage Direction]
Having regard to our population, perhaps no country in the world has a greater reservoir of trained engineers, economists and experts in farming, soil conservation and land use. Tremendous benefits have already been brought about by Canada's Colombo plan projects. Earlier this week I had the opportunity of discussing those projects with a young man in my constituency, Mr. Keith Spicer, who under the sponsorship of the Canada Council recently travelled abroad to inspect those undertakings. I wish hon. members could have heard that discussion and seen the enthusiasm and sense of pride which shone in the face of that young man when he talked about the good will which is being built up for this country in India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and when he talked about the tangible material advantages which he had seen coming to those countries as a result of the efforts of the government of Canada and of our administrators and technicians who are associated with those projects. It was stimulating to see the excitement which this plan had aroused in this eminently qualified young Canadian.
I should like to suggest to the minister that the government give consideration to a project which has been talked about for some time and most recently at last year's Couchiching conference; that next year the government send a team of 100 student volunteers to those Colombo plan projects which are under the oversight of the Canadian authorities, and that those students be paid their fares and a subsistence allowance while working abroad. I suggest that those be people who have finished their third or fourth year at university, people who have a genuine desire to serve their fellow men and who have some real knowledge of the countries to which they will be going. I think the group should be made up of students in social work, teaching, engineering and medicine, and that they should be prepared to take on any useful work which might be assigned to them by the full time administrators.
To finance such a program for a year would cost only $200,000, or perhaps something less than that, certainly less than one half of one per cent of Canada's annual appropriation for the Colombo plan. Not only would the assisted countries greatly benefit, but Canada would obtain the benefit of having a group of young people who had some real knowledge of the problems of the people in those countries.
I do not think we should be pessimistic about the influence that Canada can have in those Asian countries. Anyone who goes to a university campus these days finds dozens of students who are looking around in a
Supply-External Affairs serious way for a chance to serve their country and the world. It is our obligation, I believe, as members of parliament to provide leadership by presenting specific programs to the government, and 1 submit it is the duty of the government not to miss this great opportunity.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in rising even at this inconvenient and hungry hour to participate in this debate, may I begin by joining in the tribute which the minister has paid to his department, to the men and women in it who work, as the minister said, with industry, intelligence and complete loyalty to their minister. May I also echo what has been said on this side in appreciation of the sincerity and devotion of the minister as he faces many difficult, complicated and sometimes dangerous problems. If we criticize him, as we do, and as we will, and as he used to criticize us, it is not without the recognition that our criticism should be constructive and that we should always realize that we are criticizing foreign policy, which is something on which we should all do our best to be united.
The debate seems to me to have been carried along in a very constructive line. I think the minister will agree with me when I say there have been some useful ideas put forward by members on all sides of the house which we hope may be helpful to the minister as he faces the problems that confront him and the government of the day in this field.
The foreign policy of a country can, I suppose, be divided as Gaul was divided, into three parts; into principles, into policies, into procedures or perhaps I should say purposes, policies and procedures. So far as purposes are concerned, as has already been pointed out in this debate, there is no difference among us all. Our purposes are the same; as are the purposes of the Canadian people, namely to carry on foreign policy in a way which may make a contribution to peace and security in a dangerous, turbulent and uneasy world. Our policies should be, as I have just stated, as united as they can be made to be. Of course that does not mean that when we on this side disagree with a particular policy we will not express that disagreement. However, we should certainly try to keep those disagreements to a minimum.
We will criticize the procedures, as we have, whenever we think those procedures are not best for the purpose of implementing the policy. If in our speeches in a debate such as this we criticize the government, and if we criticize the policies of our friends and allies and do not spend all our time

Supply-External Affairs criticizing the policies of our potential enemies, I hope we shall not be accused of following the communist propaganda line. It is just as absurd to make the suggestion that because of a speech which may be critical of our government or of our friends, we are indulging in communist propaganda, as it would have been for us on this side to criticize the minister on the same score because when he came back from Paris last December, in times which were more cheerful and when there were more grounds for optimism, he said:
The time has come for the west to accept Russian protestations of sincerity at face value in order to find a way to end the armaments race.
Or when he said, and I quote from the press:
Our view is that we have to accept the honesty of Russian intentions in this committee.
He was referring to the disarmament committee. The minister made that statement in good faith, and it would be very unfair, indeed slanderous, to the minister to suggest that he was following communist propaganda or was weakening the democratic line by making that kind of statement.
So, Mr. Chairman, while I am on this matter, perhaps in a debate like this I can dispose of my own attitude toward communist policies by saying that those policies today, far more than a year ago, constitute a threat to peace, just as their principles are deadly to freedom and everything we stand for. The news that has just come in this morning of the threatened, or possible, or indicated desire of the Soviet leader to intervene in the Congo is just another indication of the dangerous character of communist policy over the years. We have to accept that fact. Perhaps we should speak a little more about that danger because there always is the danger of taking it for granted. Their policies are dangerous and their principles are deadly. If I do not keep repeating that in debates on foreign affairs it does not mean that I am unaware of it.
As I have just said, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the situation is more serious than it was nor is that seriousness to be assessed in the light of the tribal rituals and the exuberant vitality of United States political conventions; nor is it reflected in the happy holiday North American atmosphere of the summer of 1960. All we have to do to appreciate how serious the position is-I am not being panicky or unduly pessimistic; I am talking about seriousness-is to look around us in the world at what has happened in the last two or three months. In Turkey, a NATO country, the government was forced out of office by violence. I am not saying this in either any critical or approving sense,


but in that country a friendly NATO government was forced out of office by violence. In Korea unease and riots resulted in a change of government. Perhaps it was overdue, but the way it was brought about creates anxiety. Violence in Japan was carried to the point where the President of the United States could not visit that allied country in the Pacific. In Tibet fighting is still being carried on by those who are supposed to be grateful for the liberation they have had through the instrumentality of the Chinese communists; but who are so little impressed by that liberation that a year afterward they are still fighting against the whole communist might of Peking.
Then there is the Congo. Mention of the Congo gives me an opportunity to Tinderline what the hon. member for Assiniboia said; that while we were very interested in and appreciated the statement the minister gave us in his tour d'horizon, there were some omissions. Perhaps the minister will fill in some of those omissions when he replies to all the questions that have been brought up; because of course, as one who has occupied his position, I know it is not possible in an introductory statement to cover every part of the world and every problem in the world.
The Congo is worth pretty close examination, as a country where independence and anarchy came almost simultaneously. This indicates that the African winds of chance, as Right Hon. Harold Macmillan has designated them, are blowing with hurricane force. Then there is Cuba, on which the hon. member for Assiniboia dwelt and I think quite rightly. This is a danger, and a difficulty, much closer to home, where the excitable violence of a revolutionary government has produced in the United States, because of the way it expresses itself, a far greater reaction than did the despotic tyranny that preceded it and which was at least in part responsible for the present violence. The pendulum swings, and if you have an extreme on the one side you are almost bound to have an extreme on the other side.
I think the United States of America has shown very great patience in this situation up to the present time against very considerable provocation, I suggest that the United States will have to show even more patience, and that is not going to be easy in the light of what is going on on the island of Cuba. Intervention by armed forces or intervention by forces of any kind, the illegal use of force to protect even vital economic and other interests, is not now possible in the world in which we live. The Suez incident certainly showed that, and the United States should be just about the first country in the world

to draw the right conclusions from that incident. The same principles that were applied by those who believed in them, and I was one, regarding United Nations intervention in the Suez would have to be applied to the western hemisphere in the same circumstances.
While the United States government has, as I have emphasized, shown real patience in the face of much provocation, that is why I think the President's reference to the application of the Monroe doctrine, in the terms in which he made that reference, was rather hasty; I mean the application of the Monroe doctrine to prevent any communist state emerging in the western hemisphere. I think it would have been better in all respects if the President, if he felt it necessary to issue that warning, should have done so in terms of inter-American conventions, two of which have dealt with this matter, the Rio treaty of 1947 against aggression, and not only military aggression in its terms, and the Caracas resolution of 1956.


Howard Charles Green: 1954.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1954. I also think the announcement at this particular moment in Washington of a new plan for economic assistance to Latin American states, desirable as that is in itself, was bad timing. I have read in the New York Times that when it was announced someone designated as a senior, experienced Latin American diplomat commented in Washington that it was a fine thing. He said that the Latin American states would appreciate it very much, but he thought they would probably give more credit for it to Castro than to President Eisenhower.
All this turmoil fairly close to home cannot help but raise some anxious thoughts in our minds, especially as we know that in this area as in other areas of the world, and I have mentioned some of them, international communism, the international communist conspiracy, is ready, anxious and happy to fish in all these troubled waters, to catch what it can in Korea, Japan, the Congo or Cuba. Communism may not be in itself the origin of all these difficulties and dangers and uprisings, but communism is always there to take advantage of them.
This is a very brief survey, but I think it does help to show what we are up against in this summer of 1960 and perhaps underlines the desirability of the western governments, the leaders of the western world, and all of us, showing a more sober realization of the deterioration of the situation in the last six months than has sometimes been the case. That does not mean, as I see it, panic or provocation or despair or anything like 79951-0-401
Supply-External Affairs that, but surely it does mean the necessity for strong, consistent, steady, determined and persistent leadership, especially in Washington where the centre of western power lies and from the consequences of whose decisions none of us can isolate ourselves. Surely in the next few months it requires, even more than ever, a really effective, steady and continuous direction of policy in Washington, not only strictly United States policy alone but United States policy in its coalition aspects, too. In that regard it is far more important to keep driving down the middle of the international political fairways than it is to improve our golf scores.
I recall during the blitz in London, one morning after a particularly noisy and destructive evening prior to a week end, taking off to escape from the sleepless night to my suburban golf course. As I was about to drive off from the first tee my caddy, who was a friend of mine whom I had used for some time, said, "Mr. Pearson, please try not to slice this time; please try to keep on the fairway, because there are unexploded bombs in the rough". Well, today the unexploded bombs on the international fairways are not all in the rough; they are right on the fairways, and it is important that we should do everything we can to harmlessly detonate them.
The main responsibility for this lies, as it has, because of the circumstances of its power, in the United States. The main responsibility for leadership lies in Washington at a time when the unity of the coalition is as essential, if not more essential, than it has been at any time since the end of world war II. We would be making a great mistake if we were to rely too much on Mr. Khrushchev's crude brutality, his transparent efforts to divide us, as a means of keeping us together. This perhaps is the lesson to be drawn from some of the incidents of the last couple of months. I hope the minister and the committee will not think I am too egotistical if I quote from an article of mine which I wrote for a magazine called Foreign Affairs. I said this:
The Immediate effect of Khrushchev's crude behaviour in Paris; of his sudden torpedoing of the conference for which he bore so much responsibility in the first place; of his insulting attempt to humiliate the President by presenting him with demands which he knew would be entirely unacceptable-the immediate effect of all this was to bring the members of the alliance closer together. That was the inevitable and the right reaction.
Then I went on:
But let us not draw wrong, if comforting, conclusions from this first reaction. The U-2 incident and, even more, the way it was handled in Washington, have caused some anxious questioning in other friendly capitals, not about the aims of United States policy so much as about the methods used in pursuing those aims, both in defence and
6360	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs in diplomacy. It would be unwise to underestimate this uneasiness merely because of the quick and united reaction to the stupid overplaying of his hand by Mr. Khrushchev in Paris.
Then I ended by saying:
If some damage has been done to United States leadership within the coalition, that can be and, we hope, soon will be repaired. This, however, must be more than a patching job, more than the comforting words of a communique. Otherwise there will be another crisis-
Perhaps we have one.
_which will expose other weaknesses inside our
coalition and which will require other remedies. We cannot afford this kind of erosion which, the communists hope, will eventually lead to the disintegration of our alliance. If the Atlantic coalition is to survive, it must reduce these centrifugal disturbances to a minimum, through sure, confident and wise leadership and with continuous and far closer consultation among its members than previously, in order to work out a common policy in the face of a common threat.
This was in connection with what is known as the U-2 episode. We have had another one since then. A United States plane was shot down either over or off the Russian coast. I do not believe we should take the Russian version of this incident as the truth. We have learned, surely, from experience that most of their statements in a situation of this kind are false. However, I believe we have a right to ask ourselves, whether that plane was flying over Russian territory or territorial waters or adjacent to them, what are planes of this kind doing in those areas, close to that country, in times of tension, fear and disturbances. The hon. member for Assiniboia has already mentioned this matter.
If the work being carried on by these air force planes in this area is purely nonmilitary, scientific and peaceful, surely it could be made known before they initiated the operation and publicity could be given to what they are doing out over the open seas. If that is not the case then certainly the allies of the country concerned, in this case the United States, and especially those allies who have bases from which these planes can fly, have a right to know what is being done before it is being done. There is a real danger in this kind of incident in the circumstances of today.
The London Times of July 13 had an editorial on this incident, and perhaps I may be permitted to quote one or two sentences from it because I think they are very pertinent. The Times says:
The Russians are inherently suspicious-
Of course that is true and it has been true for centuries.
These suspicions are not immaterial. Wars have not always started because something had actually happened. It can be enough for a powerful country's leaders to believe they have. Steps can then be taken with consequences that are irretrievable ...


incidents are the symptoms, but not the causes of tension. They will go on, in one form or another, until the tension is eased. At the same time, any one of them may cause it to snap.
Well, we know what the snapping of tension might lead to today. I think perhaps the minister, when he replies, should tell us in so far as security considerations permit-we have no right to ask him to go further in this or any other matter-what is the Canadian position with regard to Canadian air fields and bases which are, quite rightly, open to United States use as a member of the coalition. Are we satisfied that these bases cannot be used in a way which would leave us open to a charge of participating in an operation because of the use of Canadian bases, which could be characterized as unfriendly or, worse, as aggressive by the Soviet union or any other communist country? I am not suggesting that these charges would be accurate. I am suggesting we ought to know what the position is, both with regard to the arrangements that may or may not exist and with regard to any other arrangements, to make sure that we know what is going on in respect of every plane that flies off a Canadian airfield.
Now, Mr. Chairman, surely we should examine the situation inside our coalition in the light of the deterioration of the international situation, in the light of the collapse of the summit and the depressing events elsewhere, some of which I have ventured to mention. The London Economist of May 28 contained this paragraph about the necessity for such re-examination:
The full extent of the dangers inherent in the Paris break-down is only beginning to penetrate the public consciousness. After all, the sky has not fallen. It can only be said that the best way to remove the danger is not to pretend that it does not exist, and not to imagine that the posture of military readiness is the sole preventive of war that the wit of man can devise. In the west we need to be frank with ourselves, besides being true to our obligations to each other.
One result of this reassessment which has taken place, and I am sure it has taken place in the Canadian government as in other governments, has been a re-examination of the value of summit diplomacy. There are times when diplomacy at the heights, on the summit, by the top men of the world can be useful and valuable. There have been occasions in history where it has been indispensable. Summit diplomacy is not new; it goes back as far as history goes back. Even today summit diplomacy can be helpful in meetings of leaders of states, small informal meetings, as small and as informal as possible. But summit diplomacy, as we have learned from the collapse of the last two or three months, can be dangerous as well as valuable.

I have stated those dangers as I saw them many times during the last two or three years. Most of them result from the exaggerated optimism which is created by the build-up before the meetings; because being summit meetings they cannot be permitted to fail, at least for propaganda purposes, before they are held. This exaggerated optimism before the meeting, which is not fulfilled by the results of the meeting, is usually followed by exaggerated disillusionment, exaggerated pessimism and excitable uncertainty. And that means that if we are to have summit diplomacy it is essential to have careful preparation. Perhaps that is not very easy at the present time, when you are dealing with communist states.
So I think it would be a good thing, and I said this long before the collapse on the last summit, if we could get back to the ordinary channels of diplomacy, back to conventional and direct diplomacy where governments can work things out without there being 2,000 newspaper men in the corridors, if you could get 2,000 newspaper men in a corridor, or without having 150 cameras in the room. We should also get back to the United Nations itself as a channel for negotiation and diplomacy.
It has been pointed out by more than one speaker in this debate, although we all know how invaluable and indispensable the United Nations is, that it is not in its present form a suitable agency for general security. It is not a world government or a world power. It does not govern; it has no power behind its recommendations; and it has no law behind them either. However, it can provide and it has provided a good channel, a good forum for diplomacy and negotiation. And it has done, in certain circumstances, some very useful work in this regard which we are often inclined to forget about.
I do not mean that we can use the full assembly of the United Nations for this purpose; of course we cannot. By 1962 the assembly of the United Nations, according to what I read the other day, especially because of the emergence of new states mostly in Africa, will perhaps consist of 100 members. In that group of 100 there will perhaps be 40 or 50 new states without much experience, some without the resources of other and older states for the conduct of diplomacy, some of them indeed without very much in the way of resources at all. But all will be proud and jealous and determined to assert themselves, as they will, at the United Nations assembly. In this 100 there may be 30 or 33 from Africa, and that will be a terrific strain on the organization, even for 79951-0-4011
Supply-External Affairs debate. So it is idle to think we can use this kind of assembly machinery for purposes of negotiation.
This does not mean that we cannot use other parts of the United Nations or that we cannot modify the existing machinery, even though that would require an amendment to the charter and you would run up against the veto. Outside the house a few months ago, when talking about the United Nations as a channel for diplomacy, I said:
The assembly, as it approaches its century in membership, should become more and more a forum for the debating and the declaration of great principles for the condemnation of action which contravenes these principles, and for setting up and supervising smaller bodies for specific tasks, such as disarmament.
We also need a smaller body in continuous session for the negotiation of political questions. For this the security council could enlarge its membership, perhaps double it, although that would require an amendment to the charter. Here in this enlarged membership Asian and African countries could be more adequately represented; and this enlarged council, meeting more often than at present, could deal with many of the political questions on a week to week basis which are now reserved for the assembly each year.
A body of this type, really a little assembly, would compensate for some of the weaknesses of the increasingly unwieldy larger assembly without interfering with the functions of the security council, which the veto and the cold war have frustrated in any event. However, it can be done, and surely it is desirable to press with all the vigour we can for the greater use of the United Nations in the search for solutions to the dangerous problems which confront us.
If it is impossible in this search, as it might well be, indeed perhaps as it has been to some extent in recent years, to persuade the great powers, the powers with world responsibilities and world interests, to work in the way I have suggested through the United Nations, why should we not use the middle powers as a group far more than we have? This idea has already been expressed in this debate by more than one speaker.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres suggested last night that we should put aside the two great super powers and collect all the powers in between, irrespective of their forms of government, and see if we could not work out solutions by conferences of that kind. That is a very interesting idea, I suspect, indeed the hon. member indicated himself, that it would not be too easy to work out because if you put the two super powers on one side you might still have 98
6362	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs in between them. But as it is becoming more and more desirable I think it would be possible to get a working group of middle powers, powers with responsibility and without world interests or world power, but with enough power to discharge their responsibilities. Perhaps Canada could take the intiative here and become one of the leaders of a group of such powers, powers determined to take new initiatives, to make new attempts as a group to ease tension, and to promote disarmament and widen the areas of cooperation.
If I were asked what were the concrete initiatives which such a group might be taking at the forthcoming United Nations assembly, or the one after that, I can think of a few things. I have mentioned them before and the minister has no doubt considered them, but I would like to put them on record because when you make these general statements it is useful to try to follow them up, if you can, with some concrete proposals.
One of the things which should be done and which should be pressed, I think, is that the Secretary General of the United Nations should be present or represented at every international meeting, summit or otherwise, which is held outside the United Nations. I do not know whether all meetings in question would accept the Secretary General of the United Nations as a representative at an international conference, but I think the more we could do to establish the idea that he should always be there, the better it would be.
I think also that consideration should be given again, because it has already been given by the government, to the middle powers I have talked about bringing up at the United Nations pending an international agreement the possibility of a self-denying ordinance under which all those powers of the world which do not now manufacture or use nuclear weapons will agree not to manufacture or not to use them.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. gentleman mean by that, for example, the use of nuclear weapons by Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That would follow. If we considered this as a possibility it would mean excluding from the use of nuclear weapons all those powers which do not now possess them.


Hazen Robert Argue: And excluding them from Canadian soil, also?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not essential to this kind of proposal. All I am suggesting is that this kind of thing should be considered by the group of middle powers and I am not


suggesting that this kind of consideration would break up or weaken our position in NATO in any respect.


Howard Charles Green: Is that the policy of the Liberal
party?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am asking the government if they have given this matter consideration. 1 mentioned this a year ago, or perhaps two years ago, and if the hon. gentleman will read Hansard he will see the terms in which I put it from this side of the house.


Howard Charles Green: If the Leader of the Opposition does not mind my intervening, may I say that this is one of the most difficult problems Canada faces. Is it the policy of the party which the hon. gentleman leads that there should be no nuclear weapons used by Canadian forces or stored in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not said that. I have said that we should consider whether the middle powers, and some of them would be in NATO, should not consider the desirability in present circumstances of adopting what I called a self-denying ordinance against the manufacture of nuclear weapons-that is already, I believe, the policy of the government-and whether we should not consider the restriction of the use of nuclear weapons to those countries which now have them. This is exactly the kind of consideration which is being given to this problem by political parties in Great Britain and other NATO countries at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: Does the Leader of the Opposition not think that very policy is already contained in the resolution which was passed by the United Nations a year ago?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think this policy is contained in any resolution that I know anything about.


Howard Charles Green: One was passed last year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So much the better. If one was passed the minister will be able to put it on the record; and I say, let us follow it up.


Howard Charles Green: I am referring to the Irish resolution of last year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not know the Irish resolution went as far as that, but if it did, and if we supported that resolution-


Howard Charles Green: Everybody did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If a resolution has been passed at the United Nations which everybody agreed to, it is probably not the kind of self-denying ordinance which I have in mind, because I have learned from experience that when a

resolution is passed unanimously it does not require much in terms of action, or policy or implementation.


Howard Charles Green: Oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I qualify what I have said. Perhaps it requires even more in the way of implementation, but it is usually in such form that there is no obligation involved in it, that is if everybody, including the communist countries, accepted it.
There is a third proposal; that we should press ahead with the formation of a United Nations emergency force. I bring this up every time I speak on foreign affairs, and I make no apology for returning to the subject. The Minister of National Defence, speaking before the defence committee not long ago, as reported on page 198 of the record-


Howard Charles Green: On a question of order, I think that committee has not yet reported to the house and it is against the rules to quote from proceedings in a committee until a report has been submitted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister is right; I should not quote from the report. I will put it this way. Members of the government have stated on more than one occasion that this government has recommended more than once the establishment of an international police force under the auspices of the United Nations. When the minister replies, perhaps he will give us some details as to when these recommendations were put forward and in what form.
Whether or not the Canadian government has made formal recommendation to this effect-and we shall learn about that-the situation which has confronted the world in the last two or three days with regard to the Congo underlines the desirability, perhaps even the necessity, of having some permanent stand-by force of this kind. I know that two years ago when this matter was brought up in the United Nations no progress was possible, and no progress has been made since that time.


Howard Charles Green: Is the Leader of the Opposition not aware that the secretary general is against that proposal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course I am aware of that; I have talked with the secretary general about this matter, and I know his reasons for objecting. But I also know that it could be put forward in a way which would remove most of the objections held by the secretary general, just as I am aware that when this matter was put forward two years ago the proposal was first made by the United States. With all respect for the United States, when a proposal of this kind is put forward at the assembly by a great power, the U.S.S.R.,
Supply-External Affairs or the United States or France, it starts off very often with one or two strikes against it. I am suggesting that this matter could be pursued by the group of middle powers. One of the things they would want to do would be to discuss it with the secretary general in the light of the secretary general's objections to the proposals put forward in the past, of which I know something.
Another matter which would fall under consideration of this group of middle powers would be disarmament. My hon. friend from Essex East went into this in considerable detail yesterday and I do not propose to again traverse the ground he covered, I thought, so well and so wisely. There has been a certain disillusion at the collapse of the Geneva discussions. The minister himself said yesterday that some of his earlier optimism-and I am not quarrelling with him for displaying that optimism-has had to be modified in the light of events. That often happens to optimists, and it should not necessarily lead to despair. Perhaps it should lead to renewed determination to secure new grounds for optimism.
There is not very much ground for immediate optimism in the armament situation which confronts us at the present time, but there is no ground for excessive pessimism, either. We have been trying to deal with this disarmament problem ever since the end of the first world war, and I speak as one who has been concerned with just about every disarmament conference which took place at the United Nations until 1957, when I stopped attending those meetings. All the difficulties we face now and all the arguments for and against were encountered by those earlier disarmament committees.
One thing the recent collapse has shown is that you cannot dissociate policies from armament. As I think the hon. member for Saskatoon pointed out last night in a quotation from Sir Winston Churchill, if the state of the world were peaceful and tensions had begun to disappear we would not have these excessive and dangerous armaments. It is because the world is in a perilous condition that we have these heaped up armaments. The effort to reduce armaments, important as it is, can never be dissociated from the effort to ease tensions. Anyone who knew what was happening in the world in the last year or two knew that we had to have realism with our optimism as we faced this new disarmament committee set up a year ago by the United Nations.
I myself never felt that an agency for disarmament in which you had five communist states on one side of the table-unlike the Seigniory club conference-and five noncommunist states on the other side of the

Supply-External Affairs table in the atmosphere of today, had too much chance of success or of making progress. We had the same experience in the earlier committee of five, except that it was worse. In that case there was only one communist state against four non-communist states. The larger meeting was perhaps a little improvement on that. But this mechanism by which the two sides face each other across a table and hope to reduce tension and disarmament at the same time represents a forum for discussion which I think is not normally too effective for that purpose.
I wonder whether Canada could not perhaps suggest some other approach. The Prime Minister told Mr. Khrushchev that the Canadian government has adopted throughout in the 10-nation committee a strong and independent stand. My friend the hon. member for Essex East dealt with that independent stand yesterday. But if in fact we desire to adopt an independent stand, would it not be desirable to at least consider an entirely new approach?
I have mentioned this before outside the house. Would it not be desirable to adopt an entirely new approach by which this group of middle powers under United Nations authorization by resolution of the assembly, could set up a disarmament committee which would exclude all the permanent members of the council? I know the objection that would be raised-


Howard Charles Green: The other people would have to disarm.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is just what I was going to say. That is the objection that would be raised at once; it would exclude the people that should disarm. I am not suggesting that a committee of middle powers could draft a disarmament treaty and impose it on any one, because of course they could not; but when these great powers meet in disarmament committees, and when there is a middle power like Canada that has to work within the western five-and I am not criticizing this-we have learned that there is no possibility even for agreement on draft provisions of a treaty, let alone the figures.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? Does the hon. gentleman have in mind, for example, including Czechoslovakia in that proposal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think you could include in that kind of group any country that got its orders directly and demonstrably from a great power, but there are countries in the United Nations which are not committed to one side or the other. There are some countries that are committed to the


western side; but Canada is one, we are told, that does not get its orders from any power, and rightly so. If we could draft the provisions of a treaty and then submit them to the United Nations and to the great powers, that might be a step forward. It might result in a lot of the preliminary work being done in a way that would be agreeable to a great majority of United Nations members, and which would make it more difficult later for the great powers to turn down provisions of this kind.
I ask the minister if that approach is not worth considering, and I put it on no higher plane than that. Perhaps after consideration it would be found impossible or impractical, but I should like to see it considered.
There is something else in this field, and that is the question of nuclear testing. Some progress has been made at Geneva, but we are not on the eve of an agreement as was hoped a few months ago. My friend the hon. member for Essex East also dealt with what we consider to be the contradictions and the confusions of Canadian policy in this field.


Howard Charles Green: The confusion is all on the part of hon. members across the floor.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Knowing that hon. members opposite were not satisfied by our exposure of this confusion, perhaps I should document it in substantiation of what my friend the hon. member for Essex East said yesterday. I am now talking about nuclear testing. This is a matter on which we have a right to know the policy of our government without doubt, equivocation or uncertainty to the extent that security considerations make it possible.
On August 28, 1958 the Prime Minister made his first statement on this matter so far as I am able to ascertain. It was a statement made in the House of Commons. The hon. gentleman said:
The house will recall that on several occasions since I became Prime Minister I have advocated the suspension of nuclear tests, but always providing there was adequate international control to ensure the observance of the undertakings made in that connection.
Then on February 9, 1960 as reported at page 866 of Hansard the Secretary of State for External Affairs, repeating what he had said previously inside and outside the house -and I quote this as just one of a number of statements he made-said:
Our position is very clear, Mr. Speaker; we are against further nuclear tests, period.


Howard Charles Green: That is still the government's policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to reconcile those two statements when he replies. I believe that I and some other hon. members on March 21

of this year, as reported at page 2251 of Hansard, asked the Prime Minister to reconcile what we thought were contradictions between what he said in 1958 and what was being said in 1960. The Prime Minister replied:
I see no contradiction in the viewpoint expressed today and that expressed two years ago, except that naturally with the events that are now taking place modifications become necessary in order to meet changing conditions.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who said there has been no change, explain what that means? I should be fair to the Prime Minister and read the rest of his reply. The hon. gentleman went on to say:
Possibly what I have said should not be considered as a modification. What it is in fact is an interpretation of an actual reality existing today.
That was on March 21, 1960; yet the communique which was put on the record yesterday, issued in Washington by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, read in part as follows:
Particular attention was paid to the importance of achieving, with effective international control, an end to nuclear testing-
Notwithstanding the communique which had just been issued a few weeks before, on June 7, 1960 at page 4599 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
We have made it very clear that we believe in the complete termination of nuclear tests.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, does he not think there is some confusion between these various statements?


Howard Charles Green: It is all in the hon. gentleman's mind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let me try the hon. gentleman on another aspect of this problem, that is the question of non-military tests, which is a matter of practical importance in Canada because of our tar sand interests.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether his party is in favour of more nuclear tests?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister will find an answer to his question in Hansard if he wants to read it. About a year or a year and a half ago I put our position on the record. I said that we thought the time had come when the west should have a moratorium on tests irrespective of what the Russians did. That is clear. I went on to say that at the end of that moratorium-I mentioned a period of two or three years-when no western power would have nuclear tests irrespective of what the Russians did, we should reexamine the situation. That is clear and unequivocal. I wish the minister would make a statement of policy equally clear and unequivocal.
Supply-External Affairs
Now to look at the question of non-military tests, a matter of practical importance; on March 17, 1960 the Prime Minister had this to say on the subject:
In so far as an explosion in the Athabaska tar sands is concerned, I think it is some two years ago that I spoke on this matter and pointed out that while it was desirable that there should be a suspension of tests, those tests whose purpose was the advancement of the general good should for civil purposes be expected.
Then on May 13 the minister is reported in the Ottawa Citizen as having had this to say:
External Affairs Minister Green, Thursday snuffed out any hope of an early experiment to recover oil from Alberta's tar sands by nuclear explosion. He said the government "has taken a firm stand against these explosions".
Perhaps the minister will clear up this apparent contradiction.
I apologize to the committee for detaining it so long, but I want to say a few words about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with which the minister dealt in his opening statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the hon. member goes on will he allow a question? What is his view in regard to atomic tests for the purpose of determining the availability of resources, such as in the case of the Athabaska tar sands?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a perfectly fair and very important question. I would see no objection to nuclear tests for non-military, commercial or industrial purposes of that kind, provided that in every case those nuclear tests were announced, with all the details concerning them, to some international organization like the United Nations, and provided that anyone who wished to witness those tests was given an opportunity to do so. Perhaps official witnesses from the United Nations would be enough. If the tests were made in those circumstances and under those conditions I can see no reason for not holding them at all because, after all, are we to say that this power, this energy, those explosive powers, shall never be used for any purpose? That might be the implication of the stand that we will not allow nuclear tests for any purposes. There may be times when we shall be very glad to have nuclear testing for non-military purposes, for peaceful purposes.
When I talked about NATO-I think it was in February that we discussed external affairs -the minister criticized me, after following me, because I criticized, at least I tried to point out, what I considered to be the weaknesses and some of the dangers that confront NATO. I have the minister's words here which I thought were a little unkind in the circumstances because what I had been saying
6366	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs had been said a few weeks before by Paul-Henri Spaak and by a lot of other people who are just as devoted to the ideals of NATO and its strength and its unity as is the minister himself. As a matter of fact, the minister said yesterday that perhaps I had not been so bad last February in the light of events that had transpired.
The Minister of National Defence said the other day he felt there was "a new feeling of cohesiveness in NATO," and I am quoting him. I hope he is right because nothing can be more important than to establish that feeling of cohesiveness. But because we feel it should be so is no reason why we should not be conscious of the threats and tendencies which are working against that cohesiveness. The minister assured me, he indicated it yesterday that it is important to do more than we have done, and he has spoken strongly and wisely on this in the last two years. It is important to do more than we have to develop nonmilitary co-operation inside NATO as Europe is developing non-military co-operation outside of NATO. If we do not show care and imagination we may find that the European nations inside NATO are so far ahead of the trans-Atlantic nations that fissures will begin to show.
The minister mentioned that a study was being given to what he called a 10-year program, a 10-year plan. No doubt that is all very useful, and perhaps it is a good thing that we examine the objectives and purposes of international organizations periodically; but I would remind the minister that surely it is more important now, rather than to study new problems and to plan new objectives, to carry out the recommendations that have been made in this field. The minister knows-I am sure he has looked at the report-that there was a pretty careful examination made as a result of a year's investigation by a committee of three which approached every NATO government for evidence and every NATO leader, both orally and in writing, spent a great deal of time consulting with NATO leaders, leaders of NATO governments, on what could be done to make NATO operate more effectively in the non-military field. That report, which is quite a long document, with a lot of recommendations, was adopted unanimously by the NATO council.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps NATO is like the United Nations. That means nothing is to be done about it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not quite the same because we are friends in NATO and we start out with the assumption we try to carry out the recommendations; and they have to be unanimous in NATO, as the minister


knows, otherwise you would not get any recommendations. Therefore, there are proposals which have been accepted by the governments to strengthen NATO in the nonmilitary field. It is more important, I suggest, to try to get the governments to implement those proposals which we have accepted than to worry about new committees and new examinations or even new NATO summit conferences.
I still feel as I have always felt that as a centre for exchanging information and coordinating attitudes the NATO council has been valuable and important, but we have not yet come even close-this is not a criticism of the government because we were, I forget how many years, dealing with NATO when we were in office, it would apply to both sides of the house-to realizing a NATO council of ministers that would or could take collective political decisions to be confirmed by their legislatures, create a collective policy which would at least be something less than the least common denominator of the individual policies of the member states. I said a few weeks ago in speaking about this outside the house:
There still remains, 1 believe, a chance to move into a new phase and make of this coalition a unique venture in relations among sovereign states. Indeed if this is not done, then NATO is not likely to survive. If it fails then we will fall back on defence policies based on old concepts of national sovereignty and national control. These will certainly prove inadequate to meet the tests ahead.
This brings up the question of NATO and the military strategy which was raised yesterday, and which would require examination; it brings up the question of disengagement which was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I think we should examine very carefully and sympathetically proposals for disengagement as a possible solution of the difficulties and the easing of tensions in Europe. It brings up also the whole question of our whole position in NATO, if you like, NATO and Canadian neutralism.
We had a speech this morning devoted almost entirely to this idea of Canadian neutrality in the battle between the giants in the world. I do not believe it is desirable or possible for Canada to be neutral in the world today, between the free democratic western forces and the communist dictatorships. Neutralism to me at least implies that we put the two super powers, the United States and the U.S.S.R., the leaders of the coalitions, on the same level of political morality, of freedom and of Canadian interest. That is what neutralism must mean, as I see it, and that is what I cannot accept; but that does not mean that we

should not within the coalition do our best as an independent voice to make sure that the western coalition follows the right policy. Surely that is the best role for Canada to play, as she has been trying to play it ever since 1945. One could call neutralism disengagement from NATO, if you like, but I cannot think that that would be of any help to peace or any assistance to Canada in realizing its national destiny. There is no rescue, there is no relief from our problems, as I see it, in falling back on neutralism.
One cannot talk about neutralism, of course, without talking about our relations with the United States because I suspect-in fact, I know as other members know-that the United States and its policies and its power are the very reason why there are some people in Canada who want a policy of neutralism at the present time, although perhaps not as many as the publicity that they get would suggest. But the United States is also one reason why, even if we wanted neutralism, it would be to say the least very difficult for us to be neutral and have our neutrality respected. The United States has therefore a pull both ways.
I cannot myself see any salvation or any hope in that kind of foreign policy because of our relations with the United States, our European friends and two mother countries. But I do feel, and I have said this before in the house and out of the house as have other members of the house, that we have to be more careful as the months go by in examining and assessing our position inside the coalition and particularly our relationship with the United States of America and which has reflected itself in recent months by the difficulties-I assume they are difficulties-that we are having with regard to the working out of arrangements for continental defence.
I had hoped, as other members have, that in the communique on the defence conference which was held this week at the Seigniory club we might have had more indication of government policy in this vitally important matter. The defence leaders of both countries were there, and while I know they could not be asked or expected to tell us the details of defence discussions I had hoped that perhaps we could have had some of the principles on which these discussions were based, outlined and emphasized. I had also hoped that we could have been given some information with regard to the application of these principles to defence and particularly to the use, if we use them, of nuclear weapons.


Howard Charles Green: What about security?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already said to the minister, within the limits of security. I am asking for no more than that on this or any 79951-0-402
Supply-External Affairs other occasion. Perhaps the minister will be able to answer some of these questions in this field of nuclear weapons and continental defence. We ask ourselves the question: Are we or are we not going to use them for such defence? Are they necessary or are they not? We have been told by the Minister of National Defence-I do not want to get into the details of defence policy because that will be done later-and we were told the other day by the United States secretary of defence in his press conference in Ottawa that to be effective the Bomarc missile, on which we are going to rely at least in part for our defence, must have a nuclear warhead. We do not know whether it is going to have a nuclear warhead in Canada. We do not even know whether or how, if it has a nuclear warhead, it is to be used.
We have been told by the Prime Minister that we are negotiating with the United States on the conditions which would govern the use of nuclear weapons by Canada if a decision should be reached by the government to use them. I think I am fair in that statement of the Prime Minister's position. We were told two years ago that these negotiations had begun. Are we negotiating now or are we not? If we are not negotiating, what is the purpose of these meetings which have been going on now for a couple of years and which the Minister of National Defence called negotiations at one time and discussions at another time?
If these negotiations or discussions or whatever you wish to call them are going on with the United States, and they obviously are, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the committee when he replies why the external affairs department is not taking part in them except in so far as the negotiations are concerned with the storage of nuclear weapons at Goose Bay and Harmon field? I understand that those negotiations have got to a point where perhaps letters can soon be exchanged and therefore external affairs is actively pursuing them now. Does external affairs take part in negotiations only when all the principles have been agreed on and is external affairs, the civilian agency of foreign policy, called in only at that time? If not, why has external affairs not taken charge of these discussions and negotiations with regard to the use of nuclear weapons which, if they are to be used according to the terms which the Prime Minister has outlined in the house, must require changes in congressional legislation in Washington. Eventually this matter will then have to come before the state department and external affairs so I suggest it is very unwise for the Secretary of State for External Affairs not to take part in negotiations respecting this vital matter and to leave
6368	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs these negotiations or discussions, if you want to call them that, exclusively to the officers of the Department of National Defence.
Perhaps members of the committee will forgive me if I tell them a story. I once sat next to Mr. Khrushchev at a dinner in Russia and I made some reference to Mr. Molotov who was sitting across the table. He said, "Don't pay any attention to what Molotov says. He is only a diplomat. We only call him in when the treaties have to be written. They know the words." I have too great respect for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to suggest that he will ever allow himself to be put in any such position but I should also like to ask him to tell us now, in the light of the importance of these negotiations, what part he is playing in them and what decisions, if any, have been reached.
I should like to say something about the commonwealth. I have far exceeded my time but I must mention this because the minister might accuse me of being unfriendly to the commonwealth if I did not make some reference to it. I share his assessment, as I have before, of the value of the new commonwealth, and I was interested to note yesterday that he has begun to realize some of the difficulties that are inherent in the organization of the new commonwealth. I was glad to hear him emphasize, as other members have, the importance of the scholarship exchange. This is the kind of thing that pays dividends in the future. I also share his hope that we can have more and more of these scholars go to our French speaking universities so that when they go back to their countries they will realize that Canada is a country of two languages, two cultures and two traditions but one unity. I was glad to hear him say that everything was being done that could be done to that end and I know some of the difficulties in directing scholars to French speaking universities.
The minister asked for our advice yesterday about some of these commonwealth problems, and that was a refreshing and encouraging departure. Maybe the Minister of Labour will be doing that one of these days. He pointed out that before long we will perhaps have in the commonwealth Cyprus, which is about to apply for membership, Malta, the West Indies, Rhodesia, Uganda, Tanganyika, Kenya and, of course, Nigeria. He wondered whether the value of informal consultation around the table might be affected in some way, and this is a very legitimate preoccupation on his part, by the inclusion of a number of new members of the commonwealth, some of which will be small in population and will emphasize by


their appearance the disparity in size, population, interest and responsibilities between members.
If I were the minister I would not worry too much about that. After all, in the twenties when the population of New Zealand was only about a million and Great Britain was the great power in the world there was no difficulty in reconciling the interests, and the desire to be of assistance, of New Zealand and Great Britain. Perhaps the presence around the table of these new representatives of new nations, even though some are small, will emphasize the new value of the commonwealth as an association of friends of all sizes, all races and all creeds and as a bridge between the new nations and the old nations, the new world and the old world.
One thing I am convinced about, and the minister brought this up himself, is that it would be unwise and quite impractical to have two types of membership in the commonwealth or, as he put it, first-class and second-class citizens. I am not suggesting he recommended that but he said that was one possibility though I think he rather demurred at its practicability. The commonwealth will continue to be the valuable and important organization that it has been. It can get over difficulties of membership. If it does not have to choose between a member like South Africa and, if you like, Ghana, it may then have a great new field of usefulness. But if it runs into the rocks of racial discrimination then the commonwealth is going to have a very hard time staying afloat. Nobody would gain but the communists if it were not possible to keep it afloat; not only to keep it afloat but to keep it moving forward and to add new members to it.
I would also have liked to talk about the organization of American states, about which the minister did not say very much. Perhaps he will say something about it in reply. I wonder whether we can get the minister's views on this and whether they would conform to what he said outside this house some time ago, that we should join this organization.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition would say, out of his experience, could the prime ministers' conference, in view of the variety of colours and races that will ultimately be characteristic of the commonwealth and the diverse attitudes that may exist in various parts of the commonwealth, discuss these matters privately if there were no communique required indicating unanimity? Would that be a sensible suggestion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very difficult question because it is such an important question.


John George Diefenbaker: On the basis of your experience?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the basis of my experience-my experience covers a period when commonwealth relationships were simpler than those relationships are now. We did not have these particular problems facing us which result of the admission of new members from Africa, although in my day we did have the association of Pakistan and India.
Canada, as the Prime Minister knows, was one of the leaders in arranging the formula which made it possible for a republic to come into the commonwealth. In those days, it would have been impossible to conduct a prime ministers' conference on the basis of any formal, voted decisions, being reached, either on the basis of unanimity or a majority decision. I cannot see anything but danger ahead if decisions are taken by votes at commonwealth meetings. I would hope it would still be possible, in the days ahead, to continue the practice of informal discussions around a table trying to arrive at a concensus on the issues that are brought up. If that is not possible, then those in the majority merely try to bring pressure to bear by argument on the minority, and let it go at that. If the time comes when a member of the commonwealth violates the principles of free democratic association, internationally and nationally, on which the commonwealth is based, if any member of the commonwealth continues to do that it will of course be quite impossible for that member to remain a member of the commonwealth. Indeed, it would not be desirable that it should. I say that without reference to any particular situation at the present time.
We have, then, the situation where we have no formal voting, and therefore minimize in a purely formal sense the importance of the discussions in the interest of getting opinions around the table. We have to choose between that and the possibility of a more formal, more decisive type of voting meeting which might drive some members out of the commonwealth. I do not know whether that answers the Prime Minister's question, but that is the way I see it at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, I have gone on a long time. In fact, the length of my speech in the middle of July during the lunch hour has been unpardonable, but I hope I shall be pardoned just the same.


Howard Charles Green: Before the Leader of the Opposition sits down, may I ask a question? What would be his views concerning the use of 79951-0-402J
Supply-External Affairs nuclear warheads on Bomarcs under joint control of Canada and the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for me to answer that question because I would have to tell the minister whether I thought we should use Bomarcs at all. This is another question with which I expect to deal when we have our debate on national defence. If the decision of this government or any Canadian government is to use Bomarcs as a part of our defence and to equip them with nuclear warheads, I would hope-I have said this before-that the use of those nuclear warheads would be either under Canadian control or under coalition control. I would not find it easy to accept- I went further when I answered this question before and said that I could not accept a situation where a Canadian weapon, in the hands of a Canadian unit, a Canadian squadron if you like, could not be used without authority being given by the government of another country. This, of course, is what joint control means. It means that each side has a veto on the use of the weapon. In the case of the Canadian share of such control it would be the veto on the use of a Canadian weapon which we have in any event merely because of the fact it belongs to a Canadian squadron. In the case of the United States, it would be the veto of the use of a weapon of a Canadian squadron which would be something that I do not believe could be tolerated.


Mr. Churchill:: What does the Leader of the Opposition mean? I understood him to say he favours either Canadian control or, as he said, coalition control. He did not deal with the second.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can deal with this verj simply. I have said before, and I will say again when the national defence estimates are being considered, that we have to bring North American continental defence under NATO control, and the position of Canadian units on this continent should be analogous to their position under NATO coalition control in Europe.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the debate on the administration item of this department has been one which would fit in with the words I used in my speech in February, "free-swinging". I think this is a very good thing. In earlier years very often the debates on foreign affairs policy have been insipid and not really Canadian at all. Now they are beginning to liven up and I hope the result will be that it will be much easier for the secretary of state for external affairs, whoever he may happen to be, to work out the details of Canadian foreign policy.
6370	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister recall the Suez debate?


Howard Charles Green: I remember the Suez debate, and I am not backing water at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was not insipid.


Howard Charles Green: No, but that was quite a long time ago. There have been very useful suggestions made by each one of the hon. members who participated in this debate. These suggestions will be given careful consideration by me and by the officials of the department. After all, conditions are such in the world today that Canada, like any other nation, cannot fail to consider every suggestion that is brought forward for meeting these tragic world conditions.
In my work as Secretary of State for External Affairs I am always trying to see that Canadian common sense is applied to the problems. It is quite easy, in this field, to get theoretical and to have ideas as to what might be done, thus getting one's feet far off the ground. I do not believe that Canadian foreign policy will ever get or retain the support of the Canadian people unless it stands up as being a very sensible kind of policy. I hope this will be the approach of all hon. members who have taken part in this debate, and that is quite a severe test.
There is another difficulty in that many of these problems involve security. It is not as though one could tell the whole story to the house and have it read by our allies and those who are against us without some harm being done. One very good example of that is the meetings of the ministerial committee on joint defence, one of which was held earlier this week. Almost everything that is discussed at those meetings involves the security of Canada and the United States, and perhaps in some cases of the whole free world.
The ministers participating are not in a position to make agreements or decisions; these have to come from the cabinets of the respective countries. I thought the former secretary" of state for external affairs had forgotten just what took place in this department, when he suggested that I should give a pretty full report of what took place at that meeting. This simply cannot be done.
Requests have been made for a statement about certain problems which are very critical at the present time, and one of these was the situation in Cuba. I agree with what different hon. members have said about the seriousness of this situation. There is no doubt that it could have very far-reaching effects on the whole of the western hemisphere and perhaps on even a wider field than that.

There is also no doubt that the Soviet union has a regular habit of trying to benefit from situations of this kind and has been working along these lines with regard to Cuba. Soviet leaders are pretending to be great friends of Cuba, and as hon. members know Premier Khrushchev even went so far as to say that if the United States did anything in Cuba missiles, presumably missiles with nuclear warheads, would be fired by Russia at the United States.
That is an extremely serious threat. One cannot imagine the President of the United States making a threat of that kind against any country in the world, but the United States has had that threat made against it within the last week or ten days. We all know our friends across the border and how they react. They are a proud people and this is not a threat that can easily be ignored either by the United States or any other country. Canadians would react pretty violently against the same kind of threat too.
So we have to try to understand the human reaction in these different countries. Canada's attitude with regard to the Cuban crisis has been to urge patience, discussion and negotiation and that heads be kept cool, having in mind the hope that in this way this very serious problem can be worked out without any further damage being done.
Our views have been made clear. The hon. member for Assiniboia wanted to know whether we had been making protests and all that sort of thing, but I would point out to him that discussions are going on between the United States and Canada daily on various problems. It is not a matter of our ambassador or members of his staff sitting in the embassy and then once a week writing a note about some matter and rushing to the state department to present it. There are the closest of contacts between the officials of the two governments and our views on the Cuban question have been made perfectly clear. When we met at Montebello this week this was one of the subjects which came up for review.
The Cuban question has been placed before the security council by Cuba, so there is to be a debate on it there. In addition there is the possibility that it will be taken before the foreign ministers meeting, I think it is, of the organization of American states. Whether it will be dealt with first in the security council or in the organization of American states we do not as yet know. I think there is some prospect that there could be successful deliberations under the organization of American states.
I think it was the hon. member for Assiniboia who spoke rather wildly accusing the United States of interfering because it was

protesting the action of Russia in trying to step into Cuban affairs. I point out to him that at the inter-American conference held at Bogota in 1954, a declaration was unanimously adopted by all of the members of the organization of American states which dealt with the question of communism in the western hemisphere. For example, the resolution carries the title "Declaration of solidarity for the preservation of the political integrity of the American states against the intervention of international communism". I will not read the whole resolution, but the first recital is as follows:
The American republics at the ninth international conference of American states declared that international communism, by its anti-democratic nature and its interventionist tendency, is incompatible with the concept of American freedom, and resolved to adopt within their respective territories the measures necessary to eradicate and prevent subversive activities.
One of the declarations contained in this resolution expresses the determination of the American states to take the necessary measures to protect their political independence against the intervention of international communism. Another declaration says that the domination and control of the political institutions of any American state by the international communist movement extending to that hemisphere the political system of an extra-continental power would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and political independence of the American states, endangering the peace of America and would call for meetings of consultation to consider the adoption of appropriate action in accordance with existing treaties.
So it is not just a case of the United States going much too far in its language and in its reactions. All the other countries which are members of the organization of American states are parties to this resolution, and this is a problem which they face in common.
I do not intend to deal with all the statements which were made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, but I am sure he was very unfair in his statements about the United States. I do not always agree with the stand taken by the United States, and perhaps Canada's greatest problem since the time of confederation has been to prevent the domination of Canada by the United States, but when we hear such violent accusations made against our neighbour as were made by the hon. member for Assiniboia this morning I can only say that I think they were in a large measure irresponsible and also unfair and unwarranted.
Another question I was asked had to do with events in the Congo. The Leader of the Opposition intimated that when I was making
Supply-External Affairs my opening remarks I should have dealt fully with the Congo situation. I point out to him that the house has had a blow by blow report by the government each day on the situation in the Congo as we knew it. Yesterday, on orders of the day, statements were made which set out the position as at that time, and I think it was a little rough of the Leader of the Opposition to accuse me today of failing in my duty because in my remarks yesterday afternoon I did not repeat what had been said to the house about the situation in the Congo.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope the minister does not think I accused him of failing to discharge his duty. I merely said that I thought in the light of what was going on in the Congo he might have something more to say about Africa. I did not criticize the minister very strongly about that, and I certainly did not suggest he was defaulting in his duty.


Howard Charles Green: Here again, on this question there has not been complete fairness toward the United States. The United States was asked earlier this week in a written request by the government of the Congo, signed by several of the ministers, to send, I think it was, 2,500 troops to the Congo at once. They gave consideration to that request. They consulted with the United Nations and decided that they would not accede to the request. Then the president and the prime minister of the Congo, who had been in some other part of the country at the time, came back to the capital and apparently signed a request to Premier Khrushchev and repudiated the request which had been made to the United States. Today we get reports of the reaction of Premier Khrushchev.
In the meantime, the United Nations had acted promptly and I think effectively and in a very wise way by deciding that forces should be sent in from different African countries. The first troups to arrive in Leopoldville came this morning from Ghana, under the command of a British general, by the way. United Nations observers will be en route from Palestine by Sunday, including two Canadians. Three more Canadians- I have just had word while I have been sitting here-have volunteered and I believe they will probably be going with the other two.
But now, after this has been done by the United Nations, after the problem has been faced and the first active steps have been taken by the United Nations, the soviet steps into the picture presumably in an attempt to get any credit that may be given around the world, and Premier Khrushchev has said that the Soviet union is ready to

Supply-External Affairs act to halt aggression in the Congo if those states who are carrying on direct aggression against the Congo do not stop their criminal measures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister a question so that we may know what is the source of this information. What is he reading from?


Howard Charles Green: This is from a press dispatch which, incidentally, was given to me by the Leader of the Opposition this morning, but I have since had my own dispatches in. The Soviet premier is reported as saying:
If those states which are carrying on direct aggression against the Congo do not stop their criminal measures, the Soviet union will not hesitate to take decisive measures to halt the aggression.
This is very similar to the threat which was made at the time of Suez. It should be understood for what it actually is. The real move to settle the situation has been taken by the United Nations. Canada has done and will do her full share in bringing about some solution to this very difficult problem.
The hon. member for Assiniboia and the Leader of the Opposition were very critical because I had not dealt with the case of the plane which was shot down by the Russians, I think on July 1. The hon. member for Assiniboia accused the Prime Minister of sheer irresponsibility because of what he described as a failure to give the house a report of what had happened in that incident.
We have now had an opportunity to check the situation. There is no doubt whatever in our minds that this plane was shot down a good many miles away from Russian territorial waters. Young Americans were killed. Two are now prisoners. They were on a flight which under international law was perfectly proper. Under these conditions it does not make very much sense that hon. members of the Canadian House of Commons should make fantastic charges against the United States as was done by the hon. member from Assiniboia.
When the U-2 flight took place we protested to the United States. That was a clear case of a plane flying over the territory of another country and we made our objection to such a course known at once. In the other case we did not protest. From what the Leader of the Opposition said he was of the opinion that perhaps we should have done so. In any event that certainly was the view of the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, at no time did I suggest that we should have protested to the United States with respect to this incident.


Howard Charles Green: I accept the explanation made by the Leader of the Opposition. This is another example of the need for Canadian members of parliament to keep their heads about these very difficult problems.
Both the hon. member for Essex East and the Leader of the Opposition took up their old battle cry about there being a division between the Prime Minister and myself with regard to the attitude of the Canadian government on nuclear testing. I have never been able to understand why these leaders of the Liberal party have so persistently thrown their weight behind a policy of not objecting to nuclear tests until there is an international agreement. That is what it amounts to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the minister will let me say this. I pointed out once again this afternoon that our policy on this side is to support a position by which nuclear tests would be abolished for a period of time even without control and inspection and even if the Soviet union and the communist countries did not come into that. That is clear.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes, the Leader of the Opposition explained that today. His policy is that there should be a moratorium but he very carefully did not say for how long a time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said two or three years.


Howard Charles Green: At the end of that time they would take a look at it again. That is not very much comfort for the Canadian people who are against nuclear tests. At the same time the Leader of the Opposition says that the government's policy is indefinite. It certainly could not be much more indefinite than the policy just enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition. Our policy has been that we are against further nuclear tests, period. We have repeated that time and time again but it does not seem to sink into the heads of the two Liberal leaders.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It does not sink into the Prime Minister's head.


Howard Charles Green: Yesterday the hon. member for Essex East quoted the communique issued by President Eisenhower and the Canadian Prime Minister but the hon. gentleman very carefully refrained from quoting the cross-examination which took place in this house the next day. I would refer the hon. members to Hansard of June 7, 1960 at page 4599 where the Prime Minister was questioned about this situation and used these words:
Mr. Speaker, there has been no change or suggested change along the line that has been advanced by the hon. gentleman. Canada's policy is completely unchanged.

The Prime Minister was questioned further. The hon. member for Essex East is a very-persistent questioner. It is not as though the hon. gentleman asked one question and sat down. He usually asks one question and when a point of order is raised the hon. member turns his back, looks the other way and goes on asking more questions. In this instance the hon. gentleman continued asking questions and finally got the answer he did not want. The Leader of the Opposition was one of the questioners on that occasion, as well. It was a dual attack by these two Liberal leaders.


Mr. Nesbiii:: Punch and Judy.


Howard Charles Green: The final answer given by the Prime Minister was in these words:
We have made it very clear that we believe In the complete termination of nuclear testing.
I will not try to explain that any further because if the two hon. gentlemen do not understand it now they never will.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs permit a question on this particular point because I think it is desirable to get it cleared up even in our minds. I would ask the minister-and this will certainly clear it up-if there were an international convention on nuclear testing prohibiting it without provision for inspection and control would the government accept it?


Howard Charles Green: The government would continue to be against nuclear testing. We think there is great value in building up world opinion against nuclear testing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quite.


Howard Charles Green: That is one of the reasons we have taken this strong stand. Here you have possibly thousands of Canadian children who will suffer because of the nuclear tests which have already taken place. Much of the fall-out from the tests which have been held is not yet down from the atmosphere. No one knows just how terribly serious the question of radiation and fall-out may be. The government decided that the wisest course to follow was to make it absolutely clear that we are against further nuclear tests. The United States knows that and we explained it to them again this week. There is no doubt about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit a question. I agree with what the minister said when he quoted the questions and answers addressed to the Prime Minister on the matter of the cessation of tests but would the minister explain the language of the communique which clearly
Supply-External Affairs establishes that the president and the Prime Minister said they would work toward a cessation of tests within a system of international controls.


Howard Charles Green: The communique, as I remember, said that it was hoped there would be a system worked out-


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, no; they would work toward that.


Howard Charles Green: -a system for international control. We are in favour of that too. We believe there should be an international control worked out but whether or not there is, we say that we are against further nuclear tests.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That is not what
the communique says.


Howard Charles Green: I have told the hon. member what the policy of the government has been and is, and if he does not believe it he can read as many communiques as he likes but that will not alter the fact. The policy is still as I have stated it.


Murdo William Martin: They are not our
communiques.


Howard Charles Green: This brings me to another point. There have been suggestions made about what action Canada could take to focus world attention on the need-it is much worse than a need, it is a vital necessity-of bringing about a relaxation of tension. I have been very grateful for these suggestions. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres made one proposal last night. Incidentally, the hon. gentleman made a very helpful speech. The Leader of the Opposition made a similar suggestion today and perhaps one or two other hon. gentlemen have spoken along the same lines.
It just may be that the one way in which tension can really be relaxed in this world will be by action taken in the United Nations to focus world opinion on this problem. Whether that can best be done by a gathering of middle powers remains to be seen. Frankly I do not think it could be accomplished in the way suggested by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, by the method of inviting representatives of all the nations except the United States and the Soviet union to come to Canada and here work out some plan whether or not it was within the United Nations.
I do not believe that that idea can be worked out, but I am not putting aside any of the suggestions made leading toward this objective. We shall certainly give this subject most careful thought, and Canada will do

Supply-External Affairs what she can to reach that objective. As a matter of fact, for some weeks now we have been working in the department on this very subject of ways and means that Canada could take to give leadership in the attainment of this particular objective.
There has also been some criticism of our failure to give sufficient leadership in the 10-nation disarmament committee. I think most hon. members, even those in the two opposition parties, will feel that that criticism was hardly justified. Canada was one of a team of five western nations. Yesterday I asked the hon. member for Essex East whether he thought that each one of those five nations should have put in a plan and then presumably have kept on putting independent plans in to the 10-nation committee. That obviously would have been a silly thing to do, and it was not done by any nation. But he intimates that Canada just tagged along with the other four western nations and really did nothing at all; she did not take an independent stand.
There is one thing I am delighted to find out as a result of this debate, and that is that my good friends opposite are now converted to the policy I suggested many months ago, namely that the time had come for Canada to take an independent stand. They are now throwing it back at me and asking, why did you not take a more independent stand? Last year they were all for Canada being an honest broker, and they scoffed at the idea that it was now time for Canada to take an independent stand in world affairs. Paul has seen the light on the way to Damascus once again, after 2,000 years. He is right with me on this independent stand for Canada, and I hope we shall be able to keep him there. It is a little difficult to keep him on anything, but we shall try to keep him on our side on this as we pursue this independent course.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You had better start pursuing it.


Howard Charles Green: In the disarmament committee we made our proposals to the other western four when the representatives were working out a common western plan. Some of them were accepted; some of them were not. They might have been put in at different stages of the plan than we would have wished them to be, but a western plan was worked out and Canada took a part in that western plan, as one of the five nations. That same course was followed throughout as the plan was presented. When the committee was meeting and discussions were taking place we played our full part in those discussions and when the committee adjourned until the summit conference would be held I went to Istanbul


and there I made to the five western foreign ministers certain proposals, which I outlined to the house when I came back, as to what course should be followed. For example, this policy of trying to work out balanced concessions between the eastern members and the western members, suggesting that some meetings of the 10-nation group should be held off the record because as it was everything was being taken down and everyone was speaking for the record, which sometimes happens in the case of hon. members across the way in this house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Never over here.


Howard Charles Green: Never on the government side, either. I made other proposals at Istanbul at the meeting of the five western foreign ministers. Canada was working as a member of a team, and as an important member of a team, and I think everyone across the country, except perhaps the hon. member for Essex East, is giving us credit for having played our full part. Before the committee was scuttled by the eastern members General Burns had advanced the Canadian plan for balanced concessions. We believe that that was a very sensible stand, and we hope that eventually some such plan will be followed.
I have had printed his speech as an appendix to Hansard and, in addition, yesterday I had a summary of the Canadian government's instructions to General Burns in the way of a reply to the Russian proposals of June 2 likewise printed as an appendix. But when we are operating as a member of a team, as we were in this case, it is not very wise to be going off in a direction different from that taken by all of our associates. The Leader of the Opposition has explained how difficult it is to deal with the Soviet union. They are very quick to pick up any divergence and turn it against the western countries. I do not feel very guilty about our so-called failure to follow this independent policy in the disarmament committee.
The hon. member for Essex East asked me whether Canada was going to join the organization of American states. I think the Leader of the Opposition said something about that this afternoon. This would be a big step in Canadian foreign policy. The Leader of the Opposition quoted me as saying that Canada should join, but that dispatch was not entirely accurate because I think the words I used were "It might be that the time had come for Canada to join the organization of American states".


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then, the minister was misquoted because I used the quotation that I had from the press.


Howard Charles Green: I may not have made myself clear to the press, but certainly this was the intention, to put it that it might be that the time had now come for Canada to join this western hemisphere organization. We are doing everything we can to promote our relations with the Latin American countries. For example, we have already sent the head of the new Latin American division to Cuba, and this has been done within the last few days, to assist our ambassador there and to strengthen our embassy.
I believe there is some value in letting the Canadian people do a little thinking about the question of whether they want their nation to join the organization of American states in order that we may see what the reaction of public opinion will be. As I said, this is quite a big step forward or backward, depending on the viewpoint of the person making the speech. I think it would be a step forward but it is of sufficient importance to warrant some time being given for consideration of the matter by the Canadian people. I have been very much gratified by the interest being taken in the question. Some excellent speeches on this very subject have been made during the course of this debate. Eventually Canada can decide just what policy will be followed.
The hon. member for Kootenay West made some suggestions which were certainly very far-reaching. I thought some of them were a bit off the ground but I give him full marks for at least taking the trouble to think about these problems and to make some concrete suggestions. He thought that Canada should adopt the policy of becoming a buffer between the United States and the U.S.S.R. I do not know what his idea of a buffer is but in my opinion it means that you get bumped pretty hard on each side and you do not have very much to say to the people who are doing the bumping. I doubt whether it would be a good thing for the Canadian government to adopt a buffer policy.
He also, of course, was very strongly opposed to NORAD. In the situations that we face I cannot agree with him about that. He wanted the D.E.W. line internationalized. He wanted us to invite the Russians to sit in on the D.E.W. line. If they would let us sit in on their D.E.W. line the suggestion might make some sense, but that was not his proposal. It was a one-way proposition. I suppose there would be Russians, Americans and Canadians at all the D.E.W. lines posts across northern Canada. That might create some very interesting conditions and bring about some rather interesting results but I am afraid that any such policy would have to be on a reciprocal basis and that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National
Supply-External Affairs Resources would have to send some of his officers to the D.E.W. line in northern Siberia. Of course, that was not the proposal.
He also suggested a zone in Europe, and I was somewhat surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition support that proposal. It was described as a proposal for disengagement, and the hon. member for Kootenay West referred to the Rapacki plan. In urging a policy of disengagement by Europe the Leader of the Opposition at the same time emphasized the need for a closer tie with our allies in NATO. Surely he knows that West Germany and some of the other members of NATO take a very dim view of the Rapacki plan and they believe that the policy of disengagement is designed primarily to injure them. This certainly would not be a very good way to bring about good feeling in NATO.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was not talking about the Rapacki plan and never even mentioned it. I referred to disengagement as something that should be considered by NATO and I had in mind the plan put forward in 1954 by Sir Anthony Eden involving a measure of disengagement which got a good deal of support at the time, but not the Rapacki plan in any way, shape or form.


Howard Charles Green: The Leader of the Opposition also made some comments about the plan of the three wise men for NATO.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I never called it that.


Howard Charles Green: He was very modest. He did not say that he was one of the three wise men.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was a good plan.


Howard Charles Green: He does not want anything like a 10-year plan now. He wants to go back several years and adopt the wise men's plan.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is already adopted.


Howard Charles Green: I understood him to say it should be adopted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it was approved years ago but nothing was done about it.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, it was approved but he did not think anything had been done about it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very little.


Howard Charles Green: He wanted Canada to take the position that rather than working on a 10-year plan that would cover the next 10 years the NATO nations should be going back several years and working on this somewhat outdated plan brought in by the three wise men. I give him full credit for the work that he and his associates did in preparing that plan but there are different conditions to

Supply-External Affairs face today. Some of the conditions were in existence at the time that plan was worked out but there are new conditions now. The world has changed a good deal in the intervening period and we believe it is essential that new methods should be devised and that the whole situation should be carefully reviewed in 1960.
As I said, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres made a very thoughtful speech and so did the hon. member for Megantic. We had him with us at the United Nations last fall as an observer. He made a splendid contribution and I thought his speech this morning was of a very high order. He complained that Canada had abstained too much in the voting at the United Nations, particularly in the fourth committee dealing with trusteeships. Of course, he is entitled to that opinion although I do not think he is quite right. We did play an extremely active and useful role in the fourth committee. The hon. member for Queens was the Canadian representative on that committee and has been for two years and is regarded at the United Nations as having done an extremely good job in that committee. The same is true, by the way, of the hon. member for Durham who for two years has been our representative on the second committee having to do with economic and trade matters.
We were co-sponsors of many resolutions dealing with the great development in the African progress toward full freedom and independence. For example, the Canadian delegation was especially in the forefront of negotiations which brought about an advance from October 1 to July 1 in the date for ending the trusteeship agreement respecting Somaliland. The Canadian delegation hailed the new state and expressed pleasure at sharing our national day with that country. Our initiative with respect to the commonwealth scholarship plan has been and is very much appreciated by the leaders of the African people and we think it will bring in a growing number of people from the African continent. However, I will be glad to take a second look at the actions taken by Canada in the fourth committee. We appreciate the criticisms, but I think the delegation has done very well, certainly in that particular field.


Gabriel Roberge: May I ask the minister a question at this point? If he recalls, I also criticized the Liberal government which abstained from voting in earlier committees, just as this government did. Can the minister say whether it had already been decided that these two nations of which he spoke were to be admitted, or if they were asking to be admitted?


Howard Charles Green: I agree that the hon. member
was very fair throughout his whole speech. He did criticize both the present government and the government of his own party.


Mr. Bourget:: He is always fair.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, I think that is true. He
mentioned again the need for contacts between Canada and the French speaking countries in Africa. He suggested that there could be technical people, teachers and various technical personnel, sent out to these countries. With these proposals generally I heartily agree. I do not know at the moment just what can be worked out, but we are concerned with the problem and will be doing what we can.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm also had some very useful suggestions dealing with western hemisphere problems. Then I come to the hon. member for Assiniboia. I think I have dealt with most of his statements. He was extremely emphatic today. I am afraid he is becoming more emphatic every week, and he is a good deal more effective when he is not so emphatic. At the very end of his speech he raved about Canada now being in the hip pocket of President Eisenhower. Canada is too big to go in President Eisenhower's hip pocket. This is not the situation at all; we are not in anybody's hip pocket at the moment, and we do not intend to be.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said Canada's foreign policy was resting in President Eisenhower's golf bag.


Howard Charles Green: That is even worse than what I thought he said. I do not believe many people would take the hon. member too seriously when he makes that statement.
The hon. member for York Centre also had some very useful suggestions. He reminded us that Canada has a large reserve of young men in her universities, well trained and anxious to face the challenge of going abroad to help the underdeveloped countries of the world. I thought the hon. member brought forward a very worth-while idea. We shall be seeing what we can do to work out some plan along that line.
I believe that covers most of the points which were raised. The Leader of the Opposition did intimate that the secretary general or a representative of the United Nations should be present at meetings outside the United Nations, for example at summit meetings. I would remind him that as a result of Canada's initiative there was a representative

of the United Nations sitting in on the meetings of the 10-nation disarmament committee. We agree that the United Nations should be kept connected as closely as possible with all of these deliberations; that will be the policy followed by the government.
Finally, there were various questions asked about nuclear weapons and about the part that the Department of External Affairs plays in the discussions and negotiations on these questions. I do not doubt but that when the Leader of the Opposition was the secretary of state for external affairs there were discussions going on at the official level between Canada and the United States on the question of nuclear weapons. Now it is intimated that a different course is being followed from that which was followed under the former government. The statement that the former government had nothing whatever to do with nuclear weapons is, I suggest, merely pretence. They had that actual situation at that time and I believe the discussions between Canada and the United States concerning nuclear weapons started at the official level while the Liberal government was still in power.
The same thing is true of NORAD. Sometimes we are accused of initiating the NORAD agreement, but practically everything had been done before the former government went out of office. So there is quite a bit of hyprocrisy involved in the stand now being taken by hon. members opposite. As they know, we are in an alliance with the United States, and with many other nations, and discussions take place at the official level daily. This situation will continue as long as Canada is in these alliances. As I have explained before, and I repeat today, when it comes to the actual working out of the agreement in writing, that becomes the responsibility of the Department of External Affairs. We have a defence liaison division in the department. It is, of course, cooperating with the Department of National Defence. Really, there is no mystery about this whole situation as my hon. friends opposite would have the Canadian people believe.
I believe I have dealt with the various questions which have been brought up. I shall be glad to try to answer any other questions on the different items. Once again, may I say that I believe there is great value in a discussion of this kind in the Canadian House of Commons on foreign policy. I do not expect to be able to work out a foreign policy with which everybody in this house will agree; that just cannot be done. However, it is of tremendous assistance to be able to
Supply-External Affairs come to the floor of the house and have members get up and say what they think Canada should do. We shall use our best judgment with regard to the different proposals that have been made. I hope that in the days that lie ahead Canada will have no reason to be ashamed of the stand that is taken by those Canadians who happen to represent her at the time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
7B. 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, $10,042,971.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I see there is an increase of nearly $500,000 for representation abroad. Perhaps the minister would indicate what is responsible for that increase.


Howard Charles Green: One reason for the increase in this vote is the fact that we are providing for the first time this year for the new post in Nigeria. Our commissioner has been there for some time and we are setting up a full-fledged post there.
Another reason is the increase in salaries, allowances and travelling expenses. The increase in salaries is $173,000. There is an increase in allowances of $90,000 approximately and in travelling expenses of about $30,000. In addition, telephones, telegrams and other communications services have gone up about $49,000. The rentals of land, buildings and works have increased about $173,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister talked last night about the desirability of completing our representation in South America and perhaps having a Central American embassy. Provision is not being made for that in these appropriations, I take it?


Howard Charles Green: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there any likelihood of any mission being established in Baghdad or Ankara?


Howard Charles Green: This is a mission I would like very much to have established, and there are others too I would like to have established; but in getting these wishes carried out I always run foul of the treasury board. I do not doubt the Leader of the Opposition had that same problem when he was minister. I would like to have a mission in Baghdad right now, but so far I have not been able to make much progress.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
6378	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
77.	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, $1,037,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I asked the minister on the last item to explain the increase, but on this item would he explain the decrease? I am not objecting to it, of course, but does this mean we are slowing down our embassy building program abroad?


Howard Charles Green: We have been postponing some of our construction work abroad because of the budgetary position.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate the minister's difficulties with treasury board. I would have thought that perhaps he would be more skilful than I ever was in overcoming them, but I am sure the minister does not need anyone to tell him that while funds for capital construction abroad do add to the budget and the budgetary difficulties of the Minister of Finance, over the long run they are economical because the rentals of rented premises and all that kind of thing, while they may not be as much in any one year as the amount which would be required for an embassy, over a period of five or ten years require much more money than would be spent over that period if you had bought or built an embassy.


Howard Charles Green: That is exactly the argument I have been making with the Minister of Finance. Now that I have some support from the Leader of the Opposition perhaps it will be easier to convince him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I had better keep quiet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
78.	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, $255,958.
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister a question about this particular item. We have members on the civilian side of the international commission for supervision and control in the old Indo-China, Cambodia, Loas and in South Vietnam. What are the prospects of dissolution of these organizations in these three countries? What is the situation with regard to the adjournment sine die situation in Laos? What is the situation in Cambodia where there seemingly cannot be too much to do? The situation in South Vietnam of course is a little more


complicated and possibly there is no doubt about the desirability of continuing the commission there.
I can understand the difficulty about the use of forces from Canada and countries like Canada in the situation which now prevails in the Congo, but there are experienced military personnel certainly in South Vietnam and I presume in Laos; I doubt very much if there are any in Cambodia. But to the extent they are available, is any consideration being given to that, assuming their acceptability?


Howard Charles Green: The commission in Laos, as the hon. member knows, was deactivated a long time ago and we have no one there at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No military personnel there at all?


Howard Charles Green: No. The Laotian government is still opposed to having the committee reconvene.
The commission in Cambodia is very small, but the commission in South Vietnam remains as it was and is very active. There is quite a lot of subversion in South Vietnam and unfortunately there is quite a bit of boundary problem between Cambodia and South Vietnam, and some question as to whether the commission is authorized to deal with problems of that kind. As I understand it, it has been called in to help with these problems. Canada does not think that it should be, but we are only one of the three nations represented on it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contributions to international economics and special
aid programs-
Bilateral economic aid programs-
86. Colombo plan, $50,000,000.
Hazen Robert Argue: On this item, I wonder if the minister could inform the committee how much has been provided to Colombo plan countries. Can the minister give us a breakdown of how much has been provided in the past year? It would be helpful, also, if he could inform the committee with regard to any intention of the government to make further provision of this kind.
I should like to take one moment, if I may, to repeat what I said earlier today, namely that in 1957-58 a loan was provided to the Colombo plan countries of $35 million. This was used for the purchase of wheat and I think the transaction was mutually helpful both to Canada and to the Colombo plan countries. I am exceedingly disappointed that we should have allowed the United States to take the lead in this field almost to the complete exclusion of Canada. I think the policy

which has allowed this to happen has been a very shortsighted one. We would like some illustration of the government's views with regard to any other plans which it may be considering by way of economic aid, particularly the provision of food, for the Colombo plan countries.


Howard Charles Green: I am getting the figures with respect to the wheat that was given under the Colombo plan. Loans for the purchase of wheat would be a question for the Department of Trade and Commerce. They primarily involve that department.


Hazen Robert Argue: Or the Department of Finance.


Howard Charles Green: It may be the Department of Finance, I do not know; but they do not come under the Colombo plan at all.


Mr. McGee:: A great deal of what was
covered in the committee has been dealt with again this afternoon, and that may be all to the good. The question of the Colombo plan was among those which were raised and after a somewhat unenthusiastic approach by the persons involved a report was forthcoming which satisfied me and one or two other members of the committee who were interested.
I should like to ask the minister what progress has been made with the visual chart requested showing the comparative contributions of Canada, on a per capita basis, as compared with those of other western nations and members of the communist bloc. I appreciate the magnitude of such a project, but I wonder if the minister could perhaps give us a progress report.


Howard Charles Green: The information which is available to the department on this question was given in the committee. We are working on the suggestion put forward by the hon. member, but apparently nothing is ready yet.
It might be helpful if I reminded hon. members that the western nations are very far ahead of the eastern nations in their aid at this time. The Soviet union has been following a policy of making loans, but when it comes to gifts of the kind covered by the Colombo plan the western nations have a very much better record than the eastern countries, and I do not think any country has a finer record than has Canada. We are spending $50 million a year on the Colombo plan.


Frank Charles McGee: The reason I raised the question in the committee is that a great number of my constituents are aware of various generalities about this subject and what I, as well as one or two other members wanted, was a visual chart so that Canada's position could be stated visually. I certainly propose to use this at meetings in my constituency and other
Supply-External Affairs places to demonstrate more effectively and dramatically just what Canada is doing.


Howard Charles Green: That is a very useful suggestion and I think we can work out something of that kind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I saw figures of that kind in graphic form a little while ago, I think it was in a report of one of the American foundations-the Rand Corporation or something like that. These figures make it clear, as the minister has just said, that though the Russians do a lot of talking about aid, the amount of aid they have actually given as compared with the western countries is small. Of course, the Russians have made skilful propaganda use of whatever they have contributed. For example, they pave the main street of a town, and the natives, instead of walking in the mud, walk on smooth pavement that the Russians have given them, and they all know about it. The western nations are more likely tc build a power station 25 miles away, in the hinterland, and despite its usefulness not very much is known about it.
This figure of $50 million cannot include the kind of assistance by way of loans made in order to buy wheat to which the hon. member for Assiniboia referred. Such loans would not come under the terms of the Colombo plan, though perhaps it could be done in some other way. It would be interesting to know how much of this $50 million represents capital and technical assistance, which was what the Colombo plan was set up to provide, and how much represents assistance in the form of consumer goods for which counterpart funds have to be established and, in the latter category, what was the form of the consumer goods provided-wheat, flour, and so on. I think that information would be useful.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has said quite correctly that loans would not come under item 86, but I should like to point out that his department does take credit for what the government has done in this regard. I refer in particular to the tables which appear in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the external affairs committee for Friday, March 11, where under a heading "Canada's financial assistance budget, 194161" are listed not only the Colombo plan and other programs involving goods but all the loans that the government has made over that period. So while such loans may not technically come under the minister's department they are, nevertheless, so closely allied with the other provisions that

Supply-External Affairs are made that they are included in the information which was supplied by the department.
It has been said by the minister, and by the Leader of the Opposition, too, that the assistance we have been giving in the field of economic aid has been much greater than that provided by the U.S.S.R. I am glad to have that assurance and I hope it is in every way factual.
I recall hearing on the radio not long ago that the U.S.S.R. made a long term loan to India. If my memory serves me correctly it was in the amount of $375 million at an interest rate of 1\ iper cent. Our $50 million gift is certainly not a loan. Perhaps these things cannot be precisely compared. From time to time we have been informed that some of these countries prefer to receive assistance by way of low interest loans rather than by way of gifts because they then feel under no particular obligation to the lending or donor country.
Can the minister give the committee any information as to the amount of loans currently being made by the U.S.S.R. to Colombo plan countries, shall we say? Canada should do more in this field. This group takes the stand that 1 per cent of our gross national product allocated for economic assistance in all forms would not be too much to ask of the Canadian people. This might work out to an amount of some $300 million annually. In relation to a $50 million Colombo plan gift or the total in the estimates under the general heading "Contributions to international economic and special aid programs" in the amount of some $61 million it represents a tremendous increase. Nevertheless it is not too large compared to the amount we spend for national defence. One per cent would still be a relatively small amount. The government should increase this kind of assistance. This group considers this money well spent both from the standpoint of advantage to Canada and the standpoint of the countries in receipt of the moneys. Greater emphasis in this field and less emphasis in the field of military expenditures makes good sense in 1960 as the best method of contributing to world peace.


Howard Charles Green: I now have the figures for wheat under the Colombo plan. Last year 1959-60 it was $12.5 million out of the $50 million.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do you have that figure in bushels of wheat?


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid I am not that much of a farmer. I do not know how many bushels that covers. We have no agricultural experts in our department.

The Leader of the Opposition asked for details of the way in which the money was spent, how much for wheat and how much for technical assistance and so on. I have here an example, the $25 million for India under the 1959-60 Colombo plan. That was allocated in this way: $11.5 million for metals; $7 million for wheat; $2.55 million for fertilizers; $120,000 for asbestos; $2 million for diesel engines for use in India; $700,000 for the Canada-India reactor; $130,000 for three more cobalt beam therapy units; $250,000 for telecommunications equipment. That was to help India build and bring its meteorological service into the world-wide weather reporting network. In addition $750,000 was set aside to carry out economic engineering studies on new projects which India had requested Canada to consider for future Colombo plan capital development programs and to finance the initial cost should any of the projects prove acceptable to the two governments. The division would not necessarily be the same in every year. It varies with the wishes of the recipient government and also with what is approved by the Canadian government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for that information. Perhaps it was in the report of the committee and I should have recalled it. This may give me an opportunity to say for the record that one reason we are going through these estimates so quickly, involving as they do large expenditures, is that they were given thorough and careful examination before a committee.
I know that under the Colombo plan arrangements the details of contributions are worked out between the contributing government and the receiving government in each case. That is one of the important values of the Colombo plan type of aid. There is no question of imposing it or even of giving aid which seems to be in the form of an imposition and a charity.
I also know that in the negotiations that take place each year the contributing government can exercise a great deal of weight in what should be done. I want to ask the minister this question. Now that we are contributing more aid in terms of consumer goods in relation to capital goods and technical assistance is the minister satisfied that the receiving governments have not expressed any anxiety that this balance may not be shifting too far? In other words, are they satisfied not only with the amount-no, not the amount because no one is ever satisfied with the amount-but with the nature of the arrangement?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, that is my understanding. The details are worked out with each different country. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, there is an agreement between the representatives of the country and the Canadian representatives. We try very hard to make the officials of the other countries perfectly happy about the plan.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, following the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia about the lack of effort on the part of the government to increase foreign assistance and decrease armament activity, apparently the C.C.F. group has not been paying close attention to the actions of this government. I notice by the estimates book, a copy of which I observe the hon. member has in his hand, that the estimates of the Department of National Defence are down $86,921,000 and the expenditures for foreign assistance are increased by $2,481,000 which seems to be consistent with the desire expressed by the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the hon. member for his interest in the policy of this group. The figures he used scarcely have any relevancy to what we have in mind. The government has reduced the defence estimates by $86 million-odd as has been pointed out and with this we have no quarrel but it has taken only $2 million-odd and added it to economic assistance while the balance has been used to bail out the Minister of Finance in his effort to balance the budget. That is not the kind of reduction we had in mind.


Mr. Bigg:: You reduce everything to the gutter.


Hazen Robert Argue: The reduction of $86 million-odd has resulted in an increase in economic assistance of only $2 million. That is not the kind of thing I have in mind. I want to see a large reduction in the estimates for national defence and a large increase in economic assistance.
1 believe the minister said a moment ago that $12,500,000 had been provided this year for the purchase of wheat under the Colombo plan. I would say that would cover between 7 and 7J million bushels of wheat. The reason I am trying to convert dollars into bushels is that I have on my desk the figures in bushels for the previous years. Under both types of programs, so that there will be no argument, in 1957-58 Canada contributed to India, or provided India with 31.1 million bushels of wheat; in 1958-59 it was down to 18.2 million bushels of wheat; and this year it is only 7 million bushels.
I want to register the strongest possible objection to the trend that has set in under this type of program. I do not want to appear
Supply-External Affairs to be in conflict with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that the Colombo plan essentially is for technical and capital assistance and that the provision of wheat and other food is brought about only at the request of the countries which are in receipt of the Colombo plan funds. Whether it be within or without the plan, I think more should be done in the field of providing wheat to Colombo plan countries. I think it is an atrocious situation that we are providing to India, a country of the commonwealth, this year under this program just over 7 million bushels of wheat, when the United States has signed a four-year loan program that will move into the Indian market 146 million bushels of United States wheat annually.
Judging from those figures, one would think that Canada had no surplus of wheat; that we had swept the granaries clean; that our elevators were empty; that our terminals were bare and that the whole problem had been solved. But what we are doing is permitting a reduction in the provision of wheat to India while the United States moves into this commonwealth market on a non-commercial or a semi-commercial basis, replacing Canada and taking over this very valuable market.
The minister of course will realize that if the trend of those figures continues, for all practical purposes next year we shall be excluded or we shall have excluded ourselves from the Indian market.


Howard Charles Green: This is an argument which really should be carried on by the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am told that India has never been a commercial market for Canadian wheat. I would point out to the hon. member for Assiniboia that half of the funds allotted to India under the Colombo plan went for wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not this year.


Howard Charles Green: In 1959-60, $12.5 million. No, that was for all countries, but a very large proportion of the money provided for India was for wheat. I am responsible for the Colombo plan only; I am not responsible for getting rid of the prairie wheat. If we said to the Indian authorities, you must take so much wheat then, of course, we would destroy the whole good will value of the Colombo plan, and the hon. member is putting himself into that position.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all.


Howard Charles Green: We are discussing now the Colombo plan. It is essential to the success of the Colombo plan that the recipient nation should feel it is not having things forced on it. Whether there should be loans outside the

Supply-External Affairs Colombo plan is a different matter. I am not in a position to argue about that, but I do know that the other ministers whom I have mentioned have spared no effort to find ways of disposing of Canadian wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: What the minister has said is correct; he is responsible under this item for the administration of the Colombo plan only. However, the general heading is "Contributions to international, economic and special aid programs". The figures that have been provided by the department in this field range right across the board to include all forms of financial assistance. I am merely putting forth the argument on this item because it is certainly a related item. I realize quite well that a financial loan probably would not be under the Department of Trade and Commerce and certainly not under the Department of Agriculture; it would be under the Minister of Finance. Because of the customary way in which we discuss our estimates I am very much in order in saying on this item that it has been used and is being used for the provision of certain quantities of wheat, and that in my opinion the total over-all Canadian program is completely inadequate; it demonstrates that Canada has missed a great opportunity to assist a nation within the commonwealth on the one hand and to help reduce our surplus on the other. It demonstrates clearly that the opportunity was there. I point out that the United States has seized the opportunity. She is in the Indian market for wheat to the extent of 146 million bushels annually, guaranteed for the next four years.


Mr. Brunsden:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he not feel that Canada, a nation of 17J million people, has played her full part in the Colombo plan and in the shipment of wheat to India?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Chairman, I feel that Canada has not played her full part. The best evidence of that is the mountain of grain from here to the Pacific ocean. If I may answer the question a little more fully, I said on another occasion I felt that Canada should have exerted every effort to obtain 50 per cent of the Indian market for wheat. In other words, of the 146 million bushels annually, Canada should be providing at least 73 million bushels. Therefore, I certainly disagree with the purport of the question of my hon. friend. I feel that what we are doing is exceedingly laudable. It has the support of all hon. members, but it is inadequate in the context of what we should do if the government would provide the required funds.


Mr. Regier:: Is the minister in a position to report on the building of the atomic reactor in India? A lot of information has been bandied about, much of which has not been very complimentary to our efforts. I hope the minister is in a position to clear the air in this regard.


Howard Charles Green: I have the answer to that. With regard to the Canadian Colombo plan program in India, the committee will be interested to know that the Canada-India reactor, which Canada and India are building at Trombay, in India, went into operation last Sunday, July 10. The construction of the reactor, which is similar to the NRX reactor at Chalk River, was started in 1956, and Canada has made available approximately $9 million to cover the cost of the equipment and the training of Indian personnel. The successful completion of this project is a remarkable achievement and a great tribute to the engineers, scientists and technicians of Canada and India who have worked together in close co-operation for the past five years.
The reactor, which is expected to be fully operational this fall, is intended to provide scientists from India and other Colombo plan countries in south and southeast Asia with facilities for carrying out advanced research, for producing radioactive isotopes for use in medicine, agriculture and industry and for the training of students and technicians from India and other countries in southeast Asia. It is a matter of great satisfaction to the people of Canada and, I am sure, to the people of India that this unique project, which is devoted to the peaceful uses of atomic energy, has been carried forward to successful completion.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister in a position to tell the house what the original estimate of the cost of the project was and how much the cost actually turned out to be? I should also like to know who did the actual building. Were Canadian engineering firms involved and, if so, which firms?


Howard Charles Green: I will have to get that information from the officials.


Erhart Regier: I should like to ask about another matter with which the minister is probably familiar. At any time has a serious complaint been lodged with the government with regard to the building of this reactor and, if so, would the minister indicate the nature of the complaint?


Howard Charles Green: This question really should be asked when the estimates of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited are under consideration because the work was done under

their supervision. I am told that some disgruntled Canadian engineer has been writing letters and making complaints about the project but my department does not have the details.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
87. West Indies assistance program, $4,510,000.
Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Chairman, I understand that this vote includes the provision of two ships for the British West Indies. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that the construction of these ships appears to have bogged down completely. I should like to put on the record the statements of his predecessor and some of his present colleagues in the government. On June 17, 1958, more than two years ago, a question I had asked was answered by the minister's predecessor, Hon. Sidney Smith. His reply, which can be found at page 1281 of Hansard, reads in part as follows:
The detailed plans and specifications to which the question is directed have yet to be drawn up... The preliminary advice received is that the vessel will cost almost $2| million.
In August of the same year the Minister of Transport, as found at page 4270 of Hansard, made this statement:
We are preparing plans also for the construction of new ships for the Newfoundland coastal service operated by the Canadian National Railways and a new ship to be made available as a gift from the Canadian government to the new British West Indies Federation.
Then-this is very material-on September 23, 1958, according to Hansard of February 3, 1959, page 623, the Prime Minister issued a press release in which he announced that the Canadian government proposed to recommend to parliament that $10 million be made available to the West Indies over the next five years from Canada and that a sister ship would be built under this program as a partner to the first Canadian ship which Canada had already agreed to provide for the West Indians interisland shipping service.
It was clear in 1959 that two ships were to be provided. On April 16, 1959, as found at page 2740 of Hansard, the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave this information in answer to a question which I had asked him:
The designs of two passenger cargo type vessels have been prepared by a firm of ships' architects according to plans drawn up by officials of the West Indies government and accepted by officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Transport. The designs have been submitted to a shipping expert named by the West Indies government. He has approved the designs, and specifications are now being prepared by the company of ships' architects and will be ready by May 15.
Supply-External Affairs
That was in 1959. He went on to say:
The ships will be built in Canadian shipyards, and it is hoped that they will be ready early in 1961.
As the minister knows, his colleague, the Minister of Finance, went to the West Indies and at Kingston, Jamaica, he made this statement on February 25 of this year:
The first major capital project which we undertook in our aid program consists of the gift of two ships to be used for interisland trading. The ships will cost over $6 million.
Then he gives a description of the ships, which I omit.
The design of the ships is complete. The laying of the keels should take place shortly.
These statements are in large part contradictory. In the first place, in spite of the estimate of the cost made by the predecessor of the Secretary of State for External Affairs the figure is now over $6 million or more than $3 million each, whereas the original cost for one ship was set at almost $2J million. According to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the ships were to be ready early in 1961. The Minister of Finance now states that the laying of the keels should take place shortly and it is expected that the ships will be ready by the middle of next year. If the laying of the keels takes place shortly, the ships certainly cannot be ready in that length of time.
It is now two years since this statement was first made in the house concerning these ships. There is certainly something wrong with the plans and specifications and there is unquestionably a delay in connection with the matter. Could the minister tell the house what is delaying the construction of these ships, the reason for the different statements by several of his colleagues which are in part contradictory and why in effect it would not have been just as well to consider taking the six ships of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and transferring them to the West Indies? They would then have had them in operation at least two years ago.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier had a very sad look on his face as he made these comments. I was wondering whether he was thinking about the William Carson which his government built for the Newfoundland service, which would not even go into the dock when it was built, and all the troubles they had in that regard. He should know better than anyone else in the house that sometimes there is a lot of trouble in connection with the building of ships. In the case of the ships for the West Indies there was difficulty in getting steel for the keels because of the United States steel

Supply-External Affairs strike. My information is that both ships are now scheduled for completion by the end of this year and that they will be in service next year.
I cannot guarantee that. I do not want the hon. member to quote these words against me a year from now because, as I have said, he knows it is sometimes very difficult to be accurate in one's forecast concerning the building of ships. As for the type of ship, I am not qualified to say whether or not the right type is being built. As I understand it, there was agreement between the Canadian authorities and the West Indian authorities and also I believe that the ships formerly owned by Canadian National Steamships would not be suitable for this particular purpose. In any event, I think they had been sold elsewhere.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to say a word in answer to the minister. I am aware of the difficulties which we had with the William Carson. I am also quite aware of the needling that came from this side of the house in connection with the William Carson which was an excellent ship and which has turned out to be-


Howard Charles Green: These might be good ships, too.


Lionel Chevrier: -one which is rendering yeoman service.


An hon. Member:: Has it ever sailed?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, the William Carson has sailed and is now in operation. I could call to my assistance any of the hon. members from Newfoundland who know it has turned out to be an excellent Ship.
However, the point I am making now is, first of all, here are five different statements made by the minister's colleagues, each one different from the other.


Howard Charles Green: There were more statements than that about the William Carson.


Lionel Chevrier: No, there was only one statement made, and it was made by the minister who was in charge of the department or by his successor. The Secretary of State for External Affairs now says the ships of Canadian National Steamships were not suitable. This is just not the case. They were suitable because that is where they operated. The Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships operated between the maritime provinces and the West Indies for 25 years, so those ships would have been suitable for that purpose. This would not have stopped the government to the slightest degree from putting the Canadian National ships into operation until the new ships were complete, if that course was more satisfactory to the British West Indies.

I might add, too, that the ships of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, notwithstanding what the minister had said about them being sold, are down in Halifax lying idle. They are standing still, struck by-


Howard Charles Green: That is the responsibility of the new owner.


Lionel Chevrier: It is probably as a result of the policy of the Canadian government that they have not been able to deal with the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships in the manner in which they should. I did not mean to go into that because it is not a matter of concern to the Department of External Affairs. The only reason I have is that the minister used it in his reply. I think if the minister will press his colleagues he will find there is difficulty over designs with the West Indies federation, either transport or trade and commerce, in connection with the approval of the plans. Until that has been settled, I think it will take far longer than the minister anticipates. If this assistance is to be granted, it should be granted now and not in five years time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is always interesting to secure evidence indicating how experience with official responsibility leads to an understanding and a comprehension on the part of the minister, even of the William Carson.
I wanted to say a word about this vote because it represents a considerable increase, and an increase which we on this side support. We support it because it indicates a recognition of our increased interest in what is going on in the West Indies federation and it represents an attempt on the part of the government which, I think, is a serious one, to show our appreciation of the importance of this development, and to do what we can to assist it.
I am not at all sure, Mr. Chairman-it is not easy to establish priorities and you cannot do everything in government you want to do -if it would not be wise on our part to keep developing our aid and assistance to the West Indies federation even if it might mean, because of the limitation of our resources for this purpose, a cutting down perhaps in some respects in the future our aid to some other parts of the world. The West Indies are close to us. There is a historic and traditional connection between Canada, especially the Atlantic provinces, and the West Indies. I think we should maintain and develop this connection.
The proposal that we join the organization of American states has a bearing on this.
I do not know what the Federation of the West Indies, when it comes into existence

and is completely responsible for its own external relations, will do. I do not know whether it will join the organization of American states. If and when Canada does join this organization, and I do not quarrel with the minister's decision that this is something to which careful consideration should be given-


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he thinks we should join this organization?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was hoping for guidance from the minister, especially in view of the statements he has been making and the trips he has been taking. He has decided, in his wisdom, that public opinion should be allowed to brood over it a little longer. Public opinion has had a long time to brood over the joining of the American states. I am not criticizing that. One result of joining the organization of American states would be that we would be considered by those states as a kind of rich North American contributing partner, and we would certainly have to be that. We would want to participate in any form of economic assistance that might be agreed upon by the organization. The United States is doing a great deal of that at the present time.
It is for this reason I mention what I consider to be the desirability of increasing our assistance of every kind to this new nation which will be within the commonwealth. I think anything the government can do in that regard, and this government shows that they are doing more than they were doing last year at least, certainly will receive the support of this side.


Howard Charles Green: We are still in the process of working out the gift of $10 million. The increase this year is caused by the fact that construction of the ships has reached the stage where more money is required. We are very much interested in the West Indies. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, there is a close tie between these islands and Canada dating back a great many years. I do not think there is any doubt but that every consideration will be given to providing whatever assistance is possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
89. Commonwealth scholarship plan, $500,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a comment in connection with this vote. Normally, I would do it in the French language. In view of what the minister has said, there are just one or two brief remarks I should like to make. I, of course, agree
Supply-External Affairs fully with the item under discussion and commend the government for the idea of establishing these commonwealth scholarships. But I must find myself, in part, in disagreement with what the minister said in the course of his statement. What I shall have to say I hope he will find constructive.
I begin, first, by recalling to him that a vigorous protest was made by one of the directors, I think his title is director of scholarships, in the Canada council of arts and sciences, Mr. Toupin, about which I asked a question in the house while the minister was absent and which was handled by the Minister of Finance. At that time the director, Mr. Paul Toupin, took very serious objection to this program as regards Quebec. He had just attended a conference of the delegates of the association of Canadian universities which took place in Ottawa in connection with these scholarships. This statement was a very categorical one. He went so far as to say that the province of Quebec was not properly treated and that he declared, in his capacity as a director of the division of scholarships of the Canada council, that the universities of Montreal and Laval would not receive very much from the 200 scholarships which the Canadian government would grant and spend approximately $1 million thereon.
It now turns out that he was not so far off base. The Minister of Finance in answer to the question I put following the statement made by Mr. Toupin which appeared in La Presse of Montreal on May 4 denied the allegation. The minister has stated that there will be this year 104 scholarships granted. Four students will be going to Laval University and three to Ottawa University. That means four out of a total of 104, which is certainly not a very substantial proportion for the province of Quebec.
Here is where I find myself in disagreement with the minister, and it may well be that I have misunderstood his words or that they do not bring about the meaning which I put upon them. At page 6295 of yesterday's Hansard, when dealing with this question the minister is reported as having said:
There are not a great number of French speaking students across the commonwealth and some way will have to be found to meet the situation.
I disagree with that approach. It may be strictly true that there are not very many French speaking students who come from the commonwealth, but surely that is not the point. The point is that these students are coming here at the request of the Canadian government to advance their culture.
I can remember one day attending a state dinner and my neighbour was a delegate

Supply-External Affairs from India and to my great surprise he spoke to me in perfect French. I asked him how it was he knew French so well, and do you kow what he told me? He said "I have been following at Laval University in Quebec a course in French Canadian history". I said "Why do that when you live in India?", and he said "I am interested in the history not only of French Canada but of all countries, and I would like to be a specialist in that field".
So does it not boil down to this? I understand that it is not a matter for the government exclusively but is a matter within the committee I mentioned earlier. The committee can direct or assist or aid those students who do want to take post-graduate courses not to go to one university in preference to another but to point out to them that here, for instance, at Laval University are certain facilities, here at the University of Montreal are other facilities in which a student from a particular commonwealth country might well be interested, and here again at Ottawa university are still additional facilities.
While I speak of Ottawa university I think I can make this point in favour of it. It is the only university in this country I believe, unless I am mistaken, that has both the common law and the civil law courses. It is the only university which gives a degree in both common and civil law. That must of necessity have an attraction apart from all its other attributes.
But surely the University of Montreal with all the facilities it has and with all the modern faculties it has at its disposal should be given greater consideration, because of the seven students which the minister has mentioned, four will be going to Laval, three to Ottawa, but none to the University of Montreal. I do not say that in any destructive manner and I am sure the minister will not take it in that way, because he immediately added something which was extremely helpful. As reported on the same page of Hansard he said:
I am not yet In a position to say just how it will be done.
Meaning assistance.
If we suggested, for example, that arrangements be made to bring students here from the French community, which is what the French call their commonwealth, we could run into difficulties with France. I am not sure. But I realize this situation, and we would certainly like to get more French speaking students into Canada.
So that is extremely helpful and I commend the minister for that attitude because I am sure there will be of necessity from the French community students who will want to come here to take post-graduate courses.

Of course there will have to be some kind of arrangement and under this vote there is no such arrangement. The minister has that in mind and that is all to the good; but the point I insist upon and that I come back to is this. Surely if the committee responsible for these scholarships indicates to the commonwealth countries all that the universities of the province of Quebec have to offer there is no doubt in my mind, because of the great culture and the great civilization that is offered by the French Canadian universities in that province, that there are many students, no matter whether they speak languages other than French or English, who will be quite anxious to come and take post-graduate courses at these universities.


Howard Charles Green: I should point out that the government does not make the selections in the first place as to what students come, or in the second place as to what universities they attend. That is all handled by the university people themselves.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I said that.


Howard Charles Green: They have a committee on which all of the French speaking universities are represented, which incidentally have been of great help to us. They have their own selection committee made up of representatives from the different universities and we do not interfere with that. We leave it to them to make their own arrangements; but as I said yesterday the difficulty is that most of the different parts of the commonwealth are English speaking. This is what makes for the imbalance.
We are now trying to work out some way to change that situation and, as I said yesterday, in the case of the French community which is composed of various French speaking nations this would have to be arranged through their governments. We do not want to get into difficulties with France and it may take some working out. At the moment I am not clear just how it could be done.


Lionel Chevrier: Having regard to the fact that in Canada and in many parts of the world today there is a great engouement- and the minister knows what I mean because now that he is Secretary of State for External Affairs he has improved his French a great deal-for French and French culture, and I am sure he could be of great assistance to us in that respect.


Howard Charles Green: I will draw this to the attention of the university committee and see if they cannot get better results.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a point that has been missed in the discussion that the students who attend the University of Montreal or the university of Laval can write their examinations in English and that in many cases the instruction was bilingual. It is not the same, for example, at the University of Manitoba. I know one hon. member of this house who had a son who took a course in architecture. He was not allowed the privilege of writing his examinations in French and as a result he had to quit the course. However, in Quebec students who can write better in English are permitted to write their examinations in English. I think that should do away with the objections that there are few French speaking students coming from commonwealth nations.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to add a few words to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) in connection with the commonwealth scholarship program, which I entirely approve, as a most interesting development.
According to page 6290 of the official record of July 14, 1960, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) rightly stated:
I sometimes worry about the extent of the interest being taken in external affairs across the country.
And, a little further on, he added:
... yet if a country is to take an active part in world affairs-certainly a country which is under a democratic type of government-it is vital that there be a wide awareness across the country of the different policies involved.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this amount of $500,000 voted for this scholarship program would certainly contribute to strengthen the ties between the various commonwealth countries. Consequently, I presume that the young students who come from those countries, and also the young Canadians who visit some parts of the commonwealth, will, when they return home, feel it their duty to give lectures so that their fellow citizens will get a better knowledge of the countries where they stayed and of happenings in those areas of the world.
Mr. Chairman, I know that, since the United Nations were established in 1945, the government of the day has been sending delegates and observers there every year, who considered it their duty to give lectures in
Supply-External Affairs social clubs, universities and various towns in their riding. Such policy certainly had the effect of increasing interest in external affairs among our fellow citizens, because, unfortunately, as the minister rightly indicated, our people do not pay enough attention to such important matters as Canada's external affairs.
It gives me pleasure, therefore, to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Laurier, that French language universities be allowed to play a more important part in this scholarship plan.
It is indeed unfortunate to note that our French language universities are getting only 4 or 7 of the 104 representatives who will be coming to study in Canada. I am not blaming the present minister, because in the speech he made this morning, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) referred to the difficulties in finding French language students who might enrol in our universities.
I realize that the plan is now limited to commonwealth countries, but I wonder whether it could not be extended to the various NATO countries, one of which, as the minister knows, is France. Perhaps there would be a case, in the circumstances, for exchanging students with the French Republic; such a program would enable our French speaking students to pursue their studies in that country. If the minister found that there were too many difficulties in the way of setting up such a program, he might refer the matter to the United Nations.
That organization has various agencies, and I wonder if, in fact, it would not be a good idea for the minister to submit this proposal to the United Nations, which might set up another agency if necessary, so that every member country of the United Nations might exchange students of various languages. This step would probably provide a solution to the very difficult problem which has risen, apart from enabling Canada's French language universities to share more actively in this scholarship program.
Mr. Chairman, I am making those suggestions in the best of spirit, and I know the minister will consider it his duty to study them, so that our universities which, as the minister knows, have an excellent reputation, not only in this country but throughout the world, may be in a position to make known the courses they offer or the importance of the role they can play in this country.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-External Affairs
Multilateral economic aid programs-
90. 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, 1959, which is, $1,903,750.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister say something about this item, Canada's $2 million contribution to the special fund of the United Nations which, I believe, is being administered by Mr. Paul Hoffman, an able and energetic administrator, and from which there are high hopes in the field of international economic assistance. Perhaps the minister could give the committee a detailed account of what has been subscribed to this fund.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Hoffman was in Ottawa a few weeks ago, and several members of the government had very helpful discussions with him. This special fund began operations in 1959 and in the short time since then it has proved to be a successful and well administered program. The plan was designed to assist countries in undertaking surveys of their natural resources, technical training, education and public administration. It has tended to concentrate on relatively large projects which would be beyond the scope of the expanded program of technical assistance. Canada participated in the committee which established the terms of reference. The $2 million is the annual contribution which we are making.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister has the figures for the total resources now available to the fund. I am asking in order to find out what our proportion of the total is. I do not want to hold up the estimates. If the minister tells me it is in the report of the committee, I will find it.


Howard Charles Green: The Leader of the Opposition will find it at page 42 of the report of the proceedings of the standing committee. I think the total is about $32 million this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special aid programs-
93. Contribution to the program of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, $290,000.
Erhart Regier: On this vote I want to express my appreciation to the parliamentary secretary to the minister for the very informative address he gave yesterday on item 1 concerning this question of refugees. I believe the hon. member expressed concern that I might have done the campaign for contributions to world refugee year a bit of harm in a number of the remarks I made in that regard.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I said I hoped it would not.


Erhart Regier: I hope that anything I said hitherto has not harmed a project that has


been reasonably successful and that has provided several million additional dollars to aid refugees. The hon. gentleman did not completely understand my point. We have permitted white refugees to come to Canada from Europe but the refugees in the Middle East are no better off than they ever were. They have been there for a long time. Canadians making contributions to world refugee year out of the goodness of their hearts I believe expected the government to be equitable in expending the money. The money should not be used exclusively to aid white refugees in Europe.
I do not think it is possible for us to continue to maintain the status quo with respect to refugees in the Middle East. An effort has to be made to resolve this problem. If we are prepared to allow 100 tubercular white refugees to enter Canada from Europe I see no reason why we should not allow an equal number to enter Canada from the Middle East or Hong Kong.
On the television screen you see depicted the horrible plight of refugees in Hong Kong. Canada makes no contribution toward their care whatever. We make a contribution to the white refugees from China. I admit that we have admitted many white refugees from Asia and rightly so. We have admitted white refugees out of the European camps and we make a contribution to the maintenance of refugees in the Middle East that only enables them to keep body and soul together. We must do more for the Middle East. The discrimination concerning their entry into Canada should be removed and I hope it will be after the final enactment of the bill of rights. If we are not willing to admit them to Canada we should insist that more should be done for them and we should do more ourselves. The problem of the Middle East will not be resolved as long as there are one million refugees living along the borders of Israel. Canada and other nations will have to spend much more money on this problem than is now being spent.
Canada makes no contribution whatever to non-white refugees in Hong Kong. I do not know why, but apparently this is mainly the responsibility of the government of the United Kingdom. It is not right for us to publicize the plight of refugees in Hong Kong to wring the hearts of kind Canadians in obtaining donations from them if we are unwilling to spend money on behalf of these refugees. Our immigration laws do not permit the entry to Canada from Hong Kong of the non-white relatives of Canadians. We must do more than we are doing to assist in the rehabilitation of these refugees.

I know we cannot admit all the refugees from Hong Kong and I do not propose that. We cannot admit all the refugees from western Europe either. However, if we can admit 100 from western Europe we should be prepared to admit from Hong Kong an equal number of refugees who wish to migrate to Canada but who are now forced to live in the gutters of Hong Kong.


The Deputy Chairman:: It being five
o'clock, in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I should like to ask for the unanimous consent of the house to deal first with item No. 33 on the order paper, an act to incorporate the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to take item No. 33 in advance of the other items?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair may I ask for unanimous consent to have all the bills listed under private bills from No. 2 to No. 39 exclusive of No. 33 grouped under order No. 1 on the order paper. This would facilitate printing.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member renew his request when the committee reports?



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-19, to incorporate The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada-Mr. More.
J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat my request that the bills on the order paper under order Nos. 2 to 39 be placed under order No. 1.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member proposes that all of the bills which are on the order paper for consideration in committee under orders Nos. 2 to 39, with the exception of order No. 33, be consolidated in one motion with the bills already in item No. 1, so that
Supply-Esternal Affairs all of the divorce bills will be referred to the committee in one motion. Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the house will be agreeable to carry on with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. Howard:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is quite true. Perhaps I can suggest that the house might consider in the future that we shall dispense with the consideration of divorce bills, at least until the matter which has now been raised by the Ottawa Citizen and the Toronto Star relating to collusion and perjury in one particular case, which affects a number of other cases, has been disposed of. It seems to me it might be just as well to dispense with the consideration of any further divorce bills until this one matter has been dealt with and cleared up one way or the other.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Speaker, is this house now being run by the Ottawa Citizen and Toronto Star, or by its own rules?


Mr. Speaker:: It is suggested that the house waive the remainder of the hour for consideration of private and public bills. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: And resume the business interrupted at five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Special aid programs-
93. Contribution to the program of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, $290,000.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a few remarks to make on this vote; I trust it is the appropriate one. I have been asked to bring up the problem of certain former Polish persons who are citizens of Canada, or intend to become citizens of Canada, who were cruelly and badly treated by the nazi authorities during the occupation of Poland. Since that time they have made representations along their own lines and on their own understanding of the law in West Germany for compensation from that government. I have had letters from the Polish congress; I have met representatives of the Polish people in this country and a number of other persons interested in their cause. I am rising, Mr. Chairman, because I do think that we

Supply-Esternal Affairs should do all we can to assist these most unfortunate people who suffered this cruelty and mistreatment because of their opposition to the nazi tyranny and government.
In Britain the victims of nazi barbarism have made representations to the British government, and the matter was raised in the British House of Commons on April 6 of this year when the following exchange occurred:
Sir L. Plummer asked the secretary of state for foreign affairs if he will request the German government to publish the details of the special fund for stateless victims of nazi persecution which is being established by them.
Then, Mr. Allan replied:
The fund has not yet been set up by the German government, so no details are yet available. I have read Dr. Chmielowsky's memorandum and can assure my hon. friend that we are doing our best to promote a fair and early settlement for the stateless refugees.
Then, later, Sir L. Plummer asks again- he is a Conservative, but obviously has humanitarian instincts and is anxious to do what he can for these poor people:
Is the minister aware that those of us who are concerned with the problem are grateful to his right hon. and learned friend for the considerable efforts he has made with the federal government? Nevertheless, may I ask the joint undersecretary to say to his right hon. and learned friend that it is time that pressure was put upon the federal government to make clear to the 25,000 victims of nazi persecution who are stateless and the 1,050 people who suffered from the medical experiments that were made upon them, what compensation they will get for their loss of liberty and loss of health?


Mr.   Allen@: I know that my right hon. and learned friend will be grateful for the hon. gentleman's remarks. I can tell him that my right hon. friend the minister of state yesterday sent for the German ambassador and discussed this with him.
I like the word "sent". I might say in this connection I have a number of documents here on my desk; I have consulted with representatives of these victims and I have read a copy of their presentation to the government of West Germany. I have read this material very carefully. When one reads the decisions of the courts in relation to these applications for assistance under German law, his sense of decency and justice is outraged. I do not know whether it is because a few of these blinking nazis are still in quite prominent positions in the courts of Germany; lousy is what they are but we must not kowtow to their injustice. Let me read some extracts from this memorandum:
Poles who were subjected to forced labour in conditions similar to detention encounter the argument that this was no persecution for national reasons, but a measure caused by shortage of labour.
Another Pole encounters the argument that he was dragged into a concentration camp, not as a Pole, but by reason of suspicion of his belonging to a resistance group.

In other words, a member of a resistance group against the German invaders, a patriot.
I continue:
A Polish activist of the radical left, who is seriously ill, is refused any compensation on the grounds that he "certainly" endangered the occupying power. No proof of this was supplied.
A 13 year old child was brought into a concentration camp because the mother had been arrested, allegedly for security reasons. Result: no compensation for the child.
I feel very strongly about this sort of thing, Mr. Chairman, because I have met some of these people. I am informed that the government of Great Britain is officially taking up cases of people who come under their jurisdiction in Great Britain, with the West German government. I urge that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and our officials do what they can to assist these persons, some of whom are citizens of Canada.
I have sent a list of the names to the secretary of state to see that we do whatever we can in order that they obtain justice. I am told that in many cases the answer on the part of the West German government is that these people are not now citizens of Germany and the answer of other governments -I do not know whether our government has made this answer-is that the damages occurred in a country other than that in which these people are now living. These poor people who suffered as a result of nazi persecution and cruelty are as it were shuffled between two points of view and in many cases on that account have been unable to obtain justice. I urge the government to do all it can to persuade the West German government to treat these people fairly according to the text of the law in West Germany with respect to compensation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to say a word in support of the position taken by the hon. member. I have also had some contact with some of these people and I know how they feel about this matter. I know that as Canadian citizens who have suffered from nazi persecution they are entitled to intervention on their behalf by our government, and I would hope that the minister and the department will do everything they can by that kind of intervention with the West German government to see that they get justice. Anything the government can do in that regard will certainly be warmly supported on this side of the house.


Howard Charles Green: We have the details now of the cases of a number of these unfortunate people and we are checking the situation and will do what we can to help them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

International joint commission-
105. 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, $102,808.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring one matter to the attention of the minister. I have already raised it in the house and that is why I can be brief today. It has to do with a decision of the international joint commission and with a matter which I brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport. He very kindly said that inasmuch as he could make representations to the international joint commission and to his colleague he would do so. I believe that the minister has already done so and if he has not I am sure he will. Here is what the matter concerns.
When the international joint commission decided to approve the joint power and seaway development in the international section at Cornwall they made an order of approval, and the order of approval is quite clear. I wish to put two short paragraphs of the order of approval on the record so that the minister will get the gist of my remarks. The order of approval was subject to several conditions, and I should like to refer to two of them. It was ordered that the project be approved of subject to these conditions, among others:
(a)	All interests on either side of the international boundary which are injured by reason of the construction, maintenance and operation of the works shall be given suitable and adequate protection and indemnity in accordance with the laws in Canada or the constitution and laws in the United States.
I would ask the minister to listen to this, if he would be so kind, because I think it means a great deal to the area concerned.
(b)	The works shall be so planned, located, constructed, maintained and operated as not to conflict with or restrain uses of the waters of the St. Lawrence river for purposes given preference over uses of water for power purposes by the treaty, namely, uses for domestic and sanitary purposes and uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of navigation, and shall be so planned, located, constructed, maintained and operated as to give effect to the provisions of this order.
What does all this mean? It means that the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, because of power development, are not allowing the required amount of water to go down the Cornwall canal with the result that there is serious stagnation of the water and an unhygienic condition which has been condemned by the medical officer of health in that area, which was responsible for an epidemic of eye soreness last year and which has caused the closing down of all the bathing spots within that area. In one word, prior to the opening of navigation the velocity of 79951-0-403
Supply-External Affairs the canal was eight cubic feet per second. Because of the power development it has been reduced to four cubic feet per second.
There is a sewer that empties into the canal and always has for years and the velocity of eight feet per second carried away that waste without the slightest trouble or the slightest injury or damage to health. But now, because of the reduction from eight to four feet per second, the position is untenable from the point of view of the velocity, from the point of view of hygiene and from the point of view of this sewer outlet from a whole subdivision adjacent to the city of Cornwall, with the result that this order of the international joint commission is being directly infringed.
When the matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport he seemed to think it was a matter that should be brought to the attention of his colleague. I am interested in the question particularly because I was present at the public hearings in the city of Cornwall prior to the making of the order of approval and the position was clearly stated by the international joint commission. I am sure the commission agrees fully with the position I am taking now because this situation comes within the terms of their order.
There is a way of dealing with the matter which would make things much easier for all parties concerned rather than giving directions, making orders and so forth. If the international joint commission will bring this matter to the attention of Ontario hydro and tell them they are contravening this order I think this will be the end of it. Hydro will increase the velocity of the water flow into the Cornwall canal to do away with this harmful situation which is contrary to the intention of the order and is certainly contrary to anything that the citizens of that area expected. All I am asking the minister to do is to be so good as to bring the matter to the attention of the international joint commission and I am sure can be remedied quickly.


Howard Charles Green: I will see that it is brought to the attention of General McNaughton, the chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, when this item was before the committee I know that General McNaughton appeared and gave the kind of evidence and information which we are now accustomed to expect from him and therefore I do not want to spend much time on it. But because some time has elapsed since this item was considered by that committee I should like to ask the minister whether he can report to the committee on

Supply-External Affairs developments in connection with the Columbia river reference and tell us whether he is optimistic about an agreement being signed shortly. We were told not long ago that there would likely be an agreement between the two governments before the end of this session, but we know that is a movable feast. At that time I think we had in mind that meant July. Can the minister make a progress report on this matter?


Howard Charles Green: I understand that the negotiators have been meeting in Ottawa yesterday and today but so far I have had no report on what progress has been made. This has been a difficult problem because there have been, in addition to the negotiations with the United States, negotiations between the Canadian government and the government of British Columbia.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Which negotiations are the toughest?


Howard Charles Green: I will tell the minister that outside of the house. I think that would be safer than telling him in here.


Lionel Chevrier: Thanks for the compliment to the Leader of the Opposition by calling him a minister.


Howard Charles Green: We are very hopeful that an agreement will be reached, and if the negotiations of the last few days have been successful I do not believe there is the slightest doubt but that the project can go ahead.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether any new difficulties, perhaps, have developed in the last few weeks?


Howard Charles Green: Not between Canada and the United States.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I intended to ask the minister the same question, but the Leader of the Opposition plunged into the Columbia before I got the opportunity. However, I rise particularly to express the appreciation of this group for the service that General McNaughton has rendered to Canada. I am sure I can say as a member of the committee on external affairs that his appearances before that committee, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, are welcomed; they are most informative meetings and thoroughly appreciated. I find that as a result of his appearances before the committee on the many issues that have arisen in recent years, that is various problems connected with rivers and particularly the Columbia, there is an increasing number of people in Canada who are beginning to realize the contribution that General Mc-
[Mr. Pearson.l

Naughton has made to Canadian development as well as to the protection of Canadian rights and interests, particularly with respect to the latest achievement of the international joint commission, the agreement between Canada and the United States with respect to downstream benefits.
In addition to that, I wish to draw the attention of the committee to the retirement of Miss Sutherland, who was the secretary of the commission. I do this because I believe those devoted civil servants who render such faithful and long service should be recognized, even for a moment or two in this house. General McNaughton, when he was before the committee, said:
Miss Sutherland has served the commission with great distinction and has earned the admiration and respect of all who worked with her. She has a very particular knowledge of the discussions in the commission down the years since its formation when many and varied problems related to water along the boundary between Canada and the United States have been under consideration. This knowledge she has constantly made available to the great help of the respective chairmen and commissioners with whom she has been associated.
My colleagues, Mr. Lucien Dansereau and Dr. D. M. Stephens and I view her retirement, after forty seven years' service, with very great regret and we hope she will be spared for many years to enjoy the leisure she has so well earned.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I might say that Miss Sutherland's excellent and devoted service to this country constitutes a splendid example to the young people who are now entering the public service of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am glad the hon. member brought up the question of Miss Sutherland's service because it gives me an opportunity of associating myself and our party with what he has said. When I came to Ottawa in 1928 as a civil servant Miss Sutherland was one of the first civil servants with whom I came in contact. I have learned over the years to appreciate what she has done. I am delighted, therefore, to be able to add my voice to the tribute which has been so well paid to her by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Perhaps he will let me say that no praise given to General McNaughton could possibly be exaggerated.


Howard Charles Green: I thank both hon. members for their complimentary remarks, and I add my own endorsation of all that they have said.


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


Howard Charles Green: May I thank hon. members opposite for the very fine way in which they have treated me during these discussions

and also for their valuable suggestions, even though there were a few bricks mixed up with the flowers.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
327. General administration, $9,784,537.
Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, I know the committee will be very glad to get away from the contentious realm of external affairs and enter the quiet, pacific water of public works. I shall be very brief in my introductory remarks. However, of necessity, because there are so many figures, I shall have to pay close attention to my notes, far closer than I usually do, but probably with better effect.
Most of the questions concerning the estimates of the Department of Public Works which hon. members will want to discuss can best be dealt with, I know, on the individual items and that is the way you prefer it rather than an introductory statement. I think, however, with your permission I should like to indicate to you some of the salient points of interest. My remarks will be made under three headings: First, a summary of the noteworthy features in the departmental operation in the 1959-60 fiscal year; second, the highlights of the public works program for 1960-61; and, third, an explanation of the reductions in the estimates for 1960-61 compared with those of 1959-60.
Dealing with No. 1, a review of the operations of 1959-60, I may say the total appropriations for 1959-60, both statutory and non-statutory, amounted to $233.5 million. The expenditures in 1959-60 were $211.7 million, which is approximately 90.7 per cent of the amount requested. Judging by the department's activities in past years, this is a good record. The ratio between expenditures. that is work carried out and total estimates, work planned, has been as low as 70 per cent in 1952-53 and as high as 97 per cent under my predecessor the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, during 1957-58.
Expenditures on public buildings in 195960 were $44.1 million, and on harbour and river projects, $28 million. Payments to provincial governments for the federal government's share of trans-Canada highway construction were $53.2 million, an increase of $2 million over the previous fiscal year. This is the largest expenditure that has been made on the trans-Canada highway in any fiscal year so far. The amounts for previous years were $51.1 million, 1958-59; $49.4 million, 1957-58; and $24.8 million, 1956-57. Then, of course, there are expenditures on the trans-Canada highway through national parks 79951-0-4034
Supply-Public Works which, as members know, are entirely a federal responsibility and these amounted to $12 million for the year.
During the year 1959-60 contracts were awarded for 55 standard post office buildings across the country under a program explained in some detail by my predecessor during the discussion of public works estimates last year. This program which is now becoming one of a continuing nature has been extremely well received and has resulted not only in improved services but in the addition of handsome small buildings in many of the smaller Canadian communities.
Turning to the larger projects, important buildings were completed during 1959-60 in various centres across the country, and I would just like to review the most important of them.
Newfoundland: The Sir Humphrey Gilbert building and the post office building in St. John's.
Prince Edward Island: The Souris east public building.
New Brunswick: The Grand Falls public building.
Quebec: The national revenue building at Montreal as well as the public building at Sept lies.
Ontario: Public buildings in Belleville and Stratford, a new unemployment insurance commission building at Peterborough and also the Mackenzie building at Toronto.
Manitoba: The customs and immigration facilities at Emerson and a public building at Portage la Prairie.
Saskatchewan: A contract for a new public building at Saskatoon was awarded in November of 1959.
British Columbia: A public building at Port Alberni.
Northwest Territories: A public building at Inuvik.
A number of large projects were completed by the harbours and rivers engineering branch during the year. They include the improvements to the harbour at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland; enlargement of the wharf at Pointe au Pic, Quebec; and dredging at several Ontario ports:	Bay of Quinte
Cobourg, Oshawa and Port Hope. Important dredging and harbour improvement work associated with the seaway at Toronto and Hamilton were also completed or were nearing completion during the year.
Large harbour development programs at the lakehead in Ontario and St. John's, Newfoundland, which take a number of years to complete, made good progress. A good rate of activity was also maintained on harbour

Supply-Public Works improvement works at Pointe au Pere, in Quebec, and at Campbell River and Port Alberni in British Columbia.
Construction of two large bridges, the interprovincial bridge from Campbellton, New Brunswick to Cross Point, Quebec, and the low level canal bridge at Burlington, Ontario, was continued at a good pace during 1959-60.
There was a good increase last year in the construction work done by the Department of Public Works for other government departments with funds provided in their appropriations. From the department's standpoint, this is a source of satisfaction because it indicates increasing confidence by other departments in the ability of public works to meet their requirements, which in some cases are quite specialized. More than 300 projects for a total of 16 departments were handled during the year, and the resulting expenditure was $43.5 million. This is about $10 million higher than the value of work done for other departments in 1958-59.
Public works maintenance and operation activities, which involve not only public buildings but bridges, wharves, graving docks, a testing laboratory and maintenance dredging for navigation, were carried out at a level comparable to that for the previous fiscal year.
Now may I deal with the highlights of the present fiscal year 1960-61. First, with the major projects proceeding at the present time, quite a few major projects which take more than one year to complete will be continued in 1960-61. These include the $13 million St. John's harbour development in Newfoundland, the construction of the large harbour terminal at the head of the lakes and several large buildings. In addition, construction will be started on a number of projects for which planning and preliminary work was done with funds from the 1959-60 estimates. The following are some of the more important projects in this category.
New Brunswick: Moncton, addition and alternations to the public building at an estimated cost of $1,800,000.
Quebec: At Quebec city, a postal terminal. This $3 million project has been delayed because of complicated site negotiations but I am very happy to say they have now been resolved. Tenders have been received and it is expected that construction will commence in a matter of weeks. Then in Montreal there is the new building for the Department of Veterans Affairs at an estimated cost of $1,250,000. Outside the large metropolitan area public buildings are proposed for the communities of Hudson, $30,000; Laval des Rapides, $150,000; and Les Escoumains, $30,000.

Ontario: Similarly, new public buildings are planned for several smaller municipalities in Ontario. At Caledonia, $45,000; Chesterville, $30,000; West Lome, $30,000; Ingersoll, $75,000; and Downsview, $250,000. As to Ottawa, the building program in the capital will include renovations to the west block, which as all hon. members know were begun earlier to provide more accommodation for members of parliament and House of Commons services. As hon. members also know, they wished the exterior appearance of the building to be preserved, although there may be some very minor changes. At Toronto a study of the requirements and preliminary planning will be continued during 1960-61 for a large postal terminal, but no construction will be started. This is very much needed but it takes some time to plan.
Manitoba: At Winnipeg, a new building for the unemployment insurance commission at an estimated cost of $1.5 million.
Alberta: At Edmonton, a major addition and alterations to the postal terminal building at an estimated cost of $4 million, including acquisition of the required site.
British Columbia: At Penticton a new building, $790,000; at Prince Rupert a new public building, $350,000
Yukon and Northwest Territories: Construction of residential housing for federal government employees will be continued during the year at several northern locations. The centres affected are Fort Smith, Inuvik, Yellowknife and Whitehorse.
May I now say a word about the standard post office construction program which has drawn a great deal of commendation from members on both sides of the house. The construction program for these standard post offices in the smaller Canadian communities will be continued. Our tentative plans call for construction at 61 locations during 196061. However, because of factors still not determined, such as acquisition of the sites in some cases, it is not possible to be definite at this time on the total number involved. With the carrying out of this proposed program a total of approximately 175 Canadian communities will have received one of these attractive and useful public buildings since the program began in 1958-59.
Now as to the trans-Canada highway through national parks. In the national parks the responsibility is entirely on the federal government for the construction of the trans-Canada highway and progress in these sections has been quite satisfactory. There is something we can control ourselves, and we are in sole charge of it as well as paying for it. At the present time there is a bituminous pavement throughout Banff and Yoho

national parks and we expect that a bituminous surface will be placed in the Terra Nova park in Newfoundland and also in the Revelstoke sections by the end of the present construction season. This will leave only the section through Glacier national park, and all of it is now under grading contract. We plan to do the paving through Glacier during the 1961 construction season.
Part of the route in Glacier national park, incidentally, passes through avalanche country, and we have had to be particularly careful in our handling of this problem. Several questions have been asked about this from time to time. Research to determine the most effective type of avalanche defence has been going on since 1953, and the results are now being put into effect. This will give us a system of avalanche defences comparable in standards of safety to the best mountain highways in the world.
I might add that an avalanche forecasting system has been in operation in this section for two years now, just as if the road were actually open to traffic, and it has proved to be very accurate indeed. By using this forecasting system and the information obtained by research, the expected time that the highway will be forced to close to traffic during an average year has been reduced to about 12 days. This is much better than we had previously anticipated.
The mile of road which includes these snow sheds, some 2,475 feet of them in all, is undoubtedly the most expensive mile in the whole trans-Canada highway. It is estimated to cost $3.5 million, everything included. For tourist purposes, the new route passes through some of the world's most spectacular mountain scenery, and I have no doubt that hon. members who have been to this part of the country will bear me out in this connection. In addition, the new route will cut more than 100 miles from the length of the trip between Golden and Revelstoke which represents another major advance.
Speaking of the trans-Canada highway, we had a long debate on that when the act was amended, so I shall refer to it only very briefly. Progress on the trans-Canada highway as a whole does, of course, depend on the construction programs of the various provincial highway departments. At present, there are two main gaps in the highway. The first is north of lake Superior, between Agawa and White River, and the other between Revelstoke and Donald in British Columbia. Good progress is expected on both of these sections in the present construction season. The Ontario section is expected to be open to traffic this year, and the British Columbia section may be open in 1961, depending on construction progress. When this happens, our
Supply-Public Works
new national highway will, for the first time, be passable throughout. Those hon. members who have had the opportunity of listening to the radio series on the trans-Canada highway will have been fascinated by the adventures of the C.B.C. reporters who are presently traversing this highway. The program has met with a very good reception.
As to the works program of construction for other government departments, that will continue at a high level. From indications given to us by the other departments of government the dollar value of this work will be only slightly less than last year which was a very good year. Over 300 projects with a total estimated value of more than $200 million are included in the program. The expenditure for 1960-61 is expected to run to $41.6 million compared to $43.5 million in 1959-60.
Among the more notable projects which will be undertaken on behalf of other government departments are the following:
Dartmouth, N.S.-Oceanography institute for mines and technical surveys, $2,600,000.
La Tuque, P.Q.-8 classroom school and dormitory for citizenship and immigration, $1,000,000.
London, Ont.-New wing for the Westminster hospital for D.V.A. (contract awarded) $6,000,000.
Swift Current, Sask.-Laboratory building for agriculture, $1,600,000.
Edmonton, Alta.-New Charles Camsell hospital,

Then with regard to work overseas, this is, I think, a departure: we now have consulting architects from Canada appointed for the new chancery building at Canberra, Australia, and it is expected that construction will begin late this year. Canadian architects have also been appointed for two other buildings overseas, Ankara and New Delhi, under a co-operative arrangement between public works and the Department of External Affairs. It is hoped that we shall be able to use Canadian architects in future for all of our overseas work in the design of embassies, chanceries and other buildings. I hope this committee will agree with our plans in this respect.
As to administration, operation and maintenance costs, hon. members will notice that in the estimates for 1960-61 the proposed expenditure on administration, operation and maintenance is $67.6 million, a decrease of $0.9 million from the previous year. This has been achieved despite increases in the cost of materials and services, and higher salary costs. As a matter of fact, the higher salary costs amounted to $490,000 due to normal salary adjustments plus a very modest staff establishment increase of about 1 per cent.

Supply-Public Works
The total amount requested tor 1960-61 is $201 million, including $195.9 million requested in the main estimates and $5.1 million in supplementary estimates. Hon. members may recall that a great part of that was for the purpose of an additional building to supplement Canada House in London. This total represents a reduction from 1959-60 of $25.5 million.
Of the total requested, the statutory items for the two years are comparable. The reduction occurs in the non-statutory items, estimated at $153 million compared to $178.5 million in the 1959-60 estimates. The 1960-61 figure represents a total reduction of $38.4 million from the estimates total of 1958-59, which was the highest total in history.
The decrease between the years is almost entirely in the construction side of the department's activities. The total amount requested for capital construction items for 1960-61 is $85.4 million compared to a total of $110.0 million in 1959-60. Although the dollar value of the program is reduced we expect to improve our record for 1959-60 in the percentage of the work carried out. The percentage of expenditure against the 196061 estimates should be higher than the 90 per cent attained last year. By categories,
the decrease in the down as follows:	over-all	estimates	breaksCategory Capital	1960-61	1959-60	ChangeBuildings 	
Marine works and	40.4	52.8	-12.4capital dredging ..	28.6	35.5	- 6.9Highways and bridges	14.1	19.1	- 5.0Other 	2.3	2.6	- .3Subtotals 	85.4	110.0	-24.6Administration,	operation and maintenance 	67.6	68.5	- 0.9Totals 	153.0	178.5	-25.5
That is a preliminary survey. When the items are reached I will be happy to answer any questions within my ability. In the meantime I will not take up the time of the committee by trying to answer every question as it is asked. I hope that at the end of the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite and before the main items are dealt with in particularity I shall be able to answer all questions, if possible, to the satisfaction of hon. members of the opposition.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a word at this stage. I should first like to thank the minister for the statement he has made which I believe will assist us in discussing his estimates. I was surprised at the brevity of his statement. The minister will recall that in 1958 particularly we were subjected to a lengthy speech on the part of his predecessor wherein he cited in detail all the achievements and accomplishments of his department. I am wondering today if we may judge from the shortness of his statement that the minister is not too happy about the achievements of his department during the last fiscal year.


David James Walker: Just being modest, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Denis:: Or out of breath.


Maurice Bourget: Modesty is a virtue which I commend to the minister himself. Due to the fact that it is five minutes to six I wonder if with the unanimous consent of the committee, Mr. Chairman, you could call it six o'clock?
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I take it that there is no change in the program announced last evening for next week by the house leader.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no change, Mr. Speaker, except the addition to the legislative items of the bill introduced this morning by the Minister of Finance which was given first reading. On Monday we will take the legislative items, the six items of the Department of Transport and then carry on with the very important estimates of the Department of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister care to go any further concerning Wednesday? I believe he said we would have finance on Tuesday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It depends on the progress we make on Monday. I would prefer to wait until Monday night before making any forecast concerning Wednesday.


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

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


[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
75.	Departmental administration, $6,370,736.
76.	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, $10,042,971.
77.	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, $1,037,000.
78.	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, $255,958.
79. 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), and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of such expenses, $63,088.
80.	Official hospitality, $40,000.
81.	Relief and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens abroad and their dependents and for the reimbursement of the United Kingdom for relief expenditures incurred by its diplomatic and consular posts on Canadian account (part recoverable), $15,000.
82.	Canadian representation at international conferences. $295,000.
83.	Grant to the United Nations association in Canada, $11,000.
84.	Grant to the Canadian Atlantic co-ordinating committee, $2,500.
85.	To assist in defraying the costs of the commonwealth and empire law conference to be held in Canada in 1960, $15,600.
Contributions to International Economic and Special
Aid Programs-
Bilateral economic aid programs-
86.	Colombo plan, $50,000,000.
87.	West Indies assistance program, $4,510,000.
88.	Technical assistance to commonwealth countries and territories other than those eligible for assistance under the Colombo plan or West Indies assistance program, $500,000.
89.	Commonwealth scholarship plan, $500,000.
Multilateral economic aid programs-
90.	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, 1959, which is, $1,903,750.
91.	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, 1959, which is, $1,903,750.
92.	Contribution to the operational budget of the international atomic energy agency, $50,000.
Special aid programs-
93.	Contribution to the program of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, $290,000.
94.	Contribution to the United Nations children's fund, $650,000.
95.	Contribution to the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the near east, $500,000.
96.	Contribution towards the far eastern program of the intergovernmental committee on European migration, $60,000.
97.	Contribution towards the malaria eradication program of the world health organization, $100,000.
Other Payments to International Organizations and
Programs-
98.	Assessments 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, 1959, $4,207,526.
99.	Contribution to the program of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's science committee in an amount of $130,870 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1959, which is, $124,572.
100.	Payment to the international civil aviation organization in part reimbursement of compensation paid to its Canadian employees for Quebec income tax for the 1959 taxation year, $12,000.
101.	To provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates, $215,716.
102.	Contribution to the United Nations technical assistance administration training centre at the University of British Columbia, $10,000.
103.	Grant to the international committee of the Red Cross, $15,000.
104.	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 December, 195.9, which is, $1,331.
B-International Joint Commission-
105.	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, $102,808.
106.	Canada's share of the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations of the international joint commission, $73,500.
A-Department-
510.	Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, equipment and furnishings-further amount required, $135,500.
Contributions to international economic and special aid programs-
511.	Purchase of flour to be given to the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the near east, $1,500,000.
512.	Canadian participation in the work of the European productivity agency of the organization for European economic co-operation, $20,000.
[Stage Direction]
Other payments to international organizations and programs-
513.	Purchase and transfer of wheat flour to assist in the establishment of strategic stock piles of food supplies in member states of the North
Supply-Items Passed
Atlantic Treaty Organization, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, $6,000,000.
514.	To reimburse the agricultural commodities stabilization account for canned pork donated to international relief agencies, $2,703,559.
79951-0-404


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, July 1, 1960.
K. LeM. Carter, Esq.,
President,
Canadian Welfare Council,
55 Parkdale Avenue,
Ottawa 3, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Carter,
My colleagues and I have had an opportunity to complete our consideration of the brief on the subject of refugees which your council submitted to us on March 17 last.
The results of our study and the decisions which have been reached with respect to the five recommendations contained in your presentation are enumerated below.
1.	Your council recommended that the government should extend beyond the end of world refugee year the program allowing for private sponsorship of refugee families. You will recall that I announced in the House of Commons on March 17 last that the sponsorship arrangements relating to refugee families would be extended beyond the end of June 1960, the month in which world refugee year comes to an official end.
2.	Your council recommended that the government, in consultation with the provinces, should increase the number of refugee families admitted to Canada with one or more members suffering from tuberculosis, and that the program connected with T.B. families should be extended beyond the end of world refugee year, if necessary, in order to carry out such arrangements. At the time your recommendation was presented to the government, it had already been announced that Canada was ready to admit one hundred T.B. cases from the refugee camps, together with any dependents they might have. Announcement has since been made of the decision to admit a further one hundred T.B. cases with dependents, including in this second group some families which may have more than one member suffering from the disease. Arrangements have now been completed which will permit the first group of families under this extended arrangement to come forward to Canada on or about July 18, with a second group scheduled to come forward on July 25, and the remaining group in the first few days of August.
3.	Your committee suggested that the special program developed in connection with world refugee year should be enlarged to include
not only private sponsorship of refugee families in camps in Europe, but also private sponsorship of European refugee families not in camps, as well as refugee families in other parts of the world. European refugee families not in refugee camps are already covered under existing provisions for private sponsorship.
Financial assistance is already being given through a special contribution to the United Nations high commissioner for refugees to assist refugee families in other parts of the world but, since the main objective of the high commissioner during world refugee year has been to clear the camps in Europe, it is considered that, apart from the special financial contribution already referred to, the Canadian offer to assist the high commissioner should be directed principally to the primary objective which he has set for his program.
4.	I should like to comment now on the suggestion contained in your brief that the federal government should permit the admission to Canada in connection with world refugee year of numbers of refugee children, regardless of their origin, under a plan which would contemplate their legal adoption by families in Canada. This is, as you will readily appreciate, a complicated problem, primarily because the exclusive jurisdiction with respect to legal adoption rests with the provincial governments. The child welfare departments of the provinces and the child welfare agencies throughout Canada have at the present time large numbers of children in their care and, while not all of them by any means can be considered eligible for adoption under the standards set by the provincial authorities and adoption agencies in Canada, there are, none the less, substantial numbers of Canadian-born children who might be considered for adoption in Canadian homes if standards comparable to those which would have to be considered for refugee children were to be applied in connection with our own Canadian children.
The department concerned has been in touch with the various provincial child welfare authorities in this matter and has sought their reaction to your proposal. While yet to hear from a number of the provincial governments as to their views, the conclusion has been arrived at that, in individual cases, prospective adoptive parents in Canada may apply for the admission of an individual orphan refugee child, to be brought to Canada for

purposes of legal adoption subject to two provisos, namely: (a) in such cases the provincial child welfare authority concerned shall have approved the application and confirmed that suitable Canadian children are not available, and (b) shall have undertaken to give continuing supervision to the proposed adoption during the probationary period required by provincial laws-when these provisos have been complied with, arrangements will be made by the federal authorities which will permit the admission of such a child to Canada.
5.	I come finally to your recommendation that the federal government, in consultation with the provinces, should accept responsibility for providing established public health and welfare services for privately-sponsored refugee families admitted to Canada under the special program which has been in effect during world refugee year. You will have noted in this connection the results of recent negotiations with the province of Ontario, which have resulted in an announcement by the government of that province that, while they are not in a position to assist in the provision of transportation costs of the maintenance and care of privately-sponsored refugee families during the first six months of their stay in Ontario, the Ontario government, at the expiration of six months, will provide necessary welfare assistance to these privately-sponsored refugee families, if they should find themselves in need of it.
The assistance being provided by the Ontario government in accordance with this announcement will be that normally provided to persons in need throughout the province under
the provincial general welfare assistance act, or other appropriate legislative enactments. In most of these arrangements the federal government, under existing legislation, shares the cost of assistance provided.
I am sure you will agree that the announcement made by the Ontario government in this matter will do much to facilitate the working out of arrangements for the private sponsorship of refugee families and, if other provincial governments agree to similar arrangements, it will do much to meet the objectives which your council had in mind in presenting the recommendation concerning the acceptance of public responsibility in this matter.
In most provinces it would appear that, even without any special arrangements such as those which have not been developed in Ontario, the extent of the responsibility of the private sponsors of refugee families, once they have been landed in Canada, does not normally go beyond a year or two at the most. The federal government will continue to work with the provincial governments to the end that refugee families entering Canada will be enabled to come under the protection of existing health and welfare legislation as soon as they are eligible to benefit therefrom, and in this way, with the active interest and support of voluntary organizations, together with the joint efforts of governments at all levels, my colleagues and I are satisfied that we shall continue, even after the end of world refugee year, to contribute in an important measure to the solution of this compelling human problem.
Yours sincerely,
John G. Diefenbaker.
79951-0-404J
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 18, 1960