1960-02-11

WINDSOR HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS ACT


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-4 (from the Senate), to amend the Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OSHAWA HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS


George Harris Hees: the first reading of Bill No. S-5 (from the Senate), to incorporate the Oshawa harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NANAIMO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS


George Harris Hees: the first reading of Bill No. S-10 (from the Senate), to incorporate the Nanaimo harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDIAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to continue the examination and consideration, begun by a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, pursuant to a resolution of the house on April 29, 1959, of the Indian Act, chapter 149, R.S.C. 1952, and amendments thereto, and to suggest such amendments as they may deem advisable, with authority to investigate and report upon Indian administration in general and, in particular, on the social and economic status of the Indians;
That twenty-four members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf
of the house as members of the said committee and that standing order 67 (1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the records, exhibits and evidence received and taken by the joint committee during the last session of parliament aforesaid be made available to the said joint committee and made part of the records thereof;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses under oath; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time; and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENTS TO EXTEND PERIOD OF PAYMENTS AND INCREASE MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES

Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to extend until March 31, 1964, the period during which contributions or payments may be made to the provinces under the act and to prolong until December 31, 1963, the period in respect to which construction costs may be incurred under this act; and to provide also that the aggregate of all expenditures under the act may be increased to a maximum of four hundred million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to extend its application to the years 1961, 1962 and 1963; and to provide also for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the very serious crash landing of a T.C.A. plane at Malton airport last night, and the disturbing report attributed to radar operators that practice attempts in the United States to jam Russian radar screens are fouling up commercial radarscopes at the airport, can the minister say whether such jamming contributed to this crash and whether the Canadian government has objected to the United States that the operation of the Canadian commercial radarscope at Malton airport is being interfered with?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I understand that in this accident the plane went off the end of the runway after touching down, but I am not in any position to comment on the causes of the accident. Both departmental and air line investigators are already at work looking into the situation, and this inquiry will be -carried forward.
With regard to the hon. member's reference to the jamming of Malton radar, it is known that theoretically United States military exercises in radar jamming within the boundaries of the United States might in some circumstances interfere with Canadian air traffic control operations which are located close to the United States boundary, but in fact this has not happened.
This situation is being kept under review, and should anything serious develop there exist in the standing arrangements for consultation between my department and the United States federal aviation agency adequate channels through which this type of problem can be dealt with.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would care to tell the house whether the report in the Montreal Gazette this morning is correct, which states:
Radar operators at suburban Malton airport reported to the federal transport department that-
-such jamming was going on. My supplementary question is this. Was it stated to the department by those radar operators that jamming was taking place?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can state the answer any more clearly than to say that this jamming theoretically can

take place; but, if the hon. member was listening, I said that in fact this has not happened.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, did the radar operators at Toronto report that it was happening when presumably the investigation showed it was not?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have said several times now that it did not happen.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no report that it did happen?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Can the
minister tell us whether the plane was making a ground controlled approach immediately previous to the accident?


George Harris Hees: As I said, I am not aware of any more of the details than I have given already.



FURTHER STATEMENT ON CONTROL OF CANADIAN AIR TRAFFIC BY SAGE NETWORK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier asked two supplementary questions regarding air traffic control and my answers are as follows.
I assume that the hon. member referred to air traffic control rather than SAGE control, and in this event a full answer to his question would be highly technical. I will content myself with saying that this would depend on the nature of the air traffic control arrangements which may be worked out.
The answer to his second supplementary question again depends upon the interpretation of his question. I do not believe there are SAGE directional centres in Boston or Atlantic city. At Boston a research program of importance is being carried forward with regard to the use of radar and electronic computers and related to the type of equipment -which may be involved in SAGE for control purposes; while at Atlantic city are located the new major research and development facilities of the U.S. federal aviation agency, covering all fields of aviation. My department is maintaining close and continuing contact with the work at both places through frequent visits as well as meeting for the exchange of information with F.A.A. officials.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of

Agriculture this question. When a provincial minister of agriculture assures him that the cattle breeders of a prescribed area want the test and slaughter plan inaugurated for brucellosis control, does the minister's department pay compensation on animals condemned on the first test? If not, when does compensation payment commence?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, once an area has been designated as a brucellosis control area for the eradication of brucellosis, livestock owners are eligible for compensation for cattle which prove positive to the test and are ordered slaughtered by this department. The compensation is available for all official tests, starting with the first.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether the hon. lady has received any protest from Chief Joseph Logan and other members of the Six Nations band protesting the use of trust funds belonging to the band to pay the children's aid society. If so, has the minister any comment on this protest?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no protest. The Indian affairs branch does have agreements with some 20 or 25-I am not sure of the exact number- children's aid societies, and the children's aid society of Brant county is one of them. This agreement has been in effect for about three years now, after receiving the approval of the provincial government, and was instituted in order to ensure that the children on Indian reserves receive as adequate care as that extended to children who occupy non-Indian residences. We are quite happy with the agreement as it exists. A member of the Six Nations band council is on the children's aid society committee which operates the service in Brant county.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. lady say whether the children's aid society is in fact paid from trust funds or by the department?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If they receive any funds at all they would be received with the approval of the band council which has control, as the hon. member knows, of the funds that are expended.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CHIPPEWA RESERVE, SARNIA    INQUIRY AS TO EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: In the light of exchanges which took place in the Ontario legislature on Tuesday, I wonder whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration can confirm to the house the information which she gave last June 4. At that time I asked this question:
Did the minister receive an application from Ontario hydro for permission from the governor in council to institute expropriation proceedings on the Chippewa Indian reserve at Sarnia?
At that time the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration answered categorically no. I wonder whether she could confirm that answer ax the present time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the original answer I gave is correct.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister seen the news item in yesterday's Toronto Globe and Mail indicating that Australia is opening the door for 3,000 refugees? Can the minister inform the house whether the government will consider similar action to enlarge the number of refugees admitted to Canada?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I answered a similar question in the latter part of January. There have been a great number of refugees enter Canada within the last year. Of course when you relate this 3,000 to the 100 tubercular refugees, that makes a little different story; but I told the house that close to 3,000 refugees came into Canada last year over and above the number who, with their families, came in as tubercular refugees.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES NATIONAL GALLERY  INQUIRY AS TO REQUIRED DRESS FOR OPENING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, because I like the sound of the minister's voice may I direct another question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


George Harris Hees: A change of pace.


Azellus Denis: Can the minister give the reasons why guests invited to the opening of the national gallery will have to wear white ties

Inquiries of the Ministry where the ceremonies will take place and where presumably the Prime Minister will he, while black ties or no ties at all will be acceptable in other parts of the building?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Postmaster General is jealous. In answer to the hon. member's question, the only thing I can say, after having answered this question two or three times now, is that I propose to attend the ceremonies myself and may I say for the hon. member's information that I do not propose to wear a white tie or any other tie.


Azellus Denis: May I ask the minister another question. If I do not wear a white tie may I have the pleasure of meeting her there?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid we cannot conduct such an agency here.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask a supplementary question which springs from some telephone calls I tried to put through before coming into the house. As a result of my attempts to telephone the family allowances division I find that the number given in the new telephone book is actually the number of the national gallery. Would the minister see that this added embarrassment to the national gallery is corrected as soon as possible, so that white ties will not be confused with three cornered ones?



REQUEST FOR FEDERALLY SPONSORED &quot;BUY CANADIAN&quot; CAMPAIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent importing into Canada automobiles and consumer goods of a kind already made here, has the Department of Trade and Commerce given any consideration to sponsoring a national campaign to make Canadians "Buy Canadian" conscious?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I doubt the urgency of this question, Mr. Speaker. The problem of encouraging Canadians to buy goods made in Canada is one which is of importance, and that type of campaign has been going on under the auspices of business organizations for some considerable time.


Hubert Badanai: Has the department given any consideration to a national campaign sponsored by the government? That was the question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no consideration being given, at the moment, Mr. Speaker, to a national campaign under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The hon. member's suggestion will be taken under advisement.
(Translation):



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan).
On Thursday, January 28 last, I asked the minister why an important interview with the new premier of Quebec, which had been scheduled for 9 p.m. on January 24, was cancelled without any reasons being given. On Tuesday, February 2, the minister answered that the cancellation arose as the result of a misunderstanding between the office of the premier and the office of the C.B.C.
According to a report just issued by the Quebec information service the premier of Quebec had informed the C.B.C., nine days previously, that he could not take part in this program.
Could the minister ask the C.B.C. authorities to inquire further into this matter?
(Text):


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: If the hon. member will send me a copy of his speech I shall attempt to reply.


Guy Rouleau: I should like to ask a supplementary question.
(Translation):
Could the minister also inquire of the C.B.C. whether, in fact, the program was cancelled because the premier was afraid he might put his foot in it, during this live broadcast, as was done by some federal ministers?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is taking advantage of the opportunity that is given to him to ask questions to attempt to give information.



REQUEST FOR COVERAGE OF OLYMPIC HOCKEY GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue, to whom I have not been able to give notice of this question, whether he would take up with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the desirability of televising over the C.B.C. some or all of the hockey games at the Olympic winter sports in which the Canadian team takes part, notwithstanding the fact that the Columbia Broadcasting System seems to have the rights for such televising on this continent.


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall be glad to take the matter up with the C.B.C. management; but as the hon. member says, or as I gather, there is a prior contractual situation there which makes it very difficult.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that in several parts of the country hospital accommodation could be offered in sanitariums where such space is available, would the government be prepared to consider the payment of grants for the conversion of such institutions in order that they may provide general hospital care?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My department would be pleased to hear from any province on projects of this type under the hospital construction grant, either for new construction or major renovation.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: May I ask a supplementary question. What advice would the minister give to the people of Ottawa with respect to the provincial institution here, which is underemployed in so far as hospital beds are concerned, and is very close to the Ottawa Civic hospital?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not know to which institution the hon. member is refer-ing, but my previous answer applies in all cases.



SILICOSIS-REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE OF PROVINCIAL HEALTH MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-BurTard):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that many Canadians are presently suffering from silicosis, and in view of the fact that a number of these people have moved from province to province, making it difficult to establish in which province the disease was contracted, with the resultant refusal of each province and each compensation board to grant assistance, would the minister try to arrange at an early date a conference of ministers from each of the provinces dealing with health and welfare in order to bring about a satisfactory settlement of these problems?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This problem in my estimation is purely of a provincial administrative nature. I would suggest that possibly the hon. member might wish to bring the situation to the attention of the association of provincial workmen's compensation boards.
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet put another question to me yesterday about the position of air terminal superintendent at the Montreal airport.
As I have already said, the services of a bilingual person are required. I also mentioned that the position is filled by the civil service commission. I suggest to anyone wishing to apply that he send in his application to the civil service commission, quoting competition No. 60-489.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I think the minister is mistaken. This question was put by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, and not by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet.
(Text):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he noticed in yesterday's Ottawa Journal an article headed "$72,000 from government has them in a fog" which has reference to a $72,000 "program of improvements to the Porcupine airport" included in the estimates which is said to have "aroused confusion in Timmins, Ottawa and

Inquiries of the Ministry Toronto". Can the minister tell the house whether or not this is one of the items which passed that careful and detailed review by the treasury board which he reported to the house on February 4?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is that matter not better left to be dealt with on the estimates, when the item comes before the house?


William Moore Benidickson: Surely we should get out of the fog in the meantime.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: You will never get out of your fog; it is self created.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make the Postmaster General jealous. I should like to ask him this question. Is he aware of another robbery which took place at Ste. Rose on Monday last, involving an amount of over $50,000? If so, does he consider that this is a regular and ordinary part of the service he gives to the general public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This recurring question I think I shall have to deal with by putting a prohibition on it. I have expressed my view on it previously. Unless there is some unusual circumstance, it is not proper to bring so often before the house as an oral question the ordinary administration of the criminal law dealing with robberies, whether in connection with post offices, banks or any other institutions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely the hon. member should not be discouraged in his efforts to protect the taxpayers' money in this way, and to persuade the Postmaster General to stamp out these practices.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member certainly has the right to make those efforts, but I think he is exercising it in the wrong way.


Azellus Denis: All I want to know is whether the Postmaster General intends to change the present system in order to protect the general public.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member asked this question earlier. I think asking it once should suffice.



INTERIM PAYMENT ON 1958-59 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade

and Commerce, arising out of the continuing and worsening cash shortage on the prairies. Could the minister say whether he is in a position to announce the interim payment on wheat? I would point out that he promised the announcement would be made before the end of January. I wonder if he could now say when an announcement will be made, and how much the payment will be per bushel?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not in a position to make an announcement today, but I think an announcement will be made in the course of the next few days.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Is the minister delaying this announcement so it can be made at the time the Prime Minister gives his final answer, or his complete answer, to the western farm delegation? Will these two announcements be made simultaneously?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no such purpose at all in the alleged delay.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet heard from the minister of agriculture of Manitoba about the correspondence we have asked to have tabled; and, if not, could he get in touch with his friends and expedite a reply?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer to the first part of the question is no. I have been in touch with my friends, and I expect I shall be receiving an answer shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Green:
That items numbered 75 to 106 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1960-61, relating to the Department of External Affairs be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made this morning by the President of the United States of a new proposal-which will be discussed at the nuclear conference of three powers now under way in Geneva-together with the speech yesterday by Chairman Khrushchev to the

parliament of India in Delhi, emphasize the relevancy and the urgency of the position Canada should take in this all-important question, to use the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs disarmament.
The President's statement as announced this morning is that the United States is proposing to end forthwith, under assured controls, all nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in the oceans, in those regions in space where effective controls can now be agreed on, and beneath the surface of the earth in cases where they can be monitored. Then the President made a significant observation, when he said the achievement of a workable nuclear test ban was by far the most important and difficult beginning to be made on the general subject of disarmament.
It is interesting to note that the position taken by Canada with regard to the unqualified banning of tests is to be contrasted in part with the proposal announced by the President of the United States, I do not need to spend needless time in justification of the consideration of disarmament in this debate.
I formed the impression after reading the minister's remarks this morning that, unintentionally, I am sure, he did convey the impression that this government was concerned with disarmament as its foremost objective. He also left the impression that not much had been done in this field in the period immediately preceding the time when hon. gentlemen opposite took over the responsibility of government in Canada.
That, of course, would be a wrong impression for anyone to have, because it will be recalled that almost at the very end of the war Canada and the government of that day, together with the friendly associated powers, did take immediate and comprehensive steps to bring about a solution to the problem of atomic armaments. In 1945 the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada offered to reciprocally share information concerning the practical application of atomic energy as soon as effective safeguards were devised against its use for destructive purposes. It will be remembered that at the first meeting of the United Nations Canada was made a member of the atomic energy commission. Following this joint declaration by the three heads of government, including Canada, there was presented a comprehensive, a most selfless plan for disarmament, and particularly nuclear disarmament, by the United States through Mr. Baruch, as the intermediary in the atomic energy commission.
It is important to remember what that proposal was. It suggested an international atomic development authority to which-
-would be entrusted all phases of the development and use of atomic energy, starting with the
External Affairs
raw material, with managerial control or ownership of all atomic energy activities potentially dangerous to world security, and power to control, license and inspect all other atomic activities, and which should itself be the world leader in the field of atomic knowledge and development so as to enable it to comprehend and therefore detect misuse of atomic energy.
The record now demonstrates that the Soviet union rejected this proposal and countered with one of its own, in which it was insisted that there should be an immediate prohibition of the use, production and accumulation of atomic weapons. That remained until 1954 the cardinal principle of Soviet policy on disarmament. There can be no doubt that the failure to make any progress in disarmament until 1955 was due, in my judgment, to the intransigence of the Soviet union with regard to this proposal and to its subsequent modifications, and other later proposals made by the western powers.
After 1955 the Soviet union did agree to a measure of international inspection and control, but never in specific and definable terms. The house will recall, too, that in 1954 the United Nations decided to create a subcommittee of the disarmament commission. As an indication of the interest Canada took in disarmament at that time, to the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet union as members of that committee was added the name of Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) took part in the initial work of that subcommittee. If the subcommittee did not succeed-and it did not-the fault certainly was not that of Canada. The fault, generally speaking, was not that of the west, although I must say in an effort to be objective that the fault does not entirely rest on the Soviet union from that period on.
It is significant that France and Great Britain put forward at one of the early meetings of the subcommittee a comprehensive proposal for disarmament, a plan known as the Anglo-French plan. It was a three-stage disarmament scheme providing for a freeze on military establishments, in the first phase; for a second phase including the first half of agreed reductions in conventional forces and arms plus a cut-off on the production of nuclear weapons, and a final phase which was to see the completion of the remaining half of the agreed reductions of conventional arms. This was to be followed-and this was an answer to the Soviet union-by total prohibition and elimination of all nuclear weapons, and the conversion of all stocks to peaceful uses.
That memorandum represents one of the important landmarks in the discussions on disarmament. This Anglo-French initiative

External Affairs
was rejected by the Soviet union. It was supported by the United States and by Canada as members of the subcommittee.
In 1954 the then permanent delegate at the United Nations, Mr. Andre Vishinsky, made an important statement when he announced in the general assembly that the Soviet union had altered its traditional attitude. No longer would it insist on a ban on the manufacture and use and accumulation of atomic weapons as a condition precedent to entering into efforts to reach a solution on disarmament. And as a further evidence of the position of Canada in these discussions, the recognition of the useful role she had pursued, Canada was selected by the United States, France and Great Britain to carry on negotiations with the Soviet union which led to a resolution that stood in the name of the five powers and received the unanimous endorsa-tion of the general assembly of the United Nations.
Last night the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the resolution on disarmament put forward by the five great powers at the last assembly received unanimous support by all the United Nations, and he interpreted that as an indication of hope for the future.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. member that I said it was cosponsored by all 82 nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I do not want to be unfair to what my hon. friend said, but I would suggest that if that was an achievement-and it was merely a procedural resolution-so too was the achievement of 1954. But the significant point is that there was no constructive result arising from the unanimity. We should not draw unwarranted conclusions from unanimity on procedural resolutions, asserting that as a result we have cause to think we are now entering a more successful chapter in disarmament discussions. I hope we are, but I think it is well for us to curb our optimism with realism and give careful scrutiny to steps that may be taken which may represent more form than substance. Let us hope that the situation is otherwise.
It seems to me the next important step was the summit meeting in Geneva in 1954, when President Eisenhower, Sir Anthony Eden and Prime Minister Faure of France confronted Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev and when, as the result of a week's talk, four proposals on disarmament were put forward.
I would again suggest to hon. members that the spirit of Geneva that flowed from that summit meeting, giving hope as it did to all of the peoples of the world, has its counterpart

in the kind of possible false hope that could ensue as a result of discussions now under way. We must not be misled by generalizations of any kind. In our efforts to bring about disarmament we must recognize the value of a healthier international climate, but before giving final judgment we must see whether or not we have the acceptance of positions which we think are necessary for the maintenance of our security and for the successful pursuit of our objectives in the field of disarmament.
At this summit meeting a number of proposals were made, and for my present purposes the significant one was that put forward by President Eisenhower. He said to Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Bulganin, "It is now scientifically impossible to detect undisclosed or secret nuclear weapons. You admitted that in discussions in the subcommittee only a few weeks ago. That being the case, since we cannot at present have full control on disarmament I make a proposal to you. Let us exchange our military blueprints. Let each give the other the opportunity of carrying out an aerial inspection survey in the territory of the other". The Soviet union did not accept that proposal. Canada was the one country, recognizing the scientific fact and the desirability of creating a, healthier international atmosphere, that did give support in principle to the Eisenhower proposal.
I think it is significant to note that as a result of the four-power meeting the subcommittee were instructed by the heads of the four governments to resume their discussions. They did not decide anything on disarmament. That was left once again to the subcommittee. It will be remembered that the subcommittee had its first meeting after the summit meeting on August 14, 1955. It will be remembered, too, that in September of that year the President of the United States suffered a serious heart seizure. From that moment on the Geneva spirit disappeared or dissipated. From that time forward there was no evidence of any progress, in spite of the good intentions and the healthy atmosphere that prevailed at the meetings in Geneva.
Canada at that time took a position, one that reflected the independence of Canada in foreign policy, as a result of the initiative and the character given that policy by the present Leader of the Opposition. We took the position that because we were apparently not able to resolve any of our differences, if we could not agree on some measure of disarmament on existing weapons, conventional or nuclear, could we not try to arrive at some agreement with respect to weapons

which were not then in existence? We of course had reference to the intercontinental ballistic missile.
It is not the fault of Canada-the record is there for everyone to see-that even more terrible weapons of war now confront us on an increasingly alarming scale. If our point of view had been pursued and accepted by all concerned it is possible that we would not be talking today of missiles that are capable of bringing about even greater destruction than other instruments of war.
This is perhaps what the Prime Minister was thinking about when at the general assembly in 1957 he said:
Experience has taught us that no country ever possesses a monopoly on any device. What one country has today, the other nations will have tomorrow, and the day is not far distant, if this continues, when there will be armouries of these rockets.
So we did take this position, even though it was a position which we alone took. We took another position. Because of the statement made by the President about the scientific fact precluding the complete control of undetected nuclear weapons, the United States reserved its position on all matters to which it had given its support up to that time. I -have referred to the Anglo-French memorandum of March, 1954 which was, apart from the Baruch plan, the first comprehensive proposal. The United States, through Mr. Harold Stassen, on September 6, 1955 stated:
The United States does now place a reservation upon all of its pre-Geneva substantive positions taken in this subcommittee, or in the disarmament commission, or in the United Nations on these questions in relationship to levels of armament.
Canada sought to persuade her -close and friendly associate in these matters that this was an unnecessary position to take, but other members of the subcommittee also took this position. The result wat that the agreement on manpower ceilings, the disarmament program produced by Britain and France, the 50 per cent arrangement about the cutoff, the 75 per -cent arrangement about the elimination of nuclear stocks, the detailed plan for inspection and control were all withdrawn. I believe that was at that time an unnecessary step. The Soviet union certainly did not make matters easy by taking the position it did with regard to bases and the like. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there -can be no doubt that during all of this period Canada has pursued, I believe diligently, its policy of trying, in concert with -other countries, to bring about an agreement on disarmament.
There was no want of independence; there was no reluctance to take a responsible position when it had to be taken, and I suggest to the Secretary of State for External
External Affairs
Affairs that if this is the important matter he says it is in current international affairs, Canada will have to do more than rely on its popularity as -a substitute for policy. Canada will have to do more than make generalizations with regard to this important matter if it wants to make the kind of contribution which I believe all of us want Canada to make at this time; and I am sure "all of us" includes the hon. gentleman who spoke yesterday. But I complained yesterday -and I think with some right-that in a matter of this sort, having in mind the importance which the hon. member attaches to this problem, it was regrettable that the government did not put forward some of its proposals or, at least, the principles on which those proposals are based.
I mentioned that Great Britain had taken that course in September. Chairman Khrushchev outlined the Soviet union proposals. Today we have the President of the United States making a proposal with regard to the banning of tests and saying that this is an essential prerequisite to a comprehensive system of disarmament, or to a system of partial disarmament. There are other proposals, namely the proposals put forward the other day by the French government, in which they emphasized the importance of controlling -production and the means of delivery of nuclear weapons.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member
whether he is suggesting that the French proposals to which he refers were detailed proposals in any way whatever?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said they were detailed proposals in the sense in which the proposals of Mr. Khrushchev and the proposals of Mr. Lloyd were detailed proposals. They did not spell out every "i" and every semi-colon, but the proposals in main outline are there. What have we got from the hon. gentleman? I am saying this only because I do feel keenly about this subject, as I know he does; but all we have got from the hon. gentleman is his declaration-and I admit that is important-that he believes in disarmament; that the government believes in disarmament and intends to pursue the matter. All I am saying is that as an earnest, as a demonstration of his good intentions, we should have had from the hon. gentleman a statement that would at least outline the basic program or the basic principles of that program.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he thinks it would help to attain the ultimate objective in those negotiations which are to take place between the east

External Affairs
and west if the Canadian government were to come in today and give in detail all its proposals before the negotiations commence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have no hesitation in saying that the time has come when the west should seek to dominate the position in terms of influencing world public opinion on this subject. The way to do this is for the western powers not to hesitate to express their positions, as was done by the government of the United Kingdom on the floor of the assembly of the United Nations last September, and as was done from his point of view by Chairman Khrushchev at the same assembly. I say that Canada speaks not only for herself, as the minister acknowledged yesterday, but for a whole series of nations.
We are no less interested in disarmament than is Chairman Khrushchev, perhaps more so; yet he has been able, by the disclosure of the details of his proposals, to give the impression, particularly to the uncommitted peoples of the underdeveloped areas of the world, in Asia, that he more than anyone else is interested in disarmament, when the record clearly shows that the Soviet union has been more intransigent in this particular than any other country. Surely it would not be exposing our flank if the minister, in discussing this matter yesterday, had said that he concurs in the principles, for instance, in April 24, 1952 in the disarmament commission.
Are these principles still the policy of the government of Canada? We do not know. I have no doubt they are; I would find it very difficult to believe that they could not be; but those principles, setting out clearly the attitude which this country and other countries took, were not even referred to by the hon. gentleman yesterday. I can only assume that there would be no exposing of one's position by reciting principles that were referred to time and time again by spokesmen for Canada in discussions in the general assembly, in the main outlining principles which established our position in the matter of controls, our attitude on reductions in conventional forces, our attitude as to when there should begin a prohibition of atomic weapon use and manufacture.
Surely we are entitled to know whether these are still the principles. This is important, because apparently they no longer represent the principles to be adopted by France, particularly in the matter of nuclear weapons. Therefore it would be important -certainly it would be important for the people in India, for other people who have been influenced by what I think oftentimes on the part of the Soviet union has been propaganda-not	always-to convince those

people that the west is seriously dedicated to the prosecution of disarmament, in the hope that we can transfer tremendous sums of money for purposes of defence, and capable of being used for purposes of destruction, into constructive purposes of national development and health and welfare. There is so much involved in these principles that I want to say to the minister that he will find that unless he is prepared to give more than lip service to this question, we will not make the contribution which we should and which I know we want to make.


Mr. Jones:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I gather from the line of approach he is taking that he places chief reliance for the solution of the disarmament problem on some plan or other which may be produced by a particular nation, either of the west or of the east. Is the hon. member not aware that at the basis of disarmament plans lies the desire of establishing some measure of confidence between the west and the east, and that that is the principle upon which any disarmament plan must be based?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend and I are not at issue on that at all. Of course confidence is important. If there is no confidence there will be no agreement. But I am speaking of proposals. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Canada had proposals. I am not inquiring whether these proposals embody the six principles that were laid before the United Nations on April 24, 1952. I am asking whether or not these proposals are designed to create the very kind of confidence of which my hon. friend has spoken.
Then there is the discussion that is now going on at Geneva among the three nuclear powers. President Eisenhower said without any equivocation today that this particular conference has a bearing upon the outcome of the disarmament discussions that are about to begin. So it is important for us to know what is the position of the government in these matters. The Secretary of State for External Affairs the other day, in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, unhesitatingly acknowledged that the position of Canada with regard to the cessation of tests was that the government was in favour of a ban on tests without qualification. That is a statement of great importance. It will be interesting to see, because of the position taken by the United States today, What the position of Canada will be when these discussions are ultimately projected in the committee room of the ten-power committee.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question, because he is being very helpful? Would he say what his view is as to whether or not that is the proper position for Canada to take?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition has clearly stated our position. Of course we believe unreservedly in disarmament. We believe that at this period there can be only one way to disarm, and that is by mutual understanding based on conditions of control that will give each side the firm confidence that there will be implementation of undertakings solemnly committed. That is a position which I would unhesitatingly take.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will now answer the question. Is your party against any further nuclear tests?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I take it that my hon. friend is as helpful in his question as the Prime Minister said I was in my comment. This is a matter that does not invite frivolity, and I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be the last man to be frivolous in a situation like this. Our position has been stated over and over again by one who is certainly one of the very few to have received international recognition for his work in trying to bring about a cessation of tests and in trying to bring about peace in the world.
We are not at odds on this basic principle. Of course we want to see tests banned, and we want to see them banned in such a way as not to give an advantage to any country that is prepared clandestinely to violate undertakings solemnly committed. That is the position this party takes, and I am sure that on reflection that is the position which hon. gentlemen opposite take. But I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in view of the statement of the President that these discussions in Geneva have relevancy in terms of the discussions of the ten-power committee, does Canada agree that there should not be any use of nuclear weapons in any kind of war? Does Canada agree that there should be no tests of new weapons in experimental research? Does Canada agree that there should not be any new fissionable or fusionable material made for war-like purposes? Does Canada agree that there should not be stockpiling of nuclear weapons, and that there should be conversion of existing stocks to peaceful uses at the dates and by the methods which a disarmament treaty might lay down?
In the British proposal will be found some of these principles. I ask, why could they not have been at least outlined in some general way by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; or does the government take
External Affairs
the position that these various facets of the banning of nuclear tests must all be taken together, that one cannot be accepted without the others? These are questions which I think the country and parliament are entitled to ask.
I believe a mistake was made by some of the western powers in unduly linking the solution of political questions to disarmament. I do not say, and I applied this in answer to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones), that we can fail to take into consideration the political controversies as between the great powers particularly. But does the government take the position that we cannot proceed, that we cannot have a comprehensive system of disarmament, in the absence of a solution of the major political problems of the day? Do we take the position, for instance, that there is no hope of making a real start on disarmament unless there is suspension of tests under adequate control, unless there is a major disengagement of conventional forces and armaments in Germany and her neighbours, unless there is an agreement regarding the status of West Berlin and some progress with regard to the German question? Is that our view? There was not a word about this from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I am saying this only because I believe that in a matter of this sort, with a country like Canada that no longer, in the language of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is going to pursue the course of an honest broker, a country that is going to maintain an independent position, that is going to prosecute this question as it thinks it should be prosecuted, we have a right to expect more from my genial friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs than we got yesterday from his tour around the world that did not last 80 days but only about 90 minutes.
In conclusion I suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada should have a plan of its own. That may be a synthesis of other plans. The minister said yesterday that Canada has such a plan. I take it that it will be a plan that will enable us to look at the whole problem in terms of what might emerge as a comprehensive treaty. Such a treaty, even if it were put forward as an objective apart from the difficulty there is in the absence of settlement of some political controversies, would have wide interest in this country and in the world. I am sure if the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada put forward at least in general terms, in general principles, the point of view of Canada with regard to this matter it would evoke in countries like India, Indonesia, Malaya, Indo-China, Cambodia and the countries he spoke of yesterday a great deal of

External Affairs
interest. It would reveal to these nations that there are countries determined to try and do something about this problem. However, I regret that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not take advantage of this particular debate to do so.
I suggest that at this time Canada might work toward bringing about some agreement with regard to weapons not now in existence. We tried to do that with regard to the
I.C.B.M., and that was a gigantic problem to face. I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that with all the sincerity he possesses, with all the honour and integrity of character he possesses, he could play a great role in trying to impress upon all the powers concerned that if we cannot get an agreement on disarmament generally, might we not at least, in addition to agreement on the cessation of tests, get agreement with regard to some of these vehicles and instruments of war not yet fully created. Could we not urge the elimination of vehicles that might carry atomic weapons, such as satellites, rockets, supersonic aircraft, ocean-going submarines and launching pads that are capable of adding to human destruction way beyond the fancy and imagination of man?
There are ways by which this could be done. We could suggest a first stage of getting the nations to report their existing weapons and programs to an international disarmament commission. There could be a second stage when prior notice would be given, and when there would be some control of tests. There could be another procedure devised for the destruction and control of stockpiles. These are suggestions that come to one's mind. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I say there are many problems that the nations of the world have to face today. I believe the Prime Minister was right when he said at the general assembly of the United Nations that this is the foremost problem of all. Wars are not necessarily caused by arms but, as Mr. Churchill said in 1912 and in 1936, the existence of these tremendous weapons in itself is a potential danger to peace among the nations.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has declared that Canada's role is now to be one of independence, and not that of honest broker. During the past decade, as I emphasized yesterday, Canada has emerged as a nation whose spokesmen in the councils of the nations, notably the Leader of the Opposition, have responsibly and unhesitatingly put forward proposals which reflect our initiative, our maturity, our sense of responsibility and independence.
The government now, in this matter of disarmament, has the opportunity of making

the minister's proud boast a reality. It is not too late, on the eve of a new chapter in the discussions on disarmament, for Canada to once again seize the initiative through constructive proposals designed to remove the unbelievably hideous weapons of human destruction which, by their very existence, threaten the peace of mankind.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member, is he suggesting that Canada's initiative in this regard should be taken in the way of propaganda, that is by announcing a plan to the world today; or should it be taken in the councils of the countries with which she is now associated and later in the meeting of the 10-member committee? It comes down to a question of whether it is to be a case of propaganda or whether we are really going to try to work out a sound, worth-while scheme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs recognizes that the formulation of policy in this country in foreign affairs is not for the purpose of propaganda; that is the first thing. But having devised a policy there is a legitimate propaganda value to a very clear enunciation of principles and a plan, which does not in any way preclude the kind of private diplomacy which my hon. friend has in mind and which is, of course, essential.
I was simply referring to the kind of thing Mr. Selwyn Lloyd did in the United Nations, and that Canada has not done. Mr. Selwyn Lloyd outlined a plan that could be integrated into other plans that have been proposed. However, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, in proposing that plan, did not do so merely for the sake of propaganda. If that was a result it was a happy result, but it was not the purpose. Nor did he preclude the right, in private meetings, to spell out this plan with its details and its principles. All I am saying is that Canada has not done as much.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member suggest that Canada, Italy, France and the United States should rush out now with their four different plans for disarmament? Does he not realize that at the United Nations there was only Selwyn Lloyd's statement and the statement of Premier Khrushchev? It never was the intention that the whole 10 nations of the disarmament committee should rush out with 10 statements about what they thought should be done to bring about disarmament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend said yesterday we were no longer going to act as the honest broker, we were going to act independently. Now my hon. friend is taking a different position; we must get the

consent of other countries. All I am saying is this. If it was proper for the United Kingdom to give a plan, as Selwyn Lloyd did in the assembly, and if it was proper for other countries to do so during the discussions- I have read them all-it was no less possible, and I believe it would have been equally timely, for a country like Canada that professes it speak not only for itself but for the other smaller nations of the world to have done likewise.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: In
this two-day discussion on external affairs, Mr. Speaker, it is the right of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member for Essex East to have unlimited time. Being the third speaker in this discussion my own time is limited; therefore I hope hon. members will understand why it is impossible for me to comment on the eight points discussed yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or to go into too much detail on the matters which I desire to draw to the attention of the house.
It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that an eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence which would be ever in view and which would be true and appropriate at all times and in all situations. His wise men presented him with these words: "And this too shall pass away." Those words came to my recollection when the minister was speaking yesterday afternoon; and this too shall pass away. I was reminded of this because the minister, in his opening remarks and throughout his speech, made it obvious that in his opinion the old approach of Canada to external affairs had to pass away and a new one was required.
The main theme of the minister's speech yesterday was that Canada had to leave the old role of mediator and broker, and establish a procedure of independent, active policies in international affairs. We in this party welcome the minister's pronouncement of a policy based on independent, active participation. We honour him for that statement-and especially do I honour him because the minister comes from the same city as I-and endorse the principle. But in so doing I want to point out that words must be backed up by acts. Having been so greatly enthused over the principles and the motives behind the minister's speech, it was with a great deal of regret that we found that in the course of his speech he backtracked on all independence of action, and in his statement made it clear that he wears the same blinkers that have been evident in Canadian foreign policy over many years.
The speech of the minister can be consolidated into views on disarmament, world 79951-0-61
External Affairs
co-operation, commonwealth understanding and peace. If my condensation of his views and principles is correct I think perhaps one of the first words I should say is this. Canada can aid the achievement of world peace and international co-operation by a militant, active leadership in rallying the middle and small nations of the world around dynamic and constructive proposals which will make it abundantly clear to the sparring giants of the world, namely the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., that there are other countries in the United Nations and in the world which have no desire nor intention of being engulfed either in an economic cold war or in a fighting hot war, and which have no desire or intention of being the pawns or the stooges of the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R. in their sparring and in their fighting.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that Canada can give that leadership, can rally the middle and the small countries of this world, and can exercise an influence and power of great magnitude in world affairs. It will take courage and it will take leadership, but it must be done.
To follow up that suggestion I have tried to give an answer to the question of what kind of leadership Canada should give. To some it may seem to be a platitudinous generalization but I have tried to put down in a few words what should be done.
We in this party believe that the foreign policy of Canada should be such as to give wholehearted support to the principles and purposes of the United Nations. In words that has been done in the past and is being done now, but in too many respects it is not being followed through by action by Canada in the United Nations or here at home. We believe that Canada should do more-by action, not just by words-in promoting understanding and support of the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. We believe that Canada should give greater leadership in proposing policies to achieve peace through negotiation. It is true that we have always supported that objective, but we can do more by way of active leadership.
We believe that Canada should show a greater interest in the problems and the aspirations of the Afro-Asian countries. Canada has done a great deal there, but I do not think the government is yet fully cognizant of the importance of the Afro-Asian countries and of what is taking place at the present time.
We think it is important that Canada should give a real lead in disarmament and should wage a militant campaign in order to gather support behind the proposition that

External Affairs
all armed forces, if we are to have them, shall come under the control of the United Nations.
As I said before, those suggestions may seem rather general, but if those principles are backed up in the foreign affairs policies of this country under the direction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it is my personal belief and that of the C.C.F. party that Canada can perhaps do more than any other country or people for the maintenance of world peace, for the development of undeveloped countries and for prosperity for all peoples and all countries.
Naturally I will be asked why I feel that the magnificent words and principles expressed yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs are, unfortunately, to some extent only window dressing, and that the courage is not there to back up the principles which he espoused. I think the answer is quite obvious. There are still too many blinkers over the eyes of the minister. In his mind he knows what is correct, but he cannot see his way clear to put the principles into operation.
Let us take by way of example, two, three or four indications that bear out that statement. Yesterday the minister told us how the Canadian delegation abstained from voting on the apartheid issue before the United Nations. I know the thinking of the minister, the Prime Minister and the government. They do not believe in discrimination on the basis of race, sex, colour or creed. They do not believe in nor do they support the principle of apartheid as it is applied in South Africa. But as we were told yesterday by the minister, because of their love of the commonwealth and because, as he pointed out, of the history of South Africa and the commonwealth, they were not going to do anything to endanger South Africa's position in the commonwealth. They were not going to do anything to endanger South Africa within the commonwealth. I can understand that from the commonwealth point of view. But South Africa is not the commonwealth, and this is a matter of principle; and I want to ask through you, Mr. Speaker, if the stand taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), because of this membership of the commonwealth, is not going to lead to a position where the commonwealth is actually endangered, although the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), too, are absolutely against what is happening in South Africa.
Was any thought given to the other parts of the commonwealth, especially to the Afro-Asian countries and those growing nations now coming out of the cocoon of colonialism

and which are going to be major powers, if not the major powers in years to come and whose relations with Canada will mean so much to us. Was any thought given to that when, in the United Nations, the Canadian delegation abstained from voting on a matter of principle; was any thought given to the non-white members of the commonwealth, the self-governing countries of India, Pakistan, Malaya, Ghana and Ceylon. What thought was given to those nations in the British commonwealth which are developing toward self-government, Singapore, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and the West Indies, or those nations which are progressing toward self-government within the commonwealth, the colonies and protectorates of Kenya, Nigeria, Basutoland, Aden, Bechu-analand, Tanganyika, Somaliland, Uganda, South-West Africa, New Guinea, North Borneo, Sierra Leone, Gambia, Hong Kong, Zanzibar, and British Guiana. These, too, are the British commonwealth and these countries, too, have one great interest, and that is the relationship of the white people and of Canada to the problem of apartheid.
You know, Mr. Speaker, during the meetings of the commonwealth parliamentary association in Australia one of the big discussions among the 48 parliaments of the commonwealth Australia represented there was the policy of discrimination in South Africa against the native population. These non-white nations are also of the commonwealth; they are a growing power in the commonwealth and if the minister means what he says by independence, activity and courage, then Canada will not abstain from voting on a principle. Instead, we will give Canadian leadership to those people both inside the commonwealth and outside it to show that Christianity and non-discrimination mean something to us.
The minister spoke at length on disarmament. I wish I had the time and the opportunity to speak at great length on that subject myself because it is one of the greatest problems which is facing this country today. We are very grateful for the interest which has been taken in this matter by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We are very proud that Canada is to be represented as one of the 10 powers represented on the disarmament committee. We sincerely hope that all the wishes of the minister will come true.
But, Mr. Speaker-you know I do not like saying things like this, because I know what is in the heart of the hon. gentleman-he is making it impossible to obtain the very objective he wants by the stand he is taking. Hon. gentlemen opposite want world disarmament, and so do we in this party. We are the only

party which has been fighting for this continuously, in provincial legislatures, in the House of Commons and on the platform. We want results. The minister says he wants results, yet after telling us for a long time about this 10-power committee and what it is going to do, he tells us, reading from a prepared statement, about the stand which the government is adopting regarding the People's Republic of China.
Mr. Speaker, we know of the arguments used in the past, and the arguments used at the present time as to why there should not be recognition of the People's Republic of China. But it is leading the people down the garden path to talk about world disarmament and then to stand up, as the minister did yesterday afternoon, and say that the People's Republic of China will not be recognized diplomatically, in the United Nations, or represented on the disarmament committee.
There are 650 million people in this one country, and whether we like their government or whether we do not, they are advancing rapidly both industrially and scientifically. How can one discuss world disarmament and leave a country of 650 million people completely out in the cold, without representation on the committee. Why the blinkers? It is absolute, plain, unadulterated stupidity for this government to be-I know the words I want, and I will get it in a minute-the ventriloquist's dummy of United States foreign policy.
Formosa and Chiang Kai-shek in the United Nations are not China. Why should Canada follow a policy which could endanger the peace of the world and the prospects of world disarmament by following Chiang Kai-shek on Formosa and minding about Matsu and Quemoy surpasses all comprehension. The day will have to come when the People's Republic of China, irrespective of its government, will be recognized as it is entitled to be recognized. The day will come when it will be given its seat in the United Nations and take its proper place in the disarmament discussions. Any talk of international peace, cooperation and disarmament based on the assumption that China is Chiang Kai-shek is just nonsensical. If the foreign minister was not my friend and if he was not in the government I would be tempted to say that there are people not so crazy in a lunatic asylum. What can we make of the statements made by the minister? I listened to his speech yesterday afternoon. In my opinion it was the finest and most concise talk on international affairs that I have heard during the seven years I have been a member of this house. I have not yet met a person who disagrees with 79951-0-61i
External Affairs
that. But we want to help him to do the things he says he wants to do and we want to take those blinkers off his eyes.


Hazen Robert Argue: He has taken them off now.


Harold Edward Winch: I observe that the minister has removed his spectacles, but I said his blinkers not his glasses. His glasses protect his eyesight but the blinkers are on his mind and they obscure his vision and views. The approach adopted by the minister simply will not work out.
Yesterday the minister spoke on the refugee problem in the Middle East. I believe I am right in saying that he told us that parliament in this budget will be asked to contribute $500,000 to UNREF.


Howard Charles Green: 


Harold Edward Winch: I thank the minister for that correction. We will be contributing $500,000 to UNRWA. Why do not the minister and his department face up to the situation in the Middle East? Without doubt there is a tremendous refugee problem but it is not in Israel. There are thousands upon thousands of Arabs and Bedouins in Israel. They have been assimilated into the citizenship and economy of that country. I was there ten and a half years ago and again two and a half months ago. The Bedouins and Arabs in Israel are first class citizens participating in agriculture, in business and in the Knesset or parliament. There is no problem. The refugee problem exists around Israel in the Arab countries. They have been taken care of over the years under the United Nations and Canada has contributed every year.
No attempt whatever has been made in the Arab countries to assimilate or to settle those refugees. They are kept there for acrimonious political purposes and for nothing else. No endeavour has been made to settle them. Has the minister or his departmental officials made no study of the report of the investigating committee of the United States congress and senate last year which found exactly what I am saying and which also reported that the United Nations through which organization Canada is paying out millions of dollars is spending money for refugees who do not exist? I believe it was a joint committee of the United States congress and senate that made this finding last year. It was in all the newspapers.


Howard Charles Green: I doubt that.


Harold Edward Winch: I read the reports of their
investigations. It was a joint committee of the senate and congress.


Howard Charles Green: Reports are not always accurate.

External Affairs


Harold Edward Winch: It was stated and not challenged that there were more United Nations ration cards than there were Arab refugees. The minister shakes his head but I advise him to look up the record. If he does not agree about the ration cards he will have to agree that nothing has been done by the Arab countries to establish the refugees. They are still there in an unsettled' condition. The statement has been made by the leaders of the Arab countries that they are going to be kept there.
This is something I did find out with respect to those who have a rightful claim in Israel. The money is being placed in trust every month and just rests there awaiting a settlement. As the Middle East is the danger spot in the world today, why does not Canada take the lead in trying to straighten out the refugee situation?
I wish now to speak about Israel. Israel was established in 1948 under the aegis of the United Nations. It is a member of the United' Nations. From 1948 until now it has been in a tough spot. We have heard a great deal about how one little spark could trigger off a world war. I want to know why Canada has not and is not now giving leadership in that area?
On January 9, 1954 King Saud of Saudi Arabia called upon the Arab world to wage total war against Israel and to sacrifice 10 million Arab lives if necessary in order to destroy it. That statement was not made in the United Nations but other alarming statements have been made there. Do not forget that Israel was established under the aegis of the United Nations and is a member of that body. The United Nations is the place where we settle our differences through discussion and co-operation.
Let me draw attention to some of the statements that have been made in the United Nations as taken from the records of that body. At the thirteenth session of the general assembly Mr. Shukairy of Saudi Arabia said in a meeting of the special political committee on November 11, 1958:
-Arab nationalism was determined to sweep away from Arab soil all vestiges oi colonialism of any kind. The fortresses of the retreating imperialist forces were falling one by one. Zionism was no exception to the rule, and its collapse would be the signal for the return of the Palestine Arab refugees to their homes.
At the same time in the same speech he went on to say:
At one time a slogan was coined for circulation in the Middle East to the effect that Israel is there to stay. Nothing is so empty as this empty slogan. Israel is not there to stay and is not going to stay. The United Nations can help to bring about an orderly undoing of Israel, lest it should take place in a disorderly manner and cause confusion in the area.
fMr. Green.]
On October 30, 1959, he said:
Israel and disarmament in the Middle East are incompatible and there is no room for both.
Let us turn to a statement made by Mr. Azkoul of Lebanon at the eleventh session of the general assembly in a special political committee meeting on February 21, 1957:
Were Israel allowed to maintain its character of Zionist exclusivism, to pursue its policy of expansion and eviction and to resort to the force that such a character required, it would one day either be crushed by a greater force, or suffocated in the isolation it had created for itself.
Canada is a member of the United Nations. As a party to the establishment of Israel and as a member of the United Nations I cannot understand why Canada would not voice protest against statements like that which were made in the United Nations or its subcommittees to the effect that the Israelites will be driven into the sea even at the cost of 10 million Arab lives and that the whole of Israel will be wiped out. To my knowledge Canada has never raised one word of protest in the United Nations. Never to my knowledge-and I have checked and checked-did Canada rise and object, and say that this is not the way the United Nations operates, and this kind of thing is not going to be allowed in the United Nations. The point I am driving at is this.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member whether he does not realize that in the United Nations the delegates of all nations are entitled to rise and make their speeches as they see fit? There have been very drastic speeches made by many other delegates. I admit the nature of the speech to which the hon. member has referred, but in the United Nations they are supposed to have free speech.


Harold Edward Winch: That is absolutely correct. Here is my point. I am glad the minister rose. Is that sort of thing supposed to go unchallenged by democratic countries such as Canada? It is because it does go unchallenged, because Canada has not the intestinal fortitude to challenge that kind of thing in the United Nations that the situation has developed. It is because countries like Canada have not had the intestinal fortitude to get up and challenge this sort of statement that we have the situation now where Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq can go ahead and brag about the situation where we have to maintain 1,000 of our people on the Gaza strip, and where sporadic fighting is going on along the border. There are two million people in Israel because of the United Nations, people who have, in my opinion, done one of the most magnificent jobs in this world of changing a desert into agricultural land

and mountains into industry, and are now faced by 45 million people who say they are going to drive them into the sea.
My point is that this is where we have been lacking in Canada. I agree with free speech, but when we hear such things they should be challenged. This is where Canada can give leadership, in challenging this sort of issue. These are the situations where Canada can give real leadership. You cannot by abstaining from voting on apartheid because we do not want to hurt South Africa, forgetting what it means to so many other peoples and countries in the commonwealth nor by not challenging statements against U.N. principles.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we enjoyed-and I did in particular-the ideology and the expressions of the minister yesterday. Knowing him as I do, I hope that he will bring them into being. Knowing him as I do, I hope he will see to it that his officials throughout the world and in the United Nations have the stamina, have the courage, have the vision-I do not like that word too much now-to make Canada the rallying point, the spearhead of all the middle and the small countries, because I am absolutely convinced that if Canada does that with respect to its foreign policy, then in the days that lie ahead not only the people of this country but hundreds of millions in other countries will be able to say that Canada made a contribution which enabled the world to have a greater heritage because it passed through our hands.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset assure the house that in rising to speak briefly in this debate I have no intention of endeavouring to supplement or qualify in any way the address yesterday of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). Hon. members-and certainly those who may have read the speech or listened to it-will agree, as apparently the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) does-that it was one of the finest reviews of Canada's position in world affairs and our country's attitude toward those affairs that this house has ever heard.
Those of us who were privileged to go to New York and attend the recent sessions of the United Nations came away with three basic conclusions: first, the high level of leadership and contribution made by the minister and his parliamentary secretaries; second, the progress which had been made in a variety of items which came up and have come up each year as old chestnuts; third, the new and conciliatory attitude of the Soviet republic toward the west, so new
External Affairs
to those of us who perhaps have had only a fleeting glance at this rather unreal world of international politics.
Whatever has been said in this house in any attempt to discredit the work of the Secretary of State for External Affairs will not be accepted by the world at large, let alone the Canadian people, because the minister has established himself as one of the great international citizens, and I suggest it is hardly in the interest of the opposition members to adopt such an attitude. Surely logical, honest disagreement in a debate of this nature should not be replaced by picayune partisanship.
I wish to qualify some of the statements I have made by outlining the actual contribution of the delegation representing all political shades of opinion. It is, of course, well known that Canada introduced a successful resolution on radiation, one which undoubtedly will, from a humanitarian standpoint, provide tremendous benefits to all peoples of the world. The contribution which Canada made in reconciling differences in the election of the last member to the security council is equally well known in the halls of the United Nations and throughout the world. Here particular credit must go to the hon. member for Oxford, (Mr. Nesbitt) for his untiring effort to bring the two sides together which, to a substantial degree, made it possible for the security council to continue its work.
The Hungarian question may be regarded as one of the failures of the United Nations. Here again it was considered by the independent members vrho attended the session that Canada's approach was indeed one of the most constructive ones. History will of course record to the discredit of the delegates that we came away admittedly with no real solution. The information which has come to light since the Hungarian uprising makes one very suspicious that atrocities of a nature undreamed of before have been taking place.
Here was a situation where the appointed representative of the United Nations in the person of Sir Leslie Munroe was asked to make a review of the Hungarian situation and was refused entry into the country or cooperation in any other way. Thus a stalemate arose from the point of view of making any progress toward discouraging and preventing any further atrocities from taking place in that country. Canada made the point that if these statements were untrue surely it was in the best interests of Hungary to cooperate with the United Nations and its agencies by opening its doors and permitting free examination of the problem because if

External Affairs
they were being condemned improperly or incorrectly this was the best answer to these charges.
The debate has dealt in part with South Africa. The principal point made by the government was the concern, which I am sure is shared by most Canadians, for the position of this commonwealth country in the commonwealth. The attempt made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat to suggest that there was only one factor involved in any consideration of the problem is hardly in keeping with the true facts. Of course it is essential and important that we endeavour to encourage this country to continue as a free member of the commonwealth.
Let us look at the situation in which the debate occurred in the United Nations. First of all, the resolution at the general assembly was considerably stiffer than any resolution previously introduced in the United Nations. It is true that the year before Canada supported the rebuke which the assembly gave South Africa but during the intervening period no action had been taken to improve the situation and therefore there was no hope of correcting in any way the racial segregation that exists. It is equally true that the attitude of many countries long before any resolution was introduced indicated to me at least that they were not prompted entirely by a desire to alleviate racial discrimination in that country.
But most important, article II, subsection 7, of the charter of the United Nations states in very clear terms that the United Nations is not in any way permitted to interfere in the domestic affairs of a country. On the one hand, you have to judge the advantages of endeavouring to create an improvement in any situation where racial segregation exists and compare that, on the other hand, with the tried and proven provisions of the charter which has in most instances proved to be most satisfactory. I think the real answer lies in the fact that in the first two paragraphs of the resolution on apartheid Canada supported the contention of opposition to racial segregation. But our chief concern is how best can we keep this commonwealth member within our family of nations and at the some time how can we work with them so as to achieve their confidence and assist their government in correcting their own problem?
We will not gain anything merely by passing one resolution after another damning a situation for which no solution has been produced in past years whereas by retaining their confidence we can work with them and thus accomplish the objective which is of concern to this house and the people of the

world. We have heard very little from the official opposition on this subject. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) did a very fancy piece of footwork in his speech. Of course, the record of the former government in this respect is equally clear in that they took very much the same view that the Canadian delegation did in the past year.
I should like to say a few words now about disarmament, a major topic of this debate. It is well established that today there are about 21 million people under arms. We also know that over the past 14 years east and west have attempted to reach some basic agreement on disarmament. From various world powers we have had different suggestions as to an agreement for limited or complete disarmament but these suggestions are only a partial solution.
We have had statements by France and the United Kingdom indicating only in the most general terms the method by which they would like to achieve disarmament for the world. The hon. member for Essex East argues that our government, as a member of the 10-nation disarmament commission, should outline to parliament the proposals it intends to make at the disarmament meetings. I suggest this would be sheer folly at this time, for we might as well recognize that we are still in a poker game with our Russian friends. While we hope that their intentions and motivations are as admirable as they may seem, we still have every reason to be suspicious of their actions on the basis of their record in past disarmament talks. I suggest that the true motive behind the proposal of the Soviet union can only become clear when they meet with us over the negotiating table.
There is no indication in the Russian proposal now formulated as to how they propose to overcome the obstacles to agreement in the past which have frustrated us for five years in negotiating with them. Even with a real spirit of concession on both sides there are many difficult problems that will have to be overcome. As an example, there is the question of how nuclear weapons are to be eliminated having in mind that both sides recognize that there is no known way of preventing the secret diversion of nuclear fuel or the retention of stocks of nuclear equipment.
I suggest it is interesting to note the variation in the Russian proposals over the past years. On one occasion they suggested a series of five steps designed to provide complete disarmament. At that time they suggested a method to bring about the elimination of surprise attacks. It is interesting to note that in their most recent suggestion there is no reference at all to the method by

which such attacks could be eliminated. In the past the Russians have tried to obtain from the west some decision on disarmament in advance of any actual agreement while on the other hand they have balked at any suggestions involving a satisfactory solution whereby inspection could become a reality. I suggest they have taken great advantage of the opportunity for propaganda to try to persuade the nations of the world that the west is using the issue of control to prevent disarmament. On the one hand they have been careful not to offer any suggestions of their own while on the other hand they are now critical that we are hesitant about coming forward with a proposal which we insist must involve a complete inspection system.
I therefore make the point, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs did in his questions to the hon. member for Essex East, that it would be very ill-considered at this time to enter into discussions having made known a complete outline of our proposals for it would simply provide the Soviet union with the opportunity to enter into another propaganda tirade and thus create a completely unstable situation and prejudice what will undoubtedly be the most important conference the world has ever known so far as disarmament is concerned. I am certain the peoples of the free world welcome the spirit of the Russian proposal for complete disarmament. Their motive, however, can only be tested, I suggest, at the negotiating table.
We have heard from the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) his views on the questions and problems of the Middle East. I should like to just say a word to the house on this subject. No one underestimates the seriousness of the problems or their complexity which affect peace in this area. There can be no doubt that one of the important factors in establishing an area or an atmosphere of moderation is the hope for an eventual solution to the Palestine refugee situation. No one overlooks the fact that there are over one million of these unfortunate people still living on very meagre rations. I think Canadians can take some pride in the fact they are third largest contributor in the endeavour to provide some aid' in correcting the humanitarian problem through U.N.R.W.A. and I suggest they have also made many attempts through the logical organization, the United Nations, to correct the long term problem.
But having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is equally true that there is no purpose in this house or in the United Nations carrying on with recriminations as to why the situation has occurred. The fact of the matter is we have a problem, and it does exist. What
External Affairs
we propose to do about it and how we propose to maintain life for these people is the immediate problem before us. The hon. member for Vancouver East said the host countries, as an example, have not provided any assistance, have not co-operated and have not, in any way, attempted to permit these people to live or to exist in their respective countries. I think perhaps it might be worth while to take the time of the house to quote a report by Dr. Davis, the director of the United Nations relief for Palestine refugees. He said this:
-the host governments have borne a heavy burden-heavier than is generally realized. They have provided land, water and police protection for camps, as well as contributing materially towards the education of refugee youth. In addition, they have carried a burden, no less real or costly even though less tangible, in the form of the complex political and social problems that stem from the presence of refugees within their boundaries. In general, the host governments have borne these responsibilities and problems with courage and perseverance.
This is not a statement from any politician or any irresponsible citizen, but a man who has made a study of the problem and who is perhaps the best informed man to make a comment of this type from whom we have ever heard. I do not, for a moment, underestimate the magnitude of the Palestine refugee problem. From the standpoint of providing bare maintenance or an attempt to rehabilitate these people, the solution of the long and short term problems has only been attempted in the most limited form. We have made considerable headway through this United Nations agency in attempting to rehabilitate these people in many of the countries surrounding the Gaza strip and, as has been indicated by the director himself, we are now at least in a position where we are able to provide some hope or some help for them in the sense that they will be clothed and fed.
The government has indicated that this year they are prepared, as part of Canada's contribution, to make a further contribution of $500,000. It will be recalled that last year and the year before they also made a contribution of $1.5 million in the form of flour. In my own discussions with officials of UNRWA they have suggested to us that any increase or any replacement of the cash in terms of flour would, of course, be a satisfactory contribution. However, this is coupled with the hope that Canada can perhaps still increase its contribution in terms of flour. I leave with the government the thought that the $500,000 contribution, which still makes us one of the largest contributors to this problem, is an important contribution and a very real one. I would hope also that these people

External Affairs
are going to be able to receive further comfort in the realization we will be able to make a substantial contribution, as we have in past years, in the form of flour.
The importance of this is recognized in that the contribution of $1.5 million last year in the form of flour permitted the United States to make another $3.5 million contribution, and as a consequence the agency was able to meet its budget requirements. Because of the stipulation the United States must not, under any circumstances, contribute more than 70 per cent of the total amount, our contribution was all the more significant. In so far as the long term solution of the Palestine refugee problem is concerned, it would seem to me that the logical approach must again be made either through the Palestine conciliation commission, which would have to be reconstituted to examine the various aspects of this problem, or through a committee of the United Nations which could bring together the two factions in the hope that they could resolve their own problem. I do not believe any of us in this house doubt the fact that so long as a million people remain on the desert surrounding Israel they constitute a threat to world peace. Recent press statements, which indicate that the members of the united Arab league may attempt to form an army out of refugees, brings the seriousness of the problem into its real perspective. The long term solution is the responsibility of the United Nations and I suggest at the next assembly one of the two approaches which I have mentioned should be followed in the hope that the solution may be found.
I come to the last point I would make and that concerns our own delegation's work. I have mentioned already the contribution made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and have made references to his parliamentary secretary. I should not like to sit down without saying just a word about another group of people, one of the most dedicated groups of men I have ever had occasion to meet, the diplomatic secretarial staff who advised us at the U.N.O. They work longer hours than any other group of people I have ever met before. This year they have made a very great contribution to the delegation, as they have in previous years.
I feel there is another thing we can do to assist our delegation and that is to encourage more members of the House of Commons to join the delegation. Canada has taken the lead in this respect because most of the United Nations delegations are made up of diplomatic representatives, in many instances without any representatives from the various legislative bodies. We, as the house knows 
very well, have a happy combination of both. In addition to the parliamentary delegates, we have a number of parliamentary observers. It would be my hope, so that the house could be better informed on the work of the United Nations, that we could increase this number and that we could endeavour to put them to work, thus making them all part of the operation of the United Nations, and providing a well informed parliament.
I should like to close on one note. In speaking on external affairs it is difficult not to make a reference to our relationship with the United States. The house will recall that a year ago we had a variety of problems over which we were consulting our friends south of the border. There were two committees, one a cabinet committee and the second a parliamentary committee. Both of these bodies have met and from these discussions have come a far better understanding of the problems confronting us.
Today Canada enjoys a better relationship with the United States, I suggest, than at any other time in our history. Credit for a large part of this success, and the contribution that has come from it, must go first of all to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to the government for instituting those two important committees and for the work which they have accomplished.
If you itemize the list you will include the integration of our defences; the establishment of a better understanding with regard to the development of our resources, with the Americans for their part showing an understanding of the need to co-operate with Canada with regard to the investment of capital; the sharing of defence contracts and so on down the list. I believe that Canadians and Americans today are working in more areas for the preservation of peace and for the development of the two countries and I believe that we can continue to expect from them the same understanding that we are prepared to give them. All this, of course, has come under the leadership of the present administration.
I therefore say to my friends in the house that we have made a contribution not only at the negotiating desk of the United Nations but in all of the embassies throughout the world and have established a reputation as one of the countries that can be counted on most. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, we have no enemies. We have worked co-operatively with all countries. I believe that the future for this country is as a great power, not just a middle power but one which has a role to play as an independent nation, one that can effect

many of the reconciliations between countries and that we are yet on the threshold of making our greatest contribution.
Finally, if I may do so, I should like to say this. During these last few weeks when the delegations are preparing to go to the world disarmament meetings, we wish every success to our own General Burns. I sincerely hope -and I close on the same note as that on which I began-that we are not prepared to show our hand prematurely, that we will deal with the Russians recognizing that we will remain armed until such time as they show the true intent of their honest motive.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I want to open my contribution to this debate by expressing the appreciation of the members of this group of the manner in which, in matters of external affairs, the minister has treated us ever since he became the minister. We know that he will take our arguments as criticisms of the policy of his government rather than of the manner in which he has discharged his responsibilities. The minister has at all times given serious consideration to any representations we have made to his department. He has also on a considerable number of occasions gone out of his way to accommodate members of the opposition at international meetings and in Ottawa. I think he deserves from the opposition a tribute for what he has done.
We are also tremendously pleased to note that in his opening remarks, as recorded at page 929 of Hansard, the minister had this to say:
There has been a great deal to learn, and I am afraid I have only begun to scratch the surface as yet.
In international affairs, on such important matters as war or the preservation of peace, I believe that humbleness on the part of our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) will strike a very responsive chord in the hearts of the Canadian people. Humbleness together with honesty, sincerity and forthrightness in the defence of principles will take us many miles further than will the old philosophy of diplomacy taking one step forward and two steps back and in effect not exerting the influence that our nation might be able to exert. Here is where lies our basic quarrel with the policy of the government in international affairs.
I note that in ending his contribution the other day in opening a debate on his estimates the minister had this to say as reported at page 940 of Hansard:
External Affairs
Canada can play a vital part in world affairs today, perhaps just as vital a part as any other nation in the world.
I should like to underline that phrase "as any other nation in the world". He went on to say this:
These next ten years could be Canada's years in world affairs.
I believe the government fails to realize the potentialities that are available for Canadian influence as so ably expressed in the minister's own words at the conclusion of his contribution. The minister also placed on the record the resolution of the United Nations that the question of general and complete disarmament is the most important one facing the world today. If it is the most important one and if the next ten years may well be Canada's ten years in world affairs, that tenet applies, namely that Canada will have to play a leading role in the cause of world disarmament.
I should like again to express appreciation of the minister's clear desire for clarity. I feel that not too much progress is going to be made in the extremely difficult negotiations on disarmament unless there is a desire for clarity.
I want to say a few words on the subject of nuclear explosions. Canadians were delighted when in very forthright terms the minister, on the rostrum of the United Nations, made Canada's position very clear indeed when he said that Canada is unalterably- and I think that is the term he used-opposed to nuclear explosions occurring in the world. I am using my own words, and if I am doing the minister wrong I know he will correct me. I hope that Canadian efforts to investigate the effects of radiation are going to meet with success just as they met with the approval of other nations at the United Nations. As I said several years ago in this house, for all we know we may know, even though there is no war, radiation may be doing more harm to mankind than has been actually inflicted on mankind throughout the whole of the last horrible war. I think it is timely that every effort be made not only to prevent any further nuclear explosions but also to obtain the necessary information as to the possible effects of radiation on mankind.
We note with a great deal of satisfaction the continuation of the present armistice between the Soviet union, the United Kingdom and the United States of America in the matter of nuclear explosions. We regret that the government of France has decided to explode a nuclear bomb. There might be national reasons for reaching that decision. I do know that the United Nations expressed its apprehension and pleaded with the government of

External Affairs
France. I know that Canada endorsed a plea to the French government not to proceed.
This leads us to the problem of nuclear weapons, and I have not heard an equally clear announcement of the Canadian position on the desirability of the establishment of a non-nuclear club among the nations of the world. We feel that Canada should say: we are not at any time to become owners of, or supply storage for nuclear weapons, and we invite other nations to participate with us in a declaration that they also will follow such a policy. I have a special reason for making this plea at the present time when many Canadians are viewing with alarm the growing aggressiveness among some of the leading statesmen of western Europe. I believe I can understand this aggressiveness originating from a feeling that possibly the United States and to a lesser extent Canada have become more interested in what is referred to as continental defence, and that the western European nations may have to shoulder more of the burden than they have been doing in the years immediately following the last war.
I should like to underline the grave danger of the West German government ever being in possession of nuclear weapons before the unification of Germany has taken place. We have seen history repeat itself on so many occasions and we may well live long enough to see history repeat itself to the extent that if the West German government is given possession of nuclear weapons it may arrive at a state when it may be prepared to take steps to reunify Germany regardless of the opinions of the western allies. I think that danger is very great, and it is for that reason that Canada should use its influence to make a non-nuclear club encompass as many nations as possible and use every effort to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the people of West Germany, because the fires of hatred, the fires of revenge and of fear are very rapidly kindled in a people who by their nature feel very keenly.
If we are not willing to take the lead in forming a non-nuclear club, we might well unconsciously be forcing nations to take part in a nuclear weapons race even though they could ill afford the luxury. Nations which must devote all their energy and all their resources to the welfare of their people and, in many cases, to the very survival of the cause of democracy in their country should not be burdened with having to take part in a nuclear armament race.
On the subj ect of international disarmament I have to make what I consider a very serious complaint against the government of Canada. I believe everyone wishes for international disarmament. Canada is going to participate

in the work of the disarmament committee, and I think Canadians will insist that there should be, on the part of our delegation, at least, a determination to continue negotiations indefinitely if necessary, despite all the obstacles that may appear during the discussions. I believe that a welcome beginning might be made if the disarmament committee were able to agree on the initial limitation of armament expenditures by all nations, limiting them to the present dollar value of existing expenditures. If we could get all the countries of the world to agree that in their budgets for armament next year the number of dollars which would be spent would not exceed the number of dollars which were spent in 1960, I think this would be a welcome move in the right direction. An agreement of this kind might be easier to obtain than an agreement on the discarding of military strength, because nations will hesitate-some feel, for very good reasons-before risking any measure of disarmament. Thus I feel an initial proposal respecting an agreement not to increase armament expenditures would be welcomed by all peace-loving people in the world.
I hope that when we take part in the work of the disarmament committee we are going to be sincere. Only the other day I read the speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made to the United Nations in September, 1957. He went to great lengths to castigate the Soviet union for what he felt was lack of sincerity in its disarmament proposals at that time, and he called for sincerity. Then he announced on behalf of Canada-he used the words "on behalf of Canada" and "I speak for Canada" were his exact words-an offer which, if I interpret the speech correctly, was meant to test the sincerity of the Soviet government with regard to its proposals. The offer was for a mutual Arctic inspection plan. This is very important, because if we could obtain a mutual Arctic inspection plan there would be no need for armaments within the Arctic circle, since there is no use having hidden installations if a potential enemy knows of them and has the right to inspect those installations. Canadians would be saved millions of dollars if we could have a policy of disengagement in the Arctic circle. The Soviet people would be saved millions of dollars.
I am going to pass over how in my opinion the United States government complicated the Canadian intention as announced by the Prime Minister at that time. I have not the necessary time, and I know many other hon. members wish to participate. However, when the present minister was appointed to his office in July last year, I asked him what had happened to our Prime Minister's offer

of a mutual Arctic inspection plan, an offer which had been made, according to the press, in the Prime Minister's own words on the rostrum of the United Nations. I asked whether the plan had been forgotten or discarded; I asked the minister to look it up. Apparently he knew something about it, for he assured me in an immediate reply that the plan was still good

still open-and that it had not been put away in a filing cabinet and forgotten. The minister used the term "filing cabinet".
Then we had the visit to the United Nations of the Soviet leader, a most important visit in world history, and we all know about his offer of total and complete disarmament. Many Canadians wondered if it was a bona fide offer and entertained doubts as to its sincerity. The Russian leader also offered to give consideration to any moves in the field of disarmament which might eventually lead to total and complete disarmament. I was very pleased to note that our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was not asleep at the switch. He immediately repeated his offer to the Russian leader and gained publicity in all Canadian newspapers. He said in effect: If you are sincere, how about considering our Canadian offer for mutual inspection of the Arctic?
Once again the Prime Minister was given headlines in Canadian newspapers. You can well imagine how surprised, shocked and dismayed I was when I asked about this on orders of the day the other day and discovered that Canada has never even had the sincerity or courtesy to make an official offer to the Soviet government. There is an embassy only a mile or so away from this House of Commons and we have an ambassador in Moscow. The Prime Minister, the government or whoever would be responsible for sending such an offer has never had the courtesy to dictate this offer to a stenographer, have it typed out and delivered by security guard to the Soviet ambassador.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the hon. member has read the letter I wrote to Mr. Khrushchev and seen the reaction embodied in his reply which was simply to the effect that the Soviet union did not wish to have inspection in designated areas and that it had to be on the basis of inspection of a large area of the globe? I am paraphrasing what Mr. Khrushchev said. Apparently the hon. gentleman has not read the correspondence that passed between the chairman and myself.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some discussions did take place. However, I am also aware that the Canadian government allowed another government to interfere with what was the Canadian government's original 79951-0-62i
External Affairs
intention and plan and to so complicate the picture that total confusion resulted. The Secretary of State for External Affairs as much as admitted that in his reply on orders of the day when he said this proposal will no doubt be taken up at the forthcoming meetings of the disarmament committee. He had no doubt, he said, but that the soviet authorities were well aware of our offer. The Prime Minister did not interfere at the time to correct the minister and to announce that normal diplomatic channels had been resorted to.
I regret that it has become my conviction that the Prime Minister has callously exploited the sincere desires of the Canadian people for peace and disarmament in order to obtain for himself newspaper headlines. He should be the last one to lecture the leader of the Soviet union for possible insincerity as he did at the United Nations.


Mr. Palleil:: Spoken like a real communist.


Erhart Regier: I can assure the whip of the government that when it comes to doing battle with communism the record of the democratic socialists in the world is a much more successful one than is the record of the capitalists. The democratic socialists of the world know what communism really is in all its horrifying aspects but the capitalist parties subscribe to a philosophy that is basically very identical to the totalitarian philosophy of the communists of the world.
I have only a word to say on the subject of the world refugee year. I notice that one hon. member on the government side expressed the hope that I had only one more word to say. When the day comes when I will receive rounds of applause from the government benches I will feel I am failing in my duties as a member of the opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, apparently this hon. member did not read the exchange of letters to which reference has been made, and that is not unusual, but I would point out that in the exchange of letters with Mr. Khruschev I reiterated Canadian support for an Arctic zone and Mr. Khrushchev in replying to my letter on May 30, 1958, said:
In connection with what you say in favour of applying aerial inspection to prevent a sudden attack, I would like to remind you that the Soviet government, meeting the wishes of the western powers, already proposed last year the establishment of zones of aerial inspection in central Europe, as well as in the Far East, and in the corresponding part of the U.S.A.
There was no direct answer given to what I stated in my letter to Mr. Khrushchev as to Canada's attitude.

External Affairs


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, all I can say
to that is that the Prime Minister has never yet said he has officially made the offer to the soviet government on behalf of Canada. He has never said, "Let the Canadian government and the Soviet government establish a bilateral mutual inspection." That was the impression given to the Canadian people in the newspapers. As I noted before, the plan was complicated by the interference of another government and the Canadian government did not abide by its original intention of making an offer to the soviet government for a bilateral inspection of the Arctic zone.
I listened to what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) said about world refugee year. I feel that the role we are playing is inadequate and unbecoming to a country as wealthy as Canada especially in the light of what much poorer countries are doing in this regard. I also regret that Canada's participation in it has all the earmarks of a continuation of the racial discrimination that has in my opinion always existed in our Immigration Act and its accompanying regulations.
Much has been said about international economic co-operation from the angle of world peace and I endorse that. However, I should like to put forward the proposal that Canada's participation in trading blocs throughout the world and in international economic co-operation even to the point of aid to underdeveloped countries should be greatly enhanced if for no other reason than our own selfish economic consideration because the Canadian economy is of such a nature that it can only receive benefits through any economic aid that is rendered.
We note from time to time that the Prime Minister announces the participation by Canada in the Colombo plan and the aid takes the form of wheat. I am sure this is of great assistance to the prairie provinces. I should like to propose that our contribution to international aid be extended to at least 1 per cent of our gross national product and that wheat be an example to be followed by many other items of Canadian production.
We in our group noted with a great deal of interest although not without surprise- we know how intelligent, highly educated and well-read the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) is-what was said by the hon. member on a recent occasion. His speech in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne was rather unexpected coming from one in the Conservative ranks. We in our group welcome it most warmly. We feel he made a [Mr. Diefenbaker.l
real contribution when he pleaded with Canadians to consider that their own interests might in the long run best be served by supplying much more active aid to the efforts of the government of India to establish democracy there and to help the people of that country.
The minister comes from British Columbia. I would like to add to what the hon. member for Vancouver East had to say on the admission to the United Nations of China and diplomatic recognition of that country by Canada. It is of importance in the cause of world peace; it is important if we hope to accomplish anything of any significance in the field of disarmament. China, with its population of 650 million people, can, in the years to come-not now especially because of the state of poverty that still exists there- be a tremendous customer and trading partner of Canada. The earlier we get around to establishing normal trading relations with the government of China the better off we will foe in that regard.
I notice there have been such organizations as the Vancouver board of trade which have for a number of years now called on this government to give recognition to China in the interests of our own economic welfare.
I want to conclude by expressing my disgust at the attitude of the Prime Minister in regard to the problems that exist in the Union of South Africa. All I will do at this time is reiterate what was reported by the Canadian Press on February 1 from Toronto, namely the sentiments of Sir Francis Ifoiam, a member of Nigeria's legislative council, who was in Toronto on that day and who is reported to have said of our Prime Minister's position in regard to the Union of South Africa:
If he could not take a stand as a statesman, surely he could do so as a churchman.
I feel that if the choice is to retain the friendship of a few million whites in Africa, or the loss of friendship of hundreds of millions of coloured people in Africa, I for one would rather lose the friendship at this moment of the limited number of whites in order to ensure the continuing and deepening friendship of the hundreds of millions of coloured people on that continent.


Mr. Stuart Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, the satisfaction that was felt in British Columbia when the announcement was made that the international joint commission had reached agreement on the terms it would recommend to the government of Canada and the government of the United States for the international development of the resources of the Columbia river basin

has been greatly intensified by the realization that this week, today, the first talks between the two governments commenced.
The present government's determination to press negotiations to an early conclusion was taken at the very beginning of this government's life. The Prime Minister in 1957 expressed the policy of the Conservative party at that time, expressed a policy that sought to implement an agreement on 50-50 sharing of downstream benefits payable in power and a cash return to Canada on the flood control account. To have arrived in less than three years at the point where, within the international joint commission, general agreement on those terms has been achieved is a remarkable accomplishment when it is considered that negotiations on this matter were first referred to the international joint commission 15 years ago. For at least a decade it was difficult for people who lived in British Columbia, particularly those whose homes- as my riding is-lie within the Columbia basin, to believe that the governments of that period felt any great urgency in pressing forward to a satisfactory conclusion of those negotiations.
Perhaps it might be difficult for people in other parts of Canada to realize how important this is to our people, particularly in south central British Columbia. It is perhaps hard to realize the intensity of feeling which exists there and the devotion there is to this concept of the development of the Columbia river. I think it can only be compared with the intensive feeling felt in eastern Canada and in central Canada with respect to development of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Perhaps it is not generally understood in Canada-although I suppose in time it will become more readily understood-that the development of the Columbia basin in total in both countries exceeds, or will exceed, the expenditure by several times the development within the St. Lawrence region. In British Columbia alone it is a vast development, a complex development that is likely to change the face of our country and transform the economy. Therefore, there can be nothing but satisfaction felt in those regions that have for so long looked forward, counted on, and for so long not achieved in realization that expectation.
It would be, I think, very remiss on my part, if I did not pay tribute to the devotion and the lifelong advocacy of this plan by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). He, of course, as hon. members know, is a native of the very heart of the Columbia country. He has known throughout his life what this development could mean to British Columbia, and what
External Affairs
vast returns could be accomplished for the people of British Columbia and for Canada generally if agreement could be reached that would lead to the exploitation of the potential of the river.
I think also we must pay tribute to a devoted Canadian who has placed Canada's interests first at all times in leading the negotiations within the international joint commission and in achieving the large measure of success which has been reached at this stage. I refer to the Canadian joint chairman, General A. G. L. McNaughton. For years he took a firm stand, and he has a firm understanding and knowledge of, and devotion to this whole concept. The devotion and knowledge which he has shown throughout those years will bring to Canada benefits which are only now faintly realized.
I think that the vindication, the justification of the government's policy is found in the international Columbia river engineering board report which was issued last year where, for the first time to my knowledge, a very clear review was given of what was involved and what Canada would derive from the development of the river. The first statement, and an unchallengeable statement, but which has been in certain quarters and at certain times in our history to some extent challenged, was that:
Further development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin is practicable and in the public interest from the points of view of the two governments.
It is on that basis that the policy of this government has been founded, and the justification lies in this report, the realization that:
It is physically and economically feasible to develop a system of power plants that will produce an average of more than 16 million kilowatts utilizing about 50 million acre-feet of storage.
It is a fine agreement; it is a vast program and it has now, we can reasonably believe, come to realization, and come to that realization because of the determination of the present administration in Canada that it should come to realization. There are many other significant points in this report of the engineering board but I think they are well known to hon. members. If they are not well known they will become so in the years to come.
But as this realization has developed in British Columbia that the Columbia river development is no longer a dream, no longer something that exists in a future which nobody can predict, there has also grown the realization that there may be difficulties. There are complexities and there are problems. Now the people find that they must accept the fact that perhaps in the course of a very short

External Affairs
time they are going to have to live with this development and it will be with them and around them. It will affect many aspects of their daily lives.
One problem that exists in the minds of very many people, particularly in the Arrow lakes valley and as far north as Revelstoke, concerns the discussion that has developed within British Columbia of high Arrow and low Arrow, the storage of water on the Arrow lakes. I would think, that it would be well if the people in that region were reminded of the statement which General McNaughton made to the external affairs committee in April of last year when he said:
I think this is a pretty serious consideration which has to be weighed very carefully by the people who will have the ultimate responsibility in these matters, which will be of course the government of British Columbia and to some extent the government at Ottawa as well.
A little further on in his evidence he stated:
From the very beginning it has been recognized by all concerned that the people who will determine whether or not a project is to be built are those in the governments of the localities concerned.
He also mentioned that there is an intermediate suggestion and had this to say:
There is the intermediate suggestion which has been worked out, which calls for a level of 1411. This would require a certain amount of diking around the southeasterly section of Castlegar but it appears that it might be worthy of consideration.
In other words, although concern is developing in part of British Columbia now about what must be faced if the development of the river comes about and what this may mean in disruption and dislocation of their daily lives, the fact is that they must also realize that this matter is of first concern not only to the government of Canada but to the government of British Columbia; that it is of first concern to governmental authorities that the rights and interests of the people who live within the Columbia basin should be protected at all times.
I think it should also be emphasized that in any project of the vastness of the Columbia development project the people must be prepared for changes in their lives, that the face of the country will be transformed to some extent and there will be adjustments that will have to be made both by individuals and by communities, but they will only be expected to make such adjustments if over the long term the benefits they will receive from the project will be far greater and they will have a more secure and prosperous future than they would have if these developments were not undertaken.
I believe, that the success of the program of relocating town sites, the orderly development of facilities along the St. Lawrence

seaway, and the acceptance of the people of that area of the adjustments they had to make are an indication that no government is ever going to enter carelessly or without proper consideration of all the aspects upon a program of this kind without first taking into account the best interests of the people most intimately concerned. There are many other factors in this program that might be discussed. Having in mind the size of the program and the fact that it involves so many complex problems requiring the closest of co-operation and consultation, not only between the governments of Canada and the United States but also the governments of Canada and British Columbia, I think there are bound to be times when there will be conflicts of opinion and when there will have to be negotiations based on the sincere conviction that the case of each authority involved is fair and reasonable.
But there is no problem involved in this whole development that is incapable of solution by negotiation, consideration and a genuine willingness on the part of all parties concerned to bring about the development of this vast power and storage complex on the Columbia. Finally, I think it must be said at this time, primarily for the benefit of the people who live in Okanagan-Revelstoke riding, who have such a close association with this project and whose interests are so closely concerned with any development that may come about-this applies elsewhere in British Columbia of course-that if there should be any delay or deviation from the swift forward movement toward the development of the Columbia river it is accurate and safe to say, I believe, that any such deviation or delay will not be caused by any action taken by the present government of Canada.
I should like to refer now for a moment to world refugee year and in particular to the program for the tubercular refugees who have been brought to Canada in the last few months. I spoke on this subject in the house on two occasions last year and I should like to repeat, as I did on the second occasion last year, my appreciation of the consideration that was given to this proposal by the government and my belief that this is one of the finest contributions that Canada has made within the sphere of international relations in many years.
I must also say that I note that the program has come under certain criticism. It has been criticized in some quarters because it is not enough and it has been criticized in other quarters because it is too much. To those who have suggested it is not enough I would say first of all that when this proposal was made last year and the matter was discussed it was looked upon as a possible

trial program that would give Canada an opportunity to discover how successfully it could bring to Canada 100 tubercular refugees and their families from the camps of Europe and restore them to health and to find out how successfully they could be integrated into the Canadian community.
In my own speeches on the subject I suggested an even smaller program than was undertaken. I did so without apology because I believe that we would be dealing most unfairly with these refugees, particularly in this category, if we were to enter into a very large and elaborate program, as has been suggested, without discovering first whether we could handle successfully a small trial program. I think it must also be recognized that the government of Canada has no sanatoria in which to place these people.
The program can only proceed with the cooperation of the provinces and it is a matter of profound regret to me that my own province, one of the richest in Canada, one of the best able to participate in the program, refused to do so. But I still feel that such a program must proceed carefully. We must find out if it can be handled successfully and if the majority of the Canadian people are prepared to support it. As for those who have objected to the program, I can only say that I regret that there should be even the smallest degree of such selfishness and lack of humanity existing in the Canadian people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take
part in the debate I should like to begin, as other speakers on both sides of the house have, by paying my tribute to the minister who gave us yesterday his first full and formal statement on external affairs since he took over this department after the still lamented death of his predecessor who we still miss in this house. I acknowledge, and I do it with great pleasure, the way in which the minister has taken up the duties of his office, which must indeed have seemed at the beginning at least somewhat strange to him because they were not exactly parallel to the duties he had had before.
Acknowledging his sincerity and honesty of approach to international problems, I can only wish him success in every effort he makes, not only on behalf of the government but on behalf of parliament and the Canadian people to assist in the search for a solution to these difficult international problems that face this country and face all countries and which, if we do not find a solution for them, may have catastrophic consequences.
The minister, when he was on this side of the house, more than once intervened in the debates on foreign affairs. He criticized the
External Affairs
government of that day very strongly, and very sincerely, on the international policy pursued by that government with which he did not agree. I know that he would expect us on this side to discharge our duty in exactly the same way, and if we do not agree, and express our disagreement with him on the manner and method of the conduct of foreign policy, he will not mistake that-I am sure he will not-for any disagreement with the aims and objectives of foreign policy which, under his guidance and that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), I am sure are the same as those that have existed in the years gone by.
I should like also to join with him in the tribute he has paid to the members of the Department of External Affairs, a tribute which has been repeated by other members of the house. I refer to members of the Department of External Affairs both at home and abroad. Perhaps I am in as good a position as any member of the house to appreciate how well deserved is a tribute of that kind. I might even call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there are two ex-members of that department sitting on the front benches of the opposition and perhaps one of them at times-naturally I am not referring to myself-looks back with some longing to the days when he worked for the Department of External Affairs.
When the minister spoke yesterday he voiced the hope that this would be a wide open, free swinging debate. But I am not at all sure, having listened to his speech and having read it again in Hansard, whether he gave us very much to swing at. I am not at all sure either, that this is meant as a compliment. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) paid great tribute to the minister this afternoon, but it seemed to me he modified his tribute somewhat by suggesting that the minister was speaking with blinkers on and he asked him to remove the blinkers. Perhaps there is some justification for that criticism and I hope to be able to examine what the minister said without the handicap of blinkers. In all truth there really was not very much in the minister's speech to swing at in this wide open, free swinging debate into which he suggested we should enter. He did not, in fact, give us a punching bag so much as a puffball to strike at, and you know what happens to a puffball when you strike at it.
His survey was a clear, amiable and somewhat academic, I thought in spots, discussion of some of the areas and aspects of international affairs without, as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has already pointed out, too much enlightenment as to Canada's policies on the matters and in the

External Affairs
areas which he touched upon. I, of course, will try to point out those omissions on the part of the minister and I shall take exception to one or two of the things he said, more in regard to his emphasis and procedures than objectives. I hope that in doing this I will not be accused of being picayune as the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) suggested this afternoon such criticism might be. I hope also that in pointing out some of the weaknesses of the minister's arguments as we see them on this side, weaknesses which we think arise out of his unduly satisfied picture as to the state of things as he finds them, we will not again be accused by hon. gentlemen opposite of being prophets of gloom or doom, the kind of stuff we hear so often from benches opposite when we do our duty by trying to expose weaknesses of government policy. These weaknesses of Canadian policy are not to be confused with the strength of Canada itself, because my hon. friends seem to find it difficult to realize there is still a distinction between Canada and the Canadian government.
There was one other thing that became clear as the minister spoke. After the two and a half or perhaps three years during which my hon. friends opposite have been responsible for government policy there does not appear to have been any fundamental change in policy on foreign affairs, in any important respect or indeed in any respect. I am naturally glad of that. I think it is a vindication of the purposes and objectives of Canadian foreign policy in recent years. As the minister himself said, Canada's position in the world in the pursuit of these policies has been and remains good. There was no talk by the minister, and I am very happy to acknowledge this, of the restoration of Canada's position in the world during the last two or three years.
Where I do take some issue with the minister, however, and I have already indicated this, is in what I feel is the too-optimistic interpretation which he gives to some contemporary developments. He indicated yesterday his views and they were characterized in the statement that everything is fine so far as Canada is concerned; that we have no enemies in the world, and I hope that is true. I think evidence can be brought to support it. I almost got the impression, as I listened to him speaking and as I read his statement today, that we were expected to take the position in this house there was hardly a cloud on the horizon, except perhaps a red one over China.


Howard Charles Green: You have been listening to the radio broadcast.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I did not listen to any radio broadcast, unfortunately, either last night or today, that dealt with the minister's

speech. Perhaps I missed something. However, the minister did suggest there may be difficulties over China, that there was a red cloud over China which may cause some trouble, especially in respect of disarmament, as it has already caused difficulty in respect of diplomatic recognition.
The minister did not say anything about this matter or, if he did so, I have overlooked it. I should like him to satisfy himself at least, if he does not desire to explain to the house, how we can have as much hope as we should have for the success of these disarmament talks which are about to open in the 10-member commission when a powerful, new, emerging, industrial communist state, the government of which controls 675 million or 700 million people, will not be represented on this disarmament commission.
Oh, I know it will be said that if this commission is able to work out a disarmament agreement both sides, east and west are represented on it, the results of that agreement can toe submitted to the government of communist China and the government of communist China can then be brought into the agreement, as it must be brought in if disarmament is to work. But it is a very different thing to include a state of this kind in the negotiations from the beginning and to 'bring them along if you cannot find out from the beginning why you cannot bring them along. That is a very different thing than to work out your own agreement, then submit it to them afterwards and say to them, "Please sign this; Please accept this, we have agreed on it".


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does he think that the steps which have been taken to arrange for the meeting of this 10-power disarmament committee should now be held up and that a new arrangement should toe made to invite communist China as a member of that disarmament committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I did not say that. What I am suggesting is that when the negotiations for this committee began perhaps it would have been a good thing to have had communist China represented on the communist side so that she could be in on these negotiations from the beginning and we could find out from the beginning where she stands.


Howard Charles Green: What does the Leader of the Opposition suggest should be done now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest we go ahead and try to make this commission work and try to work out a disarmament agreement through the commission.


Howard Charles Green: That is what we hope to do.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But I am pointing out to the minister, who yesterday gave us such a cheerful and comforting picture of international developments, that it is going to be more difficult to bring about a disarmament agreement which will mean something when we have not one of the most powerfully armed countries in the world in the negotiating body from the beginning. That is all I am pointing out. It is too late now to do anything about it, I admit; but I think it is a weakness in the mechanism that has been agreed on.
As for the other aspect, this cloud over our untroubled skies, namely non-recognition,-I refer to diplomatic non-recognition- I have no quarrel with the stand taken at the last assembly by the government on this matter. In view of the policy and attitude adopted by the government of Peking, in the six months before the assembly particularly, and with regard to the onslaught on Tibet and the threat to India, I think it was quite unrealistic to suggest that we could have supported or perhaps even discussed the entry of red China to the United Nations in those circumstances. But this situation points up the dilemma we are in.
We have not this government which exercises control over red China in a position where we can call her to account for her actions. We have not this government of red China in a position where we can bring her into international agencies and try to find out her policies from the beginning. But nevertheless we cannot accomplish what we want to do in the world without her agreement. As the minister himself will admit, in order to be effective disarmament must include the red Chinese army in some form or another.
As to the minister's other argument for not taking any action to bring her in at the present time or under present conditions, as she puts it, he makes quite a point of the fact that our Asian friends would be upset by any change in the position at this time. Our Asian friends, include some of the closest, Burma, Pakistan, Ceylon and Cambodia. They are all Asian countries that have already recognized red China. Of course there is also India. Hence we have a problem there.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he thinks that Canada should recognize red China?
External Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just said to the minister that in the circumstances as they existed at the United Nations assembly last September, October and November, I think the position taken by the Canadian delegation was the correct one. But I also suggest to the minister that this question is going to come up again and that conditions may not be the same as they were last time. This problem is one that is continually with us and it will have to be solved. It is for the government to make up its mind what kind of solution it should seek.
However, I also agreed with the minister when he said yesterday that whatever action is taken, whatever solution is found-and it must be done eventually-we in this country should not accept any arrangement which would turn over to a communist government in Peking the people of the island of Formosa. I certainly do not think that solution would be tolerable. Formosa and the people of Formosa are entitled to the same rights of self-determination as are other people in the world. I was glad to hear the minister emphasize the desirability of maintaining those rights for them in any approach to this particular problem.
Mr. Speaker, as I am about to embark upon another subject, perhaps you would permit me to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Lambert:: Before the house takes recess-and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could go on after the dinner hour-I should like to ask him this question. In his suggestion that Canada or others could somehow have invited red China to the disarmament conference now taking place is he implying indirectly that there should be recognition of red China or of its admission to the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No; I am not. If the hon. member had listened to what I said he would have known that. In the first place, may I remind him that Canada had nothing to do with the formation of this commission. This commission was agreed on in Geneva by the foreign ministers of the great powers without reference at that time to the United Nations at all and without, I take it, reference to Canada. Diplomatic recognition is one thing, but the inclusion of red China in international committees where red China's agreement is necessary in implementing the work of those committees is something else. We accepted red China at Geneva and when we had to work out peace in Indo-China. She sat around the table with full rights with other delegations. I happened to be there. But we did not recognize her diplomatically by doing so, and nobody objected to the

External Affairs
procedure at the time. I suggest that perhaps the same procedure might be desirable at other international bodies.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was discussing some aspects of the problem which arises from either the recognition or the non-recognition diplomatically of the communist government of China, and I was trying to point out that a decision not to recognize this government diplomatically does not free us from what after all is a dilemma, because there are certain international problems in this world today which cannot be satisfactorily settled without the participation and agreement of that government in the settlement.
That is an unhappy fact of international existence at the present time. We recognize that fact. Even governments which do not recognize the government in question were obliged to take that fact into consideration when China was invited to take part in the Indo-China peace conference. I would suggest, as indeed is obvious, that we cannot reach a disarmament agreement, important, desirable and essential though that is, without the participation and agreement of the government of that country. Perhaps when the minister winds up the debate in the customary fashion he will deal with this and with other questions which have been brought up and, indeed, with some questions which I propose to bring up now.
The minister in his statement yesterday emphasized the desirability of independence as the basic requirement of Canadian foreign policy. It does not seem to me possible, in the circumstances of the present, to talk about independence without at the same time talking about interdependence. There is in fact no possibility of any member of a coalition or of an association of nations-and we are members of more than one-taking any independent action without relating that action to the interests of the coalition.


Howard Charles Green: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not want to misquote what I said. I think if he would look at the record he would find that my suggestion was that Canada should take an independent approach to these problems.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am glad to accept that. Canada should take an independent approach.

But the argument is the same. It is not possible for a member of this coalition to take an independent approach without relating that approach to the interest of the coalition as a whole of which it is a member. That means attempting to relate its independent approach to the approaches being made by other friendly members of the coalition. That is obvious. It is obvious in respect of nuclear tests; it is obvious in respect of disarmament; it is obvious in respect of the use and control of nuclear weapons. The minister said he was referring to an independent approach as being a requirement for Canadian foreign policy, and I am not quarrelling with that except to the extent that we can never take an independent approach in an interdependent world without relating that approach to the interest of the coalition of free states.
Last October, as quoted in the London Free Press the minister, in a brief statement in New York to a correspondent of that paper is reported to have said this:
Actually there is no partisanship in the conduct of foreign relations.
There has been in the past, as the minister is very well aware, and perhaps there will be in the future, though we all desire to keep it to a minimum. The report continues:
But it is only too obvious that we have adopted a more independent attitude towards our friends and neighbours across the border.
I shall have something to say about that.
We are coming of age and we are no longer a vassal of the powerful United States. In fact-
And this is the example he gave at that time to show how independent we were:
We are independent to the extent that in the United Nations deadlock over the battle between Turkey and Poland for a security council seat we have consistently voted for Poland while Britain and the United States are supporting Turkey. The balloting is secret, but it is common knowledge that the Canadian delegation sided with the candidate championed by soviet Russia.
Then the minister went on later in the same interview to add:
The Diefenbaker government-
Not the Canadian government, or Canada-
-is asserting itself with more force and independence than its Liberal predecessors.


Howard Charles Green: Again, these are not statements made by me. These are words by a correspondent, and not a regular correspondent, either. They may be shown as having come from me, but they are his expressions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not have used them as the words of the minister if they were not quoted. I will send the quotation over to the hon. gentleman. The words appear in this edition of the London Free Press as

the words of the minister himself, with quotation marks around them. If they are not correct, I will, of course, accept the minister's word for it.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask who the columnist is?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Stephen L. Debalta, United Nations correspondent of this paper in Washington. The dateline is New York.


Howard Charles Green: Unfortunately, that correspondent is practically stone deaf.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know this correspondent has a disability in speaking, but this is the first time I ever heard he was stone deaf. I admit I have had in my day to adopt somewhat unusual procedures in order to disavow what I thought was wrongly attributed to me, but never before have I heard anyone in this house say that a report is not accurate because the correspondent is stone deaf. I suggest to the minister, who is new in his profession, that he should be very careful about giving interviews to stone deaf correspondents in New York.


Howard Charles Green: Sometimes you cannot help these things.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Anyway this was the statement attributed to the minister and perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to continue. If it is not accurate, the minister can correct it. I am assisting the hon. gentleman by giving him the chance, after all these weeks, of correcting a report which is in quotations and attributed to him in a very reputable paper, not a paper which is unfriendly to the minister or to the government.


Howard Charles Green: He is a columnist.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He goes on to report the minister as saying:
We feel that Canada is growing in stature by the hour as a world power, and this is exactly what we aim to be-a world power.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest we might be a little more modest than making it our ambition in the immediate future to become a world power.


Howard Charles Green: What is wrong with that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the minister thinks that we can become a world power shortly, he will find that we are going to be asked to undertake the obligations of a world power, and the obligations of a world power are not such, surely, that a country the size of Canada should be asked to undertake at the present time, I for one, as a Canadian, am quite
External Affairs
content with the obligations we have undertaken in the past and which we may be called upon to undertake in the future as a middle power.
The minister himself said with regard to Canada's obligations as a middle power-I had better quote him now from Hansard this time; and Hansard is not stone deaf. On page 931 of Hansard of yesterday's date the minister said:
But I do ask the hon. members of this house to consider whether Canada would not gain more respect in the years that lie ahead and exercise more influence if she forgot about this role of being a middle man or an honest broker.
I do not think there is anything humiliating or wrong-indeed I think there is a great deal to be admired-in the role of middle man or honest broker. When I have mentioned this expression before I have always added it is very easy to exaggerate the significance and importance of Canada as an interpreter or middle man, or whatever you wish to call it. Nevertheless there have been occasions in the last 10 or 15 years, and before that, when Canada by playing the role of honest broker- and I would suggest that Suez was one such occasion-has been able to make a contribution above and beyond that which could be made by a purely independent Canadian stand. A Canada with only independent approaches cannot make her most effective maximum contribution in international affairs. This she can do by attempting to be an independent but honest broker.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member had better get together with his friend the hon. member for Essex East who said the opposite this afternoon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, he did not. I have a very good authority for the importance of that role for Canada because not once but many times no less a person than Sir Winston Churchill has made reference to it. Once when he spoke in this house he lauded the contribution that Canada made to international relations. I forget the words he used but I think on that occasion he called Canada a link pin and on another occasion he called it a link. He certainly felt that our role as a middle man and an honest broker was one we could play well and usefully in the future.
Apparently, we are now going to abandon this role of honest broker for one of a more independent approach. The minister has already given some examples of what he means by that. He has said, and I quote his words, that we should "act aggressively for disarmament." Of course we should. As my friend the hon. member for Essex East has said, we have acted for disarmament for many

External Affairs
years. We have discharged our duties in that vitally important field with credit to ourselves as Canadians and I hope we will continue to do so, but are we going to be able to make a maximum contribution in this field by stressing the independent character of our approach to the problem of disarmament?
I might have been more impressed with the minister's argument in this respect if he had put forward yesterday any detailed plans or programs which would characterize this independent approach. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) derided that argument and said how silly it would be in this game of poker for Canada to make her hand known at this time. Other members of this commission, the United Kingdom, the United States and France, although not having made their hands known in detail, at least have indicated the kind of plans and principles they hope to put forward and follow in these discussions. Perhaps that would have been a good thing for us to do.
There is one respect in which the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) have been very definite and extremely emphatic, perhaps underlining the importance of this new independent approach. They have stated that so far as the Canadian government is concerned it is opposed to nuclear tests. That represents a change of policy on the part of the government. If we are having that made absolutely clear on the eve of these discussions it will come as a change of policy. It will also represent a policy which certainly has not yet been adopted by the United Kingdom or the United States as we had evidenced today. I do not quarrel with this statement yet the government certainly willing to make its hand known in this respect. The government said: We are against nuclear tests. But when the Prime Minister spoke on the subject in this house laying down the policies of the government in respect of nuclear tests on August 22, 1958, as reported at page 3944 of Hansard, he said something else:
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.
He said later in the same statement on the same page:
The conditions that the suspension agreement be extended year by year only if the inspection system is functioning effectively and progress continues to be made in the reaching of agreements on major substantive disarmament measures, are prudent foundations on which to build.
That was the policy of the government at that time. Apparently that policy has been changed on the eve of these talks and

while talks are going on in Geneva. The position now is that the tests should be stopped. There was no reference in the minister's statement to the necessity of international control and inspection as a condition for the suspension and stopping of nuclear tests.
The Prime Minister this afternoon asked what our policy was and what we had said on this matter. My friend the hon. member for Essex East replied to that question but I am glad to give the reply in somewhat more detail so that the house will know exactly where we stand as a party on this highly important question of the suspension of nuclear tests, a question which exemplifies both the possibilities and dangers of taking this independent approach apart from our friends and allies on the eve of international discussions.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Leader of the Opposition what the policy of his party is on this question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I just said to the minister that I would give that. I am about to read from a statement which I made in Vancouver because I thought he might be more impressed by a statement I made in Vancouver than by one I made any place else.


Howard Charles Green: As long as Vancouver was not impressed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said then and I repeat tonight:
X suggest our policy-
With regard to nuclear tests. I continue: -should include the following:
(1)	There will be no more nuclear tests on our side-
That is the western side. I suggest this is the policy we should promote. I continue: -for a period of time, say two years, even if the other side refuses to make the same commitment. At the end of the period-
Or whatever period was adopted by agreement on the western side. I continue:
-the prohibition can be re-examined in the light of what has happened.
That is, what has happened on the other side. I continue:
(2)	During this period-
That is, the period of suspension on our side, without conditions.
-we should make a supreme effort to agree with the other side on an international treaty for prohibiting all such tests in the future, with appropriate measures for international control and supervision.
I went on to say:
The Geneva conference has made some progress here but not enough.

(3)	We can take the lead at the United Nations in pressing for a solemn declaration by all member states-
This was on the eve of the assembly. I continue:
-that do not now possess atomic weapons that they will not in the future manufacture such weapons.
There is no difference between hon. members of the house on that. Then I added:
It is bad enough to have two, or three or even four powers with the capacity for total destruction of peoples. It would be infinitely worse if 15 or 20 or 30 nations, including some irresponsible dictatorships, had that capacity. And that will certainly happen unless something is done to stop it.
(4)	We in Canada must be given full information by the United States on the fall-out danger from the small tactical atomic weapons that are now being developed for use not against cities and peoples but against the armed forces of an aggressor.
That is the position we took then and that is the one we take now. I suggest that is clear and unequivocal.


Howard Charles Green: Just about as clear as mud.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry that the minister does not understand it.


Mr. Bigg:: I don't, either.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not so sorry about that because I am not so surprised.
The minister then went on to talk about NATO.


An hon. Member:: What is that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. What he said about Canada's relationship to that organization is a very good illustration of the limitations and indeed the dangers of emphasizing this independent approach to questions as a member of a coalition. I agree, and indeed I said when I participated in the debate in this house a few weeks ago, that the time has come, having due regard to our obligations as a member of the coalition, to push suggestions for closer unity and more collective control inside that coalition. When I did that-and that is an independent approach-the Prime Minister intervened and asked, "What would you do if NATO would not accept those proposals??" You could ask that question of any government in the world that attempts to take an independent approach to any international problem.


John George Diefenbaker: It took two weeks to think that one out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You make an independent approach and the Prime Minister asks, "What would you do if you did not succeed?" Because it may not succeed, presumably you should not make the approach. Is that the new kind of foreign policy we are going to
External Affairs
have in this country? If they will not accept your proposals, drop them, then, before you make them.
The minister painted a very glowing picture of the work of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which was in harmony with the bright picture he painted of international affairs generally. He suggested-in fact, he more than suggested, he said-that there was really no danger of the organization breaking up and I certainly hope he is right in that regard. But it does not help to preserve the strength and the unity of an organization to remain blind to the dangers and the trends that are threatening the strength and unity of that organization. The minister himself, notwithstanding his optimistic observations of yesterday, must be a little worried about the organization because he said when he came back from Paris after the NATO council meeting, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of December 14 in a Canadian Press dispatch from Paris that the United States and Canada alone were meeting their obligations to NATO.
If that is the case, how can the minister then paint such an optimistic picture of the working of the NATO organization at this time, if Canada and the United States alone are meeting their obligations to this organization? When I talk about-and I have and I will continue to talk about-some of those dangerous developments that there are inside NATO that threaten the essential strength and unity of the organization, I am not a sole voice in the wilderness talking like this. Perhaps the minister has read the words of an authority who may impress him more than myself, namely the secretary general of NATO, who has no reason to be unrealistic or pessimistic about the organization of which he is the administrative head. He takes a very sound and sensible stand in regard to that organization. I quote from a speech made by Paul Henri Spaak in the December issue of the NATO "News Letter". This was a speech made to the Imperial Defence College in London. The secretary general of NATO said this, and I commend these words to the minister:
That NATO stands at the crossroads and that its effectiveness, and perhaps its very existence, depends upon its power of adaptation.
He went further than that, and I agree 100 per cent with what he said, on another occasion. This is a speech made by Mr. Spaak at the Atlantic treaty association meeting in Boston last autumn. He began this part of his speech by saying:
I must now take the plunge and speak of my worries and anxieties.

External Affairs
A little later he said this:
Can we still afford, nowadays, to maintain attitudes, however excellent, which are beginning to be outdated? We adopted them 10 years ago, and this is a fast moving world.
Then he summed up his speech as follows:
The concept of a military Atlantic alliance restricted to a specific geographical area, adequate in 1949, is therefore no longer so in 1958.
A common policy, probably of world wide scope, must be added, to it. And this must be done at once.
Another thing which should be done as quickly as possible is the organization of scientific co-operation, and even economic and social action should be harmonized.
In a word, the Atlantic alliance should become the Atlantic community.
Perhaps the minister will agree that in the face of that evidence there are some problems facing NATO, some very difficult problems, and that it is idle, and it does not help NATO to overlook them. I could quote a good many others. The minister talked about consultation. This is a continuing problem and is likely to remain so for some time. Perhaps this problem will only be solved-and the minister, when he winds up this debate, might comment on this-when the governments who are members of NATO convert the NATO council from a diplomatic into a political instrument and send the kind of representatives to the NATO council who will be able to talk directly on behalf of their governments and who will be able to assist in working out a common Atlantic foreign policy in the NATO council.
I agree with the minister when he said yesterday that there is no sign of any impending break-up. Of course, NATO is not going to break up but there are dangerous tendencies. There are difficulties that should be faced and solved or NATO will not have the strength and unity so essential in the days ahead. As Mr. Spaak has said, and a good many other people have said, NATO is not going to stand still. It goes forward, or it will go backward. Some of the attitudes to NATO of some of the governments in the last year-and I pointed this out in the house a few days ago-did give cause for some anxiety. I am thinking not only of Prance's attitude toward collective security. That is one difficulty; that is one problem, but it is not the only problem. However, it certainly is a problem and if it is not solved it is going to make it much more difficult for NATO to go forward.
The courageous, heroic head of the French state, Mr. de Gaulle, who has accomplished some big things for his country in recent weeks, had a book published last December called "Generals and Fighting Men". It is the third and final volume of his memoirs.

This book bears careful reading and indicates what the French policy may be in the years ahead. In this book Mr. de Gaulle talks about "the vast design I have formed for my country". This is his design for France, and any design for France by a man who is now guiding the destinies of France is certainly an important matter for Canada and other free countries. He said this:
To ensure for It (for France) security in western Europe by preventing a new Reich from threatening it again. To collaborate with west and east, if need be to contract the necessary alliances with one side or the other, without ever accepting any kind of dependence. To bring about a re-grouping, from the political, economic and strategic viewpoint, of the states touching on the Rhine, the Alps and the Pyrenees.
The final sentence in this excerpt is as follows:
To make this organization-
That is this European regrouping.
-into one of the three world powers and, if one day it proves necessary, the arbiter between the Anglo-Saxon and the Soviet camps.
I can understand how the leader of the French republic must feel about the policy and destiny of his own country in the difficult days ahead but I suggest that for France or for any other European or North American country there cannot be found a safe destiny in that kind of program and that the only safe course for us to follow is not to try to build up a group inside the Atlantic alliance which can act as an arbiter between east and west but to build up the Atlantic alliance into a much stronger and more cohesive organization than it is today. If France seeks and achieves more independence in the coalition other countries will seek and achieve perhaps more independence, and what then will happen to our organization?
The minister also talked yesterday in his speech about the commonwealth. I suggest to him that if we think about the commonwealth in the old sense as some kind of association of states under the umbrella of Westminster, if we long for the kind of administrative and political centralization which some people in this country and other countries in the commonwealth hoped for years ago, we will not be aware of the importance, or the possibilities of the commonwealth in I960. The only chance of making this commonwealth work, as we all hope it will work for the benefit of our own peoples and for the world, is to accept wholeheartedly the new concept of the commonwealth which includes in its members now a majority of Asian-African states, to accept it as a multiracial commonwealth, to accept it, as the minister mentioned yesterday, as a bridge between the east and west. In that sense

the commonwealth may have a great future ahead of it as a peace preserving and peace strengthening institution tout if we look at it in any other sense we will be making a great mistake.
A good many speakers in this debate have talked about the government's attitude toward apartheid and toward South Africa. I do not think anybody in this house, certainly nobody in this party, would wish to take any course of action which would drive South Africa out of the commonwealth, but we surely do not wish to see a course followed by South Africa which will drive four fifths of the people in the commonwealth outside the commonwealth. That is the problem, and I hope that we in this country, or the people of any other country of the commonwealth, will not be faced with the awful choice between these two courses, either keeping South Africa in or driving the Asian and African countries out.
Surely it must be of the policy of the government, as of other governments in the commonwealth, somehow to avoid the necessity of that choice, but if we think of the commonwealth in old terms as a commonwealth based on London with white supremacy we may find that we are faced with some insoluble problems in the years ahead.


Howard Charles Green: I did not suggest that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. I am not suggesting that the minister made any such suggestion. I have pointed out another dilemma, another difficulty, another problem in the international scene which affects the commonwealth.


An hon. Member:: We know that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Someone says, "We know that". But there was one reference in the minister's speech which I think indicated a misconception of the nature of the new commonwealth. I refer to page 934, the bottom of the second column, where the minister said:
This commonwealth of ours is so spread out around the world that it must work for peace. If there should be war the commonwealth would be in far more trouble than the United States or the Soviet union because, as I say, it is so scattered across the globe, and certainly everyone in the commonwealth at the present time is working for peace.
Of course they are but the suggestion that if there were a war the commonwealth would be in a more vulnerable position because it is stretched out around the world, more vulnerable than the United States or the Soviet union, does not seem to me to be a very realistic one because it assumes that if there were a war every member of the commonwealth would be equally affected or that every
External Affairs
member of the commonwealth would be participating in that war. As we know-especially the new commonwealth with the Asian and African states know-every single member of the commonwealth has its own independent foreign and defence policy and is not under any commitment to enter into any conflict merely because other countries of the commonwealth are involved. This hangover, if I may call it that, of the old concept of a centralized commonwealth is not a very realistic one.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid I am not the one who has got the hangover.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I just gave the quotation as an indication of the minister's own view that if there were a war all members of the commonwealth would be involved and therefore because they are scattered all over the world they would be more vulnerable than the United States and the Soviet union, which does not seem to me to be a very realistic idea.
The minister went on to talk about our relations with the United States, and perhaps it would be desirable for a few minutes to look at how our independent approach is working in this vital relationship, this vital aspect of our foreign policy. The minister had very little to say about this. I think he only had about two columns in his speech on our relations with the United States of America. In that part of his statement he certainly gave no indication that he was worried about the growth of continentalism as an aspect of Canadian policy, about the diminution of our freedom of action because of the growth of these continental requirements in finance, in investment, in trade, in energy, in defence policy, indeed, in almost every aspect including the cultural aspect of our national development.
When we were in office, Mr. Speaker, we knew about the difficulties of this development. We knew how hard it was to stand up against this trend. We were pilloried by hon. gentlemen opposite because we were not able to do more about it, and if we look with some suspicion on some of their attitudes and policies now it is because we remember that they were going to save the country from this kind of subservience. We knew the situation, we knew the difficulties. They did not. They were going to save us from the domineering influence of the United States. They should listen to some of the speeches that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) is making these days.
Let us see where we are in 1960 in respect of these measures. As I have said, the minister had very few words on this subject. He said that our relations are important. They are.

External Affairs
He said that our relations are excellent and that they could not be better. He talked about the Camp David hospitality and how wonderful it is to get around the table with your American opposite numbers and try to work out these problems in a spirit of frank and friendly conversation and, of course, we know all about that. You know, in other days we have had our Camp David conversations too. But the atmosphere of Camp David or the atmosphere of Geneva or the atmosphere of any other place is not enough to solve difficult bilateral problems. So the minister might have told us, and perhaps he will tell us when he winds up the debate, something about current problems and difficulties in the development of what I might call the continental aspects of our policy.
In his feeling that everything was all right, and this was echoed by one or more of his supporters this afternoon, he said-I do not want to be unfair to him-he gave the impression that we were really handling these matters well. We were working out our difficulties. Indeed, I think the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) said that relations had never been as excellent as they are today and that the problems had all been more or less satisfactorily settled.
Let me mention one that has not been settled, and that is the problem of our growing trade dependence on the United States, our growing financial dependence on the United States. This problem is more acute, more dangerous and more important than it was three years ago. If the minister and members of the government have been so successful in their negotiations with the United States on these matters of trade, economics, agriculture and all the rest, I wonder whether later the minister would explain why they were not able to make any headway of any kind in persuading the United States to carry out its announced policy of defence integration to the extent of extending our contracts for an essential defence product, which is uranium.
We talk about the necessity for continental defence. We say national defence is not enough for our country, and that is true. We say that we must integrate our defence tactics, our defence strategy, our defence equipment and our defence production. There is no more important part of defence production than the production of uranium. The United States itself includes uranium as a defence material in its statistics on imports. Some years ago when we were in office we made a contract with the government of the United States for uranium for five years. As the minister knows, there was included in that contract an option which the United

States could take up at the end of five years to continue the purchase of uranium. At that time, I remember well, it was a seller's market and there was great worry in the United States, especially in the Pentagon, that there would not be enough uranium for the essential work of manufacturing defensive nuclear weapons. The Canadian interests concerned were begged to proceed at all costs with all speed to produce this uranium as something essential for the defence of the western world.
At that time it looked as if we might require some of this uranium for others of our friends. We did not want to tie ourselves up indefinitely to a contract with the United States which would prevent us from developing that market in the other countries, especially in the United Kingdom. The United States said, give us first call on all your production for five years, and we agreed to do that. We did it to such an extent we had to get permission from the United States to divert some of that production to the United Kingdom. We were also assured that when the contract ended we would not need to worry about renewal, at least for some part of the amount. There was a gentleman's agreement. This was a matter of continental defence. The minister will recall that not once, but more than once, I told the government in this house that if they did not take this matter up with the United States on the highest political level this option would not be taken up; that if they treated this as an ordinary commercial matter we were in for trouble because shortly after the signature of this contract the United States government began to encourage the development of uranium resources in their own country.
Once that happened, and once uranium began to be produced in the United States, we were in danger. The only way we could have avoided the danger was by intervention on the highest political level with a view to making it clear to the United States that if defence integration meant anything at all, it meant the integration of defence production as well as defence strategy and tactics. An essential part of defence production is the production of uranium. I will ask the minister to tell us later whether or not this was taken up with the secretary of state or whether the Prime Minister took it up with the president himself. We know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce spent a day in Washington last April, but that is all we know. This was so important a diplomatic problem, and yet it was marked by the government's failure to do anything. If our cabinet ministers are on such excellent

terms with their opposite numbers in Washington, why were they not able to make a better arrangement in Washington, so that all we got was a stretch-out?


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you sign tor 10 years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. gentleman asking that question had been listening he would have known that I gave the answer before he asked the question. When that agreement was signed for five years there was a great shortage of uranium in the world and all the countries who wanted uranium knew it was in Canada; we were being besieged to make contracts with these countries. If we had at that time, under those conditions, when there was practically no uranium in the United States itself, committed our total production for a period longer than five years, what would have happened? What would have been the view of our friends? What would have been the view of the opposition of that day? When a contract was signed for five years, was there any voice raised in opposition at that time to say that it should have been for a longer time? No, there was not a voice. It was a very sensible contract to make at that time.
I am asking the minister, who has been telling us that our relations with Washington have been so good and that Canada's independent policy has been making an impression, why did we not make more of an impression on the United States government in respect of that particular matter. We failed, and I should like to know why we failed because I know what the consequences of our failure are at this time.
There is another indication of the difficulty of our relationships with the United States which the minister has not mentioned and which perhaps he will deal with later. I refer to the situation which was touched upon by one of the speakers this afternoon, our nuclear relationships in terms of weapons. I do not know what the position of the government now is with regard to the acceptance or use of nuclear weapons by Canadian forces, and I defy anyone who reads the record of this matter to be able to give any clear conclusions as to what the present position is. I mention this in a debate on foreign affairs because nothing could be much more important in our relationships with the United States than to get this matter cleared up. In an effort to do that, I asked a question of the Prime Minister the other day. I must confess his answer surprised me. Perhaps he will appreciate my surprise when I recount to him some of the earlier history of this particular problem as recorded in Hansard.
External Affairs
I do not know now and I do not think the country knows whether Canada is committed to use nuclear weapons from the United States for Canadian forces. I do not know whether Canada is committed to allowing the United States to have nuclear bases in Canada, yet this is as important a question in the relationships between the two countries as any that could be suggested. It seemed to be pretty clear on February 20, 1959 when the Prime Minister said as recorded at page 1223 of Hansard:
The government's decisions of last autumn to acquire Bomarc missiles for air defence and Lacrosse missiles for the Canadian army were based on the best expert advice available-
Then, he went on:
The full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear warheads.
I think we had a right to conclude from that that the government had made a decision to use nuclear warheads on the Canadian weapons. If it means anything, it means that. The Prime Minister went on, on this same occasion, and in the same column of Hansard, to say:
We are confident that we shall be able to reach formal agreement with the United States on appropriate means to serve the common objective. It will of course be some time before these weapons will be available for use by Canadian forces.
He said, "It will be some time before they are available", which surely indicates a decision had been taken to use them when they were available. In the same debate, a little later, at page 1224, the Prime Minister had this to say:
Believing that the spread of nuclear weapons at the independent disposal of individual nations should be limited, we consider that it is expedient that ownership and custody of the nuclear warheads should remain with the United States.
This seemed to be a further stage of the elucidation of this matter, to the effect that not only would we receive nuclear weapons but that the nuclear warheads would remain under the ownership and custody of the United States. This was confirmed on March 10, 1959, page 1775 of Hansard, when the Prime Minister had this to say:
I indicated then that it would be some time before nuclear weapons would and indeed could be available for use by Canadian forces.
Then, on July 3 of last year, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) had this to say at page 5415 of Hansard:
I presume that eventually the Canadian forces will be equipped with atomic weapons under the same terms as the other NATO contingents under SACEUR which may also be equipped with atomic weapons.
The Minister of National Defence also reaffirmed that statement in November after

External Affairs
the Camp David talks to which my hon. friend referred yesterday. It seemed perfectly clear up to that time that we were committed to the use of nuclear weapons in the hands of Canadian forces under certain conditions which were not very clear.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Because they had not been made clear then nor has the position been made clear since. Only on February 9 of this year the Prime Minister had this to say, and I quote from page 867 of Hansard of this year:
As to the sharing of atomic energy information, it will be recalled that I tabled in the house on May 25 last year an agreement for co-operation with the United States on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes. This agreement was concerned principally with the conditions under which Canada can receive certain categories of restricted information and equipment-
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to note those words "and equipment".
-required by our armed forces. By means of this agreement we are now able to obtain all the information and equipment necessary to meet our immediate foreseeable requirements.
That statement seemed to be a little ambiguous for such a vitally important matter and so I asked the Prime Minister this question:
When he said-that we in Canada are now in receipt of everything that is necessary to meet immediately foreseeable requirements, was he referring to requirements in respect of nuclear weapons?
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
No; atomic energy for mutual defence purposes.
That was his reply, whatever it may mean. Are we or are we not-and the house and the country have a right to know this-as part of our relationship with the United States committed to the reception of atomic energy from the United States for Canadian forces in Canada or as part of our NATO contingent; and, if so, can we be told in clear and unequivocal language what are the conditions, if any, that have been laid down for such reception? I hope the minister who will be on his feet shortly will be able to tell us exactly what the answer is to that question.
These are just one or two of the problems in connection with our relationship with the United States. There are many others. But I want to give the minister the opportunity to answer all the questions that have been raised.
However, I could not sit down without saying something about our policy in and our relations with the United Nations. The minister, I think quite rightly, said yesterday that the United Nations organization-and

I am quoting his exact words-was a fundamental basis for the foreign policy of Canada, as it must perhaps remain the most important piece of machinery in the search for security and good relations between states. In so far as Canada can do anything at the United Nations and in so far as Canada takes any initiative at the United Nations-and she took some last December -which will result in helping to achieve that objective, the government will get 100 per cent support from this side.
But here again the minister must realize, as I am sure he does-he has now had some experience at the United Nations assembly-that there are some terrific problems faced by that world organization. As I said the other day outside the house, it will not be long before we shall have something approaching 100 states as members of the United Nations. A great many of them will be Asian and African countries, weak economically, without experience politically but each with one vote in the United Nations assembly which will equal the vote of the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R. To maintain the effectiveness of this organization in the face of that kind of situation is going to be extremely difficult indeed and it is a problem that we shall be obliged to face very shortly.
I have suggested that perhaps one way of doing this-something that may be required in the years ahead-is to convert the United Nations somewhat from the concept of its founders and to make the assembly, the unwieldy assembly-the majority perhaps of which would be composed of these Asian and African members because certainly no longer does the west dominate the assembly-to a general town meeting of the world which will represent the conscience of mankind, where every country big and small will have a chance to express itself. The assembly then can set up smaller organizations to deal with ad hoc topics like disarmament. Then somehow we might convert one of the existing agencies-the security council, if that can be done-into a somewhat larger organization where the new countries and new areas and new peoples of the world will have a greater and more effective voice.
All these are problems which are facing the government at the present time. When the minister looks at these problems and the problems of Israel and the Middle East as well as a host of others, I am sure he will feel that there is quite enough to keep him busy and that there is no justification whatever for any complacent or easy view that

international relations are fine and that we are on the eve of great progress for the things we all hope to achieve.
We will never achieve our objective of peace and international security by ignoring the difficulties. We may achieve it by facing these difficulties, nationally and internationally; by working with our friends; by making, if you like, independent approaches to a coalition policy, to a world policy, so that one day, before long when we have a debate on external affairs, not only will the minister of that day be able to talk about the rosy picture for the future but there will be more justification for that kind of talk than there is, unfortunately, in 1960.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hope to cover all of the subjects referred to this evening by the hon. gentleman. Indeed I know the house is looking forward to hearing the minister answer the many questions that have been raised. It occurs to me at this time- and I offer the suggestion now because of the variety of subjects discussed and the many interesting speeches that have been made- that my hon. friend opposite might agree that this debate might be continued tomorrow to the end that the various questions that have been raised may receive further and complete consideration. After all, we have listened to several hours of debate and the discussion of a multiplicity of matters.
I appreciated the opening words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) when he expressed his good wishes to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). Then after a few preliminary remarks there was for some reason the same frustration that seems to gnaw at the heart of the Leader of the Opposition. It has taken possession of it even in international affairs. It is a peculiar situation. The Leader of the Opposition is a man who has had wide experience. But as soon as he comes to discuss the problems of our country in any way he seems to lose that sense of equilibrium and balance that once characterized him when in another position.
All of us are agreed that the problems are great. All of us look back over the years and think of what might have been. Each of us, as he said, has the same objective, namely the endeavour to bring about international conditions that will preserve and maintain the peace. Indeed, I go back to 1945 when, speaking in this house following the United Nations meeting when the treaty was before this house for ratification, my concluding words were these:
Peace is an ideal which cannot be achieved passively. It requires sacrifice. It requires the
External Affairs
subjugation of many national ambitions, and abridgement of national sovereignties: the united determination of people everywhere to assure greater approach to equality of opportunity everywhere in the world.
I found it difficult as I listened to the hon. gentleman to understand exactly what he has in mind. He has consistently advocated an independent course on the part of Canada consistent with responsibility. In one part of his speech he advocates an independent course. In another he advocates what I might call a subservient course. He speaks of Canada not as a great power or a great power to be. I cannot believe that he does not realize that things have changed in the last few years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has, quite unwittingly, I think, misquoted what I said. I said "world power". The quotation was "world power".


John George Diefenbaker: I have never known anyone who so often finds in the light of retrospect that what he said was something he ought not to have said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what the minister said.


John George Diefenbaker: I think Canadians as a whole realize this. We all ought to have a degree of pride about this, not that spirit of disparagement which seemed now and then to creep into the remarks of the hon. gentleman. There should be pride in the fact that Canada today is being visited by leaders of all mankind. I speak of the visit of the prime minister of the Netherlands, the president of Mexico, the prime minister of the Ivory Coast, the Crown Prince and Princess of Ethiopia, the foreign minister of Norway, the defence minister of Germany, the prime minister and the foreign minister of Japan; I speak, also, of the forthcoming visits by the prime minister and the foreign minister of Italy, and later on, by the president of France, to whom the Leader of the Opposition referred in most laudatory terms; a man who represents in the view of Canadians as a whole, a land dear to our hearts and which is today facing conditions which all of us hope will be resolved in a degree of achievement in that nation which will raise her to even greater glories than in the past.
In other words, we live in an age of international exchange. Consultations are taking place with regularity.
Mention was made by the Leader of the Opposition of NATO. In so far as NATO is concerned we took a very strong stand last year that NATO must expand and advance along the course of collaboration, consideration and discussion. We took a stand against anything in the nature of a triumvirate or a council of NATO determining the course

External Affairs
of NATO. In other words, our attitude has been one desirous of the fullest consultation, without which none of the nations of the free world can achieve that unity without which there is no survival.
The same applies to the commonwealth, and I am not going to say more than a word with regard to the commonwealth. I listened to what the hon. gentleman had to say, and with much of his words in this regard I was in agreement-the tremendous part that is played by the varying parts of this commonwealth, the emergence and development of the commonwealth concept, and so forth. I saw something of the beginnings of this commonwealth in February of 1917, I think it was, when at the opening of the British parliament in that year the troops which escorted the reigning monarch to the opening ceremony were all troops of the Boers in the years 1897 to 1900. That was the beginning of the concept initiated by Jan Christian Smuts, using the words of an earlier day-the words of Rosebery in 1890:
The word "commonwealth" which in the passing years has resulted in an evolutionary process which continues unabated.
Both hon. gentlemen, the minister and the Leader of the Opposition, spoke of the commonwealth as a bridge between east and west, and I believe that. I am of those who believe that one of the major elements necessary to assure the fullest co-operation between the varying parts of the commonwealth is not any centralized authority, but through the medium of such organizations as the prime ministers' conference, the next one of which will be convened early in May. I go further than that, and say this: my belief is that the commonwealth prime ministers conference should as far as practicable meet once a year to the end that in a few days of discussion, while no decisions are finally made determinations may be arrived at of benefit not only to the peoples of the commonwealth but for mankind itself.
When one thinks of the conference of 1957, one realizes that out of that conference came the convening of a trade and economic conference which took place in the city of Montreal in September of 1958. Out of that conference came a system of commonwealth scholarships which in my opinion represent one of the most effective courses of action to unite the various parts of the commonwealth and remove those causes of difficulty because of colour and of race from which all mankind has suffered in every generation.
While mention was made a few moments ago by the Leader of the Opposition of the trade situation between Canada and the United States, I would point out that on January 7 this year the president of the board

of trade of the United Kingdom, the Right Hon. Mr. Maudling, emphasized the importance of expanding trade between Canada and the United Kingdom and spoke with satisfaction of the increase of British sales in Canada, expressing the hope of an expanding trade both ways. In other words, out of that conference came certain practical benefits for the people of this commonwealth.
This evening I intend to deal particularly with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I thought he made a most effective contribution to the subject before us on this occasion. Before I do so, however, and while it will not make for order-and order never arises out of a debating speech-I want to refer for just a moment to almost the concluding remarks of the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to the uranium situation.
I have read what has been said-and the hon. gentleman has re-emphasized it-to the effect that this government was responsible in some way for what is called the failure to secure an extension beyond 1962 of the contracts made by the former government. I believe I can do no better than to quote some of the remarks recorded in Hansard at the time which indicate that the hon. gentleman, a member of the then government, must not have realized the fact that the contracts entered into for uranium would terminate in 1962, and that there was not any indication that following that date governments would underwrite in any way the cost or the purchase of uranium. Agreements were entered into. They were gentlemen's agreements. The government of that day knew that when 1962 came that would be the end, to all intents and purposes, of this large export to the United States. I turn to the words of the Right Hon. C. D. Howe as reported at page 6440 of Hansard of July 20, 1955:
I know of no present shortage of uranium. Our production goes up steadily-
Then these words:
The situation is that no government is prepared to underwrite the purchase of uranium produced after 1962.
They knew that. Mr. Howe made it very clear. He then went on to say as reported at page 6441 of the same date:
I believe there will be a peacetime market for uranium. At that time the government will not be underwriting purchases.
I ask you, sir, who is responsible for the situation today, unfortunate as it is? The government of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member realized that

in the agreements entered into after 1962 the government would not be underwriting purchases.
I turn now to the words of Mr. Howe as reported at page 1740 of Hansard of March 2, 1956:
The bulk of the uranium under contract goes to the atomic energy commission of the United States. When the contracts are completed, the contracts that are filed before the 31 March this year and approved by Canada and by the atomic energy commission we are informed that the foreseeable needs of the atomic energy commission of the United States for uranium from Canada will have been fulfilled.
Those three quotations from the words of Mr. Howe, the responsible minister, indicate that he knew that when 1962 came around those uranium contracts which provided so satisfactory an export would no longer be underwritten by governments. All that the last government did was to achieve some kind of an ephemeral gentlemen's agreement which said in effect that if everything goes all right everything will go all right with the export of uranium.
Now, the hon. member says, what did this government do? It made strong representations to the United States. In the intervening years not only has the demand for uranium gone down but indeed when one looks back over the years and examines the definition of uranium in the Encyclopedia Britannica, I believe in the 1920 edition, it is described as a valueless metal. Today we find ourselves in the position of having seen in the interventing years the United States engage in the production of its own uranium and demands for the metal are steadily decreasing.
When the Leader of the Opposition endeavours to pin responsibility on this government in that connection it is a case of the responsibility resting on him and his associates in the former administration for having failed to bring about when the contracts were entered into anything in the nature of a continuation after 1962.
What we did was this. Instead of having a cut-off date that would have put the uranium industry or a major portion of the business of this country out of business almost over night, we brought about a continuation of the contracts by a spread-over to the end that the sharpness of the termination of contracts would not bring about untoward sudden economic dislocation in the country.
I wish now to refer to the question of disarmament which was dealt with very thoroughly and completely by the hon. member for Essex East. He realized the difficulties of the problem. He realized the alterations in the perspective of mankind, the changes in a period of 15 years since the United Nations was founded, the discovery
External Affairs
and development of nuclear weapons, the tremendous power of emergent people all over the world to new sovereignties, the population explosion with its incalculable effects on this and succeeding generations, the scientific breakthrough and the ever-widening explorations of space. To meet this situation and these changing concepts new steps have to be taken. All of us search for an international institution that will resolve old and new conflicts, that will assure to mankind common security, welfare and international peace. These are no longer theoretical exercises of the mind, they are necessities for survival.
The hon. member for Essex East expressed the view that the government should place before parliament the representations it intends to make and has made regarding this problem of disarmament. The Leader of the Opposition says he does not want an independent course for Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I of course made no such statement at any time and the Prime Minister should stop this practice of his of misquoting what is said by hon. members on this side of the house in the heat of his own argument.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if that is a point of order I should have been on my feet constantly during the time the hon. gentleman was speaking. It is difficult to follow the hon. gentleman in his circumlocutions on this subject but I interpreted his remarks as signifying that he was opposed to an independent stand. However, if he says he was not, I accept his statement now and ask him to revise the speech which he has just concluded making. This is not the first time that there has been some difference between the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And this is not the first time the Prime Minister has misquoted us.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Essex East, on the other hand, seemed to advocate competitive alternative programs to be placed before the disarmament commission. I do not believe we should engage in such competition. We in this government believe that the western world should endeavour to integrate its thinking for peace; that peace cannot be obtained if each nation goes its own way and presses its own thinking to such an extent that agreement through compromise cannot be arrived at.
I intend to refer to one or two statements-


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about the independent approach?

External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what these interruptions are. I listened to the hon. gentleman with patience, but he persists in those undertone interruptions, and I wish he would desist.
The hon. member for Essex East apparently believes that each nation should produce a collection of competing plans. What we believe is that there should be an agreed western position to serve as a point of departure in the negotiations with the U.S.S.R. in the 10-power talks which start next month in Geneva, and this is what we are aiming at: to make a contribution by the submission of proposals and comments which will assist in bringing about a plan for international disarmament which will be realistic, negotiable, and at the same time not imperil national security.
The hon. member for Essex East seemed to indicate that the United States was acting in such a way as not to assure that measure of agreement on this question which is the hope of mankind. Indeed, while he did not mention the United States in that connection when he spoke in Montreal on February 9 to the Canadian Club, he did say this, and I quote from the Montreal Star report:
Paul Martin outlines plan for disarmament.
Then, we find the following:
But Mr. Martin felt that the United States had also made a "great mistake" after the 1955 Geneva conference by being too adamant on its own program for disarmament and by tying in as well the settlement of political questions.
I agree with him that we should not join the settlement of political questions as such with the immediate problem of disarmament. I think that is of the essence, and that we should endeavour first by the ending of nuclear tests then by such measures of disarmament as are agreed to by stages to ensure that ultimately disarmament, the hope of mankind, will be attained.
Mention was made of the number of times that the question of disarmament has been discussed. The hon. gentleman went back to the days of Castlereagh, and he quoted from Sir Winston Churchill. I think one of the best epitomes of the whole problem of disarmament is to be found in the "Public Papers and Addresses" of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933. It is entitled, "An Appeal to the Nations of the World on the basis of disarmament and an end of economic chaos". Those words of 1933, which had the effect of mobilizing the thinking of mankind and the support of the nations, as evidenced by the replies that were made to this message did not, however, deny the outbreak of war six years later. These are some of the statements that the president made at that time. He said:

The disarmament conference has laboured for more than a year and, as yet, has been unable to reach satisfactory conclusions. Confused purposes still clash dangerously. Our duty lies in the direction of bringing practical results through concerted action based upon the greatest good to the greatest number. Before the imperative call of this great duty, petty obstacles must be swept away and petty aims forgotten. A selfish victory is always destined to be an ultimate defeat. The furtherance of durable peace for our generation in every part of the world is the only goal worthy of our best efforts.
Then, he sets out the plan and says:
If all nations will agree wholly to eliminate from possession and use the weapons which make possible a successful attack, defences automatically will become impregnable, and the frontiers and independence of every nation will become secure.
The ultimate objective of the disarmament conference must be the complete elimination of all offensive weapons. The immediate objective is a substantial reduction of some of these weapons and the elimination of many others.
You will remember, sir, the naval program of the 1920's, you will remember, sir, the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1926.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was 1928.


John George Diefenbaker: I recall very well when Mr. Mackenzie King, the then member for Prince Albert, came to Prince Albert for a couple of days and said he was on his way to Paris, and that in a few short days a pact would be signed there which would forever abolish war as an instrument for the settlement of disputes between the nations.
The Leader of the Opposition says that while peace is the aim and the purpose, we must not be fooled into believing that the events of recent months or years would lead us to expect that we are about to achieve that which mankind has tried for for generations. With these views I agree; none the less one must admit that in the last several months there has been an easing of tensions to such an extent that the hopes of mankind have been raised. The responsibility, therefore, on the part of those who have positions of international trust is the greater; for if we fail at this time, the potentialities for the future are certainly dark and grey.
While Mr. Khrushchev has been more conciliatory, he has also been most threatening. In the last speech he delivered in January, when he undertook to reduce the armed forces, he pointed out that they had an overwhelming supply of nuclear weapons. He used these words:
After the launching of soviet sputniks and rockets, the Americans have come to realize that the United States is no less vulnerable to attack than any other country.
Then, he went on to say:
The U.S.S.R. army has such arms as have heretofore been unknown to man.

Again, he said:
The U.S.S.R. has piled up such atomic and nuclear weapons and has powerful rocket equipment.
Then he promised the ultimate triumph, not by war but by economic destruction in the years ahead, for he said that the year 1959 was marked by success of the U.S.S.R. in the struggle for peace and the strengthening of the camp of socialism. He promised to reduce the numbers of men, but he ended up by saying that even when this is done his country will still be the most powerful in the world.
The hon. gentleman said that we should place before the House of Commons the actual representations that we have made or intend to make.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I said was that we should place before parliament our concepts in the form in which, for instance, the United Kingdom presented theirs, in the open and public assembly of the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: I accept that correction. The hon. member says that we should give a general idea of the concepts, if I understand him aright. I could summarize them in this way. These are views expressed in summary which I think represent the thinking of Canadians as a whole on this matter. First, Canada's policy should be directed to the achievement of maximum disarmament and the reduction of armed forces which can be verified and controlled without endangering the security of the nation against aggression.
Second, whatever is done cannot be achieved overnight and will require to be done by steps or stages. To that end I suggest that immediate consideration and priority might be given to the control of missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons of mass destruction and also to bring about an agreement whereby the location of missile sites should be designated.
Third, at the conference at Pugwash much was said regarding biological and chemical weapons. I believe the time has come that the nations should agree that the manufacture and use of biological and chemical weapons should be banned.
Fourth, we come to the problem which transcends all these problems, namely that of outer space. If we are to preserve the future of mankind I believe that outer space should now, before further advances are made in its exploration, be declared banned to other than peaceful purposes and that the mounting of armaments on satellites should be outlawed. These are several suggestions that I think represent initial steps, for if there
External Affairs
is any desire on the part of the nations to bring about disarmament those principles could be accepted and I think should be accepted.
Now then you say, what about the production of fissile material for weapons? I think that was one of the questions asked. I would think that a major course leading to disarmament would be a declaration that the production of fissile material for weapons should be ended and that existing stocks should be transferred to peaceful uses as soon as a practical plan can be agreed upon. You say, what about the interim? You proceed by stages. What will you do in the meantime? How do you preserve the security of your state?
That brings me to one further step, and it is not a new one. It has been advanced since the 1600's that an international military force should be begun whose capability would be the restraining of nations from aggression. I digress for a moment to answer a statement made this afternoon by one hon. member who was filled with remorse, horror and shock that the government had not placed before the U.S.S.R. its willingness to set aside the Arctic areas of Canada to mutual inspection provided a like right was granted by the U.S.S.R. I first direct the attention of the house to my remarks on August 22, 1958. I do not want to spend long on this but I have to point out the fact that on that occasion I said, as found at page 3944 of Hansard:
For our part I can give unqualified assurances that to the extent that the control arrangements which may be agreed upon might be applicable to Canadian territory, we are prepared to co-operate in setting up control stations and inspection of the kind outlined in the report of the experts.
Apparently this was not read or, if read, not understood.
Indeed, on more than one occasion Canada has agreed unreservedly to her northern areas and Arctic regions being made available for inspection in order to ensure that surprise attacks will not take place.
These views have been communicated to Mr. Khrushchev on two occasions. The first was on January 18, 1958 when I wrote him and said this:
I give assurance that in the context of a disarmament agreement the Canadian government would be willing to open all or part of Canada to aerial and ground inspection on a basis of reciprocity. It seems to me that this is the type of proposal which should prove attractive to both our countries since we are neighbours across the Arctic. I have in mind in particular the kind of proposal Canada joined in sponsoring last August involving a system of inspection in the Arctic regions. We were willing then and are willing now to take such action in order to provide assurance against the fear of surprise attack.
This was turned down by Mr. Khrushchev in a subsequent letter or at least he 'did not

External Affairs
deal with the matter because he said we would have to have it as part of a world agreement. On May 9, 1958, I wrote to him in part as follows:
If you are really anxious about developments in the Arctic and if you wish to eliminate the possibility of surprise attack across the polar regions, I And it hard to understand why you should cast aside a proposal designed to increase mutual security in that area. Let me repeat here, Mr. Chairman, that we stand by our offer to make available for international inspection or control any part of our territory, in exchange for a comparable concession on your part. I would hope that you would accept some arrangement along these lines not only as an indication of our good faith but as part of a first, experimental step in building a system of international safeguards against surprise attack. When there is, by your own admission, a danger of nuclear war breaking out by accident or miscalculation, it is difficult for Canadians to comprehend your refusal to engage even in technical discussions intended to explore the feasibility of an international system of control.
That was Canada's stand.


Erhart Regier: I wonder-


John George Diefenbaker: My time is limited. I am answering the hon. gentleman now. That was Canada's stand. That is the stand which we took not only in the United Nations but subsequently under the circumstances to which I have referred.


Erhart Regier: Not bilaterally.


John George Diefenbaker: I doubt whether the hon. gentleman knows what bilateral means. Going on from there, and I hasten to conclude, I think that if the nations really desire to bring about disarmament and peace there is one field that could constitute an initial step, a course alongside one or other of the courses to which I have referred, and that is the acceptance of the jurisdiction of an international court of justice, the predecessor of which was the permanent court of international justice. All through the years the stand that we have taken is that the principle of compulsory arbitration under law among nations would be effectual in the settlement of international disputes.
Of the 85 states that are parties to the statute today, 38 accept compulsory jurisdiction of the court but only 13 do so unconditionally or subject to the condition of reciprocity; nine do so subject to reciprocity or with respect to those disputes which arose after the declaration came into being or when other means of peaceful settlement have been employed by the parties; 16 apply more restrictive reservations. So far as Canada is concerned at the present time she reserves from the jurisdiction of the court only those disputes between members of the commonwealth of nations, those arising out of world

war II, and those that are of purely a domestic nature, the nature of which is decided upon by the court.
So far as the communist states are concerned, none of the communist states has accepted, nor have they given any indication that they will accept, compulsory jurisdiction. It is of interest, too, that the new states that are arising and coming into existence in Asia and Africa are following the same course. I believe that if we were able, among the nations of the world, with the will to achieve peace, to make stronger and more effective the international court of justice, giving it a compulsory jurisdiction and the right of compulsory decision, many of the problems we face today would be dissolved. There are difficulties in the way.
I think there are 16 members, and naturally nations are not given to trusting the courts that are set up. None the less if we in Canada, the United Kingdom, which has taken a very pronounced step forward in this regard, and the United States, which through the president has indicated that some additional powers should be given to the court, would lead in this direction I believe that ultimately the judgments of that court would commend themselves to the wisdom of mankind and we might well make a forward step toward the achievement of peace.
As a further step, I think that international action needs to be taken in respect of outer space. I mentioned that a moment ago. The principle is still in effect that each nation owns all the air above it. This principle was first declared in 1914 and re-declared in 1919. The principle has no efficacy today in this age, when even at the present moment several of these interstellar rockets are in circuit around the world. The existent principles of space law are out of date by reason of the scientific breakthroughs. We have gone a very considerable way in Canada in our willingness to bring about the attainment of an agreement on jurisprudence in outer space. The U.S.S.R. and other communist states refused to participate in the earlier committee. They are participating in the present one. I believe that if we could bring about international jurisdiction over space we would have gone a long way toward the preservation of mankind, not only in this generation but in the future. As a matter of priority we should have a declaration that would seem to be in keeping with reason, a declaration that no part of outer space or any celestial body may be appropriated by or may be subject to the jurisdiction of any particular nation.
The hon. member for Essex East advocated agreement on the elimination of weapons not now in existence. No doubt what he had in

mind was this problem of outer space and I hope that the outer space committee of the United Nations will be able to achieve a measure of agreement which will forestall the introduction of new weapons which use outer space.
I am not going to say more at this time The hon. gentlerhen asked, what general principles have you in mind. These are some principles that I believe contain more than a germ for the settlement of our international difficulties and for survival itself. I should have liked to have covered certain other matters that were dealt with, but as there is no possibility of agreement that we should go over to tomorrow to conclude this debate, I now conclude.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I speak to a point of order? If the minister is rising now to conclude the debate, he has not very much time and I am sure we on this side would be very happy to continue to sit until he has had every opportunity to deal with the points raised.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The members of this group, because of the importance of the questions that are being considered in this debate and the great concern of the Canadian people with these problems, welcome the proposal of the Prime Minister for the continuation of this debate tomorrow but we are not ready to sit after 10 o'clock this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: We have two proposals. The Prime Minister has invited the house to modify the order which was made earlier that this debate should conclude at 10 o'clock. If there is no possibility of a general agreement on that-


Harold Edward Winch: We are prepared to continue the debate tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I point out what may not be known to some hon. gentlemen, namely that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), and the hon. member for Essex East, (Mr. Martin), who have taken a prominent part in this debate, would like to hear it concluded but they made other arrangements because of the order of business. If hon. gentlemen could have the forbearance to go on sitting this evening to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs we might accomplish our purpose. It does not seem an unreasonable proposition.


Harold Edward Winch: What would happen if the two members died, would the house close?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would hope so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope you would give us three minutes of silence, anyway.
Business of the House


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, without submitting the house to the dire possibility envisaged by the hon. gentleman, could we not agree to the debate next Tuesday when the hon. gentlemen will be back?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is agreeable.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it that would not interfere with the continuation of the supply debate? Perhaps Wednesday would be a better time because we have a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are not counting on a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday. Monday would be private members' day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If Monday is private members' day-of course it is up to the house to decide-we would have no objection. We were under the impression, from the leader of the house, that Monday was going to be a supply day and we have been operating on that basis.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Prime Minister indicated that last night.


An hon. Member:: No; he did not.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I so indicated it was not through direct statement. I was asked about it and I said I had no knowledge of it, as I recall, but that whatever arrangements might be made the house leader would be here to announce them. But if the debate can be adjourned until Tuesday, I think it would be a worthy objective and one that would allow many hon. members to express themselves on a matter of the greatest importance to the Canadian people and the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to agree unanimously to the extension of this debate to Tuesday and that it be concluded on Tuesday?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed by all sides of the house? In the absence of any objection, I take it that it is agreed and that the order which the house previously made that this debate should conclude at ten o'clock today will be suspended and be replaced by an order that it will be adjourned until Tuesday and conclude not later than ten o'clock on Tuesday night. That is agreed.
Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we adjourn I wonder whether the leader of the house can tell us what the business will be for tomorrow and
994	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
whether he could also indicate what will be taken up on Tuesday if the debate on external affairs in which we have been engaged today was concluded before ten o'clock?


An hon. Member:: It will not be concluded before then.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On Friday we will continue with the supplementary estimates. If they are concluded tomorrow we will take these items in this order: the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice to amend the Department of Justice Act; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport to amend the Railway Act; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works to amend the National Housing Act. Then in the unlikely event of this business being concluded tomorrow, we will take Bill No. C-2, to amend the Indian Act and Bill No. C-3, to amend the Canada Elections Act. That will be the business for Friday. Monday will be private members' day. That is the second Monday of six Mondays for that purpose. Tuesday we have now agreed will be devoted to a continuation of the debate on external affairs in which we were engaged today. Should that debate draw to a close before ten o'clock we would take any item of government business that I have now outlined for Friday. On Wednesday there would be a continuation of government business, the items to be announced later. Thursday of next week will be the second Thursday as a private members' day and will be devoted to the discussion of the measure relating to capital punishment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the house leader whether it is intended that debate should last for the one day only? I refer to the debate on capital punishment which he has suggested for Thursday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to the debate on capital punishment, may I say this. I endeavoured to get an agreement in the usual manner and a conclusion was not reached as to whether that debate should proceed beyond that one day. The best suggestion I have heard is that as the debate proceeds on that Thursday we should attempt to arrive at a decision then as to whether another day would be required. Unless I hear further from the other parties in the house, the only information I have at the moment is

that there will be just the one day for that particular debate. However, I am open to suggestions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that particular point may I say a word. The house leader said he had not been able to get any information from this side of the house as to what our intentions are in respect of this debate. As far as this party is concerned, we shall be glad to give the house leader our views when he confronts us with some of the intentions and views of the government with respect to this matter. It is surely the responsibility of the government to let us know what they wish to do and then ask our views but not to ask our views so that we may be put in the position of accepting or rejecting a particular course, of action before we know what the views of the house leader and the government are.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be placed in this position by the Leader of the Opposition without protesting. That is not the case whatsoever. I consulted with the house leader of his party with regard to this matter on the most congenial of terms, in the same manner as I always get on with him in these matters. The matter was left open as to what the opposition desired to do. The impression I gathered from him was that he was not sure what their plan was. Hence the matter is open and continues to be open for negotiation. It is not a settled matter by any means. I did not at any time suggest that the matter was closed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the house leader now, while we are talking about this matter, tell us the desire and the views of the government with regard to how this question should be handled in the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not know whether we can do it here by way of public debate. The other group has been consulted as well. As I say, there is a difference of opinion at the moment as to what should transpire concerning this particular debate.


Mr. Speaker:: No order is needed to proceed with the proposed business on Thursday because it seems to be the first item under public orders. Perhaps the different interests could arrive at some conclusion, if it is possible, between now and the time the debate concludes.


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

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

Mr. Bourgel: 1.	What was the total amount of the expenses provided for in the estimates of the Department of Public Works for the construction of and repairs to protection walls (including the projects specifically mentioned in the estimates) for the fiscal year 1959-60?
2.	What part of this amount had been spent as at December 31, 1959?
3.	What projects provided for in these estimates will not be carried out during the fiscal year, for what reasons, and what is the amount of each such project?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisler of
Public Works):
1.	$2,420,000.
2.	$1,151,134.34.
3.	Magog, Stanstead county-(Repairs to protection wall)-Will not be carried out this fiscal year. Plans and specifications were received in late fall for public tender call. However, the work cannot be carried out during the winter months because of the usual high water level of the lake during that period. This item has been included in our program of remedial works for next fiscal year, subject to funds being made available for that purpose. The estimated amount of the project is $23,850.
Deschaillons, Lotbiniere county-(New protection wall). Because funds were heavily committed, and as there appeared to be no great urgency, it was decided to postpone this project. The department intends to undertake this work later on, subject to funds being
Province and territory
Newfoundland	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia ____
Northwest Territories . Yukon Territory	
Questions
made available. The estimated amount of the project is $14,650.
Pointe aux Trembles, Mercier county-(New protection wall). The project for the construction of a protection wall along the property of Les Jardins St. Georges has been cancelled. The owner of the property has placed some fill on the site of the proposed construction. The condition of the site makes it very difficult to undertake the construction of the wall. The estimated amount of the project is $17,000.
Meteghan River, N.S.-(Repairs to protection wall). The work was closed down at the end of the last fiscal year because a waiting period was required to observe the effect of the existing shore protection. It was found that no further work was required. An amount of $5,000 had been set aside.
St. Hilaire, Chambly-Rouville county- (New protection wall). A much more extensive project was required than the project first estimated. The matter had to be reinvestigated. The amount included in the estimates for this year is $56,000.
Sept lies-(New protection wall). A different type of structure had to be considered. Studies are now being made to find the proper design, suitable for the location. The amount included in the estimates for this year is $50,000.


PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total amount spent by the Department of Public Works in each of the provinces, and in each of the two territories for the fiscal
years ending March	31, 1957, 1958	and 1959?Answer by: Hon.	D. J. Walker	(Minisler ofPublic Works):	Fiscal year	Fiscal year	Fiscal year1956-57	1957-58	1958-59$ 7,073,028	$ 9,704,384	$18,809,5589,526,123	11,296,999	8,314,4772,652,459	3,509,592	2,454,1088,392,358	7,729,175	18,688,22521,891,956	21,763,799	24,224,65152,960,025	72,860,497	88,201,1899,991,440	7,087,604	5,496,5404,980,336	6,196,826	2,432,06314,415,293	15,434,520	8,557,42526,123,767	37,753,790	26,318,383221,102	870,968	2,460,544186,998	743,021	422,776
79951-0-631
996	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Carter: 1.	How much money has been paid into the unemployment insurance fund per month since July 1, 1959?
2.	How much has been paid out of the fund each month since July 1, 1959?
3.	What is the balance remaining in the fund at the present time?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1. Revenue
July 1959 	 August	 September 	 October 		.. $	22,050,297.57 20,636,039.82 20,115,847.65 23,489,661.99 27,898,542.04 28,578,988.19
November 			
December 			
		142,769,377.26
2. Expenditure		
July 1959 	 August 	 September 		.. $	14,845,847.24 13,332,333.83 13,537,915.20 13,894,020.07 17,554,307.85 32,663,387.75
November 			
December 			
		105,827,811.94
3. Balance at credit of fund as at December 31, 1959-$471,094,255.96.

Friday, February 12, 19S0


WINDSOR HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS ACT
George Harris Hees: the first reading of Bill No. S-4 (from the Senate), to amend the Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


OSHAWA HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
George Harris Hees: the first reading of Bill No. S-5 (from the Senate), to incorporate the Oshawa harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


NANAIMO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
George Harris Hees: the first reading of Bill No. S-10 (from the Senate), to incorporate the Nanaimo harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


INDIAN ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to continue the examination and consideration, begun by a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, pursuant to a resolution of the house on April 29, 1959, of the Indian Act, chapter 149, R.S.C. 1952, and amendments thereto, and to suggest such amendments as they may deem advisable, with authority to investigate and report upon Indian administration in general and, in particular, on the social and economic status of the Indians;
That twenty-four members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf
of the house as members of the said committee and that standing order 67 (1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the records, exhibits and evidence received and taken by the joint committee during the last session of parliament aforesaid be made available to the said joint committee and made part of the records thereof;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses under oath; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time; and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENTS TO EXTEND PERIOD OF PAYMENTS AND INCREASE MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES
David James Walker: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to extend until March 31, 1964, the period during which contributions or payments may be made to the provinces under the act and to prolong until December 31, 1963, the period in respect to which construction costs may be incurred under this act; and to provide also that the aggregate of all expenditures under the act may be increased to a maximum of four hundred million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Paul Comtois: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to extend its application to the years 1961, 1962 and 1963; and to provide also for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the very serious crash landing of a T.C.A. plane at Malton airport last night, and the disturbing report attributed to radar operators that practice attempts in the United States to jam Russian radar screens are fouling up commercial radarscopes at the airport, can the minister say whether such jamming contributed to this crash and whether the Canadian government has objected to the United States that the operation of the Canadian commercial radarscope at Malton airport is being interfered with?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I understand that in this accident the plane went off the end of the runway after touching down, but I am not in any position to comment on the causes of the accident. Both departmental and air line investigators are already at work looking into the situation, and this inquiry will be -carried forward.
With regard to the hon. member's reference to the jamming of Malton radar, it is known that theoretically United States military exercises in radar jamming within the boundaries of the United States might in some circumstances interfere with Canadian air traffic control operations which are located close to the United States boundary, but in fact this has not happened.
This situation is being kept under review, and should anything serious develop there exist in the standing arrangements for consultation between my department and the United States federal aviation agency adequate channels through which this type of problem can be dealt with.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would care to tell the house whether the report in the Montreal Gazette this morning is correct, which states:
Radar operators at suburban Malton airport reported to the federal transport department that-
-such jamming was going on. My supplementary question is this. Was it stated to the department by those radar operators that jamming was taking place?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can state the answer any more clearly than to say that this jamming theoretically can

take place; but, if the hon. member was listening, I said that in fact this has not happened.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, did the radar operators at Toronto report that it was happening when presumably the investigation showed it was not?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have said several times now that it did not happen.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no report that it did happen?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the
minister tell us whether the plane was making a ground controlled approach immediately previous to the accident?


George Harris Hees: As I said, I am not aware of any more of the details than I have given already.



FURTHER STATEMENT ON CONTROL OF CANADIAN AIR TRAFFIC BY SAGE NETWORK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier asked two supplementary questions regarding air traffic control and my answers are as follows.
I assume that the hon. member referred to air traffic control rather than SAGE control, and in this event a full answer to his question would be highly technical. I will content myself with saying that this would depend on the nature of the air traffic control arrangements which may be worked out.
The answer to his second supplementary question again depends upon the interpretation of his question. I do not believe there are SAGE directional centres in Boston or Atlantic city. At Boston a research program of importance is being carried forward with regard to the use of radar and electronic computers and related to the type of equipment -which may be involved in SAGE for control purposes; while at Atlantic city are located the new major research and development facilities of the U.S. federal aviation agency, covering all fields of aviation. My department is maintaining close and continuing contact with the work at both places through frequent visits as well as meeting for the exchange of information with F.A.A. officials.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Harold Hicks: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of

Agriculture this question. When a provincial minister of agriculture assures him that the cattle breeders of a prescribed area want the test and slaughter plan inaugurated for brucellosis control, does the minister's department pay compensation on animals condemned on the first test? If not, when does compensation payment commence?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, once an area has been designated as a brucellosis control area for the eradication of brucellosis, livestock owners are eligible for compensation for cattle which prove positive to the test and are ordered slaughtered by this department. The compensation is available for all official tests, starting with the first.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether the hon. lady has received any protest from Chief Joseph Logan and other members of the Six Nations band protesting the use of trust funds belonging to the band to pay the children's aid society. If so, has the minister any comment on this protest?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I have received no protest. The Indian affairs branch does have agreements with some 20 or 25-I am not sure of the exact number- children's aid societies, and the children's aid society of Brant county is one of them. This agreement has been in effect for about three years now, after receiving the approval of the provincial government, and was instituted in order to ensure that the children on Indian reserves receive as adequate care as that extended to children who occupy non-Indian residences. We are quite happy with the agreement as it exists. A member of the Six Nations band council is on the children's aid society committee which operates the service in Brant county.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. lady say whether the children's aid society is in fact paid from trust funds or by the department?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If they receive any funds at all they would be received with the approval of the band council which has control, as the hon. member knows, of the funds that are expended.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CHIPPEWA RESERVE, SARNIA    INQUIRY AS TO EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: In the light of exchanges which took place in the Ontario legislature on Tuesday, I wonder whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration can confirm to the house the information which she gave last June 4. At that time I asked this question:
Did the minister receive an application from Ontario hydro for permission from the governor in council to institute expropriation proceedings on the Chippewa Indian reserve at Sarnia?
At that time the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration answered categorically no. I wonder whether she could confirm that answer ax the present time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the original answer I gave is correct.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Leon David Crestohl: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister seen the news item in yesterday's Toronto Globe and Mail indicating that Australia is opening the door for 3,000 refugees? Can the minister inform the house whether the government will consider similar action to enlarge the number of refugees admitted to Canada?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I answered a similar question in the latter part of January. There have been a great number of refugees enter Canada within the last year. Of course when you relate this 3,000 to the 100 tubercular refugees, that makes a little different story; but I told the house that close to 3,000 refugees came into Canada last year over and above the number who, with their families, came in as tubercular refugees.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES NATIONAL GALLERY  INQUIRY AS TO REQUIRED DRESS FOR OPENING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, because I like the sound of the minister's voice may I direct another question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


George Harris Hees: A change of pace.


Azellus Denis: Can the minister give the reasons why guests invited to the opening of the national gallery will have to wear white ties

Inquiries of the Ministry where the ceremonies will take place and where presumably the Prime Minister will he, while black ties or no ties at all will be acceptable in other parts of the building?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Postmaster General is jealous. In answer to the hon. member's question, the only thing I can say, after having answered this question two or three times now, is that I propose to attend the ceremonies myself and may I say for the hon. member's information that I do not propose to wear a white tie or any other tie.


Azellus Denis: May I ask the minister another question. If I do not wear a white tie may I have the pleasure of meeting her there?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid we cannot conduct such an agency here.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to ask a supplementary question which springs from some telephone calls I tried to put through before coming into the house. As a result of my attempts to telephone the family allowances division I find that the number given in the new telephone book is actually the number of the national gallery. Would the minister see that this added embarrassment to the national gallery is corrected as soon as possible, so that white ties will not be confused with three cornered ones?



REQUEST FOR FEDERALLY SPONSORED &quot;BUY CANADIAN&quot; CAMPAIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent importing into Canada automobiles and consumer goods of a kind already made here, has the Department of Trade and Commerce given any consideration to sponsoring a national campaign to make Canadians "Buy Canadian" conscious?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I doubt the urgency of this question, Mr. Speaker. The problem of encouraging Canadians to buy goods made in Canada is one which is of importance, and that type of campaign has been going on under the auspices of business organizations for some considerable time.


Hubert Badanai: Has the department given any consideration to a national campaign sponsored by the government? That was the question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no consideration being given, at the moment, Mr. Speaker, to a national campaign under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The hon. member's suggestion will be taken under advisement.
(Translation):



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan).
On Thursday, January 28 last, I asked the minister why an important interview with the new premier of Quebec, which had been scheduled for 9 p.m. on January 24, was cancelled without any reasons being given. On Tuesday, February 2, the minister answered that the cancellation arose as the result of a misunderstanding between the office of the premier and the office of the C.B.C.
According to a report just issued by the Quebec information service the premier of Quebec had informed the C.B.C., nine days previously, that he could not take part in this program.
Could the minister ask the C.B.C. authorities to inquire further into this matter?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: If the hon. member will send me a copy of his speech I shall attempt to reply.


Guy Rouleau: I should like to ask a supplementary question.
(Translation):
Could the minister also inquire of the C.B.C. whether, in fact, the program was cancelled because the premier was afraid he might put his foot in it, during this live broadcast, as was done by some federal ministers?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is taking advantage of the opportunity that is given to him to ask questions to attempt to give information.



REQUEST FOR COVERAGE OF OLYMPIC HOCKEY GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue, to whom I have not been able to give notice of this question, whether he would take up with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the desirability of televising over the C.B.C. some or all of the hockey games at the Olympic winter sports in which the Canadian team takes part, notwithstanding the fact that the Columbia Broadcasting System seems to have the rights for such televising on this continent.


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall be glad to take the matter up with the C.B.C. management; but as the hon. member says, or as I gather, there is a prior contractual situation there which makes it very difficult.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Norris Ormiston: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that in several parts of the country hospital accommodation could be offered in sanitariums where such space is available, would the government be prepared to consider the payment of grants for the conversion of such institutions in order that they may provide general hospital care?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My department would be pleased to hear from any province on projects of this type under the hospital construction grant, either for new construction or major renovation.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask a supplementary question. What advice would the minister give to the people of Ottawa with respect to the provincial institution here, which is underemployed in so far as hospital beds are concerned, and is very close to the Ottawa Civic hospital?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not know to which institution the hon. member is refer-ing, but my previous answer applies in all cases.



SILICOSIS-REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE OF PROVINCIAL HEALTH MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Russell Taylor: I should like to ask a question of the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that many Canadians are presently suffering from silicosis, and in view of the fact that a number of these people have moved from province to province, making it difficult to establish in which province the disease was contracted, with the resultant refusal of each province and each compensation board to grant assistance, would the minister try to arrange at an early date a conference of ministers from each of the provinces dealing with health and welfare in order to bring about a satisfactory settlement of these problems?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This problem in my estimation is purely of a provincial administrative nature. I would suggest that possibly the hon. member might wish to bring the situation to the attention of the association of provincial workmen's compensation boards.
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet put another question to me yesterday about the position of air terminal superintendent at the Montreal airport.
As I have already said, the services of a bilingual person are required. I also mentioned that the position is filled by the civil service commission. I suggest to anyone wishing to apply that he send in his application to the civil service commission, quoting competition No. 60-489.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I think the minister is mistaken. This question was put by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, and not by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet.
(Text):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he noticed in yesterday's Ottawa Journal an article headed "$72,000 from government has them in a fog" which has reference to a $72,000 "program of improvements to the Porcupine airport" included in the estimates which is said to have "aroused confusion in Timmins, Ottawa and

Inquiries of the Ministry Toronto". Can the minister tell the house whether or not this is one of the items which passed that careful and detailed review by the treasury board which he reported to the house on February 4?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is that matter not better left to be dealt with on the estimates, when the item comes before the house?


William Moore Benidickson: Surely we should get out of the fog in the meantime.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You will never get out of your fog; it is self created.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make the Postmaster General jealous. I should like to ask him this question. Is he aware of another robbery which took place at Ste. Rose on Monday last, involving an amount of over $50,000? If so, does he consider that this is a regular and ordinary part of the service he gives to the general public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This recurring question I think I shall have to deal with by putting a prohibition on it. I have expressed my view on it previously. Unless there is some unusual circumstance, it is not proper to bring so often before the house as an oral question the ordinary administration of the criminal law dealing with robberies, whether in connection with post offices, banks or any other institutions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely the hon. member should not be discouraged in his efforts to protect the taxpayers' money in this way, and to persuade the Postmaster General to stamp out these practices.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member certainly has the right to make those efforts, but I think he is exercising it in the wrong way.


Azellus Denis: All I want to know is whether the Postmaster General intends to change the present system in order to protect the general public.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member asked this question earlier. I think asking it once should suffice.



INTERIM PAYMENT ON 1958-59 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade

and Commerce, arising out of the continuing and worsening cash shortage on the prairies. Could the minister say whether he is in a position to announce the interim payment on wheat? I would point out that he promised the announcement would be made before the end of January. I wonder if he could now say when an announcement will be made, and how much the payment will be per bushel?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not in a position to make an announcement today, but I think an announcement will be made in the course of the next few days.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Is the minister delaying this announcement so it can be made at the time the Prime Minister gives his final answer, or his complete answer, to the western farm delegation? Will these two announcements be made simultaneously?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no such purpose at all in the alleged delay.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet heard from the minister of agriculture of Manitoba about the correspondence we have asked to have tabled; and, if not, could he get in touch with his friends and expedite a reply?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer to the first part of the question is no. I have been in touch with my friends, and I expect I shall be receiving an answer shortly.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Green:
That items numbered 75 to 106 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1960-61, relating to the Department of External Affairs be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made this morning by the President of the United States of a new proposal-which will be discussed at the nuclear conference of three powers now under way in Geneva-together with the speech yesterday by Chairman Khrushchev to the

parliament of India in Delhi, emphasize the relevancy and the urgency of the position Canada should take in this all-important question, to use the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs disarmament.
The President's statement as announced this morning is that the United States is proposing to end forthwith, under assured controls, all nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in the oceans, in those regions in space where effective controls can now be agreed on, and beneath the surface of the earth in cases where they can be monitored. Then the President made a significant observation, when he said the achievement of a workable nuclear test ban was by far the most important and difficult beginning to be made on the general subject of disarmament.
It is interesting to note that the position taken by Canada with regard to the unqualified banning of tests is to be contrasted in part with the proposal announced by the President of the United States, I do not need to spend needless time in justification of the consideration of disarmament in this debate.
I formed the impression after reading the minister's remarks this morning that, unintentionally, I am sure, he did convey the impression that this government was concerned with disarmament as its foremost objective. He also left the impression that not much had been done in this field in the period immediately preceding the time when hon. gentlemen opposite took over the responsibility of government in Canada.
That, of course, would be a wrong impression for anyone to have, because it will be recalled that almost at the very end of the war Canada and the government of that day, together with the friendly associated powers, did take immediate and comprehensive steps to bring about a solution to the problem of atomic armaments. In 1945 the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada offered to reciprocally share information concerning the practical application of atomic energy as soon as effective safeguards were devised against its use for destructive purposes. It will be remembered that at the first meeting of the United Nations Canada was made a member of the atomic energy commission. Following this joint declaration by the three heads of government, including Canada, there was presented a comprehensive, a most selfless plan for disarmament, and particularly nuclear disarmament, by the United States through Mr. Baruch, as the intermediary in the atomic energy commission.
It is important to remember what that proposal was. It suggested an international atomic development authority to which-
-would be entrusted all phases of the development and use of atomic energy, starting with the
External Affairs
raw material, with managerial control or ownership of all atomic energy activities potentially dangerous to world security, and power to control, license and inspect all other atomic activities, and which should itself be the world leader in the field of atomic knowledge and development so as to enable it to comprehend and therefore detect misuse of atomic energy.
The record now demonstrates that the Soviet union rejected this proposal and countered with one of its own, in which it was insisted that there should be an immediate prohibition of the use, production and accumulation of atomic weapons. That remained until 1954 the cardinal principle of Soviet policy on disarmament. There can be no doubt that the failure to make any progress in disarmament until 1955 was due, in my judgment, to the intransigence of the Soviet union with regard to this proposal and to its subsequent modifications, and other later proposals made by the western powers.
After 1955 the Soviet union did agree to a measure of international inspection and control, but never in specific and definable terms. The house will recall, too, that in 1954 the United Nations decided to create a subcommittee of the disarmament commission. As an indication of the interest Canada took in disarmament at that time, to the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet union as members of that committee was added the name of Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) took part in the initial work of that subcommittee. If the subcommittee did not succeed-and it did not-the fault certainly was not that of Canada. The fault, generally speaking, was not that of the west, although I must say in an effort to be objective that the fault does not entirely rest on the Soviet union from that period on.
It is significant that France and Great Britain put forward at one of the early meetings of the subcommittee a comprehensive proposal for disarmament, a plan known as the Anglo-French plan. It was a three-stage disarmament scheme providing for a freeze on military establishments, in the first phase; for a second phase including the first half of agreed reductions in conventional forces and arms plus a cut-off on the production of nuclear weapons, and a final phase which was to see the completion of the remaining half of the agreed reductions of conventional arms. This was to be followed-and this was an answer to the Soviet union-by total prohibition and elimination of all nuclear weapons, and the conversion of all stocks to peaceful uses.
That memorandum represents one of the important landmarks in the discussions on disarmament. This Anglo-French initiative

External Affairs
was rejected by the Soviet union. It was supported by the United States and by Canada as members of the subcommittee.
In 1954 the then permanent delegate at the United Nations, Mr. Andre Vishinsky, made an important statement when he announced in the general assembly that the Soviet union had altered its traditional attitude. No longer would it insist on a ban on the manufacture and use and accumulation of atomic weapons as a condition precedent to entering into efforts to reach a solution on disarmament. And as a further evidence of the position of Canada in these discussions, the recognition of the useful role she had pursued, Canada was selected by the United States, France and Great Britain to carry on negotiations with the Soviet union which led to a resolution that stood in the name of the five powers and received the unanimous endorsa-tion of the general assembly of the United Nations.
Last night the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the resolution on disarmament put forward by the five great powers at the last assembly received unanimous support by all the United Nations, and he interpreted that as an indication of hope for the future.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. member that I said it was cosponsored by all 82 nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I do not want to be unfair to what my hon. friend said, but I would suggest that if that was an achievement-and it was merely a procedural resolution-so too was the achievement of 1954. But the significant point is that there was no constructive result arising from the unanimity. We should not draw unwarranted conclusions from unanimity on procedural resolutions, asserting that as a result we have cause to think we are now entering a more successful chapter in disarmament discussions. I hope we are, but I think it is well for us to curb our optimism with realism and give careful scrutiny to steps that may be taken which may represent more form than substance. Let us hope that the situation is otherwise.
It seems to me the next important step was the summit meeting in Geneva in 1954, when President Eisenhower, Sir Anthony Eden and Prime Minister Faure of France confronted Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev and when, as the result of a week's talk, four proposals on disarmament were put forward.
I would again suggest to hon. members that the spirit of Geneva that flowed from that summit meeting, giving hope as it did to all of the peoples of the world, has its counterpart

in the kind of possible false hope that could ensue as a result of discussions now under way. We must not be misled by generalizations of any kind. In our efforts to bring about disarmament we must recognize the value of a healthier international climate, but before giving final judgment we must see whether or not we have the acceptance of positions which we think are necessary for the maintenance of our security and for the successful pursuit of our objectives in the field of disarmament.
At this summit meeting a number of proposals were made, and for my present purposes the significant one was that put forward by President Eisenhower. He said to Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Bulganin, "It is now scientifically impossible to detect undisclosed or secret nuclear weapons. You admitted that in discussions in the subcommittee only a few weeks ago. That being the case, since we cannot at present have full control on disarmament I make a proposal to you. Let us exchange our military blueprints. Let each give the other the opportunity of carrying out an aerial inspection survey in the territory of the other". The Soviet union did not accept that proposal. Canada was the one country, recognizing the scientific fact and the desirability of creating a, healthier international atmosphere, that did give support in principle to the Eisenhower proposal.
I think it is significant to note that as a result of the four-power meeting the subcommittee were instructed by the heads of the four governments to resume their discussions. They did not decide anything on disarmament. That was left once again to the subcommittee. It will be remembered that the subcommittee had its first meeting after the summit meeting on August 14, 1955. It will be remembered, too, that in September of that year the President of the United States suffered a serious heart seizure. From that moment on the Geneva spirit disappeared or dissipated. From that time forward there was no evidence of any progress, in spite of the good intentions and the healthy atmosphere that prevailed at the meetings in Geneva.
Canada at that time took a position, one that reflected the independence of Canada in foreign policy, as a result of the initiative and the character given that policy by the present Leader of the Opposition. We took the position that because we were apparently not able to resolve any of our differences, if we could not agree on some measure of disarmament on existing weapons, conventional or nuclear, could we not try to arrive at some agreement with respect to weapons

which were not then in existence? We of course had reference to the intercontinental ballistic missile.
It is not the fault of Canada-the record is there for everyone to see-that even more terrible weapons of war now confront us on an increasingly alarming scale. If our point of view had been pursued and accepted by all concerned it is possible that we would not be talking today of missiles that are capable of bringing about even greater destruction than other instruments of war.
This is perhaps what the Prime Minister was thinking about when at the general assembly in 1957 he said:
Experience has taught us that no country ever possesses a monopoly on any device. What one country has today, the other nations will have tomorrow, and the day is not far distant, if this continues, when there will be armouries of these rockets.
So we did take this position, even though it was a position which we alone took. We took another position. Because of the statement made by the President about the scientific fact precluding the complete control of undetected nuclear weapons, the United States reserved its position on all matters to which it had given its support up to that time. I -have referred to the Anglo-French memorandum of March, 1954 which was, apart from the Baruch plan, the first comprehensive proposal. The United States, through Mr. Harold Stassen, on September 6, 1955 stated:
The United States does now place a reservation upon all of its pre-Geneva substantive positions taken in this subcommittee, or in the disarmament commission, or in the United Nations on these questions in relationship to levels of armament.
Canada sought to persuade her -close and friendly associate in these matters that this was an unnecessary position to take, but other members of the subcommittee also took this position. The result wat that the agreement on manpower ceilings, the disarmament program produced by Britain and France, the 50 per cent arrangement about the cutoff, the 75 per -cent arrangement about the elimination of nuclear stocks, the detailed plan for inspection and control were all withdrawn. I believe that was at that time an unnecessary step. The Soviet union certainly did not make matters easy by taking the position it did with regard to bases and the like. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there -can be no doubt that during all of this period Canada has pursued, I believe diligently, its policy of trying, in concert with -other countries, to bring about an agreement on disarmament.
There was no want of independence; there was no reluctance to take a responsible position when it had to be taken, and I suggest to the Secretary of State for External
External Affairs
Affairs that if this is the important matter he says it is in current international affairs, Canada will have to do more than rely on its popularity as -a substitute for policy. Canada will have to do more than make generalizations with regard to this important matter if it wants to make the kind of contribution which I believe all of us want Canada to make at this time; and I am sure "all of us" includes the hon. gentleman who spoke yesterday. But I complained yesterday -and I think with some right-that in a matter of this sort, having in mind the importance which the hon. member attaches to this problem, it was regrettable that the government did not put forward some of its proposals or, at least, the principles on which those proposals are based.
I mentioned that Great Britain had taken that course in September. Chairman Khrushchev outlined the Soviet union proposals. Today we have the President of the United States making a proposal with regard to the banning of tests and saying that this is an essential prerequisite to a comprehensive system of disarmament, or to a system of partial disarmament. There are other proposals, namely the proposals put forward the other day by the French government, in which they emphasized the importance of controlling -production and the means of delivery of nuclear weapons.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member
whether he is suggesting that the French proposals to which he refers were detailed proposals in any way whatever?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said they were detailed proposals in the sense in which the proposals of Mr. Khrushchev and the proposals of Mr. Lloyd were detailed proposals. They did not spell out every "i" and every semi-colon, but the proposals in main outline are there. What have we got from the hon. gentleman? I am saying this only because I do feel keenly about this subject, as I know he does; but all we have got from the hon. gentleman is his declaration-and I admit that is important-that he believes in disarmament; that the government believes in disarmament and intends to pursue the matter. All I am saying is that as an earnest, as a demonstration of his good intentions, we should have had from the hon. gentleman a statement that would at least outline the basic program or the basic principles of that program.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he thinks it would help to attain the ultimate objective in those negotiations which are to take place between the east

External Affairs
and west if the Canadian government were to come in today and give in detail all its proposals before the negotiations commence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have no hesitation in saying that the time has come when the west should seek to dominate the position in terms of influencing world public opinion on this subject. The way to do this is for the western powers not to hesitate to express their positions, as was done by the government of the United Kingdom on the floor of the assembly of the United Nations last September, and as was done from his point of view by Chairman Khrushchev at the same assembly. I say that Canada speaks not only for herself, as the minister acknowledged yesterday, but for a whole series of nations.
We are no less interested in disarmament than is Chairman Khrushchev, perhaps more so; yet he has been able, by the disclosure of the details of his proposals, to give the impression, particularly to the uncommitted peoples of the underdeveloped areas of the world, in Asia, that he more than anyone else is interested in disarmament, when the record clearly shows that the Soviet union has been more intransigent in this particular than any other country. Surely it would not be exposing our flank if the minister, in discussing this matter yesterday, had said that he concurs in the principles, for instance, in April 24, 1952 in the disarmament commission.
Are these principles still the policy of the government of Canada? We do not know. I have no doubt they are; I would find it very difficult to believe that they could not be; but those principles, setting out clearly the attitude which this country and other countries took, were not even referred to by the hon. gentleman yesterday. I can only assume that there would be no exposing of one's position by reciting principles that were referred to time and time again by spokesmen for Canada in discussions in the general assembly, in the main outlining principles which established our position in the matter of controls, our attitude on reductions in conventional forces, our attitude as to when there should begin a prohibition of atomic weapon use and manufacture.
Surely we are entitled to know whether these are still the principles. This is important, because apparently they no longer represent the principles to be adopted by France, particularly in the matter of nuclear weapons. Therefore it would be important -certainly it would be important for the people in India, for other people who have been influenced by what I think oftentimes on the part of the Soviet union has been propaganda-not	always-to convince those

people that the west is seriously dedicated to the prosecution of disarmament, in the hope that we can transfer tremendous sums of money for purposes of defence, and capable of being used for purposes of destruction, into constructive purposes of national development and health and welfare. There is so much involved in these principles that I want to say to the minister that he will find that unless he is prepared to give more than lip service to this question, we will not make the contribution which we should and which I know we want to make.


Henry Frank Jones: Would the hon. member permit a question? I gather from the line of approach he is taking that he places chief reliance for the solution of the disarmament problem on some plan or other which may be produced by a particular nation, either of the west or of the east. Is the hon. member not aware that at the basis of disarmament plans lies the desire of establishing some measure of confidence between the west and the east, and that that is the principle upon which any disarmament plan must be based?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend and I are not at issue on that at all. Of course confidence is important. If there is no confidence there will be no agreement. But I am speaking of proposals. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Canada had proposals. I am not inquiring whether these proposals embody the six principles that were laid before the United Nations on April 24, 1952. I am asking whether or not these proposals are designed to create the very kind of confidence of which my hon. friend has spoken.
Then there is the discussion that is now going on at Geneva among the three nuclear powers. President Eisenhower said without any equivocation today that this particular conference has a bearing upon the outcome of the disarmament discussions that are about to begin. So it is important for us to know what is the position of the government in these matters. The Secretary of State for External Affairs the other day, in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, unhesitatingly acknowledged that the position of Canada with regard to the cessation of tests was that the government was in favour of a ban on tests without qualification. That is a statement of great importance. It will be interesting to see, because of the position taken by the United States today, What the position of Canada will be when these discussions are ultimately projected in the committee room of the ten-power committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question, because he is being very helpful? Would he say what his view is as to whether or not that is the proper position for Canada to take?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition has clearly stated our position. Of course we believe unreservedly in disarmament. We believe that at this period there can be only one way to disarm, and that is by mutual understanding based on conditions of control that will give each side the firm confidence that there will be implementation of undertakings solemnly committed. That is a position which I would unhesitatingly take.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will now answer the question. Is your party against any further nuclear tests?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I take it that my hon. friend is as helpful in his question as the Prime Minister said I was in my comment. This is a matter that does not invite frivolity, and I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be the last man to be frivolous in a situation like this. Our position has been stated over and over again by one who is certainly one of the very few to have received international recognition for his work in trying to bring about a cessation of tests and in trying to bring about peace in the world.
We are not at odds on this basic principle. Of course we want to see tests banned, and we want to see them banned in such a way as not to give an advantage to any country that is prepared clandestinely to violate undertakings solemnly committed. That is the position this party takes, and I am sure that on reflection that is the position which hon. gentlemen opposite take. But I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in view of the statement of the President that these discussions in Geneva have relevancy in terms of the discussions of the ten-power committee, does Canada agree that there should not be any use of nuclear weapons in any kind of war? Does Canada agree that there should be no tests of new weapons in experimental research? Does Canada agree that there should not be any new fissionable or fusionable material made for war-like purposes? Does Canada agree that there should not be stockpiling of nuclear weapons, and that there should be conversion of existing stocks to peaceful uses at the dates and by the methods which a disarmament treaty might lay down?
In the British proposal will be found some of these principles. I ask, why could they not have been at least outlined in some general way by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; or does the government take
External Affairs
the position that these various facets of the banning of nuclear tests must all be taken together, that one cannot be accepted without the others? These are questions which I think the country and parliament are entitled to ask.
I believe a mistake was made by some of the western powers in unduly linking the solution of political questions to disarmament. I do not say, and I applied this in answer to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones), that we can fail to take into consideration the political controversies as between the great powers particularly. But does the government take the position that we cannot proceed, that we cannot have a comprehensive system of disarmament, in the absence of a solution of the major political problems of the day? Do we take the position, for instance, that there is no hope of making a real start on disarmament unless there is suspension of tests under adequate control, unless there is a major disengagement of conventional forces and armaments in Germany and her neighbours, unless there is an agreement regarding the status of West Berlin and some progress with regard to the German question? Is that our view? There was not a word about this from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I am saying this only because I believe that in a matter of this sort, with a country like Canada that no longer, in the language of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is going to pursue the course of an honest broker, a country that is going to maintain an independent position, that is going to prosecute this question as it thinks it should be prosecuted, we have a right to expect more from my genial friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs than we got yesterday from his tour around the world that did not last 80 days but only about 90 minutes.
In conclusion I suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada should have a plan of its own. That may be a synthesis of other plans. The minister said yesterday that Canada has such a plan. I take it that it will be a plan that will enable us to look at the whole problem in terms of what might emerge as a comprehensive treaty. Such a treaty, even if it were put forward as an objective apart from the difficulty there is in the absence of settlement of some political controversies, would have wide interest in this country and in the world. I am sure if the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada put forward at least in general terms, in general principles, the point of view of Canada with regard to this matter it would evoke in countries like India, Indonesia, Malaya, Indo-China, Cambodia and the countries he spoke of yesterday a great deal of

External Affairs
interest. It would reveal to these nations that there are countries determined to try and do something about this problem. However, I regret that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not take advantage of this particular debate to do so.
I suggest that at this time Canada might work toward bringing about some agreement with regard to weapons not now in existence. We tried to do that with regard to the I.C.B.M., and that was a gigantic problem to face. I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that with all the sincerity he possesses, with all the honour and integrity of character he possesses, he could play a great role in trying to impress upon all the powers concerned that if we cannot get an agreement on disarmament generally, might we not at least, in addition to agreement on the cessation of tests, get agreement with regard to some of these vehicles and instruments of war not yet fully created. Could we not urge the elimination of vehicles that might carry atomic weapons, such as satellites, rockets, supersonic aircraft, ocean-going submarines and launching pads that are capable of adding to human destruction way beyond the fancy and imagination of man?
There are ways by which this could be done. We could suggest a first stage of getting the nations to report their existing weapons and programs to an international disarmament commission. There could be a second stage when prior notice would be given, and when there would be some control of tests. There could be another procedure devised for the destruction and control of stockpiles. These are suggestions that come to one's mind. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I say there are many problems that the nations of the world have to face today. I believe the Prime Minister was right when he said at the general assembly of the United Nations that this is the foremost problem of all. Wars are not necessarily caused by arms but, as Mr. Churchill said in 1912 and in 1936, the existence of these tremendous weapons in itself is a potential danger to peace among the nations.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has declared that Canada's role is now to be one of independence, and not that of honest broker. During the past decade, as I emphasized yesterday, Canada has emerged as a nation whose spokesmen in the councils of the nations, notably the Leader of the Opposition, have responsibly and unhesitatingly put forward proposals which reflect our initiative, our maturity, our sense of responsibility and independence.
The government now, in this matter of disarmament, has the opportunity of making

the minister's proud boast a reality. It is not too late, on the eve of a new chapter in the discussions on disarmament, for Canada to once again seize the initiative through constructive proposals designed to remove the unbelievably hideous weapons of human destruction which, by their very existence, threaten the peace of mankind.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member, is he suggesting that Canada's initiative in this regard should be taken in the way of propaganda, that is by announcing a plan to the world today; or should it be taken in the councils of the countries with which she is now associated and later in the meeting of the 10-member committee? It comes down to a question of whether it is to be a case of propaganda or whether we are really going to try to work out a sound, worth-while scheme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs recognizes that the formulation of policy in this country in foreign affairs is not for the purpose of propaganda; that is the first thing. But having devised a policy there is a legitimate propaganda value to a very clear enunciation of principles and a plan, which does not in any way preclude the kind of private diplomacy which my hon. friend has in mind and which is, of course, essential.
I was simply referring to the kind of thing Mr. Selwyn Lloyd did in the United Nations, and that Canada has not done. Mr. Selwyn Lloyd outlined a plan that could be integrated into other plans that have been proposed. However, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, in proposing that plan, did not do so merely for the sake of propaganda. If that was a result it was a happy result, but it was not the purpose. Nor did he preclude the right, in private meetings, to spell out this plan with its details and its principles. All I am saying is that Canada has not done as much.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member suggest that Canada, Italy, France and the United States should rush out now with their four different plans for disarmament? Does he not realize that at the United Nations there was only Selwyn Lloyd's statement and the statement of Premier Khrushchev? It never was the intention that the whole 10 nations of the disarmament committee should rush out with 10 statements about what they thought should be done to bring about disarmament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend said yesterday we were no longer going to act as the honest broker, we were going to act independently. Now my hon. friend is taking a different position; we must get the

consent of other countries. All I am saying is this. If it was proper for the United Kingdom to give a plan, as Selwyn Lloyd did in the assembly, and if it was proper for other countries to do so during the discussions- I have read them all-it was no less possible, and I believe it would have been equally timely, for a country like Canada that professes it speak not only for itself but for the other smaller nations of the world to have done likewise.


Harold Edward Winch: In
this two-day discussion on external affairs, Mr. Speaker, it is the right of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member for Essex East to have unlimited time. Being the third speaker in this discussion my own time is limited; therefore I hope hon. members will understand why it is impossible for me to comment on the eight points discussed yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or to go into too much detail on the matters which I desire to draw to the attention of the house.
It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that an eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence which would be ever in view and which would be true and appropriate at all times and in all situations. His wise men presented him with these words: "And this too shall pass away." Those words came to my recollection when the minister was speaking yesterday afternoon; and this too shall pass away. I was reminded of this because the minister, in his opening remarks and throughout his speech, made it obvious that in his opinion the old approach of Canada to external affairs had to pass away and a new one was required.
The main theme of the minister's speech yesterday was that Canada had to leave the old role of mediator and broker, and establish a procedure of independent, active policies in international affairs. We in this party welcome the minister's pronouncement of a policy based on independent, active participation. We honour him for that statement-and especially do I honour him because the minister comes from the same city as I-and endorse the principle. But in so doing I want to point out that words must be backed up by acts. Having been so greatly enthused over the principles and the motives behind the minister's speech, it was with a great deal of regret that we found that in the course of his speech he backtracked on all independence of action, and in his statement made it clear that he wears the same blinkers that have been evident in Canadian foreign policy over many years.
The speech of the minister can be consolidated into views on disarmament, world 79951-0-61
External Affairs
co-operation, commonwealth understanding and peace. If my condensation of his views and principles is correct I think perhaps one of the first words I should say is this. Canada can aid the achievement of world peace and international co-operation by a militant, active leadership in rallying the middle and small nations of the world around dynamic and constructive proposals which will make it abundantly clear to the sparring giants of the world, namely the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., that there are other countries in the United Nations and in the world which have no desire nor intention of being engulfed either in an economic cold war or in a fighting hot war, and which have no desire or intention of being the pawns or the stooges of the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R. in their sparring and in their fighting.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that Canada can give that leadership, can rally the middle and the small countries of this world, and can exercise an influence and power of great magnitude in world affairs. It will take courage and it will take leadership, but it must be done.
To follow up that suggestion I have tried to give an answer to the question of what kind of leadership Canada should give. To some it may seem to be a platitudinous generalization but I have tried to put down in a few words what should be done.
We in this party believe that the foreign policy of Canada should be such as to give wholehearted support to the principles and purposes of the United Nations. In words that has been done in the past and is being done now, but in too many respects it is not being followed through by action by Canada in the United Nations or here at home. We believe that Canada should do more-by action, not just by words-in promoting understanding and support of the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. We believe that Canada should give greater leadership in proposing policies to achieve peace through negotiation. It is true that we have always supported that objective, but we can do more by way of active leadership.
We believe that Canada should show a greater interest in the problems and the aspirations of the Afro-Asian countries. Canada has done a great deal there, but I do not think the government is yet fully cognizant of the importance of the Afro-Asian countries and of what is taking place at the present time.
We think it is important that Canada should give a real lead in disarmament and should wage a militant campaign in order to gather support behind the proposition that

External Affairs
all armed forces, if we are to have them, shall come under the control of the United Nations.
As I said before, those suggestions may seem rather general, but if those principles are backed up in the foreign affairs policies of this country under the direction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it is my personal belief and that of the C.C.F. party that Canada can perhaps do more than any other country or people for the maintenance of world peace, for the development of undeveloped countries and for prosperity for all peoples and all countries.
Naturally I will be asked why I feel that the magnificent words and principles expressed yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs are, unfortunately, to some extent only window dressing, and that the courage is not there to back up the principles which he espoused. I think the answer is quite obvious. There are still too many blinkers over the eyes of the minister. In his mind he knows what is correct, but he cannot see his way clear to put the principles into operation.
Let us take by way of example, two, three or four indications that bear out that statement. Yesterday the minister told us how the Canadian delegation abstained from voting on the apartheid issue before the United Nations. I know the thinking of the minister, the Prime Minister and the government. They do not believe in discrimination on the basis of race, sex, colour or creed. They do not believe in nor do they support the principle of apartheid as it is applied in South Africa. But as we were told yesterday by the minister, because of their love of the commonwealth and because, as he pointed out, of the history of South Africa and the commonwealth, they were not going to do anything to endanger South Africa's position in the commonwealth. They were not going to do anything to endanger South Africa within the commonwealth. I can understand that from the commonwealth point of view. But South Africa is not the commonwealth, and this is a matter of principle; and I want to ask through you, Mr. Speaker, if the stand taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), because of this membership of the commonwealth, is not going to lead to a position where the commonwealth is actually endangered, although the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), too, are absolutely against what is happening in South Africa.
Was any thought given to the other parts of the commonwealth, especially to the Afro-Asian countries and those growing nations now coming out of the cocoon of colonialism

and which are going to be major powers, if not the major powers in years to come and whose relations with Canada will mean so much to us. Was any thought given to that when, in the United Nations, the Canadian delegation abstained from voting on a matter of principle; was any thought given to the non-white members of the commonwealth, the self-governing countries of India, Pakistan, Malaya, Ghana and Ceylon. What thought was given to those nations in the British commonwealth which are developing toward self-government, Singapore, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and the West Indies, or those nations which are progressing toward self-government within the commonwealth, the colonies and protectorates of Kenya, Nigeria, Basutoland, Aden, Bechu-analand, Tanganyika, Somaliland, Uganda, South-West Africa, New Guinea, North Borneo, Sierra Leone, Gambia, Hong Kong, Zanzibar, and British Guiana. These, too, are the British commonwealth and these countries, too, have one great interest, and that is the relationship of the white people and of Canada to the problem of apartheid.
You know, Mr. Speaker, during the meetings of the commonwealth parliamentary association in Australia one of the big discussions among the 48 parliaments of the commonwealth Australia represented there was the policy of discrimination in South Africa against the native population. These non-white nations are also of the commonwealth; they are a growing power in the commonwealth and if the minister means what he says by independence, activity and courage, then Canada will not abstain from voting on a principle. Instead, we will give Canadian leadership to those people both inside the commonwealth and outside it to show that Christianity and non-discrimination mean something to us.
The minister spoke at length on disarmament. I wish I had the time and the opportunity to speak at great length on that subject myself because it is one of the greatest problems which is facing this country today. We are very grateful for the interest which has been taken in this matter by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We are very proud that Canada is to be represented as one of the 10 powers represented on the disarmament committee. We sincerely hope that all the wishes of the minister will come true.
But, Mr. Speaker-you know I do not like saying things like this, because I know what is in the heart of the hon. gentleman-he is making it impossible to obtain the very objective he wants by the stand he is taking. Hon. gentlemen opposite want world disarmament, and so do we in this party. We are the only

party which has been fighting for this continuously, in provincial legislatures, in the House of Commons and on the platform. We want results. The minister says he wants results, yet after telling us for a long time about this 10-power committee and what it is going to do, he tells us, reading from a prepared statement, about the stand which the government is adopting regarding the People's Republic of China.
Mr. Speaker, we know of the arguments used in the past, and the arguments used at the present time as to why there should not be recognition of the People's Republic of China. But it is leading the people down the garden path to talk about world disarmament and then to stand up, as the minister did yesterday afternoon, and say that the People's Republic of China will not be recognized diplomatically, in the United Nations, or represented on the disarmament committee.
There are 650 million people in this one country, and whether we like their government or whether we do not, they are advancing rapidly both industrially and scientifically. How can one discuss world disarmament and leave a country of 650 million people completely out in the cold, without representation on the committee. Why the blinkers? It is absolute, plain, unadulterated stupidity for this government to be-I know the words I want, and I will get it in a minute-the ventriloquist's dummy of United States foreign policy.
Formosa and Chiang Kai-shek in the United Nations are not China. Why should Canada follow a policy which could endanger the peace of the world and the prospects of world disarmament by following Chiang Kai-shek on Formosa and minding about Matsu and Quemoy surpasses all comprehension. The day will have to come when the People's Republic of China, irrespective of its government, will be recognized as it is entitled to be recognized. The day will come when it will be given its seat in the United Nations and take its proper place in the disarmament discussions. Any talk of international peace, cooperation and disarmament based on the assumption that China is Chiang Kai-shek is just nonsensical. If the foreign minister was not my friend and if he was not in the government I would be tempted to say that there are people not so crazy in a lunatic asylum. What can we make of the statements made by the minister? I listened to his speech yesterday afternoon. In my opinion it was the finest and most concise talk on international affairs that I have heard during the seven years I have been a member of this house. I have not yet met a person who disagrees with 79951-0-61i
External Affairs
that. But we want to help him to do the things he says he wants to do and we want to take those blinkers off his eyes.


Hazen Robert Argue: He has taken them off now.


Harold Edward Winch: I observe that the minister has removed his spectacles, but I said his blinkers not his glasses. His glasses protect his eyesight but the blinkers are on his mind and they obscure his vision and views. The approach adopted by the minister simply will not work out.
Yesterday the minister spoke on the refugee problem in the Middle East. I believe I am right in saying that he told us that parliament in this budget will be asked to contribute $500,000 to UNREF.


Howard Charles Green: 


Harold Edward Winch: I thank the minister for that correction. We will be contributing $500,000 to UNRWA. Why do not the minister and his department face up to the situation in the Middle East? Without doubt there is a tremendous refugee problem but it is not in Israel. There are thousands upon thousands of Arabs and Bedouins in Israel. They have been assimilated into the citizenship and economy of that country. I was there ten and a half years ago and again two and a half months ago. The Bedouins and Arabs in Israel are first class citizens participating in agriculture, in business and in the Knesset or parliament. There is no problem. The refugee problem exists around Israel in the Arab countries. They have been taken care of over the years under the United Nations and Canada has contributed every year.
No attempt whatever has been made in the Arab countries to assimilate or to settle those refugees. They are kept there for acrimonious political purposes and for nothing else. No endeavour has been made to settle them. Has the minister or his departmental officials made no study of the report of the investigating committee of the United States congress and senate last year which found exactly what I am saying and which also reported that the United Nations through which organization Canada is paying out millions of dollars is spending money for refugees who do not exist? I believe it was a joint committee of the United States congress and senate that made this finding last year. It was in all the newspapers.


Howard Charles Green: I doubt that.


Harold Edward Winch: I read the reports of their
investigations. It was a joint committee of the senate and congress.


Howard Charles Green: Reports are not always accurate.

External Affairs


Harold Edward Winch: It was stated and not challenged that there were more United Nations ration cards than there were Arab refugees. The minister shakes his head but I advise him to look up the record. If he does not agree about the ration cards he will have to agree that nothing has been done by the Arab countries to establish the refugees. They are still there in an unsettled' condition. The statement has been made by the leaders of the Arab countries that they are going to be kept there.
This is something I did find out with respect to those who have a rightful claim in Israel. The money is being placed in trust every month and just rests there awaiting a settlement. As the Middle East is the danger spot in the world today, why does not Canada take the lead in trying to straighten out the refugee situation?
I wish now to speak about Israel. Israel was established in 1948 under the aegis of the United Nations. It is a member of the United' Nations. From 1948 until now it has been in a tough spot. We have heard a great deal about how one little spark could trigger off a world war. I want to know why Canada has not and is not now giving leadership in that area?
On January 9, 1954 King Saud of Saudi Arabia called upon the Arab world to wage total war against Israel and to sacrifice 10 million Arab lives if necessary in order to destroy it. That statement was not made in the United Nations but other alarming statements have been made there. Do not forget that Israel was established under the aegis of the United Nations and is a member of that body. The United Nations is the place where we settle our differences through discussion and co-operation.
Let me draw attention to some of the statements that have been made in the United Nations as taken from the records of that body. At the thirteenth session of the general assembly Mr. Shukairy of Saudi Arabia said in a meeting of the special political committee on November 11, 1958:
-Arab nationalism was determined to sweep away from Arab soil all vestiges oi colonialism of any kind. The fortresses of the retreating imperialist forces were falling one by one. Zionism was no exception to the rule, and its collapse would be the signal for the return of the Palestine Arab refugees to their homes.
At the same time in the same speech he went on to say:
At one time a slogan was coined for circulation in the Middle East to the effect that Israel is there to stay. Nothing is so empty as this empty slogan. Israel is not there to stay and is not going to stay. The United Nations can help to bring about an orderly undoing of Israel, lest it should take place in a disorderly manner and cause confusion in the area.
fMr. Green.]
On October 30, 1959, he said:
Israel and disarmament in the Middle East are incompatible and there is no room for both.
Let us turn to a statement made by Mr. Azkoul of Lebanon at the eleventh session of the general assembly in a special political committee meeting on February 21, 1957:
Were Israel allowed to maintain its character of Zionist exclusivism, to pursue its policy of expansion and eviction and to resort to the force that such a character required, it would one day either be crushed by a greater force, or suffocated in the isolation it had created for itself.
Canada is a member of the United Nations. As a party to the establishment of Israel and as a member of the United Nations I cannot understand why Canada would not voice protest against statements like that which were made in the United Nations or its subcommittees to the effect that the Israelites will be driven into the sea even at the cost of 10 million Arab lives and that the whole of Israel will be wiped out. To my knowledge Canada has never raised one word of protest in the United Nations. Never to my knowledge-and I have checked and checked-did Canada rise and object, and say that this is not the way the United Nations operates, and this kind of thing is not going to be allowed in the United Nations. The point I am driving at is this.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member whether he does not realize that in the United Nations the delegates of all nations are entitled to rise and make their speeches as they see fit? There have been very drastic speeches made by many other delegates. I admit the nature of the speech to which the hon. member has referred, but in the United Nations they are supposed to have free speech.


Harold Edward Winch: That is absolutely correct. Here is my point. I am glad the minister rose. Is that sort of thing supposed to go unchallenged by democratic countries such as Canada? It is because it does go unchallenged, because Canada has not the intestinal fortitude to challenge that kind of thing in the United Nations that the situation has developed. It is because countries like Canada have not had the intestinal fortitude to get up and challenge this sort of statement that we have the situation now where Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq can go ahead and brag about the situation where we have to maintain 1,000 of our people on the Gaza strip, and where sporadic fighting is going on along the border. There are two million people in Israel because of the United Nations, people who have, in my opinion, done one of the most magnificent jobs in this world of changing a desert into agricultural land

and mountains into industry, and are now faced by 45 million people who say they are going to drive them into the sea.
My point is that this is where we have been lacking in Canada. I agree with free speech, but when we hear such things they should be challenged. This is where Canada can give leadership, in challenging this sort of issue. These are the situations where Canada can give real leadership. You cannot by abstaining from voting on apartheid because we do not want to hurt South Africa, forgetting what it means to so many other peoples and countries in the commonwealth nor by not challenging statements against U.N. principles.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we enjoyed-and I did in particular-the ideology and the expressions of the minister yesterday. Knowing him as I do, I hope that he will bring them into being. Knowing him as I do, I hope he will see to it that his officials throughout the world and in the United Nations have the stamina, have the courage, have the vision-I do not like that word too much now-to make Canada the rallying point, the spearhead of all the middle and the small countries, because I am absolutely convinced that if Canada does that with respect to its foreign policy, then in the days that lie ahead not only the people of this country but hundreds of millions in other countries will be able to say that Canada made a contribution which enabled the world to have a greater heritage because it passed through our hands.


Arthur Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset assure the house that in rising to speak briefly in this debate I have no intention of endeavouring to supplement or qualify in any way the address yesterday of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). Hon. members-and certainly those who may have read the speech or listened to it-will agree, as apparently the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) does-that it was one of the finest reviews of Canada's position in world affairs and our country's attitude toward those affairs that this house has ever heard.
Those of us who were privileged to go to New York and attend the recent sessions of the United Nations came away with three basic conclusions: first, the high level of leadership and contribution made by the minister and his parliamentary secretaries; second, the progress which had been made in a variety of items which came up and have come up each year as old chestnuts; third, the new and conciliatory attitude of the Soviet republic toward the west, so new
External Affairs
to those of us who perhaps have had only a fleeting glance at this rather unreal world of international politics.
Whatever has been said in this house in any attempt to discredit the work of the Secretary of State for External Affairs will not be accepted by the world at large, let alone the Canadian people, because the minister has established himself as one of the great international citizens, and I suggest it is hardly in the interest of the opposition members to adopt such an attitude. Surely logical, honest disagreement in a debate of this nature should not be replaced by picayune partisanship.
I wish to qualify some of the statements I have made by outlining the actual contribution of the delegation representing all political shades of opinion. It is, of course, well known that Canada introduced a successful resolution on radiation, one which undoubtedly will, from a humanitarian standpoint, provide tremendous benefits to all peoples of the world. The contribution which Canada made in reconciling differences in the election of the last member to the security council is equally well known in the halls of the United Nations and throughout the world. Here particular credit must go to the hon. member for Oxford, (Mr. Nesbitt) for his untiring effort to bring the two sides together which, to a substantial degree, made it possible for the security council to continue its work.
The Hungarian question may be regarded as one of the failures of the United Nations. Here again it was considered by the independent members vrho attended the session that Canada's approach was indeed one of the most constructive ones. History will of course record to the discredit of the delegates that we came away admittedly with no real solution. The information which has come to light since the Hungarian uprising makes one very suspicious that atrocities of a nature undreamed of before have been taking place.
Here was a situation where the appointed representative of the United Nations in the person of Sir Leslie Munroe was asked to make a review of the Hungarian situation and was refused entry into the country or cooperation in any other way. Thus a stalemate arose from the point of view of making any progress toward discouraging and preventing any further atrocities from taking place in that country. Canada made the point that if these statements were untrue surely it was in the best interests of Hungary to cooperate with the United Nations and its agencies by opening its doors and permitting free examination of the problem because if

External Affairs
are going to be able to receive further comfort in the realization we will be able to make a substantial contribution, as we have in past years, in the form of flour.
The importance of this is recognized in that the contribution of $1.5 million last year in the form of flour permitted the United States to make another $3.5 million contribution, and as a consequence the agency was able to meet its budget requirements. Because of the stipulation the United States must not, under any circumstances, contribute more than 70 per cent of the total amount, our contribution was all the more significant. In so far as the long term solution of the Palestine refugee problem is concerned, it would seem to me that the logical approach must again be made either through the Palestine conciliation commission, which would have to be reconstituted to examine the various aspects of this problem, or through a committee of the United Nations which could bring together the two factions in the hope that they could resolve their own problem. I do not believe any of us in this house doubt the fact that so long as a million people remain on the desert surrounding Israel they constitute a threat to world peace. Recent press statements, which indicate that the members of the united Arab league may attempt to form an army out of refugees, brings the seriousness of the problem into its real perspective. The long term solution is the responsibility of the United Nations and I suggest at the next assembly one of the two approaches which I have mentioned should be followed in the hope that the solution may be found.
I come to the last point I would make and that concerns our own delegation's work. I have mentioned already the contribution made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and have made references to his parliamentary secretary. I should not like to sit down without saying just a word about another group of people, one of the most dedicated groups of men I have ever had occasion to meet, the diplomatic secretarial staff who advised us at the U.N.O. They work longer hours than any other group of people I have ever met before. This year they have made a very great contribution to the delegation, as they have in previous years.
I feel there is another thing we can do to assist our delegation and that is to encourage more members of the House of Commons to join the delegation. Canada has taken the lead in this respect because most of the United Nations delegations are made up of diplomatic representatives, in many instances without any representatives from the various legislative bodies. We, as the house knows 
very well, have a happy combination of both. In addition to the parliamentary delegates, we have a number of parliamentary observers. It would be my hope, so that the house could be better informed on the work of the United Nations, that we could increase this number and that we could endeavour to put them to work, thus making them all part of the operation of the United Nations, and providing a well informed parliament.
I should like to close on one note. In speaking on external affairs it is difficult not to make a reference to our relationship with the United States. The house will recall that a year ago we had a variety of problems over which we were consulting our friends south of the border. There were two committees, one a cabinet committee and the second a parliamentary committee. Both of these bodies have met and from these discussions have come a far better understanding of the problems confronting us.
Today Canada enjoys a better relationship with the United States, I suggest, than at any other time in our history. Credit for a large part of this success, and the contribution that has come from it, must go first of all to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to the government for instituting those two important committees and for the work which they have accomplished.
If you itemize the list you will include the integration of our defences; the establishment of a better understanding with regard to the development of our resources, with the Americans for their part showing an understanding of the need to co-operate with Canada with regard to the investment of capital; the sharing of defence contracts and so on down the list. I believe that Canadians and Americans today are working in more areas for the preservation of peace and for the development of the two countries and I believe that we can continue to expect from them the same understanding that we are prepared to give them. All this, of course, has come under the leadership of the present administration.
I therefore say to my friends in the house that we have made a contribution not only at the negotiating desk of the United Nations but in all of the embassies throughout the world and have established a reputation as one of the countries that can be counted on most. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, we have no enemies. We have worked co-operatively with all countries. I believe that the future for this country is as a great power, not just a middle power but one which has a role to play as an independent nation, one that can effect

many of the reconciliations between countries and that we are yet on the threshold of making our greatest contribution.
Finally, if I may do so, I should like to say this. During these last few weeks when the delegations are preparing to go to the world disarmament meetings, we wish every success to our own General Burns. I sincerely hope -and I close on the same note as that on which I began-that we are not prepared to show our hand prematurely, that we will deal with the Russians recognizing that we will remain armed until such time as they show the true intent of their honest motive.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I want to open my contribution to this debate by expressing the appreciation of the members of this group of the manner in which, in matters of external affairs, the minister has treated us ever since he became the minister. We know that he will take our arguments as criticisms of the policy of his government rather than of the manner in which he has discharged his responsibilities. The minister has at all times given serious consideration to any representations we have made to his department. He has also on a considerable number of occasions gone out of his way to accommodate members of the opposition at international meetings and in Ottawa. I think he deserves from the opposition a tribute for what he has done.
We are also tremendously pleased to note that in his opening remarks, as recorded at page 929 of Hansard, the minister had this to say:
There has been a great deal to learn, and I am afraid I have only begun to scratch the surface as yet.
In international affairs, on such important matters as war or the preservation of peace, I believe that humbleness on the part of our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) will strike a very responsive chord in the hearts of the Canadian people. Humbleness together with honesty, sincerity and forthrightness in the defence of principles will take us many miles further than will the old philosophy of diplomacy taking one step forward and two steps back and in effect not exerting the influence that our nation might be able to exert. Here is where lies our basic quarrel with the policy of the government in international affairs.
I note that in ending his contribution the other day in opening a debate on his estimates the minister had this to say as reported at page 940 of Hansard:
External Affairs
Canada can play a vital part in world affairs today, perhaps just as vital a part as any other nation in the world.
I should like to underline that phrase "as any other nation in the world". He went on to say this:
These next ten years could be Canada's years in world affairs.
I believe the government fails to realize the potentialities that are available for Canadian influence as so ably expressed in the minister's own words at the conclusion of his contribution. The minister also placed on the record the resolution of the United Nations that the question of general and complete disarmament is the most important one facing the world today. If it is the most important one and if the next ten years may well be Canada's ten years in world affairs, that tenet applies, namely that Canada will have to play a leading role in the cause of world disarmament.
I should like again to express appreciation of the minister's clear desire for clarity. I feel that not too much progress is going to be made in the extremely difficult negotiations on disarmament unless there is a desire for clarity.
I want to say a few words on the subject of nuclear explosions. Canadians were delighted when in very forthright terms the minister, on the rostrum of the United Nations, made Canada's position very clear indeed when he said that Canada is unalterably- and I think that is the term he used-opposed to nuclear explosions occurring in the world. I am using my own words, and if I am doing the minister wrong I know he will correct me. I hope that Canadian efforts to investigate the effects of radiation are going to meet with success just as they met with the approval of other nations at the United Nations. As I said several years ago in this house, for all we know we may know, even though there is no war, radiation may be doing more harm to mankind than has been actually inflicted on mankind throughout the whole of the last horrible war. I think it is timely that every effort be made not only to prevent any further nuclear explosions but also to obtain the necessary information as to the possible effects of radiation on mankind.
We note with a great deal of satisfaction the continuation of the present armistice between the Soviet union, the United Kingdom and the United States of America in the matter of nuclear explosions. We regret that the government of France has decided to explode a nuclear bomb. There might be national reasons for reaching that decision. I do know that the United Nations expressed its apprehension and pleaded with the government of

External Affairs
France. I know that Canada endorsed a plea to the French government not to proceed.
This leads us to the problem of nuclear weapons, and I have not heard an equally clear announcement of the Canadian position on the desirability of the establishment of a non-nuclear club among the nations of the world. We feel that Canada should say: we are not at any time to become owners of, or supply storage for nuclear weapons, and we invite other nations to participate with us in a declaration that they also will follow such a policy. I have a special reason for making this plea at the present time when many Canadians are viewing with alarm the growing aggressiveness among some of the leading statesmen of western Europe. I believe I can understand this aggressiveness originating from a feeling that possibly the United States and to a lesser extent Canada have become more interested in what is referred to as continental defence, and that the western European nations may have to shoulder more of the burden than they have been doing in the years immediately following the last war.
I should like to underline the grave danger of the West German government ever being in possession of nuclear weapons before the unification of Germany has taken place. We have seen history repeat itself on so many occasions and we may well live long enough to see history repeat itself to the extent that if the West German government is given possession of nuclear weapons it may arrive at a state when it may be prepared to take steps to reunify Germany regardless of the opinions of the western allies. I think that danger is very great, and it is for that reason that Canada should use its influence to make a non-nuclear club encompass as many nations as possible and use every effort to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the people of West Germany, because the fires of hatred, the fires of revenge and of fear are very rapidly kindled in a people who by their nature feel very keenly.
If we are not willing to take the lead in forming a non-nuclear club, we might well unconsciously be forcing nations to take part in a nuclear weapons race even though they could ill afford the luxury. Nations which must devote all their energy and all their resources to the welfare of their people and, in many cases, to the very survival of the cause of democracy in their country should not be burdened with having to take part in a nuclear armament race.
On the subj ect of international disarmament I have to make what I consider a very serious complaint against the government of Canada. I believe everyone wishes for international disarmament. Canada is going to participate

in the work of the disarmament committee, and I think Canadians will insist that there should be, on the part of our delegation, at least, a determination to continue negotiations indefinitely if necessary, despite all the obstacles that may appear during the discussions. I believe that a welcome beginning might be made if the disarmament committee were able to agree on the initial limitation of armament expenditures by all nations, limiting them to the present dollar value of existing expenditures. If we could get all the countries of the world to agree that in their budgets for armament next year the number of dollars which would be spent would not exceed the number of dollars which were spent in 1960, I think this would be a welcome move in the right direction. An agreement of this kind might be easier to obtain than an agreement on the discarding of military strength, because nations will hesitate-some feel, for very good reasons-before risking any measure of disarmament. Thus I feel an initial proposal respecting an agreement not to increase armament expenditures would be welcomed by all peace-loving people in the world.
I hope that when we take part in the work of the disarmament committee we are going to be sincere. Only the other day I read the speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made to the United Nations in September, 1957. He went to great lengths to castigate the Soviet union for what he felt was lack of sincerity in its disarmament proposals at that time, and he called for sincerity. Then he announced on behalf of Canada-he used the words "on behalf of Canada" and "I speak for Canada" were his exact words-an offer which, if I interpret the speech correctly, was meant to test the sincerity of the Soviet government with regard to its proposals. The offer was for a mutual Arctic inspection plan. This is very important, because if we could obtain a mutual Arctic inspection plan there would be no need for armaments within the Arctic circle, since there is no use having hidden installations if a potential enemy knows of them and has the right to inspect those installations. Canadians would be saved millions of dollars if we could have a policy of disengagement in the Arctic circle. The Soviet people would be saved millions of dollars.
I am going to pass over how in my opinion the United States government complicated the Canadian intention as announced by the Prime Minister at that time. I have not the necessary time, and I know many other hon. members wish to participate. However, when the present minister was appointed to his office in July last year, I asked him what had happened to our Prime Minister's offer

of a mutual Arctic inspection plan, an offer which had been made, according to the press, in the Prime Minister's own words on the rostrum of the United Nations. I asked whether the plan had been forgotten or discarded; I asked the minister to look it up. Apparently he knew something about it, for he assured me in an immediate reply that the plan was still good

still open-and that it had not been put away in a filing cabinet and forgotten. The minister used the term "filing cabinet".
Then we had the visit to the United Nations of the Soviet leader, a most important visit in world history, and we all know about his offer of total and complete disarmament. Many Canadians wondered if it was a bona fide offer and entertained doubts as to its sincerity. The Russian leader also offered to give consideration to any moves in the field of disarmament which might eventually lead to total and complete disarmament. I was very pleased to note that our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was not asleep at the switch. He immediately repeated his offer to the Russian leader and gained publicity in all Canadian newspapers. He said in effect: If you are sincere, how about considering our Canadian offer for mutual inspection of the Arctic?
Once again the Prime Minister was given headlines in Canadian newspapers. You can well imagine how surprised, shocked and dismayed I was when I asked about this on orders of the day the other day and discovered that Canada has never even had the sincerity or courtesy to make an official offer to the Soviet government. There is an embassy only a mile or so away from this House of Commons and we have an ambassador in Moscow. The Prime Minister, the government or whoever would be responsible for sending such an offer has never had the courtesy to dictate this offer to a stenographer, have it typed out and delivered by security guard to the Soviet ambassador.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the hon. member has read the letter I wrote to Mr. Khrushchev and seen the reaction embodied in his reply which was simply to the effect that the Soviet union did not wish to have inspection in designated areas and that it had to be on the basis of inspection of a large area of the globe? I am paraphrasing what Mr. Khrushchev said. Apparently the hon. gentleman has not read the correspondence that passed between the chairman and myself.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some discussions did take place. However, I am also aware that the Canadian government allowed another government to interfere with what was the Canadian government's original 79951-0-62i
External Affairs
intention and plan and to so complicate the picture that total confusion resulted. The Secretary of State for External Affairs as much as admitted that in his reply on orders of the day when he said this proposal will no doubt be taken up at the forthcoming meetings of the disarmament committee. He had no doubt, he said, but that the soviet authorities were well aware of our offer. The Prime Minister did not interfere at the time to correct the minister and to announce that normal diplomatic channels had been resorted to.
I regret that it has become my conviction that the Prime Minister has callously exploited the sincere desires of the Canadian people for peace and disarmament in order to obtain for himself newspaper headlines. He should be the last one to lecture the leader of the Soviet union for possible insincerity as he did at the United Nations.


John Cameron Pallett: Spoken like a real communist.


Erhart Regier: I can assure the whip of the government that when it comes to doing battle with communism the record of the democratic socialists in the world is a much more successful one than is the record of the capitalists. The democratic socialists of the world know what communism really is in all its horrifying aspects but the capitalist parties subscribe to a philosophy that is basically very identical to the totalitarian philosophy of the communists of the world.
I have only a word to say on the subject of the world refugee year. I notice that one hon. member on the government side expressed the hope that I had only one more word to say. When the day comes when I will receive rounds of applause from the government benches I will feel I am failing in my duties as a member of the opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, apparently this hon. member did not read the exchange of letters to which reference has been made, and that is not unusual, but I would point out that in the exchange of letters with Mr. Khruschev I reiterated Canadian support for an Arctic zone and Mr. Khrushchev in replying to my letter on May 30, 1958, said:
In connection with what you say in favour of applying aerial inspection to prevent a sudden attack, I would like to remind you that the Soviet government, meeting the wishes of the western powers, already proposed last year the establishment of zones of aerial inspection in central Europe, as well as in the Far East, and in the corresponding part of the U.S.A.
There was no direct answer given to what I stated in my letter to Mr. Khrushchev as to Canada's attitude.

External Affairs


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, all I can say
to that is that the Prime Minister has never yet said he has officially made the offer to the soviet government on behalf of Canada. He has never said, "Let the Canadian government and the Soviet government establish a bilateral mutual inspection." That was the impression given to the Canadian people in the newspapers. As I noted before, the plan was complicated by the interference of another government and the Canadian government did not abide by its original intention of making an offer to the soviet government for a bilateral inspection of the Arctic zone.
I listened to what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) said about world refugee year. I feel that the role we are playing is inadequate and unbecoming to a country as wealthy as Canada especially in the light of what much poorer countries are doing in this regard. I also regret that Canada's participation in it has all the earmarks of a continuation of the racial discrimination that has in my opinion always existed in our Immigration Act and its accompanying regulations.
Much has been said about international economic co-operation from the angle of world peace and I endorse that. However, I should like to put forward the proposal that Canada's participation in trading blocs throughout the world and in international economic co-operation even to the point of aid to underdeveloped countries should be greatly enhanced if for no other reason than our own selfish economic consideration because the Canadian economy is of such a nature that it can only receive benefits through any economic aid that is rendered.
We note from time to time that the Prime Minister announces the participation by Canada in the Colombo plan and the aid takes the form of wheat. I am sure this is of great assistance to the prairie provinces. I should like to propose that our contribution to international aid be extended to at least 1 per cent of our gross national product and that wheat be an example to be followed by many other items of Canadian production.
We in our group noted with a great deal of interest although not without surprise- we know how intelligent, highly educated and well-read the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) is-what was said by the hon. member on a recent occasion. His speech in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne was rather unexpected coming from one in the Conservative ranks. We in our group welcome it most warmly. We feel he made a [Mr. Diefenbaker.l
real contribution when he pleaded with Canadians to consider that their own interests might in the long run best be served by supplying much more active aid to the efforts of the government of India to establish democracy there and to help the people of that country.
The minister comes from British Columbia. I would like to add to what the hon. member for Vancouver East had to say on the admission to the United Nations of China and diplomatic recognition of that country by Canada. It is of importance in the cause of world peace; it is important if we hope to accomplish anything of any significance in the field of disarmament. China, with its population of 650 million people, can, in the years to come-not now especially because of the state of poverty that still exists there- be a tremendous customer and trading partner of Canada. The earlier we get around to establishing normal trading relations with the government of China the better off we will foe in that regard.
I notice there have been such organizations as the Vancouver board of trade which have for a number of years now called on this government to give recognition to China in the interests of our own economic welfare.
I want to conclude by expressing my disgust at the attitude of the Prime Minister in regard to the problems that exist in the Union of South Africa. All I will do at this time is reiterate what was reported by the Canadian Press on February 1 from Toronto, namely the sentiments of Sir Francis Ifoiam, a member of Nigeria's legislative council, who was in Toronto on that day and who is reported to have said of our Prime Minister's position in regard to the Union of South Africa:
If he could not take a stand as a statesman, surely he could do so as a churchman.
I feel that if the choice is to retain the friendship of a few million whites in Africa, or the loss of friendship of hundreds of millions of coloured people in Africa, I for one would rather lose the friendship at this moment of the limited number of whites in order to ensure the continuing and deepening friendship of the hundreds of millions of coloured people on that continent.


Stuart A. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the satisfaction that was felt in British Columbia when the announcement was made that the international joint commission had reached agreement on the terms it would recommend to the government of Canada and the government of the United States for the international development of the resources of the Columbia river basin

has been greatly intensified by the realization that this week, today, the first talks between the two governments commenced.
The present government's determination to press negotiations to an early conclusion was taken at the very beginning of this government's life. The Prime Minister in 1957 expressed the policy of the Conservative party at that time, expressed a policy that sought to implement an agreement on 50-50 sharing of downstream benefits payable in power and a cash return to Canada on the flood control account. To have arrived in less than three years at the point where, within the international joint commission, general agreement on those terms has been achieved is a remarkable accomplishment when it is considered that negotiations on this matter were first referred to the international joint commission 15 years ago. For at least a decade it was difficult for people who lived in British Columbia, particularly those whose homes- as my riding is-lie within the Columbia basin, to believe that the governments of that period felt any great urgency in pressing forward to a satisfactory conclusion of those negotiations.
Perhaps it might be difficult for people in other parts of Canada to realize how important this is to our people, particularly in south central British Columbia. It is perhaps hard to realize the intensity of feeling which exists there and the devotion there is to this concept of the development of the Columbia river. I think it can only be compared with the intensive feeling felt in eastern Canada and in central Canada with respect to development of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Perhaps it is not generally understood in Canada-although I suppose in time it will become more readily understood-that the development of the Columbia basin in total in both countries exceeds, or will exceed, the expenditure by several times the development within the St. Lawrence region. In British Columbia alone it is a vast development, a complex development that is likely to change the face of our country and transform the economy. Therefore, there can be nothing but satisfaction felt in those regions that have for so long looked forward, counted on, and for so long not achieved in realization that expectation.
It would be, I think, very remiss on my part, if I did not pay tribute to the devotion and the lifelong advocacy of this plan by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). He, of course, as hon. members know, is a native of the very heart of the Columbia country. He has known throughout his life what this development could mean to British Columbia, and what
External Affairs
vast returns could be accomplished for the people of British Columbia and for Canada generally if agreement could be reached that would lead to the exploitation of the potential of the river.
I think also we must pay tribute to a devoted Canadian who has placed Canada's interests first at all times in leading the negotiations within the international joint commission and in achieving the large measure of success which has been reached at this stage. I refer to the Canadian joint chairman, General A. G. L. McNaughton. For years he took a firm stand, and he has a firm understanding and knowledge of, and devotion to this whole concept. The devotion and knowledge which he has shown throughout those years will bring to Canada benefits which are only now faintly realized.
I think that the vindication, the justification of the government's policy is found in the international Columbia river engineering board report which was issued last year where, for the first time to my knowledge, a very clear review was given of what was involved and what Canada would derive from the development of the river. The first statement, and an unchallengeable statement, but which has been in certain quarters and at certain times in our history to some extent challenged, was that:
Further development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin is practicable and in the public interest from the points of view of the two governments.
It is on that basis that the policy of this government has been founded, and the justification lies in this report, the realization that:
It is physically and economically feasible to develop a system of power plants that will produce an average of more than 16 million kilowatts utilizing about 50 million acre-feet of storage.
It is a fine agreement; it is a vast program and it has now, we can reasonably believe, come to realization, and come to that realization because of the determination of the present administration in Canada that it should come to realization. There are many other significant points in this report of the engineering board but I think they are well known to hon. members. If they are not well known they will become so in the years to come.
But as this realization has developed in British Columbia that the Columbia river development is no longer a dream, no longer something that exists in a future which nobody can predict, there has also grown the realization that there may be difficulties. There are complexities and there are problems. Now the people find that they must accept the fact that perhaps in the course of a very short

External Affairs
time they are going to have to live with this development and it will be with them and around them. It will affect many aspects of their daily lives.
One problem that exists in the minds of very many people, particularly in the Arrow lakes valley and as far north as Revelstoke, concerns the discussion that has developed within British Columbia of high Arrow and low Arrow, the storage of water on the Arrow lakes. I would think, that it would be well if the people in that region were reminded of the statement which General McNaughton made to the external affairs committee in April of last year when he said:
I think this is a pretty serious consideration which has to be weighed very carefully by the people who will have the ultimate responsibility in these matters, which will be of course the government of British Columbia and to some extent the government at Ottawa as well.
A little further on in his evidence he stated:
From the very beginning it has been recognized by all concerned that the people who will determine whether or not a project is to be built are those in the governments of the localities concerned.
He also mentioned that there is an intermediate suggestion and had this to say:
There is the intermediate suggestion which has been worked out, which calls for a level of 1411. This would require a certain amount of diking around the southeasterly section of Castlegar but it appears that it might be worthy of consideration.
In other words, although concern is developing in part of British Columbia now about what must be faced if the development of the river comes about and what this may mean in disruption and dislocation of their daily lives, the fact is that they must also realize that this matter is of first concern not only to the government of Canada but to the government of British Columbia; that it is of first concern to governmental authorities that the rights and interests of the people who live within the Columbia basin should be protected at all times.
I think it should also be emphasized that in any project of the vastness of the Columbia development project the people must be prepared for changes in their lives, that the face of the country will be transformed to some extent and there will be adjustments that will have to be made both by individuals and by communities, but they will only be expected to make such adjustments if over the long term the benefits they will receive from the project will be far greater and they will have a more secure and prosperous future than they would have if these developments were not undertaken.
I believe, that the success of the program of relocating town sites, the orderly development of facilities along the St. Lawrence

seaway, and the acceptance of the people of that area of the adjustments they had to make are an indication that no government is ever going to enter carelessly or without proper consideration of all the aspects upon a program of this kind without first taking into account the best interests of the people most intimately concerned. There are many other factors in this program that might be discussed. Having in mind the size of the program and the fact that it involves so many complex problems requiring the closest of co-operation and consultation, not only between the governments of Canada and the United States but also the governments of Canada and British Columbia, I think there are bound to be times when there will be conflicts of opinion and when there will have to be negotiations based on the sincere conviction that the case of each authority involved is fair and reasonable.
But there is no problem involved in this whole development that is incapable of solution by negotiation, consideration and a genuine willingness on the part of all parties concerned to bring about the development of this vast power and storage complex on the Columbia. Finally, I think it must be said at this time, primarily for the benefit of the people who live in Okanagan-Revelstoke riding, who have such a close association with this project and whose interests are so closely concerned with any development that may come about-this applies elsewhere in British Columbia of course-that if there should be any delay or deviation from the swift forward movement toward the development of the Columbia river it is accurate and safe to say, I believe, that any such deviation or delay will not be caused by any action taken by the present government of Canada.
I should like to refer now for a moment to world refugee year and in particular to the program for the tubercular refugees who have been brought to Canada in the last few months. I spoke on this subject in the house on two occasions last year and I should like to repeat, as I did on the second occasion last year, my appreciation of the consideration that was given to this proposal by the government and my belief that this is one of the finest contributions that Canada has made within the sphere of international relations in many years.
I must also say that I note that the program has come under certain criticism. It has been criticized in some quarters because it is not enough and it has been criticized in other quarters because it is too much. To those who have suggested it is not enough I would say first of all that when this proposal was made last year and the matter was discussed it was looked upon as a possible

trial program that would give Canada an opportunity to discover how successfully it could bring to Canada 100 tubercular refugees and their families from the camps of Europe and restore them to health and to find out how successfully they could be integrated into the Canadian community.
In my own speeches on the subject I suggested an even smaller program than was undertaken. I did so without apology because I believe that we would be dealing most unfairly with these refugees, particularly in this category, if we were to enter into a very large and elaborate program, as has been suggested, without discovering first whether we could handle successfully a small trial program. I think it must also be recognized that the government of Canada has no sanatoria in which to place these people.
The program can only proceed with the cooperation of the provinces and it is a matter of profound regret to me that my own province, one of the richest in Canada, one of the best able to participate in the program, refused to do so. But I still feel that such a program must proceed carefully. We must find out if it can be handled successfully and if the majority of the Canadian people are prepared to support it. As for those who have objected to the program, I can only say that I regret that there should be even the smallest degree of such selfishness and lack of humanity existing in the Canadian people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take
part in the debate I should like to begin, as other speakers on both sides of the house have, by paying my tribute to the minister who gave us yesterday his first full and formal statement on external affairs since he took over this department after the still lamented death of his predecessor who we still miss in this house. I acknowledge, and I do it with great pleasure, the way in which the minister has taken up the duties of his office, which must indeed have seemed at the beginning at least somewhat strange to him because they were not exactly parallel to the duties he had had before.
Acknowledging his sincerity and honesty of approach to international problems, I can only wish him success in every effort he makes, not only on behalf of the government but on behalf of parliament and the Canadian people to assist in the search for a solution to these difficult international problems that face this country and face all countries and which, if we do not find a solution for them, may have catastrophic consequences.
The minister, when he was on this side of the house, more than once intervened in the debates on foreign affairs. He criticized the
External Affairs
government of that day very strongly, and very sincerely, on the international policy pursued by that government with which he did not agree. I know that he would expect us on this side to discharge our duty in exactly the same way, and if we do not agree, and express our disagreement with him on the manner and method of the conduct of foreign policy, he will not mistake that-I am sure he will not-for any disagreement with the aims and objectives of foreign policy which, under his guidance and that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), I am sure are the same as those that have existed in the years gone by.
I should like also to join with him in the tribute he has paid to the members of the Department of External Affairs, a tribute which has been repeated by other members of the house. I refer to members of the Department of External Affairs both at home and abroad. Perhaps I am in as good a position as any member of the house to appreciate how well deserved is a tribute of that kind. I might even call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there are two ex-members of that department sitting on the front benches of the opposition and perhaps one of them at times-naturally I am not referring to myself-looks back with some longing to the days when he worked for the Department of External Affairs.
When the minister spoke yesterday he voiced the hope that this would be a wide open, free swinging debate. But I am not at all sure, having listened to his speech and having read it again in Hansard, whether he gave us very much to swing at. I am not at all sure either, that this is meant as a compliment. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) paid great tribute to the minister this afternoon, but it seemed to me he modified his tribute somewhat by suggesting that the minister was speaking with blinkers on and he asked him to remove the blinkers. Perhaps there is some justification for that criticism and I hope to be able to examine what the minister said without the handicap of blinkers. In all truth there really was not very much in the minister's speech to swing at in this wide open, free swinging debate into which he suggested we should enter. He did not, in fact, give us a punching bag so much as a puffball to strike at, and you know what happens to a puffball when you strike at it.
His survey was a clear, amiable and somewhat academic, I thought in spots, discussion of some of the areas and aspects of international affairs without, as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has already pointed out, too much enlightenment as to Canada's policies on the matters and in the

External Affairs
areas which he touched upon. I, of course, will try to point out those omissions on the part of the minister and I shall take exception to one or two of the things he said, more in regard to his emphasis and procedures than objectives. I hope that in doing this I will not be accused of being picayune as the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) suggested this afternoon such criticism might be. I hope also that in pointing out some of the weaknesses of the minister's arguments as we see them on this side, weaknesses which we think arise out of his unduly satisfied picture as to the state of things as he finds them, we will not again be accused by hon. gentlemen opposite of being prophets of gloom or doom, the kind of stuff we hear so often from benches opposite when we do our duty by trying to expose weaknesses of government policy. These weaknesses of Canadian policy are not to be confused with the strength of Canada itself, because my hon. friends seem to find it difficult to realize there is still a distinction between Canada and the Canadian government.
There was one other thing that became clear as the minister spoke. After the two and a half or perhaps three years during which my hon. friends opposite have been responsible for government policy there does not appear to have been any fundamental change in policy on foreign affairs, in any important respect or indeed in any respect. I am naturally glad of that. I think it is a vindication of the purposes and objectives of Canadian foreign policy in recent years. As the minister himself said, Canada's position in the world in the pursuit of these policies has been and remains good. There was no talk by the minister, and I am very happy to acknowledge this, of the restoration of Canada's position in the world during the last two or three years.
Where I do take some issue with the minister, however, and I have already indicated this, is in what I feel is the too-optimistic interpretation which he gives to some contemporary developments. He indicated yesterday his views and they were characterized in the statement that everything is fine so far as Canada is concerned; that we have no enemies in the world, and I hope that is true. I think evidence can be brought to support it. I almost got the impression, as I listened to him speaking and as I read his statement today, that we were expected to take the position in this house there was hardly a cloud on the horizon, except perhaps a red one over China.


Howard Charles Green: You have been listening to the radio broadcast.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I did not listen to any radio broadcast, unfortunately, either last night or today, that dealt with the minister's

speech. Perhaps I missed something. However, the minister did suggest there may be difficulties over China, that there was a red cloud over China which may cause some trouble, especially in respect of disarmament, as it has already caused difficulty in respect of diplomatic recognition.
The minister did not say anything about this matter or, if he did so, I have overlooked it. I should like him to satisfy himself at least, if he does not desire to explain to the house, how we can have as much hope as we should have for the success of these disarmament talks which are about to open in the 10-member commission when a powerful, new, emerging, industrial communist state, the government of which controls 675 million or 700 million people, will not be represented on this disarmament commission.
Oh, I know it will be said that if this commission is able to work out a disarmament agreement both sides, east and west are represented on it, the results of that agreement can toe submitted to the government of communist China and the government of communist China can then be brought into the agreement, as it must be brought in if disarmament is to work. But it is a very different thing to include a state of this kind in the negotiations from the beginning and to 'bring them along if you cannot find out from the beginning why you cannot bring them along. That is a very different thing than to work out your own agreement, then submit it to them afterwards and say to them, "Please sign this; Please accept this, we have agreed on it".


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does he think that the steps which have been taken to arrange for the meeting of this 10-power disarmament committee should now be held up and that a new arrangement should toe made to invite communist China as a member of that disarmament committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I did not say that. What I am suggesting is that when the negotiations for this committee began perhaps it would have been a good thing to have had communist China represented on the communist side so that she could be in on these negotiations from the beginning and we could find out from the beginning where she stands.


Howard Charles Green: What does the Leader of the Opposition suggest should be done now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest we go ahead and try to make this commission work and try to work out a disarmament agreement through the commission.


Howard Charles Green: That is what we hope to do.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But I am pointing out to the minister, who yesterday gave us such a cheerful and comforting picture of international developments, that it is going to be more difficult to bring about a disarmament agreement which will mean something when we have not one of the most powerfully armed countries in the world in the negotiating body from the beginning. That is all I am pointing out. It is too late now to do anything about it, I admit; but I think it is a weakness in the mechanism that has been agreed on.
As for the other aspect, this cloud over our untroubled skies, namely non-recognition,-I refer to diplomatic non-recognition- I have no quarrel with the stand taken at the last assembly by the government on this matter. In view of the policy and attitude adopted by the government of Peking, in the six months before the assembly particularly, and with regard to the onslaught on Tibet and the threat to India, I think it was quite unrealistic to suggest that we could have supported or perhaps even discussed the entry of red China to the United Nations in those circumstances. But this situation points up the dilemma we are in.
We have not this government which exercises control over red China in a position where we can call her to account for her actions. We have not this government of red China in a position where we can bring her into international agencies and try to find out her policies from the beginning. But nevertheless we cannot accomplish what we want to do in the world without her agreement. As the minister himself will admit, in order to be effective disarmament must include the red Chinese army in some form or another.
As to the minister's other argument for not taking any action to bring her in at the present time or under present conditions, as she puts it, he makes quite a point of the fact that our Asian friends would be upset by any change in the position at this time. Our Asian friends, include some of the closest, Burma, Pakistan, Ceylon and Cambodia. They are all Asian countries that have already recognized red China. Of course there is also India. Hence we have a problem there.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he thinks that Canada should recognize red China?
External Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just said to the minister that in the circumstances as they existed at the United Nations assembly last September, October and November, I think the position taken by the Canadian delegation was the correct one. But I also suggest to the minister that this question is going to come up again and that conditions may not be the same as they were last time. This problem is one that is continually with us and it will have to be solved. It is for the government to make up its mind what kind of solution it should seek.
However, I also agreed with the minister when he said yesterday that whatever action is taken, whatever solution is found-and it must be done eventually-we in this country should not accept any arrangement which would turn over to a communist government in Peking the people of the island of Formosa. I certainly do not think that solution would be tolerable. Formosa and the people of Formosa are entitled to the same rights of self-determination as are other people in the world. I was glad to hear the minister emphasize the desirability of maintaining those rights for them in any approach to this particular problem.
Mr. Speaker, as I am about to embark upon another subject, perhaps you would permit me to call it six o'clock.


Norman Platt Lambert: Before the house takes recess-and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could go on after the dinner hour-I should like to ask him this question. In his suggestion that Canada or others could somehow have invited red China to the disarmament conference now taking place is he implying indirectly that there should be recognition of red China or of its admission to the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No; I am not. If the hon. member had listened to what I said he would have known that. In the first place, may I remind him that Canada had nothing to do with the formation of this commission. This commission was agreed on in Geneva by the foreign ministers of the great powers without reference at that time to the United Nations at all and without, I take it, reference to Canada. Diplomatic recognition is one thing, but the inclusion of red China in international committees where red China's agreement is necessary in implementing the work of those committees is something else. We accepted red China at Geneva and when we had to work out peace in Indo-China. She sat around the table with full rights with other delegations. I happened to be there. But we did not recognize her diplomatically by doing so, and nobody objected to the

External Affairs
procedure at the time. I suggest that perhaps the same procedure might be desirable at other international bodies.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was discussing some aspects of the problem which arises from either the recognition or the non-recognition diplomatically of the communist government of China, and I was trying to point out that a decision not to recognize this government diplomatically does not free us from what after all is a dilemma, because there are certain international problems in this world today which cannot be satisfactorily settled without the participation and agreement of that government in the settlement.
That is an unhappy fact of international existence at the present time. We recognize that fact. Even governments which do not recognize the government in question were obliged to take that fact into consideration when China was invited to take part in the Indo-China peace conference. I would suggest, as indeed is obvious, that we cannot reach a disarmament agreement, important, desirable and essential though that is, without the participation and agreement of the government of that country. Perhaps when the minister winds up the debate in the customary fashion he will deal with this and with other questions which have been brought up and, indeed, with some questions which I propose to bring up now.
The minister in his statement yesterday emphasized the desirability of independence as the basic requirement of Canadian foreign policy. It does not seem to me possible, in the circumstances of the present, to talk about independence without at the same time talking about interdependence. There is in fact no possibility of any member of a coalition or of an association of nations-and we are members of more than one-taking any independent action without relating that action to the interests of the coalition.


Howard Charles Green: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not want to misquote what I said. I think if he would look at the record he would find that my suggestion was that Canada should take an independent approach to these problems.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am glad to accept that. Canada should take an independent approach.

But the argument is the same. It is not possible for a member of this coalition to take an independent approach without relating that approach to the interest of the coalition as a whole of which it is a member. That means attempting to relate its independent approach to the approaches being made by other friendly members of the coalition. That is obvious. It is obvious in respect of nuclear tests; it is obvious in respect of disarmament; it is obvious in respect of the use and control of nuclear weapons. The minister said he was referring to an independent approach as being a requirement for Canadian foreign policy, and I am not quarrelling with that except to the extent that we can never take an independent approach in an interdependent world without relating that approach to the interest of the coalition of free states.
Last October, as quoted in the London Free Press the minister, in a brief statement in New York to a correspondent of that paper is reported to have said this:
Actually there is no partisanship in the conduct of foreign relations.
There has been in the past, as the minister is very well aware, and perhaps there will be in the future, though we all desire to keep it to a minimum. The report continues:
But it is only too obvious that we have adopted a more independent attitude towards our friends and neighbours across the border.
I shall have something to say about that.
We are coming of age and we are no longer a vassal of the powerful United States. In fact-
And this is the example he gave at that time to show how independent we were:
We are independent to the extent that in the United Nations deadlock over the battle between Turkey and Poland for a security council seat we have consistently voted for Poland while Britain and the United States are supporting Turkey. The balloting is secret, but it is common knowledge that the Canadian delegation sided with the candidate championed by soviet Russia.
Then the minister went on later in the same interview to add:
The Diefenbaker government-
Not the Canadian government, or Canada-
-is asserting itself with more force and independence than its Liberal predecessors.


Howard Charles Green: Again, these are not statements made by me. These are words by a correspondent, and not a regular correspondent, either. They may be shown as having come from me, but they are his expressions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not have used them as the words of the minister if they were not quoted. I will send the quotation over to the hon. gentleman. The words appear in this edition of the London Free Press as

the words of the minister himself, with quotation marks around them. If they are not correct, I will, of course, accept the minister's word for it.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask who the columnist is?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Stephen L. Debalta, United Nations correspondent of this paper in Washington. The dateline is New York.


Howard Charles Green: Unfortunately, that correspondent is practically stone deaf.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know this correspondent has a disability in speaking, but this is the first time I ever heard he was stone deaf. I admit I have had in my day to adopt somewhat unusual procedures in order to disavow what I thought was wrongly attributed to me, but never before have I heard anyone in this house say that a report is not accurate because the correspondent is stone deaf. I suggest to the minister, who is new in his profession, that he should be very careful about giving interviews to stone deaf correspondents in New York.


Howard Charles Green: Sometimes you cannot help these things.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Anyway this was the statement attributed to the minister and perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to continue. If it is not accurate, the minister can correct it. I am assisting the hon. gentleman by giving him the chance, after all these weeks, of correcting a report which is in quotations and attributed to him in a very reputable paper, not a paper which is unfriendly to the minister or to the government.


Howard Charles Green: He is a columnist.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He goes on to report the minister as saying:
We feel that Canada is growing in stature by the hour as a world power, and this is exactly what we aim to be-a world power.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest we might be a little more modest than making it our ambition in the immediate future to become a world power.


Howard Charles Green: What is wrong with that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the minister thinks that we can become a world power shortly, he will find that we are going to be asked to undertake the obligations of a world power, and the obligations of a world power are not such, surely, that a country the size of Canada should be asked to undertake at the present time, I for one, as a Canadian, am quite
External Affairs
content with the obligations we have undertaken in the past and which we may be called upon to undertake in the future as a middle power.
The minister himself said with regard to Canada's obligations as a middle power-I had better quote him now from Hansard this time; and Hansard is not stone deaf. On page 931 of Hansard of yesterday's date the minister said:
But I do ask the hon. members of this house to consider whether Canada would not gain more respect in the years that lie ahead and exercise more influence if she forgot about this role of being a middle man or an honest broker.
I do not think there is anything humiliating or wrong-indeed I think there is a great deal to be admired-in the role of middle man or honest broker. When I have mentioned this expression before I have always added it is very easy to exaggerate the significance and importance of Canada as an interpreter or middle man, or whatever you wish to call it. Nevertheless there have been occasions in the last 10 or 15 years, and before that, when Canada by playing the role of honest broker- and I would suggest that Suez was one such occasion-has been able to make a contribution above and beyond that which could be made by a purely independent Canadian stand. A Canada with only independent approaches cannot make her most effective maximum contribution in international affairs. This she can do by attempting to be an independent but honest broker.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member had better get together with his friend the hon. member for Essex East who said the opposite this afternoon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, he did not. I have a very good authority for the importance of that role for Canada because not once but many times no less a person than Sir Winston Churchill has made reference to it. Once when he spoke in this house he lauded the contribution that Canada made to international relations. I forget the words he used but I think on that occasion he called Canada a link pin and on another occasion he called it a link. He certainly felt that our role as a middle man and an honest broker was one we could play well and usefully in the future.
Apparently, we are now going to abandon this role of honest broker for one of a more independent approach. The minister has already given some examples of what he means by that. He has said, and I quote his words, that we should "act aggressively for disarmament." Of course we should. As my friend the hon. member for Essex East has said, we have acted for disarmament for many

External Affairs
years. We have discharged our duties in that vitally important field with credit to ourselves as Canadians and I hope we will continue to do so, but are we going to be able to make a maximum contribution in this field by stressing the independent character of our approach to the problem of disarmament?
I might have been more impressed with the minister's argument in this respect if he had put forward yesterday any detailed plans or programs which would characterize this independent approach. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) derided that argument and said how silly it would be in this game of poker for Canada to make her hand known at this time. Other members of this commission, the United Kingdom, the United States and France, although not having made their hands known in detail, at least have indicated the kind of plans and principles they hope to put forward and follow in these discussions. Perhaps that would have been a good thing for us to do.
There is one respect in which the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) have been very definite and extremely emphatic, perhaps underlining the importance of this new independent approach. They have stated that so far as the Canadian government is concerned it is opposed to nuclear tests. That represents a change of policy on the part of the government. If we are having that made absolutely clear on the eve of these discussions it will come as a change of policy. It will also represent a policy which certainly has not yet been adopted by the United Kingdom or the United States as we had evidenced today. I do not quarrel with this statement yet the government certainly willing to make its hand known in this respect. The government said: We are against nuclear tests. But when the Prime Minister spoke on the subject in this house laying down the policies of the government in respect of nuclear tests on August 22, 1958, as reported at page 3944 of Hansard, he said something else:
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.
He said later in the same statement on the same page:
The conditions that the suspension agreement be extended year by year only if the inspection system is functioning effectively and progress continues to be made in the reaching of agreements on major substantive disarmament measures, are prudent foundations on which to build.
That was the policy of the government at that time. Apparently that policy has been changed on the eve of these talks and

while talks are going on in Geneva. The position now is that the tests should be stopped. There was no reference in the minister's statement to the necessity of international control and inspection as a condition for the suspension and stopping of nuclear tests.
The Prime Minister this afternoon asked what our policy was and what we had said on this matter. My friend the hon. member for Essex East replied to that question but I am glad to give the reply in somewhat more detail so that the house will know exactly where we stand as a party on this highly important question of the suspension of nuclear tests, a question which exemplifies both the possibilities and dangers of taking this independent approach apart from our friends and allies on the eve of international discussions.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Leader of the Opposition what the policy of his party is on this question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I just said to the minister that I would give that. I am about to read from a statement which I made in Vancouver because I thought he might be more impressed by a statement I made in Vancouver than by one I made any place else.


Howard Charles Green: As long as Vancouver was not impressed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said then and I repeat tonight:
X suggest our policy-
With regard to nuclear tests. I continue: -should include the following:
(1)	There will be no more nuclear tests on our side-
That is the western side. I suggest this is the policy we should promote. I continue: -for a period of time, say two years, even if the other side refuses to make the same commitment. At the end of the period-
Or whatever period was adopted by agreement on the western side. I continue:
-the prohibition can be re-examined in the light of what has happened.
That is, what has happened on the other side. I continue:
(2)	During this period-
That is, the period of suspension on our side, without conditions.
-we should make a supreme effort to agree with the other side on an international treaty for prohibiting all such tests in the future, with appropriate measures for international control and supervision.
I went on to say:
The Geneva conference has made some progress here but not enough.

(3)	We can take the lead at the United Nations in pressing for a solemn declaration by all member states-
This was on the eve of the assembly. I continue:
-that do not now possess atomic weapons that they will not in the future manufacture such weapons.
There is no difference between hon. members of the house on that. Then I added:
It is bad enough to have two, or three or even four powers with the capacity for total destruction of peoples. It would be infinitely worse if 15 or 20 or 30 nations, including some irresponsible dictatorships, had that capacity. And that will certainly happen unless something is done to stop it.
(4)	We in Canada must be given full information by the United States on the fall-out danger from the small tactical atomic weapons that are now being developed for use not against cities and peoples but against the armed forces of an aggressor.
That is the position we took then and that is the one we take now. I suggest that is clear and unequivocal.


Howard Charles Green: Just about as clear as mud.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry that the minister does not understand it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I don't, either.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not so sorry about that because I am not so surprised.
The minister then went on to talk about NATO.


An hon. Member:: What is that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. What he said about Canada's relationship to that organization is a very good illustration of the limitations and indeed the dangers of emphasizing this independent approach to questions as a member of a coalition. I agree, and indeed I said when I participated in the debate in this house a few weeks ago, that the time has come, having due regard to our obligations as a member of the coalition, to push suggestions for closer unity and more collective control inside that coalition. When I did that-and that is an independent approach-the Prime Minister intervened and asked, "What would you do if NATO would not accept those proposals??" You could ask that question of any government in the world that attempts to take an independent approach to any international problem.


John George Diefenbaker: It took two weeks to think that one out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You make an independent approach and the Prime Minister asks, "What would you do if you did not succeed?" Because it may not succeed, presumably you should not make the approach. Is that the new kind of foreign policy we are going to
External Affairs
have in this country? If they will not accept your proposals, drop them, then, before you make them.
The minister painted a very glowing picture of the work of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which was in harmony with the bright picture he painted of international affairs generally. He suggested-in fact, he more than suggested, he said-that there was really no danger of the organization breaking up and I certainly hope he is right in that regard. But it does not help to preserve the strength and the unity of an organization to remain blind to the dangers and the trends that are threatening the strength and unity of that organization. The minister himself, notwithstanding his optimistic observations of yesterday, must be a little worried about the organization because he said when he came back from Paris after the NATO council meeting, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of December 14 in a Canadian Press dispatch from Paris that the United States and Canada alone were meeting their obligations to NATO.
If that is the case, how can the minister then paint such an optimistic picture of the working of the NATO organization at this time, if Canada and the United States alone are meeting their obligations to this organization? When I talk about-and I have and I will continue to talk about-some of those dangerous developments that there are inside NATO that threaten the essential strength and unity of the organization, I am not a sole voice in the wilderness talking like this. Perhaps the minister has read the words of an authority who may impress him more than myself, namely the secretary general of NATO, who has no reason to be unrealistic or pessimistic about the organization of which he is the administrative head. He takes a very sound and sensible stand in regard to that organization. I quote from a speech made by Paul Henri Spaak in the December issue of the NATO "News Letter". This was a speech made to the Imperial Defence College in London. The secretary general of NATO said this, and I commend these words to the minister:
That NATO stands at the crossroads and that its effectiveness, and perhaps its very existence, depends upon its power of adaptation.
He went further than that, and I agree 100 per cent with what he said, on another occasion. This is a speech made by Mr. Spaak at the Atlantic treaty association meeting in Boston last autumn. He began this part of his speech by saying:
I must now take the plunge and speak of my worries and anxieties.

External Affairs
A little later he said this:
Can we still afford, nowadays, to maintain attitudes, however excellent, which are beginning to be outdated? We adopted them 10 years ago, and this is a fast moving world.
Then he summed up his speech as follows:
The concept of a military Atlantic alliance restricted to a specific geographical area, adequate in 1949, is therefore no longer so in 1958.
A common policy, probably of world wide scope, must be added, to it. And this must be done at once.
Another thing which should be done as quickly as possible is the organization of scientific co-operation, and even economic and social action should be harmonized.
In a word, the Atlantic alliance should become the Atlantic community.
Perhaps the minister will agree that in the face of that evidence there are some problems facing NATO, some very difficult problems, and that it is idle, and it does not help NATO to overlook them. I could quote a good many others. The minister talked about consultation. This is a continuing problem and is likely to remain so for some time. Perhaps this problem will only be solved-and the minister, when he winds up this debate, might comment on this-when the governments who are members of NATO convert the NATO council from a diplomatic into a political instrument and send the kind of representatives to the NATO council who will be able to talk directly on behalf of their governments and who will be able to assist in working out a common Atlantic foreign policy in the NATO council.
I agree with the minister when he said yesterday that there is no sign of any impending break-up. Of course, NATO is not going to break up but there are dangerous tendencies. There are difficulties that should be faced and solved or NATO will not have the strength and unity so essential in the days ahead. As Mr. Spaak has said, and a good many other people have said, NATO is not going to stand still. It goes forward, or it will go backward. Some of the attitudes to NATO of some of the governments in the last year-and I pointed this out in the house a few days ago-did give cause for some anxiety. I am thinking not only of Prance's attitude toward collective security. That is one difficulty; that is one problem, but it is not the only problem. However, it certainly is a problem and if it is not solved it is going to make it much more difficult for NATO to go forward.
The courageous, heroic head of the French state, Mr. de Gaulle, who has accomplished some big things for his country in recent weeks, had a book published last December called "Generals and Fighting Men". It is the third and final volume of his memoirs.

This book bears careful reading and indicates what the French policy may be in the years ahead. In this book Mr. de Gaulle talks about "the vast design I have formed for my country". This is his design for France, and any design for France by a man who is now guiding the destinies of France is certainly an important matter for Canada and other free countries. He said this:
To ensure for It (for France) security in western Europe by preventing a new Reich from threatening it again. To collaborate with west and east, if need be to contract the necessary alliances with one side or the other, without ever accepting any kind of dependence. To bring about a re-grouping, from the political, economic and strategic viewpoint, of the states touching on the Rhine, the Alps and the Pyrenees.
The final sentence in this excerpt is as follows:
To make this organization-
That is this European regrouping.
-into one of the three world powers and, if one day it proves necessary, the arbiter between the Anglo-Saxon and the Soviet camps.
I can understand how the leader of the French republic must feel about the policy and destiny of his own country in the difficult days ahead but I suggest that for France or for any other European or North American country there cannot be found a safe destiny in that kind of program and that the only safe course for us to follow is not to try to build up a group inside the Atlantic alliance which can act as an arbiter between east and west but to build up the Atlantic alliance into a much stronger and more cohesive organization than it is today. If France seeks and achieves more independence in the coalition other countries will seek and achieve perhaps more independence, and what then will happen to our organization?
The minister also talked yesterday in his speech about the commonwealth. I suggest to him that if we think about the commonwealth in the old sense as some kind of association of states under the umbrella of Westminster, if we long for the kind of administrative and political centralization which some people in this country and other countries in the commonwealth hoped for years ago, we will not be aware of the importance, or the possibilities of the commonwealth in I960. The only chance of making this commonwealth work, as we all hope it will work for the benefit of our own peoples and for the world, is to accept wholeheartedly the new concept of the commonwealth which includes in its members now a majority of Asian-African states, to accept it as a multiracial commonwealth, to accept it, as the minister mentioned yesterday, as a bridge between the east and west. In that sense

the commonwealth may have a great future ahead of it as a peace preserving and peace strengthening institution tout if we look at it in any other sense we will be making a great mistake.
A good many speakers in this debate have talked about the government's attitude toward apartheid and toward South Africa. I do not think anybody in this house, certainly nobody in this party, would wish to take any course of action which would drive South Africa out of the commonwealth, but we surely do not wish to see a course followed by South Africa which will drive four fifths of the people in the commonwealth outside the commonwealth. That is the problem, and I hope that we in this country, or the people of any other country of the commonwealth, will not be faced with the awful choice between these two courses, either keeping South Africa in or driving the Asian and African countries out.
Surely it must be of the policy of the government, as of other governments in the commonwealth, somehow to avoid the necessity of that choice, but if we think of the commonwealth in old terms as a commonwealth based on London with white supremacy we may find that we are faced with some insoluble problems in the years ahead.


Howard Charles Green: I did not suggest that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. I am not suggesting that the minister made any such suggestion. I have pointed out another dilemma, another difficulty, another problem in the international scene which affects the commonwealth.


An hon. Member:: We know that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Someone says, "We know that". But there was one reference in the minister's speech which I think indicated a misconception of the nature of the new commonwealth. I refer to page 934, the bottom of the second column, where the minister said:
This commonwealth of ours is so spread out around the world that it must work for peace. If there should be war the commonwealth would be in far more trouble than the United States or the Soviet union because, as I say, it is so scattered across the globe, and certainly everyone in the commonwealth at the present time is working for peace.
Of course they are but the suggestion that if there were a war the commonwealth would be in a more vulnerable position because it is stretched out around the world, more vulnerable than the United States or the Soviet union, does not seem to me to be a very realistic one because it assumes that if there were a war every member of the commonwealth would be equally affected or that every
External Affairs
member of the commonwealth would be participating in that war. As we know-especially the new commonwealth with the Asian and African states know-every single member of the commonwealth has its own independent foreign and defence policy and is not under any commitment to enter into any conflict merely because other countries of the commonwealth are involved. This hangover, if I may call it that, of the old concept of a centralized commonwealth is not a very realistic one.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid I am not the one who has got the hangover.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I just gave the quotation as an indication of the minister's own view that if there were a war all members of the commonwealth would be involved and therefore because they are scattered all over the world they would be more vulnerable than the United States and the Soviet union, which does not seem to me to be a very realistic idea.
The minister went on to talk about our relations with the United States, and perhaps it would be desirable for a few minutes to look at how our independent approach is working in this vital relationship, this vital aspect of our foreign policy. The minister had very little to say about this. I think he only had about two columns in his speech on our relations with the United States of America. In that part of his statement he certainly gave no indication that he was worried about the growth of continentalism as an aspect of Canadian policy, about the diminution of our freedom of action because of the growth of these continental requirements in finance, in investment, in trade, in energy, in defence policy, indeed, in almost every aspect including the cultural aspect of our national development.
When we were in office, Mr. Speaker, we knew about the difficulties of this development. We knew how hard it was to stand up against this trend. We were pilloried by hon. gentlemen opposite because we were not able to do more about it, and if we look with some suspicion on some of their attitudes and policies now it is because we remember that they were going to save the country from this kind of subservience. We knew the situation, we knew the difficulties. They did not. They were going to save us from the domineering influence of the United States. They should listen to some of the speeches that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) is making these days.
Let us see where we are in 1960 in respect of these measures. As I have said, the minister had very few words on this subject. He said that our relations are important. They are.

External Affairs
He said that our relations are excellent and that they could not be better. He talked about the Camp David hospitality and how wonderful it is to get around the table with your American opposite numbers and try to work out these problems in a spirit of frank and friendly conversation and, of course, we know all about that. You know, in other days we have had our Camp David conversations too. But the atmosphere of Camp David or the atmosphere of Geneva or the atmosphere of any other place is not enough to solve difficult bilateral problems. So the minister might have told us, and perhaps he will tell us when he winds up the debate, something about current problems and difficulties in the development of what I might call the continental aspects of our policy.
In his feeling that everything was all right, and this was echoed by one or more of his supporters this afternoon, he said-I do not want to be unfair to him-he gave the impression that we were really handling these matters well. We were working out our difficulties. Indeed, I think the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) said that relations had never been as excellent as they are today and that the problems had all been more or less satisfactorily settled.
Let me mention one that has not been settled, and that is the problem of our growing trade dependence on the United States, our growing financial dependence on the United States. This problem is more acute, more dangerous and more important than it was three years ago. If the minister and members of the government have been so successful in their negotiations with the United States on these matters of trade, economics, agriculture and all the rest, I wonder whether later the minister would explain why they were not able to make any headway of any kind in persuading the United States to carry out its announced policy of defence integration to the extent of extending our contracts for an essential defence product, which is uranium.
We talk about the necessity for continental defence. We say national defence is not enough for our country, and that is true. We say that we must integrate our defence tactics, our defence strategy, our defence equipment and our defence production. There is no more important part of defence production than the production of uranium. The United States itself includes uranium as a defence material in its statistics on imports. Some years ago when we were in office we made a contract with the government of the United States for uranium for five years. As the minister knows, there was included in that contract an option which the United

States could take up at the end of five years to continue the purchase of uranium. At that time, I remember well, it was a seller's market and there was great worry in the United States, especially in the Pentagon, that there would not be enough uranium for the essential work of manufacturing defensive nuclear weapons. The Canadian interests concerned were begged to proceed at all costs with all speed to produce this uranium as something essential for the defence of the western world.
At that time it looked as if we might require some of this uranium for others of our friends. We did not want to tie ourselves up indefinitely to a contract with the United States which would prevent us from developing that market in the other countries, especially in the United Kingdom. The United States said, give us first call on all your production for five years, and we agreed to do that. We did it to such an extent we had to get permission from the United States to divert some of that production to the United Kingdom. We were also assured that when the contract ended we would not need to worry about renewal, at least for some part of the amount. There was a gentleman's agreement. This was a matter of continental defence. The minister will recall that not once, but more than once, I told the government in this house that if they did not take this matter up with the United States on the highest political level this option would not be taken up; that if they treated this as an ordinary commercial matter we were in for trouble because shortly after the signature of this contract the United States government began to encourage the development of uranium resources in their own country.
Once that happened, and once uranium began to be produced in the United States, we were in danger. The only way we could have avoided the danger was by intervention on the highest political level with a view to making it clear to the United States that if defence integration meant anything at all, it meant the integration of defence production as well as defence strategy and tactics. An essential part of defence production is the production of uranium. I will ask the minister to tell us later whether or not this was taken up with the secretary of state or whether the Prime Minister took it up with the president himself. We know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce spent a day in Washington last April, but that is all we know. This was so important a diplomatic problem, and yet it was marked by the government's failure to do anything. If our cabinet ministers are on such excellent

terms with their opposite numbers in Washington, why were they not able to make a better arrangement in Washington, so that all we got was a stretch-out?


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you sign tor 10 years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. gentleman asking that question had been listening he would have known that I gave the answer before he asked the question. When that agreement was signed for five years there was a great shortage of uranium in the world and all the countries who wanted uranium knew it was in Canada; we were being besieged to make contracts with these countries. If we had at that time, under those conditions, when there was practically no uranium in the United States itself, committed our total production for a period longer than five years, what would have happened? What would have been the view of our friends? What would have been the view of the opposition of that day? When a contract was signed for five years, was there any voice raised in opposition at that time to say that it should have been for a longer time? No, there was not a voice. It was a very sensible contract to make at that time.
I am asking the minister, who has been telling us that our relations with Washington have been so good and that Canada's independent policy has been making an impression, why did we not make more of an impression on the United States government in respect of that particular matter. We failed, and I should like to know why we failed because I know what the consequences of our failure are at this time.
There is another indication of the difficulty of our relationships with the United States which the minister has not mentioned and which perhaps he will deal with later. I refer to the situation which was touched upon by one of the speakers this afternoon, our nuclear relationships in terms of weapons. I do not know what the position of the government now is with regard to the acceptance or use of nuclear weapons by Canadian forces, and I defy anyone who reads the record of this matter to be able to give any clear conclusions as to what the present position is. I mention this in a debate on foreign affairs because nothing could be much more important in our relationships with the United States than to get this matter cleared up. In an effort to do that, I asked a question of the Prime Minister the other day. I must confess his answer surprised me. Perhaps he will appreciate my surprise when I recount to him some of the earlier history of this particular problem as recorded in Hansard.
External Affairs
I do not know now and I do not think the country knows whether Canada is committed to use nuclear weapons from the United States for Canadian forces. I do not know whether Canada is committed to allowing the United States to have nuclear bases in Canada, yet this is as important a question in the relationships between the two countries as any that could be suggested. It seemed to be pretty clear on February 20, 1959 when the Prime Minister said as recorded at page 1223 of Hansard:
The government's decisions of last autumn to acquire Bomarc missiles for air defence and Lacrosse missiles for the Canadian army were based on the best expert advice available-
Then, he went on:
The full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear warheads.
I think we had a right to conclude from that that the government had made a decision to use nuclear warheads on the Canadian weapons. If it means anything, it means that. The Prime Minister went on, on this same occasion, and in the same column of Hansard, to say:
We are confident that we shall be able to reach formal agreement with the United States on appropriate means to serve the common objective. It will of course be some time before these weapons will be available for use by Canadian forces.
He said, "It will be some time before they are available", which surely indicates a decision had been taken to use them when they were available. In the same debate, a little later, at page 1224, the Prime Minister had this to say:
Believing that the spread of nuclear weapons at the independent disposal of individual nations should be limited, we consider that it is expedient that ownership and custody of the nuclear warheads should remain with the United States.
This seemed to be a further stage of the elucidation of this matter, to the effect that not only would we receive nuclear weapons but that the nuclear warheads would remain under the ownership and custody of the United States. This was confirmed on March 10, 1959, page 1775 of Hansard, when the Prime Minister had this to say:
I indicated then that it would be some time before nuclear weapons would and indeed could be available for use by Canadian forces.
Then, on July 3 of last year, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) had this to say at page 5415 of Hansard:
I presume that eventually the Canadian forces will be equipped with atomic weapons under the same terms as the other NATO contingents under SACEUR which may also be equipped with atomic weapons.
The Minister of National Defence also reaffirmed that statement in November after

External Affairs
the Camp David talks to which my hon. friend referred yesterday. It seemed perfectly clear up to that time that we were committed to the use of nuclear weapons in the hands of Canadian forces under certain conditions which were not very clear.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Because they had not been made clear then nor has the position been made clear since. Only on February 9 of this year the Prime Minister had this to say, and I quote from page 867 of Hansard of this year:
As to the sharing of atomic energy information, it will be recalled that I tabled in the house on May 25 last year an agreement for co-operation with the United States on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes. This agreement was concerned principally with the conditions under which Canada can receive certain categories of restricted information and equipment-
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to note those words "and equipment".
-required by our armed forces. By means of this agreement we are now able to obtain all the information and equipment necessary to meet our immediate foreseeable requirements.
That statement seemed to be a little ambiguous for such a vitally important matter and so I asked the Prime Minister this question:
When he said-that we in Canada are now in receipt of everything that is necessary to meet immediately foreseeable requirements, was he referring to requirements in respect of nuclear weapons?
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
No; atomic energy for mutual defence purposes.
That was his reply, whatever it may mean. Are we or are we not-and the house and the country have a right to know this-as part of our relationship with the United States committed to the reception of atomic energy from the United States for Canadian forces in Canada or as part of our NATO contingent; and, if so, can we be told in clear and unequivocal language what are the conditions, if any, that have been laid down for such reception? I hope the minister who will be on his feet shortly will be able to tell us exactly what the answer is to that question.
These are just one or two of the problems in connection with our relationship with the United States. There are many others. But I want to give the minister the opportunity to answer all the questions that have been raised.
However, I could not sit down without saying something about our policy in and our relations with the United Nations. The minister, I think quite rightly, said yesterday that the United Nations organization-and

I am quoting his exact words-was a fundamental basis for the foreign policy of Canada, as it must perhaps remain the most important piece of machinery in the search for security and good relations between states. In so far as Canada can do anything at the United Nations and in so far as Canada takes any initiative at the United Nations-and she took some last December -which will result in helping to achieve that objective, the government will get 100 per cent support from this side.
But here again the minister must realize, as I am sure he does-he has now had some experience at the United Nations assembly-that there are some terrific problems faced by that world organization. As I said the other day outside the house, it will not be long before we shall have something approaching 100 states as members of the United Nations. A great many of them will be Asian and African countries, weak economically, without experience politically but each with one vote in the United Nations assembly which will equal the vote of the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R. To maintain the effectiveness of this organization in the face of that kind of situation is going to be extremely difficult indeed and it is a problem that we shall be obliged to face very shortly.
I have suggested that perhaps one way of doing this-something that may be required in the years ahead-is to convert the United Nations somewhat from the concept of its founders and to make the assembly, the unwieldy assembly-the majority perhaps of which would be composed of these Asian and African members because certainly no longer does the west dominate the assembly-to a general town meeting of the world which will represent the conscience of mankind, where every country big and small will have a chance to express itself. The assembly then can set up smaller organizations to deal with ad hoc topics like disarmament. Then somehow we might convert one of the existing agencies-the security council, if that can be done-into a somewhat larger organization where the new countries and new areas and new peoples of the world will have a greater and more effective voice.
All these are problems which are facing the government at the present time. When the minister looks at these problems and the problems of Israel and the Middle East as well as a host of others, I am sure he will feel that there is quite enough to keep him busy and that there is no justification whatever for any complacent or easy view that

international relations are fine and that we are on the eve of great progress for the things we all hope to achieve.
We will never achieve our objective of peace and international security by ignoring the difficulties. We may achieve it by facing these difficulties, nationally and internationally; by working with our friends; by making, if you like, independent approaches to a coalition policy, to a world policy, so that one day, before long when we have a debate on external affairs, not only will the minister of that day be able to talk about the rosy picture for the future but there will be more justification for that kind of talk than there is, unfortunately, in 1960.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hope to cover all of the subjects referred to this evening by the hon. gentleman. Indeed I know the house is looking forward to hearing the minister answer the many questions that have been raised. It occurs to me at this time- and I offer the suggestion now because of the variety of subjects discussed and the many interesting speeches that have been made- that my hon. friend opposite might agree that this debate might be continued tomorrow to the end that the various questions that have been raised may receive further and complete consideration. After all, we have listened to several hours of debate and the discussion of a multiplicity of matters.
I appreciated the opening words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) when he expressed his good wishes to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). Then after a few preliminary remarks there was for some reason the same frustration that seems to gnaw at the heart of the Leader of the Opposition. It has taken possession of it even in international affairs. It is a peculiar situation. The Leader of the Opposition is a man who has had wide experience. But as soon as he comes to discuss the problems of our country in any way he seems to lose that sense of equilibrium and balance that once characterized him when in another position.
All of us are agreed that the problems are great. All of us look back over the years and think of what might have been. Each of us, as he said, has the same objective, namely the endeavour to bring about international conditions that will preserve and maintain the peace. Indeed, I go back to 1945 when, speaking in this house following the United Nations meeting when the treaty was before this house for ratification, my concluding words were these:
Peace is an ideal which cannot be achieved passively. It requires sacrifice. It requires the
External Affairs
subjugation of many national ambitions, and abridgement of national sovereignties: the united determination of people everywhere to assure greater approach to equality of opportunity everywhere in the world.
I found it difficult as I listened to the hon. gentleman to understand exactly what he has in mind. He has consistently advocated an independent course on the part of Canada consistent with responsibility. In one part of his speech he advocates an independent course. In another he advocates what I might call a subservient course. He speaks of Canada not as a great power or a great power to be. I cannot believe that he does not realize that things have changed in the last few years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has, quite unwittingly, I think, misquoted what I said. I said "world power". The quotation was "world power".


John George Diefenbaker: I have never known anyone who so often finds in the light of retrospect that what he said was something he ought not to have said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what the minister said.


John George Diefenbaker: I think Canadians as a whole realize this. We all ought to have a degree of pride about this, not that spirit of disparagement which seemed now and then to creep into the remarks of the hon. gentleman. There should be pride in the fact that Canada today is being visited by leaders of all mankind. I speak of the visit of the prime minister of the Netherlands, the president of Mexico, the prime minister of the Ivory Coast, the Crown Prince and Princess of Ethiopia, the foreign minister of Norway, the defence minister of Germany, the prime minister and the foreign minister of Japan; I speak, also, of the forthcoming visits by the prime minister and the foreign minister of Italy, and later on, by the president of France, to whom the Leader of the Opposition referred in most laudatory terms; a man who represents in the view of Canadians as a whole, a land dear to our hearts and which is today facing conditions which all of us hope will be resolved in a degree of achievement in that nation which will raise her to even greater glories than in the past.
In other words, we live in an age of international exchange. Consultations are taking place with regularity.
Mention was made by the Leader of the Opposition of NATO. In so far as NATO is concerned we took a very strong stand last year that NATO must expand and advance along the course of collaboration, consideration and discussion. We took a stand against anything in the nature of a triumvirate or a council of NATO determining the course

External Affairs
of NATO. In other words, our attitude has been one desirous of the fullest consultation, without which none of the nations of the free world can achieve that unity without which there is no survival.
The same applies to the commonwealth, and I am not going to say more than a word with regard to the commonwealth. I listened to what the hon. gentleman had to say, and with much of his words in this regard I was in agreement-the tremendous part that is played by the varying parts of this commonwealth, the emergence and development of the commonwealth concept, and so forth. I saw something of the beginnings of this commonwealth in February of 1917, I think it was, when at the opening of the British parliament in that year the troops which escorted the reigning monarch to the opening ceremony were all troops of the Boers in the years 1897 to 1900. That was the beginning of the concept initiated by Jan Christian Smuts, using the words of an earlier day-the words of Rosebery in 1890:
The word "commonwealth" which in the passing years has resulted in an evolutionary process which continues unabated.
Both hon. gentlemen, the minister and the Leader of the Opposition, spoke of the commonwealth as a bridge between east and west, and I believe that. I am of those who believe that one of the major elements necessary to assure the fullest co-operation between the varying parts of the commonwealth is not any centralized authority, but through the medium of such organizations as the prime ministers' conference, the next one of which will be convened early in May. I go further than that, and say this: my belief is that the commonwealth prime ministers conference should as far as practicable meet once a year to the end that in a few days of discussion, while no decisions are finally made determinations may be arrived at of benefit not only to the peoples of the commonwealth but for mankind itself.
When one thinks of the conference of 1957, one realizes that out of that conference came the convening of a trade and economic conference which took place in the city of Montreal in September of 1958. Out of that conference came a system of commonwealth scholarships which in my opinion represent one of the most effective courses of action to unite the various parts of the commonwealth and remove those causes of difficulty because of colour and of race from which all mankind has suffered in every generation.
While mention was made a few moments ago by the Leader of the Opposition of the trade situation between Canada and the United States, I would point out that on January 7 this year the president of the board

of trade of the United Kingdom, the Right Hon. Mr. Maudling, emphasized the importance of expanding trade between Canada and the United Kingdom and spoke with satisfaction of the increase of British sales in Canada, expressing the hope of an expanding trade both ways. In other words, out of that conference came certain practical benefits for the people of this commonwealth.
This evening I intend to deal particularly with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I thought he made a most effective contribution to the subject before us on this occasion. Before I do so, however, and while it will not make for order-and order never arises out of a debating speech-I want to refer for just a moment to almost the concluding remarks of the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to the uranium situation.
I have read what has been said-and the hon. gentleman has re-emphasized it-to the effect that this government was responsible in some way for what is called the failure to secure an extension beyond 1962 of the contracts made by the former government. I believe I can do no better than to quote some of the remarks recorded in Hansard at the time which indicate that the hon. gentleman, a member of the then government, must not have realized the fact that the contracts entered into for uranium would terminate in 1962, and that there was not any indication that following that date governments would underwrite in any way the cost or the purchase of uranium. Agreements were entered into. They were gentlemen's agreements. The government of that day knew that when 1962 came that would be the end, to all intents and purposes, of this large export to the United States. I turn to the words of the Right Hon. C. D. Howe as reported at page 6440 of Hansard of July 20, 1955:
I know of no present shortage of uranium. Our production goes up steadily-
Then these words:
The situation is that no government is prepared to underwrite the purchase of uranium produced after 1962.
They knew that. Mr. Howe made it very clear. He then went on to say as reported at page 6441 of the same date:
I believe there will be a peacetime market for uranium. At that time the government will not be underwriting purchases.
I ask you, sir, who is responsible for the situation today, unfortunate as it is? The government of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member realized that

in the agreements entered into after 1962 the government would not be underwriting purchases.
I turn now to the words of Mr. Howe as reported at page 1740 of Hansard of March 2, 1956:
The bulk of the uranium under contract goes to the atomic energy commission of the United States. When the contracts are completed, the contracts that are filed before the 31 March this year and approved by Canada and by the atomic energy commission we are informed that the foreseeable needs of the atomic energy commission of the United States for uranium from Canada will have been fulfilled.
Those three quotations from the words of Mr. Howe, the responsible minister, indicate that he knew that when 1962 came around those uranium contracts which provided so satisfactory an export would no longer be underwritten by governments. All that the last government did was to achieve some kind of an ephemeral gentlemen's agreement which said in effect that if everything goes all right everything will go all right with the export of uranium.
Now, the hon. member says, what did this government do? It made strong representations to the United States. In the intervening years not only has the demand for uranium gone down but indeed when one looks back over the years and examines the definition of uranium in the Encyclopedia Britannica, I believe in the 1920 edition, it is described as a valueless metal. Today we find ourselves in the position of having seen in the interventing years the United States engage in the production of its own uranium and demands for the metal are steadily decreasing.
When the Leader of the Opposition endeavours to pin responsibility on this government in that connection it is a case of the responsibility resting on him and his associates in the former administration for having failed to bring about when the contracts were entered into anything in the nature of a continuation after 1962.
What we did was this. Instead of having a cut-off date that would have put the uranium industry or a major portion of the business of this country out of business almost over night, we brought about a continuation of the contracts by a spread-over to the end that the sharpness of the termination of contracts would not bring about untoward sudden economic dislocation in the country.
I wish now to refer to the question of disarmament which was dealt with very thoroughly and completely by the hon. member for Essex East. He realized the difficulties of the problem. He realized the alterations in the perspective of mankind, the changes in a period of 15 years since the United Nations was founded, the discovery
External Affairs
and development of nuclear weapons, the tremendous power of emergent people all over the world to new sovereignties, the population explosion with its incalculable effects on this and succeeding generations, the scientific breakthrough and the ever-widening explorations of space. To meet this situation and these changing concepts new steps have to be taken. All of us search for an international institution that will resolve old and new conflicts, that will assure to mankind common security, welfare and international peace. These are no longer theoretical exercises of the mind, they are necessities for survival.
The hon. member for Essex East expressed the view that the government should place before parliament the representations it intends to make and has made regarding this problem of disarmament. The Leader of the Opposition says he does not want an independent course for Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I of course made no such statement at any time and the Prime Minister should stop this practice of his of misquoting what is said by hon. members on this side of the house in the heat of his own argument.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if that is a point of order I should have been on my feet constantly during the time the hon. gentleman was speaking. It is difficult to follow the hon. gentleman in his circumlocutions on this subject but I interpreted his remarks as signifying that he was opposed to an independent stand. However, if he says he was not, I accept his statement now and ask him to revise the speech which he has just concluded making. This is not the first time that there has been some difference between the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And this is not the first time the Prime Minister has misquoted us.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Essex East, on the other hand, seemed to advocate competitive alternative programs to be placed before the disarmament commission. I do not believe we should engage in such competition. We in this government believe that the western world should endeavour to integrate its thinking for peace; that peace cannot be obtained if each nation goes its own way and presses its own thinking to such an extent that agreement through compromise cannot be arrived at.
I intend to refer to one or two statements-


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about the independent approach?

External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what these interruptions are. I listened to the hon. gentleman with patience, but he persists in those undertone interruptions, and I wish he would desist.
The hon. member for Essex East apparently believes that each nation should produce a collection of competing plans. What we believe is that there should be an agreed western position to serve as a point of departure in the negotiations with the U.S.S.R. in the 10-power talks which start next month in Geneva, and this is what we are aiming at: to make a contribution by the submission of proposals and comments which will assist in bringing about a plan for international disarmament which will be realistic, negotiable, and at the same time not imperil national security.
The hon. member for Essex East seemed to indicate that the United States was acting in such a way as not to assure that measure of agreement on this question which is the hope of mankind. Indeed, while he did not mention the United States in that connection when he spoke in Montreal on February 9 to the Canadian Club, he did say this, and I quote from the Montreal Star report:
Paul Martin outlines plan for disarmament.
Then, we find the following:
But Mr. Martin felt that the United States had also made a "great mistake" after the 1955 Geneva conference by being too adamant on its own program for disarmament and by tying in as well the settlement of political questions.
I agree with him that we should not join the settlement of political questions as such with the immediate problem of disarmament. I think that is of the essence, and that we should endeavour first by the ending of nuclear tests then by such measures of disarmament as are agreed to by stages to ensure that ultimately disarmament, the hope of mankind, will be attained.
Mention was made of the number of times that the question of disarmament has been discussed. The hon. gentleman went back to the days of Castlereagh, and he quoted from Sir Winston Churchill. I think one of the best epitomes of the whole problem of disarmament is to be found in the "Public Papers and Addresses" of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933. It is entitled, "An Appeal to the Nations of the World on the basis of disarmament and an end of economic chaos". Those words of 1933, which had the effect of mobilizing the thinking of mankind and the support of the nations, as evidenced by the replies that were made to this message did not, however, deny the outbreak of war six years later. These are some of the statements that the president made at that time. He said:

The disarmament conference has laboured for more than a year and, as yet, has been unable to reach satisfactory conclusions. Confused purposes still clash dangerously. Our duty lies in the direction of bringing practical results through concerted action based upon the greatest good to the greatest number. Before the imperative call of this great duty, petty obstacles must be swept away and petty aims forgotten. A selfish victory is always destined to be an ultimate defeat. The furtherance of durable peace for our generation in every part of the world is the only goal worthy of our best efforts.
Then, he sets out the plan and says:
If all nations will agree wholly to eliminate from possession and use the weapons which make possible a successful attack, defences automatically will become impregnable, and the frontiers and independence of every nation will become secure.
The ultimate objective of the disarmament conference must be the complete elimination of all offensive weapons. The immediate objective is a substantial reduction of some of these weapons and the elimination of many others.
You will remember, sir, the naval program of the 1920's, you will remember, sir, the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1926.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was 1928.


John George Diefenbaker: I recall very well when Mr. Mackenzie King, the then member for Prince Albert, came to Prince Albert for a couple of days and said he was on his way to Paris, and that in a few short days a pact would be signed there which would forever abolish war as an instrument for the settlement of disputes between the nations.
The Leader of the Opposition says that while peace is the aim and the purpose, we must not be fooled into believing that the events of recent months or years would lead us to expect that we are about to achieve that which mankind has tried for for generations. With these views I agree; none the less one must admit that in the last several months there has been an easing of tensions to such an extent that the hopes of mankind have been raised. The responsibility, therefore, on the part of those who have positions of international trust is the greater; for if we fail at this time, the potentialities for the future are certainly dark and grey.
While Mr. Khrushchev has been more conciliatory, he has also been most threatening. In the last speech he delivered in January, when he undertook to reduce the armed forces, he pointed out that they had an overwhelming supply of nuclear weapons. He used these words:
After the launching of soviet sputniks and rockets, the Americans have come to realize that the United States is no less vulnerable to attack than any other country.
Then, he went on to say:
The U.S.S.R. army has such arms as have heretofore been unknown to man.

Again, he said:
The U.S.S.R. has piled up such atomic and nuclear weapons and has powerful rocket equipment.
Then he promised the ultimate triumph, not by war but by economic destruction in the years ahead, for he said that the year 1959 was marked by success of the U.S.S.R. in the struggle for peace and the strengthening of the camp of socialism. He promised to reduce the numbers of men, but he ended up by saying that even when this is done his country will still be the most powerful in the world.
The hon. gentleman said that we should place before the House of Commons the actual representations that we have made or intend to make.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I said was that we should place before parliament our concepts in the form in which, for instance, the United Kingdom presented theirs, in the open and public assembly of the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: I accept that correction. The hon. member says that we should give a general idea of the concepts, if I understand him aright. I could summarize them in this way. These are views expressed in summary which I think represent the thinking of Canadians as a whole on this matter. First, Canada's policy should be directed to the achievement of maximum disarmament and the reduction of armed forces which can be verified and controlled without endangering the security of the nation against aggression.
Second, whatever is done cannot be achieved overnight and will require to be done by steps or stages. To that end I suggest that immediate consideration and priority might be given to the control of missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons of mass destruction and also to bring about an agreement whereby the location of missile sites should be designated.
Third, at the conference at Pugwash much was said regarding biological and chemical weapons. I believe the time has come that the nations should agree that the manufacture and use of biological and chemical weapons should be banned.
Fourth, we come to the problem which transcends all these problems, namely that of outer space. If we are to preserve the future of mankind I believe that outer space should now, before further advances are made in its exploration, be declared banned to other than peaceful purposes and that the mounting of armaments on satellites should be outlawed. These are several suggestions that I think represent initial steps, for if there
External Affairs
is any desire on the part of the nations to bring about disarmament those principles could be accepted and I think should be accepted.
Now then you say, what about the production of fissile material for weapons? I think that was one of the questions asked. I would think that a major course leading to disarmament would be a declaration that the production of fissile material for weapons should be ended and that existing stocks should be transferred to peaceful uses as soon as a practical plan can be agreed upon. You say, what about the interim? You proceed by stages. What will you do in the meantime? How do you preserve the security of your state?
That brings me to one further step, and it is not a new one. It has been advanced since the 1600's that an international military force should be begun whose capability would be the restraining of nations from aggression. I digress for a moment to answer a statement made this afternoon by one hon. member who was filled with remorse, horror and shock that the government had not placed before the U.S.S.R. its willingness to set aside the Arctic areas of Canada to mutual inspection provided a like right was granted by the U.S.S.R. I first direct the attention of the house to my remarks on August 22, 1958. I do not want to spend long on this but I have to point out the fact that on that occasion I said, as found at page 3944 of Hansard:
For our part I can give unqualified assurances that to the extent that the control arrangements which may be agreed upon might be applicable to Canadian territory, we are prepared to co-operate in setting up control stations and inspection of the kind outlined in the report of the experts.
Apparently this was not read or, if read, not understood.
Indeed, on more than one occasion Canada has agreed unreservedly to her northern areas and Arctic regions being made available for inspection in order to ensure that surprise attacks will not take place.
These views have been communicated to Mr. Khrushchev on two occasions. The first was on January 18, 1958 when I wrote him and said this:
I give assurance that in the context of a disarmament agreement the Canadian government would be willing to open all or part of Canada to aerial and ground inspection on a basis of reciprocity. It seems to me that this is the type of proposal which should prove attractive to both our countries since we are neighbours across the Arctic. I have in mind in particular the kind of proposal Canada joined in sponsoring last August involving a system of inspection in the Arctic regions. We were willing then and are willing now to take such action in order to provide assurance against the fear of surprise attack.
This was turned down by Mr. Khrushchev in a subsequent letter or at least he 'did not

External Affairs
deal with the matter because he said we would have to have it as part of a world agreement. On May 9, 1958, I wrote to him in part as follows:
If you are really anxious about developments in the Arctic and if you wish to eliminate the possibility of surprise attack across the polar regions, I And it hard to understand why you should cast aside a proposal designed to increase mutual security in that area. Let me repeat here, Mr. Chairman, that we stand by our offer to make available for international inspection or control any part of our territory, in exchange for a comparable concession on your part. I would hope that you would accept some arrangement along these lines not only as an indication of our good faith but as part of a first, experimental step in building a system of international safeguards against surprise attack. When there is, by your own admission, a danger of nuclear war breaking out by accident or miscalculation, it is difficult for Canadians to comprehend your refusal to engage even in technical discussions intended to explore the feasibility of an international system of control.
That was Canada's stand.


Erhart Regier: I wonder-


John George Diefenbaker: My time is limited. I am answering the hon. gentleman now. That was Canada's stand. That is the stand which we took not only in the United Nations but subsequently under the circumstances to which I have referred.


Erhart Regier: Not bilaterally.


John George Diefenbaker: I doubt whether the hon. gentleman knows what bilateral means. Going on from there, and I hasten to conclude, I think that if the nations really desire to bring about disarmament and peace there is one field that could constitute an initial step, a course alongside one or other of the courses to which I have referred, and that is the acceptance of the jurisdiction of an international court of justice, the predecessor of which was the permanent court of international justice. All through the years the stand that we have taken is that the principle of compulsory arbitration under law among nations would be effectual in the settlement of international disputes.
Of the 85 states that are parties to the statute today, 38 accept compulsory jurisdiction of the court but only 13 do so unconditionally or subject to the condition of reciprocity; nine do so subject to reciprocity or with respect to those disputes which arose after the declaration came into being or when other means of peaceful settlement have been employed by the parties; 16 apply more restrictive reservations. So far as Canada is concerned at the present time she reserves from the jurisdiction of the court only those disputes between members of the commonwealth of nations, those arising out of world

war II, and those that are of purely a domestic nature, the nature of which is decided upon by the court.
So far as the communist states are concerned, none of the communist states has accepted, nor have they given any indication that they will accept, compulsory jurisdiction. It is of interest, too, that the new states that are arising and coming into existence in Asia and Africa are following the same course. I believe that if we were able, among the nations of the world, with the will to achieve peace, to make stronger and more effective the international court of justice, giving it a compulsory jurisdiction and the right of compulsory decision, many of the problems we face today would be dissolved. There are difficulties in the way.
I think there are 16 members, and naturally nations are not given to trusting the courts that are set up. None the less if we in Canada, the United Kingdom, which has taken a very pronounced step forward in this regard, and the United States, which through the president has indicated that some additional powers should be given to the court, would lead in this direction I believe that ultimately the judgments of that court would commend themselves to the wisdom of mankind and we might well make a forward step toward the achievement of peace.
As a further step, I think that international action needs to be taken in respect of outer space. I mentioned that a moment ago. The principle is still in effect that each nation owns all the air above it. This principle was first declared in 1914 and re-declared in 1919. The principle has no efficacy today in this age, when even at the present moment several of these interstellar rockets are in circuit around the world. The existent principles of space law are out of date by reason of the scientific breakthroughs. We have gone a very considerable way in Canada in our willingness to bring about the attainment of an agreement on jurisprudence in outer space. The U.S.S.R. and other communist states refused to participate in the earlier committee. They are participating in the present one. I believe that if we could bring about international jurisdiction over space we would have gone a long way toward the preservation of mankind, not only in this generation but in the future. As a matter of priority we should have a declaration that would seem to be in keeping with reason, a declaration that no part of outer space or any celestial body may be appropriated by or may be subject to the jurisdiction of any particular nation.
The hon. member for Essex East advocated agreement on the elimination of weapons not now in existence. No doubt what he had in

mind was this problem of outer space and I hope that the outer space committee of the United Nations will be able to achieve a measure of agreement which will forestall the introduction of new weapons which use outer space.
I am not going to say more at this time The hon. gentlerhen asked, what general principles have you in mind. These are some principles that I believe contain more than a germ for the settlement of our international difficulties and for survival itself. I should have liked to have covered certain other matters that were dealt with, but as there is no possibility of agreement that we should go over to tomorrow to conclude this debate, I now conclude.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I speak to a point of order? If the minister is rising now to conclude the debate, he has not very much time and I am sure we on this side would be very happy to continue to sit until he has had every opportunity to deal with the points raised.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The members of this group, because of the importance of the questions that are being considered in this debate and the great concern of the Canadian people with these problems, welcome the proposal of the Prime Minister for the continuation of this debate tomorrow but we are not ready to sit after 10 o'clock this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: We have two proposals. The Prime Minister has invited the house to modify the order which was made earlier that this debate should conclude at 10 o'clock. If there is no possibility of a general agreement on that-


Harold Edward Winch: We are prepared to continue the debate tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I point out what may not be known to some hon. gentlemen, namely that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), and the hon. member for Essex East, (Mr. Martin), who have taken a prominent part in this debate, would like to hear it concluded but they made other arrangements because of the order of business. If hon. gentlemen could have the forbearance to go on sitting this evening to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs we might accomplish our purpose. It does not seem an unreasonable proposition.


Harold Edward Winch: What would happen if the two members died, would the house close?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would hope so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope you would give us three minutes of silence, anyway.
Business of the House


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, without submitting the house to the dire possibility envisaged by the hon. gentleman, could we not agree to the debate next Tuesday when the hon. gentlemen will be back?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is agreeable.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it that would not interfere with the continuation of the supply debate? Perhaps Wednesday would be a better time because we have a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are not counting on a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday. Monday would be private members' day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If Monday is private members' day-of course it is up to the house to decide-we would have no objection. We were under the impression, from the leader of the house, that Monday was going to be a supply day and we have been operating on that basis.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Prime Minister indicated that last night.


An hon. Member:: No; he did not.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I so indicated it was not through direct statement. I was asked about it and I said I had no knowledge of it, as I recall, but that whatever arrangements might be made the house leader would be here to announce them. But if the debate can be adjourned until Tuesday, I think it would be a worthy objective and one that would allow many hon. members to express themselves on a matter of the greatest importance to the Canadian people and the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to agree unanimously to the extension of this debate to Tuesday and that it be concluded on Tuesday?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed by all sides of the house? In the absence of any objection, I take it that it is agreed and that the order which the house previously made that this debate should conclude at ten o'clock today will be suspended and be replaced by an order that it will be adjourned until Tuesday and conclude not later than ten o'clock on Tuesday night. That is agreed.
Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we adjourn I wonder whether the leader of the house can tell us what the business will be for tomorrow and
994	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
whether he could also indicate what will be taken up on Tuesday if the debate on external affairs in which we have been engaged today was concluded before ten o'clock?


An hon. Member:: It will not be concluded before then.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On Friday we will continue with the supplementary estimates. If they are concluded tomorrow we will take these items in this order: the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice to amend the Department of Justice Act; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport to amend the Railway Act; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works to amend the National Housing Act. Then in the unlikely event of this business being concluded tomorrow, we will take Bill No. C-2, to amend the Indian Act and Bill No. C-3, to amend the Canada Elections Act. That will be the business for Friday. Monday will be private members' day. That is the second Monday of six Mondays for that purpose. Tuesday we have now agreed will be devoted to a continuation of the debate on external affairs in which we were engaged today. Should that debate draw to a close before ten o'clock we would take any item of government business that I have now outlined for Friday. On Wednesday there would be a continuation of government business, the items to be announced later. Thursday of next week will be the second Thursday as a private members' day and will be devoted to the discussion of the measure relating to capital punishment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the house leader whether it is intended that debate should last for the one day only? I refer to the debate on capital punishment which he has suggested for Thursday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to the debate on capital punishment, may I say this. I endeavoured to get an agreement in the usual manner and a conclusion was not reached as to whether that debate should proceed beyond that one day. The best suggestion I have heard is that as the debate proceeds on that Thursday we should attempt to arrive at a decision then as to whether another day would be required. Unless I hear further from the other parties in the house, the only information I have at the moment is

that there will be just the one day for that particular debate. However, I am open to suggestions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that particular point may I say a word. The house leader said he had not been able to get any information from this side of the house as to what our intentions are in respect of this debate. As far as this party is concerned, we shall be glad to give the house leader our views when he confronts us with some of the intentions and views of the government with respect to this matter. It is surely the responsibility of the government to let us know what they wish to do and then ask our views but not to ask our views so that we may be put in the position of accepting or rejecting a particular course, of action before we know what the views of the house leader and the government are.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be placed in this position by the Leader of the Opposition without protesting. That is not the case whatsoever. I consulted with the house leader of his party with regard to this matter on the most congenial of terms, in the same manner as I always get on with him in these matters. The matter was left open as to what the opposition desired to do. The impression I gathered from him was that he was not sure what their plan was. Hence the matter is open and continues to be open for negotiation. It is not a settled matter by any means. I did not at any time suggest that the matter was closed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the house leader now, while we are talking about this matter, tell us the desire and the views of the government with regard to how this question should be handled in the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not know whether we can do it here by way of public debate. The other group has been consulted as well. As I say, there is a difference of opinion at the moment as to what should transpire concerning this particular debate.


Mr. Speaker:: No order is needed to proceed with the proposed business on Thursday because it seems to be the first item under public orders. Perhaps the different interests could arrive at some conclusion, if it is possible, between now and the time the debate concludes.


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

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

Mr. Bourgel: 1.	What was the total amount of the expenses provided for in the estimates of the Department of Public Works for the construction of and repairs to protection walls (including the projects specifically mentioned in the estimates) for the fiscal year 1959-60?
2.	What part of this amount had been spent as at December 31, 1959?
3.	What projects provided for in these estimates will not be carried out during the fiscal year, for what reasons, and what is the amount of each such project?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisler of
Public Works):
1.	$2,420,000.
2.	$1,151,134.34.
3.	Magog, Stanstead county-(Repairs to protection wall)-Will not be carried out this fiscal year. Plans and specifications were received in late fall for public tender call. However, the work cannot be carried out during the winter months because of the usual high water level of the lake during that period. This item has been included in our program of remedial works for next fiscal year, subject to funds being made available for that purpose. The estimated amount of the project is $23,850.
Deschaillons, Lotbiniere county-(New protection wall). Because funds were heavily committed, and as there appeared to be no great urgency, it was decided to postpone this project. The department intends to undertake this work later on, subject to funds being
Province and territory
Newfoundland	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia ____
Northwest Territories . Yukon Territory	
Questions
made available. The estimated amount of the project is $14,650.
Pointe aux Trembles, Mercier county-(New protection wall). The project for the construction of a protection wall along the property of Les Jardins St. Georges has been cancelled. The owner of the property has placed some fill on the site of the proposed construction. The condition of the site makes it very difficult to undertake the construction of the wall. The estimated amount of the project is $17,000.
Meteghan River, N.S.-(Repairs to protection wall). The work was closed down at the end of the last fiscal year because a waiting period was required to observe the effect of the existing shore protection. It was found that no further work was required. An amount of $5,000 had been set aside.
St. Hilaire, Chambly-Rouville county- (New protection wall). A much more extensive project was required than the project first estimated. The matter had to be reinvestigated. The amount included in the estimates for this year is $56,000.
Sept lies-(New protection wall). A different type of structure had to be considered. Studies are now being made to find the proper design, suitable for the location. The amount included in the estimates for this year is $50,000.


PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total amount spent by the Department of Public Works in each of the provinces, and in each of the two territories for the fiscal
years ending March	31, 1957, 1958	and 1959?Answer by: Hon.	D. J. Walker	(Minisler ofPublic Works):	Fiscal year	Fiscal year	Fiscal year1956-57	1957-58	1958-59$ 7,073,028	$ 9,704,384	$18,809,5589,526,123	11,296,999	8,314,4772,652,459	3,509,592	2,454,1088,392,358	7,729,175	18,688,22521,891,956	21,763,799	24,224,65152,960,025	72,860,497	88,201,1899,991,440	7,087,604	5,496,5404,980,336	6,196,826	2,432,06314,415,293	15,434,520	8,557,42526,123,767	37,753,790	26,318,383221,102	870,968	2,460,544186,998	743,021	422,776
79951-0-631
996	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Carter: 1.	How much money has been paid into the unemployment insurance fund per month since July 1, 1959?
2.	How much has been paid out of the fund each month since July 1, 1959?
3.	What is the balance remaining in the fund at the present time?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1. Revenue
July 1959 	 August	 September 	 October 		.. $	22,050,297.57 20,636,039.82 20,115,847.65 23,489,661.99 27,898,542.04 28,578,988.19
November 			
December 			
		142,769,377.26
2. Expenditure		
July 1959 	 August 	 September 		.. $	14,845,847.24 13,332,333.83 13,537,915.20 13,894,020.07 17,554,307.85 32,663,387.75
November 			
December 			
		105,827,811.94
3. Balance at credit of fund as at December 31, 1959-$471,094,255.96.

Friday, February 12, 19S0