1960-02-16

STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) presented the second report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:
AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION Messrs.
Argue	Kindt
Badanai	Knowles
Barrington	Korehinski
Best	Lahaye
Boivin	Leduc
Boulanger	Letourneau
Brassard (Lapointe)	McBain
Brunsden	McIntosh
Cadieu	Michaud
Campbell (Lambton-	Milligan
Kent)	Muir (Lisgar)
Casselman, Mrs.	Nasserden
Cooper	Noble
Doucett	O'Leary
Dubois	Pascoe
Dupuis	Peters
Fane	Phillips
Fleming (Okanagan-	Racine
Revelstoke)	Rapp
Forbes	Regnier
Forgie	Ricard
Godin	Rompre
Gundlock	Rynard
Hales	Smallwood
Hardie	Smith (Lincoln)
Henderson	Southam
Hicks	Stanton
Horner (Acadia)	Tardif
Horner (Jasper-Edson) Thomas	
Howe	Tucker
Jorgenson	Villeneuve-60.
(Quorum-20)	
BANKING	AND COMMERCE
	Messrs.
Allmark	Fraser
Anderson	Hanbidge
Asselin	Horner (Acadia)
Bell (Carleton)	Jones
Benidickson	Jung
Bigg	Leduc
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	Macdonnell
Campeau	MacLean (Winnipeg
Cardin	North Centre)
Caron	MacLellan
Cathers	Macnaughton
Chevrier	Maloney
Coates	Martin (Essex East)
Creaghan	Mcllraith
Crestohl	McIntosh
Deschambault	More
Drouin	Morissette
Drysdale	Morton
Nugent	Southam
Pascoe	Stewart
Pickersgill	Stinson
Regier	Taylor
Robichaud	Thomas
Rowe	Winch
Rynard Slogan	Woolliams

50. (Quorum-15) DEBATES Messrs.
Argue	Monteith (Verdun)
Campbell	Nixon
(Lambton-Kent)	Paul
Chevrier	Regnier
Dorion	Richard (Ottawa East)
Fortin McPhillips	Roberge-12. (Quorum-7) ESTIMATES Messrs.
Argue	Howe
Anderson	Jorgenson
Baldwin	Korehinski
Benidickson	MacLellan
Best	McCleave
Bissonnette	McDonald
Bourbonnais	(Hamilton South)
Bourdages	McFarlane
Bourget	McGee
Brassard (Lapointe) McGrath	
Broome	McGregor
Bruchesi	Mcllraith
Cardin	McMillan
Caron	McQuillan
Carter	More
Cathers	Parizeau
Clancy	Payne
Coates	Pickersgill
Crouse	Pigeon
Dumas	Pugh
Fairfield	Ricard
Fleming (Okanagan- Richard (Kamouraska)	
Revelstoke)	Rouleau
Fortin	Skoreyko
Gillet	Smith (Calgary South)
Grafl'tey	Stewart
Hales	Stinson
Halpenny	Thompson
Hardie	Vivian
Hellyer	Winch
Horner (Acadia)	Winkler-60. (Quorum-20)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Messrs.	
Aitken, Miss	Hellyer
Allard	Herridge
Batten	Jones
Cardin	Kucherepa
Cathers	Lafreniere
Crestohl	Lennard
Eudes	MacLellan
Fairfield	Macquarrie
Fleming (Okanagan- Mandziuk	
Revelstoke)	Martin (Essex East)
Garland	McCleave
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
McGee	Richard (Ottawa East)
Montgomery	Slogan
Nesbitt	Smith (Calgary South)
Nugent	Stinson
Pearson	Valade
Pratt	Vivian
Regier	White-35.
(Quorum-10)	
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Messrs.	
Allmark	Mandziuk
Beech	Martin (Essex East)
Benidickson	Martini
Bourdages	McDonald (Hamilton
Brassard (Lapointe)	South)
Browne (Vancouver-	McWilliam
Kingsway)	Mitchell
Caron	Muir (Cape Breton North
Creaghan	and Victoria)
Drouin	Noble
Godin	Pigeon
Grafftey	Ricard
Granger	Simpson
Howard	Skoreyko
Lafreniere	Small
Lahaye	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Loiselle	Spencer
Maclnnis	Stanton
MacLean (Winnipeg	Weichel-35.
North Centre)	
(Quorum-10)	
MARINE	AND FISHERIES Messrs.
Anderson	Matthews
Batten	McCleave
Browne (Vancouver-	McGrath
Kingsway)	McLennan
Cardin	McPhillips
Carter	McQuillan
Crouse	McWilliam
Danforth	Michaud
Drysdale	Murphy
English	Noble
Gillet	O'Leary
Granger	Phillips
Grenier	Pickersgill
Howard	Robichaud
Keays	Speakman
Legere	Stefanson
Macdonald (Kings)	Stewart
MacLellan	Tucker-35.
(Quorum-10)	
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messrs.	
Aiken	McGregor
Baskin	McQuillan
Cadieu	Mitchell
Coates	Muir (Cape Breton
Doucett	North and Victoria)
Drouin	Murphy
Dumas	Nielsen
Fleming (Okanagan-	Payne
Revelstoke)	Richard (St. Maurice-
Godin	Lafleche)
Granger	Roberge
Gundlock	Robichaud
Hardie	Rompre
Kindt	Simpson
Korchinski	Slogan
Leduc	Smith (Calgary
MacRae	South)
Martel	Stearns
Martin (Timmins)	Woolliams-35.
McFarlane	
(Quorum-10)	
	
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messrs.
Anderson	McBain
Baldwin	McCleave
Batten	McDonald
Beech	(Hamilton South)
Bigg	McFarlane
Broome	Mcllraith
Campbell (Stormont)	McLennan
Carter	McMillan
Chown	McPhillips
Crestohl	Milligan
Danforth	Mitchell
Fairfield	Monteith (Verdun)
Forbes	More
Forgie	Morton
Garland	Nixon
Horner (The Battlefords) Ormiston	
Houck	Peters
Kennedy	Robinson
Knowles	Rogers
MacEwan	Simpson
MacLean (Winnipeg	Smith (Lincoln)
North Centre)	Smith (Simcoe North)
Macnaughton	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Mandziuk	Stefanson
Martin (Timmins)	Webster
Matthews	Wratten-50.
(Quorum-15)	
PRIVILEGES	AND ELECTIONS
Messrs.	
Aiken	McBain
Barrington	McGee
Bell (Carleton)	Mcllraith
Caron	McWilliam
Deschambault	Meunier
Fraser	Montgomery
Godin	Nielsen
Grills	Ormiston
Henderson	Paul
Hodgson	Pickersgill
Howard	Richard (Ottawa East)
Johnson	Valade
Kucherepa	Webster
Macquarrie Mandziuk	Woolliams-29.
(Quorum-10)	
PUBLIC	ACCOUNTS
Messrs.	
Beech	Macdonnell
Bell (Carleton)	Macnaughton
Benidickson	McGee
Bissonnette	McGrath
Bourget	McGregor
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	Morissette
Broome	Morton
Bruchesi	Murphy
Campbell	Pickersgill
(Lambton-Kent)	Pratt
Campeau	Regier
Chown	Robichaud
Coates	Rouleau
Denis	Smith (Calgary South)
Deschatelets	Smith (Simcoe North)
Dorion	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Drysdale	Spencer
Dupuis	Stefanson
Fraser	Stewart
Grenier	Tucker
Hales	Valade
Hanbidge	Villeneuve
Hellyer	Winch
Keays	Woolliams
Lahaye Macdonald (Kings)	Wratten-50.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Aitken, Miss	Frechette
Argue	Garland
Best	Grafftey
Batten	Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Bourdages	Loiselle
Brassard (Chicoutimi) McGrath	
Campeau	McWilliam
Danforth	Meunier
Dorion	Milligan
Forgie	Spencer-20. (Quorum-8) VETERANS AFFAIRS Messrs.
Badanai	MacRae
Batten	Matthews
Beech	McIntosh
Benidickson	McWilliam
Broome	Montgomery
Cardin	O'Leary
Carter	Ormiston
Clancy	Parizeau
Denis	Peters
Dinsdale	Pugh
Fane	Roberge
Forgie	Robinson
Fortin	Rogers
Garland	Speakman
Herridge	Stearns
Jung	Stewart
Kennedy	Thomas
Lennard	Webster
Macdonald (Kings) Weichel	
MacEwan	Winkler-40. (Quorum-15) PRINTING
(Members	to Act on part of the Commons) Messrs.
Allard	Howard
Asselin	Jorgenson
Barrington	Korchinski
Belzile	Lahaye
Bissonnette	Letourneau
Boivin	Lessard
Bourdages	Maclnnis
Bourque	MacLellan
Brunsden	Martini
Cadieu	McLennan
Campeau	McWilliam
Caron	Meunier
Clancy	Michaud
Cooper	Morissette
Creaghan	O'Leary
Deschambault	Phillips
Deschatelets	Rapp
Dubois	Ratelle
Dupuis	Richard (Kamouraska)
Fane	Robinson
Fisher	Rouleau
Fortin	Skoreyko
Gillet	Smallwood
Grafftey	Southam
Godin	Taylor
Gundlock	Webb
Henderson	Winkler-54.
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Members to Act on part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messrs.
Aitken, Miss Bourbonnais Bourque Brunsden
Campeau
Dorion
Eudes
Fairfield
79951-0-70i
Standing Committees
Fisher
Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Forbes
Frechette
Grenier
Hanbidge
Houck
Kindt
Knowles
LaRue
Lennard
Lessard
Macquarrie
Martel
Matthews
McFarlane
McGee
Mcllraith
Muir (Lisgar)
Nixon
Pigeon
Pratt
Racine
Ratelle
Regier
Richard (Ottawa East)
Rouleau
Simpson
Skoreyko
Small
Smith (Lincoln)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Southam
Stinson
Tremblay-45.

[Stage Direction]
(Members to Act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs.
Bourque
Campbell (Lambton-Kent)
Carter
Deschatelets
Dorion
Doucett
Godin
Hales
Horner (The Battlefords)
Lafreniere
Legere
Letourneau
Martin (Timmins) McGregor McQuillan Muir (Lisgar)
Pratt
Richard (Ottawa East)
Stearns
Tardif
Taylor
Villeneuve
Weichel
Wratten-25.
Mr. Pallet! moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Kon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:
That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like with the leave of the house to hand to the Clerk, for the purpose of tabling, copies of correspondence which was exchanged between the government of Canada and the provincial governments concerning the amendment to section 99 of the British North America Act, 1867, as requested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate in this house on January 19.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gale):: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to ask the minister if he would request that this be made an appendix to Hansard for the convenience of members.

Question of Privilege


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have no objection if the house is willing. This is a fairly extensive correspondence but there is no matter of moment really involved except the rather amazing degree of unanimity expressed by the provinces in connection with the proposal. However, if the house wishes I would have no objection to making this an appendix to Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me it would be very useful, since it is a matter that is to be debated later in the session, if we had the correspondence available in handy form.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I wonder if the hon. gentleman, instead of cluttering up Hansard in that way, would agree that the same objective would be achieved if we appended the correspondence to Votes and Proceedings?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really do think it would be very much more convenient to have it in Hansard. If the Prime Minister prefers to have it done the other way-of course, he is the leader of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the suggestion that the tabled documents be made an appendix to Votes and Proceedings of this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Timmins raised a question of privilege, which was allowed to stand over at the request of the leader of the house at that time. The house leader might be thought to have the floor, but I have been advised by the hon. member for Timmins that he wishes to modify to some extent what he said yesterday. Perhaps it would save time if he were heard first.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to correct some wrong information which I inadvertently gave to the house yesterday with regard to the statutes to which I made reference. Since then it has been brought to my attention that those statutes have been repealed and that the statutes which in fact cover this matter are the statutes of Canada, 1952-53, chapter 49, section 9, subsection (l)(d) and (nHiii), which are to be found on pages 382 and 383. However, that is not the purpose of my point of privilege; I have every confidence that the

Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and his department will look after any violation of the statutes.
The motion I made yesterday referred to the president of this company. It has since been drawn to my attention that there is no such person. I feel that this is definitely a matter of the privileges of this house; in fact Your Honour is named in this particular document as well as the queen's printer. For these and various other reasons I should now like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier):
That the subject matter in this complaint be referred to the standing committee on elections and privileges for appropriate action.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that this motion can be moved properly because the other motion was not put. Hon. members will recall that I was inviting comment from the house as to whether a prima facie question of privilege was raised by the matter which was stated by the hon. member for Timmins in asking to submit his motion. I would appreciate it now if hon. members who wish to would comment on the matter before the house.


Mr. Winch:: Are you going to comment on whether a prima facie question of privilege was raised by the hon. member?


Mr. Speaker:: I think it would be the better course to hear from members of the house before I give any decision.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not in the house yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Timmins raised this matter, and I do not intend to base any observations I have to make thereon upon the fact that he referred to a statute which was subsequently repealed. Those of us who are lawyers have had similar experiences on occasion in court when relying upon statutes, or precedents, and have found subsequently that the statute, in whole or in part, had been repealed, or that the precedent upon which we relied had not been followed subsequently, or indeed had been reversed on appeal, as yet unreported.
I want to say to begin with that every hon. member of this house has a responsibility to uphold the privileges of the house. Those privileges must be jealously guarded and maintained. In so far as the motion of yesterday was concerned, I can understand the desire of the hon. member to see that those privileges should be maintained. Indeed he brought this matter before the house as promptly as he could. Since I have not had an opportunity to look extensively into the authorities I am going to review just one or two.
All of us recall in our reading of the constitutional history of our country the

case of Cinq-Mars. There were one or two subsequent cases in which the privileges of parliament received full consideration. Indeed, I well remember the proceedings here in 1912 respecting the privileges of the house. They were dealt with at great length in the case of one Mr. Miller, who had refused to answer certain questions which came before the house or a committee. In the student bodies of those days it was always the subject of discussion, and it was observed that even if a decision in the affirmative was made, the question arose as to whether the tower was there to provide the necessary jail for anyone who had committed a breach of the privileges of the house. However, as one looks through the records one finds that while those rights must be guarded jealously, drastic action should not be taken. Such matters, even though they are relatively an abuse of the process of parliament or of its privileges, do not necessarily require either the drastic action suggested in the motion of yesterday or, indeed, in the new motion of today.
The privileges of the house are provided for in the Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 249, section 4. Summarizing those privileges, immunities and powers, they are those exercised, enjoyed and held by the Commons of the United Kingdom as of the time of confederation. I am not going to refer in detail to the observations which have been made thereon. I would simply point out that the privileges of the Canadian parliament are those which were in existence at confederation, and no new ones have been created. In support of that I respectfully draw the attention of hon. members to the fourth edition of Beauchesne, page 97.
The question as to whether the publication of debates in parliament is a breach of the rights of parliament has never been decided, as I read the records of parliament. Anson has set forth the proposition clearly in these words to be found in volume 1, fourth edition, at page 174:
We are accustomed, therefore, to be daily informed throughout the parliamentary session of every detail of events in the House of Commons, and so are apt to forget two things. The first is, that these reports are made on sufferance, for the house can at any moment exclude strangers and clear the reporters' gallery; and that they are also published on sufferance, for the house might at any time resolve that publication is a breach of privilege and deal with it accordingly. The second is, that though the privileges of the house confer a right to privacy of debate they do not confer a corresponding right to the publication of debate.
I mention this because of the document in respect of which the motion has been made. This document is a reproduction of the forepage of Hansard debates containing the words
Question of Privilege
"Official Report-Speaker: The Hon. Roland Michener" and, indeed, it has every detail on it-


Harold Edward Winch: And "Printed by the queen's printer".


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. The hon. member is correct; I said it has everything on it which a photostatic reproduction of the forepage of the Hansard report would reveal, even to the price per copy. That is the reason I mentioned the question of publication, because sometimes when we mention the presence of visitors in the gallery of the House of Commons we fail to recall that there is no gallery and there is no one present here excepting the members elected to the House of Commons. Publication of the records of parliament has never been officially approved in any way, although it is taken for granted following the custom of the passing years that publication may be made.
In so far as the document in question is concerned, the point to be considered is whether it does constitute a breach serious enough to require definite action. The most serious aspect is probably the fact that your authority, Mr. Speaker, is called into issue inferentially. Indeed, the official report is published under the authority of the Speaker.
1	think this motion has been helpful in one regard, namely that hon. members have ascertained that nobody seems to know the basis on which Hansard is published, or the authority for its publication.


Harold Edward Winch: We do.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman makes a short cut through this, but the fact still remains that the only basis is in the estimates which deal with printing. We are not here to speculate on the reason, but there is no statute nor anything in the nature of a statute or rule or regulation which provides for its publication.
The official report, however, in the progress of years has been published under the authority of the Speaker. The course followed by the publisher of this document might tend to imply that the Speaker has authorized the publication of the document in question, or lent his authority to these arrows on pages
2	and 3, which indicate that greater emphasis is to be placed on these portions of the document than on some others, notably the remarks of the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) which appear on the same page. That might place the Speaker in the position of not being impartial.
However, as one examines the document- and I would be the first to do everything possible to uphold the privileges of the house

Question of Privilege
-one must conclude on the basis of past experience, not only in this chamber since confederation but in the British House of Commons, that action in this regard certainly has no precedent in the records either of the parliament of Canada or the parliament of the United Kingdom.


Harold Edward Winch: How the mighty is falling.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, the hon. gentleman may be speaking for himself. I am attempting to deal with this matter in an objective way.


Harold Edward Winch: I am referring to you. You claimed to be a defender of the rights of parliament, but how you are falling.


John George Diefenbaker: The next questions to be considered are these. What responsibility is there? Has an offence been committed under a statute of Canada? The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) referred to the statute in question. If there has, as he says, been any offence committed-and I am making no observations thereon directly or indirectly- that is a matter for the courts.
To sum up the viewpoint which I have endeavoured to express, it is this. On the basis of what has taken place and on the basis of the publicity that this matter has properly received, at the same time on behalf of hon. members of this house approving in every way the step taken in bringing the matter before parliament promptly, my feeling

subject to Your Honour's views in this regard-is that to take any action on this, would be to ascribe to a relatively unimportant breach, if there was one, a distinction which is not required or demanded.
I believe it is well to bring these things before the house, but under all the circumstances I trust that the hon. gentleman, having achieved his purpose of assuring that anything in the nature of an abuse of the privileges of the house shall be brought before the house, will decide after reconsideration that everything that could be attained by carrying this matter further has already been secured in the degree of attention that has been given to this motion.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a matter that does, I think, affect the privileges of the house; therefore it is a matter of significance. The Prime Minister, of course, by virtue of his position is a chief custodian of the rights and privileges of the house-along with yourself, Mr. Speaker- and anything the Prime Minister says on a matter of this kind must of course be treated with great respect. But on this occasion, Mr. 
Speaker, I confess, I am somewhat surprised by the attitude he has taken in respect of this particular matter.
The House of Commons has over the centuries in this country and in the mother country always been jealous of its privileges, its rights and its immunities, and in nothing has it been more jealous of these rights and privileges than in respect of anything that concerned the records of the house. As the Prime Minister will know, it was not so very long ago in the mother country that parliament considered any reproduction of its proceedings in any form as a breach of privilege for which the house could take action. Therefore this is a matter about which we in this house should be jealous.
I agree with the Prime Minister that we should not exaggerate these matters and be oversensitive about them and ask for action which perhaps, in relation to the alleged offence, would be unnecessary. Possibly the motion moved yesterday by the hon. member for Timmins may have gone a little too far. It was indeed pretty drastic. But surely the motion before us now could not be considered either drastic or exaggerated.
Surely it is quite proper in these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, that the appropriate committee of the house be authorized to look into this matter to see whether in fact there has been a serious breach of privilege and whether the records of the house may have been used-whether by inadvertence or by design we do not know-to mislead the public in any respect. That is all the hon. member is asking, an examination into the matter; and until that examination is made surely it is very difficult for us to make up our minds. Therefore we on this side think the motion is a reasonable one, and we will support it.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a grave matter. I also prefer the motion moved today to the action mentioned as a possibility yesterday, because I believe the matter requires investigation rather than for the house to call an individual to the bar to account for his actions. I believe such an investigation could be most usefully pursued.
I regret very much that an individual or an organization should have seen fit to misuse the prestige of your high office in an obvious attempt to influence a vote on a matter that is now pending before the house, debate on the particular bill not yet having reached its conclusion. To involve your high office and the prestige of the coat of arms of Canada in what appears to be an attempt to influence a possible future vote of the house is in my opinion a matter that

is worthy of very serious consideration, and the least that should be done is to adopt the motion proposed by the hon. member for Timmins to refer the matter for investigation and possible recommendation to the standing committee on privileges and elections.
However, Mr. Speaker, I cannot avoid expressing considerable amazement at the attitude taken by the Prime Minister, because he above all Canadians has established for himself a considerable reputation on this very issue of the preservation of the rights and privileges of members of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member proceeds along that line, may I remind him that he is assisting the Speaker to come to a conclusion as to whether there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege. We are not debating the motion. If the motion is put there will be an opportunity to debate it. The only point at issue is whether or not this particular publication amounts to a breach of the privileges of the house.


Erhart Regier: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I submit in all humility that the Prime Minister in his comments ranged far beyond the limitation that you are now imposing. However, it appears to me that it is accepted by almost all members of the house that there has been a breach. Beauchesne, fourth edition, in dealing with questions of privilege says among other things at page 102:
It should be dealt with by a motion giving the house power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy.
I think the hon. member for Timmins has followed a perfectly correct course, in that he has proposed a motion involving a remedy. We very often have questions of privilege raised here which do not conform to the condition that a motion be attached to a question of privilege. If we subscribe to the theory that we live under the rule of law, and that there should be one law for all people regardless of who they are, then I believe the Prime Minister's arguments necessarily fall apart like a house of cards. His argument, coming from a member of the legal fraternity, is most amazing.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I will speak wholly and solely on the question of whether or not there is in the publication of this document evidence of contempt of the House of Commons according to our procedure. I want to draw your attention to this point, Mr. Speaker; that according to my understanding of the law the only report of the House of Commons that is allowed is one under your own signature, and that in addition any such report, either over your own signature or
Question of Privilege
under the emblem of Canada, cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever other than as a report of the House of Commons.
You have already noted this, Mr. Speaker, but you have asked for comment. In the docket we have now received and which I hold in my hand is a photostatic report of the proceedings of the House of Commons. It is not a complete report, but its front page is a replica of the front page of Hansard. This document is not a report of all the proceedings. Only certain excerpts have been chosen according to the will of the people who desired to print this report, and at the end your own name does not appear but rather the names of those who are using the publication for their own purposes. In addition to that, and this is of the utmost importance, in what is supposed to be a copy of a page from Hansard certain paragraphs are blanked out, no doubt for certain reasons, in order to give some particular introduction or comment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into detail, although I would love to, on the remarks made by the Prime Minister. I say, without having the records in front of me, that it is known throughout the parliamentary history of the provinces and the federal House of Commons that only one person has authority to quote the House of Commons directly and you, sir, can give authorization for that. The third estate has a certain authority, but I have not known any of the members of the third estate, the press, to do anything like this.


Some hon. Members:: The fourth estate.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, but the Prime Minister made reference to those who are not here and I call them the third estate, the most powerful estate. I believe, sir, the Prime Minister hit on the real point of this matter when he said it concerns the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, the use of the reports of the House of Commons. Of course I would love to get into an argument with the Prime Minister, but I cannot.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, yes.


Harold Edward Winch: I would love to, and I would put him down the drain very fast, too.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Harold Edward Winch: Apparently hon. members on the other side do not want to permit me to address you, sir. I would say that because this matter concerns the rights and privileges of parliament, concerns a matter that can be or cannot be in contempt of parliament, you, who still have the unanimous support of all members in your protection of the rights of members of parliament, after your study of

Question of Privilege
this matter since yesterday should give us your opinion as to whether or not it is a matter that should be referred in accordance with the motion which has now been amended. I may say, sir, that we trust you if others do not.


Mr. Speaker:: I thirds the matter has been sufficiently discussed now. In view of what I have to say there may be another opportunity, if hon. members wish, to debate the issue.
The position, briefly is that I have only to decide whether or not a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out by the matter which was brought forward by the hon. member for Timmins. If there appears to be a prima facie case, then it is for the house itself to determine whether anything is to be done, and if so what. I limit myself to the preliminary question. I want to say that I thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and other members who have assisted me in this rather novel case of breach of the privileges of the house.
There is very little learning or precedent about the use of our Hansard, and if we turn to the practice of the United Kingdom, which we are entitled to do where our own is silent, we find that the practice there is very similar. The reports are published under the authority of the Speaker through the use of funds which are voted by parliament. The public are allowed freely to use these reports, provided they use them fairly. It is only when there is an abuse of the reports that a question of the privileges of parliament has been raised. I refer hon. members to May, sixteenth edition, at page 118, where there is a reference to the view I have just expressed.
The Prime Minister has indicated, and I think all members accepted the view, that we publish our Hansards and they are sold on subscription and are used freely, both in their original form and as copied in the press, without objection or complaint by any hon. members unless the report is so altered or varied as to give a wrong impression of what took place here. I think we must look at this document in that light. As I understand it, the pages quoted are correctly quoted from Hansard, pages 362, 363 and 364 of the issue of Tuesday, January 26, except that there is a large black arrow which obscures the remarks made by the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau). He may, I think, complain that the proper relative importance has not been given to what he said.
The second thing is, of course, that this appears to be an official report published under the name of your Speaker, and to that

extent I think there is a question of privilege with which the house should be free to deal if it sees fit to do so. There has been no complaint about misrepresentation or other improper use of our reports, except this one matter to which the Prime Minister and other hon. members referred, that it appeared that this was an official publication which had been circulated either by your Speaker or with his authority.
When hon. members wish to have reprints of their speeches circulated throughout their ridings they obtain such reprints, but those reprints do not go out with the name of the Speaker on the cover and do not, therefore, give that possible impression. It is suggested that this is not more than a technical breach. I do not comment on that; that is for the house. But I do think that anything that relates to control by the house present or future over its own reports, having the possibility of abuse of such publications in mind -which is easily imaginable-requires me to allow this matter to go forward by finding at least prima facie grounds for complaint.
I should now put the motion which has been suggested by the hon. member for Timmins in place of the other motion, and of course it is then for the house to decide what action it wishes to take. The motion is to the effect that the subject matter of this complaint be referred to the standing committee on elections and privileges for appropriate action.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the stand taken by yourself with respect to this matter, that there is a prima facie case, and I do not challenge that in any way except to say this, that on the back page there appears the notation that this is sent out by the information branch of a certain organization and as you have pointed out that you are responsible for Hansard, and that people receiving this might conclude that it came out with your official approval, I have no reason whatever for saying that the matter should not go to the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter is open for debate if the house wishes. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the serious

emergency facing the community of Elliot Lake. My question is this. Will the government, as a matter of urgency, examine with the government of Ontario measures that can be taken to alleviate the distressing unemployment situation at Elliot Lake, where more than 3,000 miners will soon be laid off, and do everything that is possible to remove the danger of this important and model community becoming a ghost town?


John George Diefenbaker: The form in which the hon. gentleman's question is couched cannot but be a very direct appeal to members of the government. We realize that Right Hon. Mr. Howe said in 1955 and 1956 that by 1962 those companies which produce uranium would have to be on their own. That is in general what he said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not what he said.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: That is not a correct summary of what he said. I looked it up when you quoted it the other day.


John George Diefenbaker: If hon. members will allow me to give an answer to this question I should be obliged to them.


George James McIlraith: Don't abuse the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: What I am pointing out is this. The action taken in making provision for an extension to spread out the contracts was designed to prevent a complete breakdown in 1962. What has happened, however, has resulted in lay-offs about to take place, and according to the press they will be continuing. I can assure the hon. gentleman and the people of that area that the government is giving the fullest consideration to the matter and that the dislocations that have taken place so unfortunately-by reason of the lack of demand for uranium everywhere in the world and the tremendous stockpile in the United States-will be a matter of continuing and first consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I know I am not permitted to comment on the Prime Minister's observations at this time-I will do that later-but may I ask the Prime Minister whether he- and if he cannot do so, and I could understand why he could not-or the Minister of Trade and Commerce will visit Elliot Lake in order to get first-hand information about the dangers that threaten that community, as well as information about the possibilities of new development there?


John George Diefenbaker: I have visited Elliot
Lake, Mr. Speaker. If, after the minister returns from Washington and discussions have taken place between him and other
Inquiries of the Ministry members of the government, it is considered that a visit such as that to which reference has been made would be beneficial, I would certainly be the first to desire to make such a visit. I followed that course in western Canada and I will follow it again when I believe that, as a result of any such meeting or visit, circumstances can be improved to the benefit of the people of that area or of the country as a whole. That would be the course I would follow.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Perhaps the Prime Minister will answer it, since he has been answering the questions already, or the Minister of Labour. Can the Prime Minister say whether action will be taken at an early date to rescind regulations 172 and 173 under the Unemployment Insurance Act so that the $400 severance pay to each employee involved in these lay-offs may be paid to the employee and not considered as income, thereby depriving the employee of unemployment insurance? I ask that supplementary question on the basis of this being action that can be taken.


John George Diefenbaker: I think a similar question was asked recently of the Minister of Labour. This is a matter that comes particularly within his jurisdiction, and I think it is appropriate that he give such answer as is required.


Hon. Michael Sfarr (Minister of Labour):: In answer to the hon. member for Assiniboia I can only say that these regulations have been referred to the unemployment insurance advisory committee. Unfortunately the wife of the chairman passed away and he has been held up in that respect. A meeting is called for March 4.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a further supplementary question. Would the minister care to give consideration to having these regulations rescinded immediately, without waiting for this proposed meeting, since the regulations were placed in effect in the first instance without asking for the advice of the unemployment insurance advisory committee?


Michael Starr: My opinion is that the unemployment insurance advisory committee should have an opportunity of examining these regulations.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister says the meeting of the advisory committee will not take place until March 4, can the minister not take steps now-in spite of the unavoidable absence of the chairman-to see

Inquiries of the Ministry that the advisory committee meets forthwith and deals with this question in order to assist the unemployed in Elliot Lake?


Michael Starr: The chairman of the unemployment insurance advisory committee has himself set the date.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Labour not think that in a matter of this sort he has authority to make this suggestion to the advisory committee?


Michael Starr: I did so through the chairman of the advisory committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: March 4.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware of a news release in the February 12 issue of the Halifax Chronicle, in which it is reported that a total of 112 employees at the Point Edward naval base will be laid off? As this is a rather serious situation, would the minister like to comment on this report?


Mr. Chevrier:: Ask the Minister of Transport.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of a similar question from the hon. member for Assiniboia.
On November 9 last a frigate, H.M.C.S. Buckingham, entered Point Edward naval base for a $205,000 refit. This necessitated the hiring of a number of casual employees. Special authority was obtained to increase by
80,000	man hours the casual labour allocated to Point Edward naval base. As the refit nears completion the reduced work load necessitates a reduction in the number of casuals employed. I understand that 88 men are being laid off between now and the end of February. While the total refit will not be completed until the middle of May, the Buckingham will move to Sydney Engineering and Dry Dock Limited on April 15, 1960. Work on this ship will continue at the naval base until that date, but at a reduced rate. If an opportunity arises, additional work will be allocated to the Point Edward naval base.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence concerning the Point Edward naval base. He may take notice of this question and reply at a later time. Would the minister advise


whether the frigate New Waterford was scheduled for refit at the base following the completion of the Buckingham and whether this craft has since been diverted to another yard?


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall make inquiries about that, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Pending the possibility of new work orders being referred to the Point Edward naval base, would the minister give consideration to the request of the Glace Bay branch of the Canadian Legion that layoffs which are to take place in the next two weeks should be cancelled?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker. I have no authority to employ men where there is no work for them to do.



BEAUSEJOUR, MAN.  CIVILIAN PAY RATES AT U.S. AIR BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour, and ask if he would inform the house who recommends rates of pay for civilian employees at the United States air force base at Beausejour, Manitoba, and how those recommendations are arrived at.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the rates of pay at Beausejour, Manitoba, are set by the authorities of the base, but they are guided by schedules of rates put out by the industrial relations branch of the Department of Labour. The rates are arrived at as the result of a survey of rates prevailing in that area.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In establishing these civilian rates of pay, are they arranged at the request of United States air force personnel or officers?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we usually do it on the request of a governmental department. I do not know if the same procedure is followed in this case, but I shall be glad to inquire.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say what investigation is taking place into the very unfortunate accident on the Canadian National Railways north of lake Superior on Saturday, February 13?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I am advised that officials of both the board of transport commissioners and the Canadian National Railways are now conducting a thorough investigation into this unfortunate accident.



MONCTON, N.B. AND LONDON, ONT.    FURTHER STATEMENT ON LAY-OFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: On Friday last the hon. member for Assiniboia, in the course of an inquiry regarding lay-offs by the Canadian National Railways, asked the following supplementary question:
Will the minister check with the C.N.R. on the suggestion or the accusation made in this statement to the effect that the action that has been taken by the C.N.R. involves waste in neglecting maintenance work on the railway?
In answer may I say that I have been in touch with the management of the Canadian National, and they advise that the reductions which have been made are a part of the normal continuing process of adjusting the size of the work force to meet varying employment requirements. The management further advise that in the past 10 years a major rehabilitation of the C.N.R. plant and facilities has been accomplished, and that any suggestion to the effect that maintenance is being neglected is entirely without foundation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Did these lay-offs take place in conjunction with an order from the management to reduce the budget for these expenditures by 5 per cent?


George Harris Hees: I have passed on the answer which the management have given me.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since this question was raised earlier in debate, I wonder if the minister would make a further inquiry to see whether an order went out from the management to reduce expenditure by an arbitrary 5 per cent?


George Harris Hees: I will.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister indicate what recommendations the government proposes to make to the house in connection with the forthcoming discussion on capital punishment, in order to ensure that sufficient time will be
Inquiries of the Ministry allotted so that no decision will be taken without every member who desires to do so being able to state his position?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has no authority whatever, in so far as private members' days are concerned, to make suggestions to the house. I believe there have been discussions as between the house leader, who is not here today, the hon. gentleman opposite and a representative of the C.C.F. to the end that if the two opposition parties would agree, the debate on Thursday, if uncompleted, might go over until Monday, another private members' day, and thereby permit the fullest possible discussion. But beyond the suggestion of the house leader to that effect, the Prime Minister has no authority whatever, as the hon. gentleman would be the first to admit, to direct any alteration in so far as private members' days are concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister seen last night's statement of the business of the house, wherein it was indicated that in all probability Monday and Tuesday would be devoted to a supply motion?


John George Diefenbaker: I can only speak on the information I had as of yesterday morning, but my memory of the conversation I had with the Minister of Trade and Commerce is that he brought to the attention of the hon. gentleman and the representative of the C.C.F. the fact that, if they were agreeable, Monday might be an additional day so that the fullest possible discussion might take place. If it has not been brought to their attention I now bring it to their attention, and suggest that if they are desirous of having the fullest discussion, the house could unanimously agree on Thursday evening that if the debate has not concluded, that it go over to the next private members' day on Monday, to the end that following discussion-if the house so determines and only if the house so determines-a vote may take place.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Prime Minister said that the house leader, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, made the suggestion to representatives of the two opposition parties that Monday next might be used as an additional day to debate the bill having to do with capital punishment. Mr. Speaker, that suggestion was never made to me, although I have had rather lengthy conversations with the house leader on this subject. No such suggestion or proposal was made, however, in any way, shape or form.
1108	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
I think discussion amongst representatives of the three parties is the best way to handle this question. The Prime Minister said a few moments ago that he would not make any suggestion to the opposition parties, yet only one or two minutes later he said that if the house leader had not made this suggestion he would make it now. I think, rather than doing this by public discussion or public debate, we should return to the position the Prime Minister spoke of, where there have been conversations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think what the hon. member is saying is correct, that in the absence of agreement which would lead to unanimous consent we might better not discuss this matter in the house at any length.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Justice.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet. I had not concluded my question of privilege. I am entitled as a member of this house to complete my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question of privilege will he please raise it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is very clear. It is that the Prime Minister has made a statement that involved a representative of this group, and I was the person to whom he was referring. The Prime Minister said that the house leader had made a proposal or a suggestion to this group. My question of privilege is that no such suggestion was made to this group.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I think I should also say to the house in answer to what the Prime Minister said-and I shook my head when he put the question to me-that there was never any proposal put to me at any time by the house leader to the effect that the debate should be continued on Monday. On the contrary, what we were asked-and I say this in all deference to the house leader who is not here-was whether we wanted a two-day debate, and my answer was simply that it should be up to the government to tell us whether a vote was required, and the Prime Minister has answered my question in that respect.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider discussing with the house leader the possibility of making arrangements to move at the earliest possible moment the motion setting up a select committee to consider the policy, operations


and expenditures of the national research council, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, so the question of the future of the uranium industry, which is of such national importance, as well as one involving grave local emergencies, can be fully discussed at an early date.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the committee in question, if the house agrees, should be convened at the earliest possible date.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on February 10 the hon. member for Vancouver South asked me if I had received a communication from the national association of marine engineers requesting the Department of Justice to investigate S.I.U. activities. At that time I answered that no such communication had come to my attention.
I have since discovered that a telegram to that effect was received, and that it had been referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for comment. Nevertheless my answer remains the same as that given on February 10, which was to the effect that the responsibility for dealing with any alleged cases of attack or intimidation by S.I.U. elements in Vancouver is primarily that of the local law enforcement agency.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might also be permitted to answer a question by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, also asked on February 10. The hon. member asked me whether I could explain to the house why the search warrants authorized by the court on December 31, 1959, with regard to the Jacques Cartier bridge collectors were not acted upon by the R.C.M.P. before February 6, 1960.
After inquiry, I must reply to the hon. member that his information is incorrect. The first search warrants in this matter were issued on February 4. The majority of them, some 25, were executed the next day, February 5. The others were executed between February 6 and 9, and the delay in these latter cases was because of the fact that the persons mentioned in the warrants were not living at that time at their former residences.


Mr. J. P. Deschaielels (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister of Justice be kind enough to say on what date the informations for the search warrants were registered at the court house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information. It seems to me it is a matter of detail which perhaps is not entirely appropriate to be asked and answered on the orders of the day. If the hon. member wishes to put the question to me in a manner in which I can get the information and bring it in, I will be glad to do so.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the minister take notice of my question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. (Translation):



THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Eudes (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
During the program "Tribune libre" broadcast last evening at 10.30 over the French network, one of the C.B.C. guests, Mr. Raymond Barbeau, is reported to have cast serious reflections on the honour of members of the government and supreme court judges, when he said, in short, that supreme court judges are merely knavish politicians in the pay of the federal government.
Could the minister tell the house what action he will be taking in this matter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: shall take this question as notice, and answer it later.
(Text):



GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR BROADCASTING LICENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of National Revenue a question in his capacity as reporter for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Could the minister say whether the C.B.C. secures the approval of the government before making applications to the board of broadcast governors for a licence for a new broadcasting station?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry DEFENCE PRODUCTION



D.E.W. LINE  TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, or perhaps it concerns the Minister of Defence Production; I am not sure. In view of the fact that Canadian General Electric have been awarded a contract to instal new electronic equipment on the D.E.W. line in the eastern Arctic, is it the intention of the government to insist that such equipment be shipped through the Mont Joli airport?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Laurier, since Canadian General Electric have not received any contract for the installation of new electronic equipment on the D.E.W. line, consequently the question of transportation policy, which is of course primarily the concern of the Minister of Transport, does not in this case apply.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I
would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Now that the Conservative government plans to implement a Canadian coastguard, using existing ships in government departments for the protection of Canadian seamen and fishermen, will the minister tell the house when we may expect a new booklet to be distributed outlining this service for the guidance of our fishermen?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The first step toward improved marine search and rescue is being taken through the appointment of persons to fill positions for marine search and rescue co-ordinators which have been announced recently. The civil service commission is proceeding actively to select persons for these positions, but until they are appointed and have had a chance to get their work under way it is impossible to say what will be done in the way of publishing booklets or taking other action. It will, in fact, be the responsibility of these new officials to develop this program by whatever suitable means are available.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the minister whether consideration is being given to having this projected service apply on the inland waters of the

Inquiries of the Ministry great lakes system, just as the United States coastguard service operates in that country's inland waters.


George Harris Hees: Yes, that matter is under consideration.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works based on considerable current concern felt by some persons and companies in my constituency. Would the minister inform the house what responsibility the federal government bears for the protection of the rights of persons and companies who wish to continue to sail commercial and other craft in the pursuit of their business or pleasure without man-made hindrance on the navigable portion of the Columbia river in Canada, which has been used for these purposes for over 100 years?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that there is no substantial interference with navigation.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It was reported by radio news that Premier Barrette declared yesterday that the Quebec government is ready to share in the cost of building a new bridge between Ottawa and Hull if Ottawa would take the initiative. Is it the intention of the government to take immediate action in this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: I think I answered that question on a previous occasion. I believe the only difference between this question and the one asked previously is that the date of the radio broadcast is yesterday rather than the earlier occasion.


Alexis Pierre Caron: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether at the earlier date Premier Barrette had promised to share in the cost, as he did yesterday?


John George Diefenbaker: That is my recollection, and that a similar question was asked.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES UNIVERSITY GRANTS    INQUIRY AS TO ARRANGEMENT WITH QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Finance, or in his absence to the acting minister. In view of the meeting of the Minister of Finance with the premier of Quebec over the week end, may I ask whether an arrangement was made with respect to the university grants at present held by the conference of Canadian universities and the capital grants available through the Canada Council?


George Clyde Nowlan: I will take notice of this question and draw it to the attention of the minister concerned on his return.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with reference to the recent deportation of Dr. Chung Wook Kim, a native of Korea serving as an intern in the Vancouver general hospital. Can the minister give any further information on this case, with particular reference to whether this man may qualify for admission in accordance with Canada's participation in this year's world refugee program?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The gentleman in question applied for admission at Vancouver in the early part of this month. He was examined there, and the X-rays proved that he was suffering from tuberculosis. In view of the fact that he was applying for admission to serve as an intern at the Vancouver general hospital, he had been examined earlier in Seoul. Those X-rays received had been found by the Department of National Health and Welfare to show nothing wrong. However, upon this applicant's re-examination it was the opinion of the medical officer that the X-rays of someone else had been substituted for his at the time of his examination. Consequently Dr. Kim was not admissible and was returned to Korea.
With reference to the second part of the question, may I say that this applicant cannot fall within the provisions made for world refugee year because he is in no sense a refugee, and therefore could not be considered under the program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not interrupt the hon. lady while she was replying, but I should like to raise a point of order; not, I hope, a very controversial one. It was ruled by your predecessor, sir, when questions of this sort were first asked that it was improper for questions about individual cases, giving a lot of details about people's private lives, to be asked and answered in this house. If that policy is to be reversed I think it should be the understood policy of the house and not done in a specific case only.


Mr. Speaker:: On the point of order which the hon. member has raised, there are from time to time immigration cases which attain a publicity and importance which seems to give them an urgency which would warrant their discussion here, and it is difficult for me to determine in advance whether or not any particular case is of that kind.
I think it is inappropriate to deal with individual cases, and the history of immigrants, on the floor of the house during question time when no issue of general importance is raised. It is much better that they should be dealt with privately, either directly in consultation wi-th the department or, if necessary, by means of the order paper.


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to the doctor who was deported to Korea. Apparently on X-ray-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member doubtless heard the point of order which was raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate about this particular question. I intimated that I felt it was a dubious question and, if so, a supplementary would not be in order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister any information he can give the house following his meetings with General Norstad?


George Randolph Pearkes: At the December meeting of the ministerial council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization it was agreed that the supreme allied commander in Europe would review with each defence minister and his principal military advisers the manner and
Inquiries of the Ministry extent to which the military commitments of each NATO country had been fulfilled.
In accordance with this agreement I left for Paris on Friday last, accompanied by General Foulkes, chairman of the chiefs of staff committee. We met the supreme allied commander, General Norstad, and his principal staff officers on Saturday and heard his report. It was shown that Canada has lived up to her agreed commitments. Subsequently various problems regarding equipment, administration and logistic support of the Canadian forces in Europe were discussed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether there was any discussion as to the advisability or otherwise of continuing with the CF-104 project?


George Randolph Pearkes: The CF-104 program is proceeding. The supreme allied commander is very pleased with the decision this government took to replace the F-86's with that aircraft.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay West has a supplementary question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house why his flitting to Paris was veiled in such secrecy by the refusal of his officials or anyone else to give out information on this subject? This kept us all in a state of suspense.


George Randolph Pearkes: I did not think it was necessary for me to obtain permission from the hon. member in order to attend any particular conference. This meeting had been arranged for many weeks in advance.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us whether he had the opportunity to discuss with officials of the French government the continuing use of air bases in that country when the F-104 with its atomic armament is available for squadron service?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker, my time was spent at SHAPE.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. Why was his visit veiled in such secrecy, which was considered very unusual?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I took a normal routine flight over to Paris on the rotational work of the troops which are overseas. There was no secrecy so far as I know.

Inquiries of the Ministry TELEVISION



STATEMENT ON COVERAGE FOR OLYMPIC HOCKEY GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the other day the Leader of the Opposition asked me to take up with the C.B.C. the possibility of televising in whole or in part the games at the Olympic winter sports in which the Canadian hockey team will take part. He properly intimated that there was a contractual situation that presented difficulties.
I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the Columbia Broadcasting System has obtained exclusive North American rights for television coverage of the winter Olympics at Squaw valley. Following lengthy negotiations with the Columbia Broadcasting System the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has obtained a 15-minute C.B.S. package which will be shown during the evenings of February 19 and February 22 to February 26. Negotiations for additional coverage are still being conducted with C.B.S.
The C.B.C. has made arrangements to carry the Canada-Russia hockey game live on the trans-Canada radio network on Sunday, February 28.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether the government has received any request from the government of Manitoba for permission to make public the correspondence with that government regarding the proposed flood control measures in the Red river valley and, if so, whether permission has been given?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, notice of which has been given him. Is there any possibility that the lakehead will receive any winter employment from the contract let for developing the lakehead terminal?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has changed the form of his question, but the answer is that we are considering the necessary legal steps leading to the cancellation of the contract to which my hon. friend refers, after which the contract will be given elsewhere.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Green:
That items numbered 75 to 106 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1960-1961, 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.
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest and attention to the speeches that were made in this debate on foreign affairs on Wednesday and Thursday last. I paid particular attention to the speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) for whom I share with all hon. members of this house, I am sure, a great and profound respect and esteem. I have great admiration for the hon. gentleman because of his sincerity and conscientiousness and the selfless devotion to the public service of Canada he has displayed over such a long period of time.
Because I know the minister to be a very objective man in his outlook, I feel sure he will not expect me to say things that I do not mean, nor do I feel that he will ask me to refrain from saying those things that I do mean. With all due respect to the minister, I cannot honestly follow the example of the members of the C.C.F. party who, in their opening remarks the other day, congratulated the minister on what they considered to be the greatest contribution ever made in a debate on external affairs and then proceeded to hack away mercilessly at the minister's very harmless speech which was but a series of self-evident truths and universally accepted objectives not intended in any way to give the house any indication of what the government had in mind or what plans it may have to make these objectives a reality.
What is the value of the choicest congratulatory words if they are to be followed by invective and insults such as were indulged in by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) the other day when he shouted across to the minister to take the blinkers

not off his eyes but off his mind and then proceeded to accuse him of not having the intestinal fortitude to live up to his words? It is not difficult to see through the tactics that have been employed by the C.C.F. for some time now of playing both ends against the middle in a frantic and desperate effort to keep its rapidly fading face from disappearing completely from Canada's political picture in the future.


Harold Edward Winch: Let us hear what you have
to say.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: May I tell the hon. member
that for a long time I personally have felt that in the house and throughout the country we have need of socialism in Canada about as much as we have need of a dodo bird with red eyes as our national mascot. In his speech the other day, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) invited members to make this a free-swinging debate in which members would speak more or less off the cuff. This may sound like a worth-while and fascinating idea, and no doubt the speeches would be more interesting to listen to.


Harold Edward Winch: You are reading your speech
very well off the cuff.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: But I do not think that speaking off the cuff is such a good idea when we are discussing external affairs and the usually very delicate and complicated matters that are associated with foreign affairs. We have had in the house many examples of off the cuff statements that have been made by ministers of the crown, statements which cannot be classified as having achieved a howling success.
For instance, just recently an off the cuff television statement was made by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) in which he claimed that our defence expenditures were determined by NATO. That was not the type of statement to help Canadians to understand the already complicated and important problem of national defence. Then there was the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) off-the-cuff statement of a few years ago when he claimed that he was going to divert 15 per cent of Canada's trade from the United States to the United Kingdom. The result was that Canada was made to look a little silly and, indeed, very inexperienced.
Hon. members will recall that as a result of this off the cuff statement of the Prime Minister the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Thorneycroft, at the trade conference held at Mont Tremblant in 1957 offered to
External Affairs
remove the restrictions and tariffs on Canadian goods if Canada would do the same thing for British goods. This, of course, was nothing less than the establishment of a free trade area between Canada and the United Kingdom. This offer shocked the usually loquacious Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) into a state of complete silence, and this is no easy task for anyone to accomplish. In the Financial Post of October 12, 1957, we read the following:
The unfortunate fact is that the Mont Tremblant conference between Canadian and British officials was a great flop.
And further:
Ottawa observers of the affair are also convinced that the new Canadian cabinet hasn't yet got its working methods organized, that cabinet members are inadequately informed on the Prime Minister's views and on each other's.
May I interject that in the last three years there does not seem to have been any change whatsoever in that particular situation. I continue:
One Briton said:-
Not a member of the opposition.
-"before the meeting Canadians talked a lot about commonwealth trade, but at the conference they apparently were not prepared to face up to doing anything important about it."
I have given two examples of off the cuff statements made by ministers which were far from being successful. May Canada be preserved from any more off the cuff statements by the Prime Minister or any other minister of the crown. Although the Secretary of State for External Affairs invited members to speak off the cuff and make the debate free-swinging, his own speech was neither off the cuff nor free-swinging. As a matter of fact the minister's speech was a carefully planned and calculated speech, made as colourless, as neutral and as non-controversial as possible. The subject matter of his speech can be found in any elementary brochure on the activities of the Department of External Affairs or in any handbook of NATO or the United Nations.
I do not blame the minister for making that sort of speech because he has only been minister of the department for a relatively short time. It is a department very different in scope and in form from what the minister has been accustomed to in the past, and I feel that the minister was very wise indeed, as he usually is, in making the type of speech that he did make and not speaking off the cuff as he pretended to. But what I do deplore, and in this regard I feel genuinely and sincerely sorry for the hon. gentleman, is that he was subjected to an unjustifiable, uncalled for and unpardonable repudiation by the Prime Minister. Hon. members will

External Affairs
recall that the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his statement on the disarmament question felt that he could not give the house any indication of what Canada's stand might be as to proposals for disarmament. As a matter of fact, as found on page 932 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
Canada is putting forward her proposals which I am not at liberty to disclose as yet.
Throughout the debate it was quite obvious that the minister was very reluctant to give the house any advance notice of what Canada's proposals would be to the disarmament committee. As found on page 960 of Hansard, while the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was speaking, the minister said:
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.
Further on in the speech of the hon. member for Essex East the minister asked this question:
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 ten nations of the disarmament committee should rush out with ten statements about what they thought should be done to bring about disarmament.
The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) also made a very forceful statement in which he expressed firm disapproval of having Canada show her hand before the disarmament committee meetings took place. On page 966 of Hansard the hon. member for Calgary South is reported as saying:
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.
Later, in the same debate, on page 969 of Hansard the hon. member for Calgary South is reported as saying:
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.
Notwithstanding these very firm policy statements by both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member for Calgary South, the Prime Minister, without

one word of explanation to the house, without one word of apology to either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the hon. member for Calgary South, proceeded to give to the house a summary of his government's thinking on proposals that might usefully be made to the disarmament committee next month. In doing this, not only did the Prime Minister repudiate the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member for Calgary South but the Prime Minister actually repudiated his own words, words which he had spoken at the beginning of the debate. On page 989 of Hansard, the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
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 a competition.
I submit that there has been a complete repudiation, not only of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member for Calgary South, but also of the Prime Minister himself.
Nor am I arguing that the house should not have been made aware of the proposals the government might want to make at the disarmament committee. On the contrary they were asked for, and rightly so, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and by the hon. member for Essex East. What I am arguing is that the cabinet should have decided right from the start to let the house know the nature of these proposals. I am arguing also that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should have been the one to give these proposals to the house at the beginning of the debate so that members like the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East, who have had experience in the matter and who have had considerable success in dealing with disarmament questions, might have had an opportunity of discussing the proposals to make their points of view known or offering suggestions as to how best we might obtain world disarmament.
May I say also, that I strongly suspect the proposals that were put forward by the Prime Minister the other day were off the cuff. I believe the Prime Minister conceived, hatched and scrambled another egg without having the benefit of cabinet consultation, and without giving to this matter the type of serious consideration that should have been given to it in the cabinet and in this house. I am sure hon. members will recall that up until very recent years Canadians took justifiable pride in the fact that in the field of foreign affairs parliament presented a united front; that Canada's

foreign policy was usually unanimously endorsed and accepted after frank, useful and constructive debate on international and foreign affairs. We have a right to ask now whether the government has reached a degree of political partisanship, even in this field, to the extent that it does not intend listening to one of Canada's most experienced and most knowledgeable men in the field of disarmament merely because he happens to be the Leader of the Opposition.
Does the Prime Minister think he is being objective and is acting in the best interests of Canada by utilizing an ingenious, I will admit, but insidious method of choking off useful debate? I refer to the method of bringing in the real substance of the matter under discussion after the Leader of the Opposition and the official opposition spokesman have taken part in the debate and, therefore, cannot speak again. It is not the first time that the Prime Minister has resorted to this method since the beginning of this session. We have a right to ask, what is the value of the words the Prime Minister uses when he speaks of the rights of parliament when in his actions he only undermines the dignity of parliament and the rights of members but actually destroys the possibility of free and useful debate in this house. After all, that is the fundamental purpose of parliament itself.
Is this what the Prime Minister means when he says he wants to restore parliament to something of its former greatness? What value can we put on words such as the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown have spoken, as reported in the Gazette of February 8, and I quote:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker tilted eloquently at the Liberals Saturday night, replying in scathing terms to what he said was their "new policy" of personal attacks on his government.
He also suggested his administration has been deliberately obstructed in its attempts to "restore parliament to something of its former greatness".
How, may I ask, could anybody have the nerve to make such a statement in view of what we have seen here within these last couple of days? How could an opposition group of some 50 members obstruct a government of some 208 members? I quote from the same article:
"We are having a lot of trouble in that direction," he told a banquet in his honour given by the Progressive Conservative national student federation.
Later, the Minister of Finance, in a review of the government's record, referred to restoring parliament to its full stature.


Mr. Nesbitt:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; what has this got to do with external affairs?
External Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, may I say that it seems to me it has everything to do with the debate on external affairs because the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, decided to adopt a particular course of action which precluded the hon. member for Essex East and others from commenting on these proposals. The hon. member is pointing out the hollow hypocrisy of a tactic of that kind.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it what the hon. member is doing is commenting on the course of the debate to this point, is he not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I can intervene in that.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Statements such as the one I have quoted, when viewed in retrospect, when viewed in the light of what we have seen in the course of this debate, are not only empty and meaningless but are even hypocritical. I do not know of any instance in the history of this parliament when as much contempt has been shown for parliamentary traditions as is implied in this method used by the Prime Minister in this debate, in the throne speech debate and on other occasions.
Nor is it the first time, Mr. Speaker, incredible as it may seem, during the short time in which the Prime Minister has been in office that he has publicly and openly repudiated his Secretary of State for External Affairs. Hon. members will recall that the predecessor of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, very shortly after his nomination to that very important office, was also repudiated by the Prime Minister for having dared to make a statement to the press that he felt that Canada had taken the proper position in dealing with the Suez crisis.
Hon. members will also know that since that time the opinion of the late Hon. Sidney Smith has been confirmed by no one other than Sir Anthony Eden who was prime minister at the time of the Suez crisis and who asserted that Canada's position was a very balanced one.
No doubt the Prime Minister will accuse me of making a personal attack against him as he asserted the members of the opposition were wont to do in his speech to the Conservative student convention. Mr. Speaker, are the members of the opposition to sit silently in the house and approve and applaud the Prime Minister's unpardonable blunders such as those we have witnessed in this very debate and in the past two years? When the Prime Minister speaks of making personal attacks, I defy the Prime Minister or anybody on the government side of the house to find in the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition anything than can be remotely compared

External Affairs
with and indeed as small as the Prime Minister's opening words in this debate, to be found at page 987 of Hansard from which I quote:
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.
This type of stuff-stuff, not words-which appears much too frequently under the Prime Minister's name in Hansard is completely unworthy of the Prime Minister of Canada and is well below his intellectual capacity. If it is not frustration, then it is fear and uncertainty that forces the Prime Minister to utter nonsense such as this and which has as much value as have the other off the cuff statements which the Prime Minister has been known to make in the past two or three years.
Then the Prime Minister has accused the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the opposition of having weakened confidence in Canada and having jeopardized Canada's prestige abroad. Does the Prime Minister really think that Canadians can have confidence when they are made to see not, only that there is no cabinet solidarity in the government but that one of the most conscientious, sincere and hard-working ministers of the crown is needlessly repudiated and unjustifiably humiliated? Does the Prime Minister think he is helping the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Mr. Green:: I do not feel very humiliated.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I can understand the minister and I will not make any comment. But does the Prime Minister really think that, by repudiating him, he is helping his colleague in any way to maintain the prestige and the authority necessary to make a contribution to the fullest extent of the minister's ability in a collective effort to achieve an efficient disarmament program and to work toward world peace? Does the Prime Minister believe that the nations of the world will be in a position to rely on Canada's policies when, because of the Prime Minister's actions, they can justifiably feel that in fact Canada has two opposing voices when it deals with international problems?
Of course, it is these inexplicable blunders which really undermine confidence in Canada and jeopardize Canada's prestige abroad.

Surely the Prime Minister cannot but recognize that he alone is responsible for that situation. Surely he cannot accuse us of making a personal attack against him and of undermining confidence in Canada abroad because we are pointing out to the country and to this house things that are selfevident.
There has been a great change in the attitude of the government over the past three years, and not for the better. Shadows are now being taken for substance, expedients are taken for experience and political propaganda reigns supreme, with the result that there has been a marked deterioration of the dignity and decorum that was traditionally known in this house. I may tell the Prime Minister that at times recently I have distinctly felt that I was sitting in the legislature of the province of Quebec under a Union Nationale government. Just as in this session we have had two throne speeches, a dull and empty one and a spectacular one given by the Prime Minister, with all the accompanying publicity and fanfare, after the Leader of the Opposition had spoken. So in this debate we have had two statements on foreign affairs, one a dull and empty one given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and then a spectacular one, with all the accompanying publicity and fanfare, given by the Prime Minister after the Leader of the Opposition had spoken and after the opposition spokesman on external affairs had spoken. Mr. Speaker, the question I should like to ask of the government is very simple and it is this: Why?


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it is hardly worth my while to make any reference to the address we have just heard. The hon. member has lectured the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the question of whom he should consult. He has lectured him as to how he should consult his cabinet and should consult that great expert the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). In the course of my address I hope to make reference to some of the wonderful blasts made by this so-called expert. The hon. member apparently is grooming himself for the next election. His address had no relationship whatsoever to our external affairs. He likewise lectured the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). I wish to assure the hon. member and other hon. members of this house that Canada is concerned not with these silly political blasts but with her status in the world and with the question of where we stand today.
I know that we in this house have been interested in this debate, but interest in it has not been confined to us. I think all Canadians

throughout the length and breadth of this country have followed with interest the two days debate we have had in this house. On this occasion I should like to voice a word of thanks to the Prime Minister for having suggested that this debate be extended to include today. I should also like to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs on his concise, clear state of the nation address which he gave in opening this debate. It did not contain technical detail or terms, but was presented in such a manner that any average Canadian could understand.
Some people in this house, and outside too, claim that they are experts on external affairs. Some are. Some pretend to be experts. But I think most of us are just common Joe's who have ordinary common sense, and I think most Canadians are in that category. I think Canadians are a most enlightened race. They are watching today everything said inside and outside this house. They watch with critical interest everything their government does. They praise it, they censure it and they question it.
Permit me to spell out some of the feelings and opinions of the average Canadian, whether he comes from original stock or whether he emigrated to this country from some other land. I feel both have the same feeling for Canada, the same loyalty for Canada and the same interest in the independence and sovereignty of Canada.
We Canadians have a great deal to be disturbed about, but we have also a great deal to be proud and happy about. We are a sovereign state and are very jealous of our sovereignty and independence. We are becoming a proud race, probably too proud. We are proud of our heritage and proud of our diversified racial origin. We are proud of the words contained in the speech from the throne, that "our attachment to the crown is a great unifying force." We are proud of our status in the British commonwealth of nations. We are proud of our standing in NATO. We are proud of our prestige in the United Nations.
The reasons for our prestige in the world and in the United Nations were concisely summarized by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) when he addressed the Vancouver board of trade on January 4, 1960. He gave three reasons and I would like to quote them:
1.	No one fears us because we have no territorial ambitions.
That is why people trust us.
2.	No one harbours resentment towards us since we never held sovereign control of an alien people.
External Affairs
We have never coveted other people's lands.
3.	No one suspects us of coveting his natural resources as we are known to have plenty of our own.
Is there any other nation on earth that can boast these qualifications? The Secretary of State for External Affairs in his modesty omitted to say that our prestige in the United Nations is in some measure due to his statesmanlike leadership which he gave to the Canadian delegation. We saw this man in action. He made friends for Canada, and although he did not go around with a chip on his shoulder, he said that, "nobody was going to twist our arm." He did not hesitate to take the initiative when it was necessary, and Canada's good name stood out at the forefront of the policies which were debated in the United Nations.
I would be unfair if I omitted to mention the wonderful and capable leadership given to our delegation at the United Nations assembly by the minister's secretary, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). He was our guiding light. The manner in which he carried on public relations with other races, whether they were black, yellow or white, was a treat to see, and we are as proud of him as we are of our minister.
Until recent years Canadians were very thankful for their geographical position. To the south of us our good neighbour did not covet our land or our wealth and all along the thousands of miles of our boundary never a shot was fired, never an armed soldier appeared nor a fortress built. We felt perfectly safe. To the north we likewise felt that our sovereignty extended to the north pole, but this is being questioned today. We felt that the land of ice and snow was sufficient protection against any foe. Who would covet, and if he dared, who would survive the land of ice and snow? This happy state of mind was with us until a few years ago, until man became or tried to become master of outer space, and all of us now found ourselves in danger. We found we were not as safe from the north as we thought we were.
Before I proceed may I be permitted to go back into recent history just for a few moments. During the last 50 years humanity has fought two world wars. During that same period of time humanity has made two efforts to outlaw war, has made two efforts to establish some agency that would settle differences between peoples by collective means. As hon. members know, the league of nations was the first effort. The league of nations tried to outlaw war. It redrew the map of Europe. It settled boundary disputes. Democracy felt it was safe; peace was going to reign for ever.

External Affairs
Two ideologies, however, were growing up in Europe, both as far apart as the north pole from the south pole. One was national socialism, which we called nazism, and the other, the dictatorship of the proletariat, or in common language communism. These two ideologies were born and grew up after the first world war, and had nothing in common. At least, they did have this in common: they hated democracy. They had a thirst for world conquest, and both believed in totalitarianism, or rule by dictatorship.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what happened? Those two ideologies, those two forces, could not exist or live side by side without a conflict springing up sooner or later. In particular, that thirst for world domination by nazism threw the world into the second world war. Hitler and Mussolini rang the death knell of the league of nations, and thus the first effort by humanity to outlaw war and to settle differences between nations by means of negotiation, some form of collective bargaining, ended.
What happened in the second world war? Democracy destroyed nazism but thereby saved communism. It saved that totalitarian ideology which since the end of the second world war has been a direct threat to our very existence.
In 1945, as everyone knows, the second world war ended. The heads of state met in San Francisco and the United Nations came into being. The United Nations set out certain principles for the maintenance of international peace, to develop friendly relations between nations and to achieve international co-operation. What lofty ideals. The western democracies thought that peace was within their grasp at last. But lo and behold, communism, like a prairie fire, spread over eastern and central Europe, and on to western Europe to over 100 miles west of Berlin. Peoples who had gained their freedom after the first world war lost their independence. Democracy was burned at the stake. Christian culture and civilization was destroyed by this flood which threatened to inundate the whole of western Europe.
Less than four years after the end of the last war, NATO was bom. Red propaganda accuses us of organizing NATO for aggressive purposes. We all know that NATO was a defensive alliance of 15 nations which had banded together to stop this onslaught, to stop this ungodly advance of dictatorship. What have we seen since? NATO has checked that advance. NATO has proved a sufficient deterrent to further aggression against western democracy.
Our defence budgets went up. We had to re-arm, although we had demobilized our

forces after the second world war. The result is that we have experienced what is termed the cold war; just as dangerous, just as expensive and just as frustrating.
After NATO was organized-and Canada contributed her full share in support of that organization-we found there was a gap in the north where danger lurked because of man's conquest of space. We found we were defenseless in that particular region. We felt that danger, and so did the United States, and the two countries decided that they must do something about it and do it in a hurry. Therefore defences were planned and the D.E.W. line was built. Mistakes were made, but both of us decided to share in this defence project together. We cannot state the matter more frankly than did the Prime Minister when he spoke in the commencement exercises at Michigan State University on June 10. Here are his exact words:
Canada by herself cannot provide adequate defence in a modern war. Each is needed to the other. Indeed the U.S.A. strong and powerful and carrying a mandate to all parts of the world, the hope of freedom to mankind, cannot on the North American continent defend itself effectively without Canadian co-operation and without defence facilities on Canadian territories.
The Prime Minister went on to say further:
Close relationship, geographicallly, socially and ideologically makes it natural that we join together, for each of us has a common heritage of freedom and common aspirations for peace.
There is no need to fool ourselves. Even a child of school age knows that the United States can afford to equip her forces with a great variety of weapons to meet a diversified attack, while Canada cannot hope to be able to afford the fantastic cost of modern weapons. Air defence weapons, particularly, are very expensive. On the other hand, the United States can afford to carry out expensive tests and experiments. We cannot afford that luxury.
After 15 years of the cold war Canada, like the rest of the world, has grown tired of fighting this war, tired of the uncertainty, tired of the threats of war. That is not the state of the world which the fathers of the United Nations charter had envisaged when they met in San Francisco in 1945. So when Mr. Khrushchev made his peace proposal in the latter part of 1959 it was met with great interest by the whole world. Reactions were varied. Responses were varied. But that word "peace" sounded sweet to our ears even though it came from a man who, like his predecessor, had held the world in a state of jitters for years, a man whose name caused shivers in the spines of every free man. A few people found it hard to believe, and a few are still doubtful about the sincerity of those offers of peace. More surprising is

that the offers of peace came from a nation which at the same time boasts about possessing the most destructive weapons in the world, and boasts that it will bury us. If it were not for the past record of this man, overtures such as his would have been most welcome, but due to his past record they are met with some reserve. I think the democratic leader of the United States senate described the gesture very appropriately. Here are his exact words. He said:
[DOT]-the hand that holds out the olive branch and at the same time tries to hit us over the head.
Mr. Khrushchev offers us an alternative. What is that alternative? It is war. Why, our wounds have not yet healed from the first world war, much less from the second. Hence, we cannot pass up this opportunity of obtaining peace, even though at gunpoint, and this conviction led our minister of external affairs to say as quoted on page 45 of Hansard of January 18, 1960:
There is no inconsistency between the maintenance of a high degree of military preparedness and Canada's strong desire to reach an acceptable disarmament agreeable with the Soviet bloc.
We do not want war. Nobody wants war. But at the same time the minister says, and I quote:
The west must not let its guard down.
Some people may take this-as we have the legal term obiter dictum-as just something said in passing. I take it as a warning. We must not let our guard down, and I think the average Canadian who is not concerned with technical terms or higher diplomacy understands very well that we must remain armed and strong as long as the other side is armed and strong. There cannot be unilateral disarmament and I think this was clearly indicated in the speech which the minister made. Why charge that there is no policy or aim? Why a child could understand that and it is not understood only by those who do not want to understand it. In the speech from the throne we find these words:
Canada will strive for peace founded on understanding and tolerance.
Those are our terms but time does not permit me to develop this theme. I have not sufficient time at my disposal to analyse our policies and aims, but those are our terms for peace.
We have the right to ask comrade Khrushchev what are his terms. I believe we have the right to discuss them now and ask what are his motives. He is not suing for peace because of weakness. Could not one motive be to destroy the NATO alliance? His peace offensive has shaken the alliance to its very foundations. The NATO alliance has proved an impregnable barrier to the further
External Affairs
expansion of the communist totalitarian empire and has served to check communist invasion of western Europe.
Might not another motive be to secure our counter-signature to the death warrant which he and' the likes of him signed with respect to the captive nations and those whose hope of freedom we have kept alive? He would like our counter-signature.
Might not another motive be to secure free admission into our countries for his ideology which has as its avowed aim the destruction of democracy? Might not another motive be to flood our markets with slave labour products at prices with which we cannot compete? Is it not because of the failure to find ready answers to these questions that our Secretary of State for External Affairs has been led to warn us not to let our guard down? These matters disturb the Canadian people. They disturb the average Canadian to whom the freedom and sovereignty of his country are very dear.
Another phenomenon that disturbs Canadians is this endless malicious political backbiting carried on by some hon. members of this house. This campaign of what I call political backbiting takes the theme that our sovereignty is threatened. By whom? Of all the people in this world, by the people of the United States. That country has never violated our territorial boundaries in almost 150 years. Further it is said that we are becoming an appendage of our neighbour to the south.
I have not sufficient time to read the contents of the various newspaper clippings which I hold in my hand but I could briefly refer to the headlines which will give a good indication of what is carried in these articles that have appeared in the press. I believe our press reporters are pretty objective. I believe they try to report what they hear. An article carried in the Montreal Gazette of November 17, 1959, bears this headline:
Pearson Hits U.S. Control of Nuclear Weapons Here.
How does this campaign affect us and the United States? I invite hon. members to consider that. Another article taken from the Montreal Gazette of November 17, 1959, carries this headline:
Pearson Fears NATO Troubles in 5 Years.
Comrade Khrushchev would like that. I believe this campaign is causing trouble in NATO right now. Another article taken from the Ottawa Citizen of November 24, 1959, was entitled:
Tories Not Standing Up to U.S., Pearson Claims.

External Affairs
The Telegraph-Journal of Saint John, New Brunswick, carried an article in the November 23, 1959 issue entitled':
Pearson Hits P.C. Policy, Record.
Another taken from the Toronto Star of November 20, 1959, bore the title:
Pearson Raps Dief on U.S. "Domination".
Apparently "domination" is a terrible word. It is claimed that the United States is dominating us. We are losing our sovereignty and becoming an appendage of that country. Another article taken from the Halifax Chronicle of November 20, 1959, bore the headline:
Pearson Opposed to Weapons in Canada.
1 invite hon. gentlemen to consider what these headlines and speeches accomplish. These headlines may please the vanity of the Leader of the Opposition and may please the vanity of his supporters; they may even foster in hon. gentlemen opposite the hope that they will some day sit on this side of the house; but what effect do they have on us poor Canadians at home? What effect do they have on the average Canadian? It is my belief that such propaganda destroys the confidence of the Canadian people in themselves. What would an average Canadian think when he hears or reads words like these:	"Pearson Opposed to Weapons in
Canada" or "Pearson Raps Dief on U.S. 'Domination' "? Does not the average Canadian become suspicious that the United States is trying to dominate us, that our sovereignty is endangered and that we are becoming nothing but an appendage of the United States? I invite hon. members to consider the impression this campaign makes on the average Canadian.
Second, I believe the effect of such propaganda is to destroy the confidence of the Canadian people in the only ally that can defend this country in the event of an emergency. The only country today that could serve to protect the sovereignty and independence of Canada is the United States of America and I challenge anyone to take issue with that statement.
Let us consider what effect headlines like these has on the United States. I remind hon. gentlemen that that country has poured millions of dollars into the defence of our north. It is true that the money was expended for the defence of that country as well but we also benefit. What effect does it have on them? Do hon. gentlemen not think it would have the effect of shaking and weakening any feeling of confidence and friendship they have in us as an ally? Do hon. gentlemen not think it would disturb the people of the United States?

We must also consider the effect that this sort of bosh has on our opponents. I refer, of course, to comrade Khrushchev. I remind hon. gentlemen that this kind of thing is reported to him and, of course, the communists read everything of this nature. I suggest that comrade Khrushchev must rub his hands with glee and pleasure as he concludes that Canadians are divided and that there is no feeling of unity in Canada. He must be delighted at the thought that those poor Canadian jokers are fighting among themselves as to who owns the weapons and who will push the button or pull the trigger in event of attack. I suggest that headlines of this nature create the impression among our opponents that we are a weak nation ready to fall apart and that all is not well with us. It must also give an indication to our NATO allies that all is not well in Canada.
I have great respect for the Leader of the Opposition. He is a distinguished politician and an able and educated man. But with all due respect to that hon. gentleman I would point out that statements like this are irresponsible. If the press has twisted them to suit themselves the Leader of the Opposition should challenge the press but if he stands behind those statements I think he must accept the fact that they are irresponsible and disturbing to both Canadians and their allies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 5 o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 15, to interrupt these proceedings and proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.


Howard Charles Green: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the leaders of the other two parties have agreed that this debate should continue from 5 to 6 o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the unanimous wish of the house to waive the hour which is normally provided at this time for the consideration of public and private bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Thank you. I have only a few more remarks to make before concluding my address. I submit that in these times of stress and danger Canada expects statesmanship and guidance from responsible leaders or those who claim leadership. It expects some unity in matters such as external affairs and those that preach unity are sometimes the ones who disturb it as did the previous speaker. At any peace conference we cannot negotiate from weakness while our opponents negotiate from strength.
These last few observations are submitted to show what I feel the average Canadian is distressed about, and I suggest that it is the duty of those who aspire to leadership or

who are leaders to weigh their words carefully in their minds before blasting away at their political opponents.
I have been frank, Mr. Speaker. If I have in any way disturbed the good and kind spirit that was born at Camp David I am doing no more and as a matter of fact a lot less, because I am only a minor figure on the Canadian scene, than Mr. Khrushchev did in New Delhi the other day when he said that the United States is just an old horse ready to fall at any time. I have his exact words but I do not want to take the time to read them. I hope that someone in the world will tell him that the old horse has plenty of kick in its feet yet and that he should watch out.
I should like to see peace in the world, peace with justice, peace with tolerance, as indicated in the speech from the throne. 1 am happy about the warning given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the west cannot let its guard down. I appeal to all members that Canadian sovereignty and independence should be everything as far as we are concerned. To me, Mr. Speaker, it means all. Canadian sovereignty means more to me than whether I sit on this side of the house or the other side or whether I sit in this house at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we listened with a great deal of interest to the introductory speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). One could not but be impressed by the great reception he was given when he rose to introduce this debate. Those of us who have known the hon. gentleman for many years, as has been my pleasure, recognize his forthrightness, his tenacity and his conception of fair play. At the United Nations and in the work he has been doing on behalf of all Canadians we feel, within the context of the policy of the government, that our foreign affairs are in good hands.
So it is in that spirit and setting that we approach the discussion of those great international issues that day by day are deciding the course of human history and the peace of the world. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) with great care, and while he gave the house the benefit of his many years of experience in this field, unequalled by any other member of the house,
I felt that he was unable or unwilling to set forth alternative policies to those being advanced by the government. So his criticism became one of modified emphasis, a criticism of detail and a very cautious approach to some suggestions as to minor changes. In the hope that I will not be misunderstood may I refer to the words of the Leader of the Opposition as recorded on page 976 of Hansard:
External Affairs
After the 21 or perhaps 3 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 take it that that must mean that the official opposition and the government are very much in agreement on the whole question of Canada's position with respect to foreign affairs. I listened to nearly all the speeches delivered in this debate and I say believing it to be true, even though I suppose I would listen with perhaps some prejudice, that I think the speech delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) was one of the outstanding speeches made so far in the present session of the House of Commons. It was clear, it was forthright and it emphasized very definite differences in policy between our position and that of the government opposite.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs was in a difficult position because, as subsequent events have shown, he was not able to enunciate Canada's policy with respect to disarmament. Therefore he gave the house the benefit of a very pleasant description of Canada's amicable relations with many nations and all parts of the world. As a matter of fact, the minister said that Canada has only friends in the field of international affairs. Soothing as his speech was, reassuring as it might be to many people, I was disturbed that it did not mention some of the great challenges that face our society today. I think that many difficulties in the field of external affairs flow from economic differences at home, that one of the best ways to decide some of the things it is necessary to do in the field of external affairs is to examine the economic policies of the nations with whom we are in this kind of competition.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said yesterday outside the house, and I wish it would be said more in the house, that we are faced with an economic challenge. Production within the Soviet union is going ahead at a fabulous rate. Authorities in this field point out that their rate of production and increase in production exceed that of the west. What is our answer to this economic challenge? We know that we are experiencing difficulty in the field of international trade. Some of our main export industries are finding difficulty in obtaining and holding markets, and yet in the field of trade the Soviet union is making a great offensive. This field of trade matters is not particularly one that comes under the Department of External Affairs, but I do feel that this is the kind of challenge that

External Affairs
must be very much in the mind of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, although he made no reference to it in his statement.
Then there is the whole question of the policy of economic assistance to underdeveloped countries and the recent indication that the Soviet union, in this aspect, is on a great peacetime offensive. The hon. member for Vancouver East pointed out that one of the things that is required in the world today, and that Canada should do, is to provide positive leadership in many respects. The Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that Canada was moving beyond the role of the honest broker; that Canada was taking an independent position. I am one of those who feel that an independent position at many times, for a nation the size of Canada, a nation with the prestige of ours, is indispensable. I do feel we need more than an independent position; we need an independent position based on courage, based on ability to lead the world, to lead nations of our size, in such a direction as to bring about greater understanding amongst the nations and in such a way as to lift economic standards throughout the world, and in such a way as to bring about world peace.
The Canadian government has said through various ministers, and through the Prime Minister, that we are in favour of equal rights for people irrespective of race, colour or creed. That is the general position that is taken. Yet when it came to a specific motion criticizing apartheid in South Africa, Canada, in that context, I suggest, did not take an independent position. Canada, I suggest, at that time did not take a courageous position. We should have been prepared to stand up and vote against racial discrimination on the ground that, no matter the excuse, it is something that can never be condoned. The government should have been prepared to take a consistent stand.
Something of the attitude of the government has been brought forward because of a certain well known, and I think respected organization in this country which presented a document to the government dealing with many important questions of international and domestic affairs. This document contained a strong condemnation, not only of racial discrimination but of anything bordering neutralism or inability or unwillingness to stand up and be counted. This statement contained a sentence which stated that the views of that organization were so strong that rather than accept within the commonwealth this kind of racial discrimination it would be better if South Africa were outside the commonwealth. The Prime Minister, who is an extremely able, cagey and crafty politician,

took but a moment to decide that one sentence in this presentation was one that he could latch upon to make headlines. This he did with great success, but also sidestepped the whole question of Canada's position at the United Nations with regard to this question and side-stepped the very important economic proposals and other principles enunciated in that document.
I do not want to see any nation that is today within the commonwealth leave the commonwealth of nations. I feel that this loose association of nations, many of whom are experiencing the freedom and the joy of the democratic process for the first time, is something unique in the affairs of the world and something very valuable. But I do believe that the respect of one man for his brother, the respect of people of one colour for persons of another colour, and the courage to support equality and freedom in that regard, is more important, much more important, than keeping every single last one of these loosely knit nations within this association if such could not be accomplished by any other means. As has been said so often in this house, more eloquently than anything I am able to say, it is a fact that even within the commonwealth the vast majority of the citizens are non-white, so even from a practical standpoint, and that is not a standpoint for which I, of course, press consideration, it is another strong argument for taking a firm position, a position consistent with the statement of the Prime Minister and other members of the government, to the point that we are prepared at the United Nations and in other councils of the world to stand up and be counted when the vote is called.
The problem of the refugees of the world is something that appeals, I believe, to the good will and generosity of Canadian citizens. Canada has made a gesture in this regard, and I think it is only a gesture. We have admitted into Canada some 100 families of refugees within whom there is an incidence of tuberculosis. This action has been taken at a time when 2,700 beds in tuberculosis sanatoria in Canada are empty. The action of the government was greeted with a great amount of publicity and fanfare. I am not objecting to that. When the refugees came into Canada, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) met them at Malton airport and received the benefit of a tremendous amount of publicity. There was a lot of kudos going to the federal government.
I understand, however, that after the federal government had agreed to have these families come to Canada a letter went out

to the provincial governments saying this action was being taken and would they mind looking after these people with active t.b. at their expense. I believe the action that has been taken so far is good. I wish it. had gone much further.
In the interests of good federal-provincial relations and in the interests of doing something more toward keeping Canadians and provincial governments in the mood and the temperament to accept a larger number of refugees, I think the question of the cost of maintenance within our sanatoria should have been worked out much earlier with the provincial governments and that the federal government should have been prepared to accept the financial responsibility involved. We feel-and this has been made clear in other statements that have been issued-that Canada in this world refugee year should be prepared to take 2,500 tubercular refugees and that we should be able to show the world a modest example of good will to unfortunate human kind in other parts of the world.
Another topic that has been discussed a great deal in this debate is the matter of the recognition of the mainland government of China. The members of this group have been consistent in our attitude on this question, and I imagine that in some instances it is misunderstood. Some people may feel that it is being soft with communism to feel that it is time we recognized the mainland government of China. I do not agree at all with that concept. I feel that China will be recognized by the Canadian government. I am certain that the moment the United States government recognizes the government of China this government will move very rapidly soon afterwards. I do not think it is a question of the attitude of the nations in southeast Asia. I think it is something that is a practical move for peace in international affairs. It is impossible to quarantine 650 million people. It is impossible to have effective disarmament talks and agreements if, to begin with, we say we will not recognize the government of 650 million people. How can we assure the peace of the world-and that means peace for Canada-if we are going to say, by failing to recognize China, that in the field of international relations, and on the question of disarmament and the control of nuclear weapons, China is beyond the pale?


Howard Charles Green: Before the hon. member goes further on that point, may I 'ask him whether his party believes we should agree to the stand taken by red China, namely that they must be given Formosa before they will acknowledge any recognition?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer to that question is no. I think that is quite a definite answer.
79951-0-71J
External Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: How are we going to recognize them then?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it is possible to recognize the government of mainland China, to say that they should be represented at the United Nations, be prepared to exchange diplomatic representatives and at the same time say that the people of Taiwan should have the opportunity to select their own form of government, whether it be joining mainland China or whether it be something else.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member this question? What about that statement I read the other day to the effect that red China would not accept recognition on that basis and that before she would accept recognition and exchange representatives the other countries would have to admit that she was entitled to Formosa?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said he read a statement the other day.


Howard Charles Green: That is the fact. That is the position taken by them.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think we would be in a much stronger position if the minister were to stand up now and say that Canada is providing diplomatic recognition of China and that we are prepared to take steps forthwith to bring about that recognition.


Mr. Speakman:: Will the hon. member permit a further question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Of course, what we do is lecture China on moral questions and say that once she has expiated her sins we will be prepared to recognize her. In other words, the position taken by this government is not as simple as one might infer it to be from the questions that have been raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


James Stanley Speakman: Will the hon. member permit a further question?


Hazen Robert Argue: As soon as I sit down I shall be pleased to hear from the hon. gentleman.
The Leader of the Opposition came very close to saying that China should be recognized because he had many thoughts as to ways in which, in a piecemeal method, China should be brought into the councils of the world. However, on the question of recognition and his general attitude, as reported at page 977 of Hansard, he said this:
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.
That is scarcely a policy. We are advancing the proposal that China should be recognized by Canada, and should be recognized now

External Affairs
and not recognized the same day that China is recognized by the United States or the day after.
I now turn to another aspect of this same general debate, a matter on which I feel very strongly. Just the other day-on February 9 in fact-I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this house whether Canada would make a protest to the government of France in view of the pending nuclear explosion. As reported at page 866 of Hansard my question was as follows:
Will the minister say whether, since the commendable action by the government at the United Nations in this respect, any further representations have been made to the government of France, placing Canada's position once again before that government?
The answer to my question given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was as follows:
No, Mr. Speaker. Our stand was made perfectly clear at the United Nations and in conversations, and at the moment X am afraid there is nothing further we can do on a matter which is not under our control.
I feel there was something that Canada could have done at that time. I think there is something that Canada should do now. I think there is something that Canada is duty bound to do now. There has been in effect now for many months an unofficial agreement with regard to the cessation of nuclear tests. While it has not been a stated agreement in legal terms, it has been effective until the other day when France exploded her first atomic bomb. I regret that action very much. Amongst other reasons I regret that action because it is one that has been taken by a country within the western world; that it is an action taken by a country within the NATO organization and that it is an action taken by the French government under its very distinguished president Charles De Gaulle who is following a commendable policy in dealing with the Algerian question and in endeavouring to work out a democratic settlement.
But this is, in my opinion, a very grave mistake. World reaction has been much in opposition to this test. There has been an adverse reaction from the government of West Germany, from Ghana, from Nigeria, and from most Asian and African countries. The Japanese government has expressed deep regret. The Canadian government has not spoken in recent days. I think this is an occasion when Canada should speak out, and speak out with one voice, in pleading with France to forego any further nuclear weapons tests. A great mistake, in my view, has been made. This great mistake should not be continued.
I have read of certain university professors and students and others having initiated in

this country a campaign against nuclear explosions, a campaign pointing out the dangers of fall-out. I am proud of the initiative taken by these democracy-loving Canadians who have protested an action that not only endangers the peace of the world but endangers the survival of mankind.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question. Is he not aware that Canada was one of the few western countries that voted against France on this question in the United Nations?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am very much aware of that.
I acknowledge the correctness of the position taken by the Canadian government at that time. That is one of the things I had in mind when I was speaking of the kind of leadership the Secretary of State for External Affairs had been giving in this and other fields. But I suggest a good position taken a few months ago is no substitute for forthright action now.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: What are you going to do?


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest the government ask this parliament to pass a unanimous resolution asking the government of France to cease further nuclear weapons tests. The hon. member can shake his head, but I admire the nations of the world that in recent hours and recent days have had the courage to protest this very inadvisable action on the part of a government of a friendly country.
Before my time expires I should like to refer to some of the events which took place in this debate today. The Secretary of State for External Affairs when he was putting forward the government's position failed to enunciate the government's policy on disarmament. In the course of the speech of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), the Secretary of State for External Affairs interrupted with these words, as recorded on page 960 of Hansard:
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 whicn 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.
The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) said when he spoke that it would be sheer folly for Canada to enunciate its disarmament program, and it was following this statement by the hon. member for Calgary South that the Prime Minister moved in on his own minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and cut the ground from under him.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member does not really believe that.


Hazen Robert Argue: This headline seeker came out then and said, "I will give the house the government's disarmament policy". I think the disarmament policy enunciated by the Prime Minister should have been part of the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if not in his initial statement, certainly in his statement in closing the debate in this house.
Today we see that Canada is talking with two voices, the voice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs who says it is mere propaganda to announce the disarmament policy, and the Prime Minister who says "This is the policy".
What has happened, in my view, does not reduce the prestige of the minister of external affairs in this house in any way whatsoever. We know him too well to believe that it has resulted in that situation. But we are afraid that it may reduce his prestige in the councils of the world because of the fact that this action of the Prime Minister's does nothing to build respect for Canada's foreign policy. I submit that it lowers the prestige of parliament when hon. members on this side of the house put forward propositions, there is an exchange between hon. members of the opposition and the government and we are unable to get from the responsible minister the government's policy but have to wait till the Prime Minister, in a very dramatic and successful bid for the headlines, enunciates a so-called disarmament policy. I say so-called because I wondered how substantial it could be when announced in this ad hoc, off the cuff, publicity-seeking fashion. Perhaps the Prime Minister had an envelope in his pocket, pulled it out, jotted down a few headlines, dumped them into the debate, made the C.B.C. news, made every morning newspaper, shoved the Leader of the Opposition, the minister for external affairs and everybody else back to page 24, and said, "A very successful day for me in the House of Commons".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: If it had happened in the United Kingdom, then I think it would have resulted in the minister for external affairs turning in his resignation. I am not suggesting that should be done. I would regret it if that course were taken, but I think the Prime Minister of this country should realize that the prestige of Canada's foreign policy, the prestige of parliament-yes, and if it does come from me, the prestige of this government-depends to a substantial extent on the Prime Minister showing confidence
External Affairs
in the gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches and sit with him in cabinet meetings. I suggest that he has not acted toward his good friend in a forthright or democratic fashion.
I began by saying that in the minister's speech and in the contribution of the Prime Minister there seemed little recognition of the economic challenge facing the western world. Some of this challenge, some of this competition, I suggest, must be met by a much larger role to be played by Canada in the field of economic assistance and the development of peoples in underprivileged countries. In recent days we have seen announcements that the Soviet union has made loans of $350 million to India at two and a half per cent, according to the news reports, and a long term loan to Cuba of $100 million at two and a half per cent. If we wish, we can say for our own satisfaction that there are strings attached; it is a pig in a poke.


Mr. Bigg:: Slave money.


Hazen Robert Argue: Slave money? I do not think the people of India are slaves in accepting that money. But I do say that Canada should be doing much more than making a contribution of $50 million or $60 million in the field of economic assistance. We should devote more than half a million dollars to helping to feed the refugees. We have said at the C.C.F. party convention that it would not be asking the Canadian people more than they would be willing to pay if we suggested that 1 per cent of Canada's gross national product was not too large a proportion of our resources to place in this field of economic assistance. The Canadian people would be prepared to pay one penny out of every dollar of our production in order to help the underprivileged nations of the commonwealth, and of other parts of Asia, South Africa and South America.
I had intended to say something on the question of our defence policy and the waste, as I see it, within our defence establishment. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) said Canada must remain strong. I agree. But I think our national defence program, based on obsolete weapons, means that Canada today is weak in defence, and I suggest that some of the money now being spent on obsolete weapons and on the production of weapons which may soon be cancelled might well be used, under real leadership, by the democratic nations to help underdeveloped countries find a higher standard of living, to remove hunger and misery and to assist them on the road to democratic development. I suggest this would be a course

External Affairs
of action which would receive the support and the acknowledgment of the Canadian people.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he think that Canada should adopt nuclear weapons?


Hazen Robert Argue: On our soil, no. The answer to that is, no.


Howard Charles Green: Or for our forces in NATO?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer to that is, no.


James Stanley Speakman: Would the hon. gentleman permit another question? The hon. gentleman and others in his group have urged, very strongly, the recognition of red China. Would the hon. member for Assiniboia not agree that red China is still acting in the role of an aggressor, and would he further not agree that we would not be keeping faith with Canadians who lie buried in Korea on the field of honour as a result of the aggression of red China if we followed the proposal for recognition which he advocates?


Hazen Robert Argue: That general type of question could be applied to other nations, and other communist nations. I suggest that the need to recognize China at this time and the need to bring China into the councils of the world is based on a belief held by many clear-thinking people that this is the best way to save Canadian lives, to bring about real disarmament and to achieve real peace in the world.
(Translation):


Mr. Robert Lafreniere (Quebec-Monl-morency):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speeches made by the hon. members who spoke before me. However, one of them made a remark which is indeed not to my liking; I refer to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) who gave to understand that the government was trying to introduce "partisanship" in the debate on external affairs. Well, Mr. Speaker, to any one who knows the sincerity, the objectivity and the honesty of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), such an opinion is inadmissible.
I am convinced that all members listened with great interest to the brilliant review given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and, in particular, to the remarks he made about disarmament.
He stressed the grave concern of the public in general about this matter, and of Canadians in particular, in view of Canada's participation in the ten-nation committee, which will begin its proceedings in Geneva in a few Weeks.

The importance that the minister attaches to disarmament is indeed shared by the Canadian people. The government has demonstrated to what extent it seriously considers that matter, by appointing a most distinguished Canadian, Lieutenant General Burns, to represent Canada on that committee and by insisting that the committee start its proceedings as soon as possible.
We have only to hope now that the Canadian delegation will maintain that atmosphere of firm determination, throughout the proceedings, so that concrete results may be achieved.
It is obvious that in a world threatened by the horror of nuclear war, our hope for the success of those discussions goes far beyond what we can express in mere words.
Disarmament negotiations are nothing new. The first concept of international agreement with regard to a reduction of military forces was proposed more than 50 years ago. Yet, it was in the intervening period that humanity discovered the most terrifying arms, that might even lead to world suicide.
As a matter of fact, many people are inclined to believe that total and complete disarmament is an impossibility. At all events, if it were possible, it would impose upon the peace-makers years of strenuous effort and an infinite patience. Each of the nations concerned hesitates-and to a certain extent understandably so-to reduce its armaments, and this mental attitude is easy to understand. In order to illustrate the thought I just expressed, may I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to quote a fable attributed to Sir Winston Churchill and to which the Spanish delegate alluded during the Geneva conference on world disarmament, in 1932. The Spanish delegate had asked the Russian minister of foreign affairs whether he remembered the fable of the animal disarmament conference. That fourteenth fable goes like this,-and I quote La Presse of November 9, 1959:
When the animals had gathered, the lion looked at the eagle and said: "Claws should be abolished." The tiger looked at the elephant and said: "Trunks must go". And the elephant, in turn, looked at the tiger saying: "Claws and fangs should be outlawed". Thus, each animal wanted abolition of the arms and defenses of all the others. There remained the bear, who spoke last, saying with gentle good sense: "Comrades, let us abolish everything-everything except the great universal hug".
That fable shows, to a certain extent, the approach which nations have taken in the past toward that crucial problem.

But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in the years that followed, world powers recovered their faith in the possibility of disarmament with the result described by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as recorded on page 932 of Hansard for February 10, 1960, and I quote:
Something happened which had never happened at the United Nations before, I believe, when all 82 nations co-sponsored the resolution which provided United Nations facilities for the meetings of the 10-power committee. That resolution contained these words:
The question of general and complete disarmament is the most important one facing the world today.
Here is an extraordinary and unprecedented fact, which certainly should kindle hope in the hearts of people haunted by the spectre of a monstrous war that could destroy civilization as we know it, and we must place our hopes in the U.N., which ever since its inception, has never stopped discussing disarmament. During the fourteenth session of the United Nations, representatives of about 25 countries spoke with great sincerity on disarmament. However, we must not fool ourselves; the road to complete disarmament will be a long and strenuous one.
In this day and age, every great power is in possession of what used to be known as the "secret of nuclear weapons". Each one of them knows full well that an attack against any nation would finally result in conquest not of territory or of material goods, but in a conquest of devastation, disaster and catastrophe, not only within the country under attack, but also inside the aggressor country. Indeed, forces are apparently so well distributed around the globe that aggression no matter where it came from would be followed by immediate retaliation.
We must therefore assume that, despite the good or bad faith of those who will discuss the matter, disarmament will not be a question of sentiment but the result of sound logic and plain and simple reasoning.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, it is futile to imagine that nations will be able to achieve full disarmament spontaneously. It will have to be done progressively and, once more, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has shown his practical common sense by stating as follows our general objective. I quote from page 933 of Hansard:
To achieve a maximum of disarmament and reduction of military forces which could be verified
External Affairs
and controlled and which is compatible with the maintenance of adequate security against aggression.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all members of parliament agree with this idea that we all hope the ten power committee will soon obtain concrete results based on this formula.
But this gradual reduction of armaments raises many other vital problems. One of these problems the ten power committee will certainly have to deal with is the huge benefits that the various nations will necessarily derive from the great amounts of money that will be saved as disarmament progresses.
It is not an easy question to deal with, and one that must be discussed with great caution. However, it is logical to believe that the most favoured countries will want to use a large part of this capital to help what we call the underdeveloped countries. It is logical also to believe that the population of each of these countries will legitimately ask substantial amounts that will be used for social works of great usefulness, projects which, up to that time, would have been sacrificed because of the necessity of protection against outside attacks.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we do not know when that money will be available. That possibility will depend on the rate of progress achieved at the Geneva conference and, as was indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the task undertaken in Geneva could be long and difficult.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we should bear in mind that disarmament will require the setting up of a control organization to make sure that the agreements and conventions entered into in this respect by the various countries will be respected.
Certain measures will also be necessary to increase, as much as possible, the prestige and authority of the United Nations Organization which will seek to safeguard peace. For peace will not come automatically in a disarmed world. One can therefore easily imagine that this control organization, and the United Nations task, will be important, intricate and very expensive, and that is what prompts those remarks, Mr. Speaker.
There is an idea that I wish to emphasize especially. It has to do with the financial assistance that privileged countries must keep giving to underdeveloped countries. Indeed,

External Affairs
there is no use trying to maintain world peace when two thirds of the world population-and this may reach three fourths before long-are in distress and poverty.
But Canada has not shirked its obligations and its responsibilities, since it has taken part as far as possible in the financial aid program in favour of underdeveloped countries.
However, financial assistance is clearly inadequate, and even if we have considered the problem from that point of view, we should keep on doing everything that is humanly possible to prove that we are interested in spiritual values.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock. (Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned this afternoon, I was dealing with the problem of the poverty and misery which are the lot of over two thirds of the world's population, and I was saying that Canada, in this matter, was honourably meeting its responsibilities and commitments with respect of financial help given to underdeveloped countries. Yet, capital assistance is clearly insufficient and, even if that angle has been considered, we should continue to resort to any humanly possible means of showing that we are interested in spiritual values.
Funds expended for the benefit of underdeveloped countries should largely be used to promote education among these people.
If there are countries in the world that should preach in favour of higher moral standards, Canada is certainly one of the first. Indeed, the religions practised by the majority of Canadians, while they are different, are based on the highest Christian principles, which emphasize moral values and respect for the dignity of the human person. That matter was of great concern to the economic committee on which I served as rapporteur at the NATO convention held in London in June 1959.
As a matter of fact, none of these ideas is new. The Prime Minister of Canada spoke to the same effect in a speech he

made at the University of Toronto on January 12, 1959, where he clearly stated the facts, namely that since the last war, Canada has paid $4J billion for the requirements of that assistance. And yet, during his recent trip to Asia, the Prime Minister realized that some people had some doubts about the reasons for this humanitarian action by the donating countries. Here is what the Prime Minister said on this occasion:
This lesson proves that material assistance alone cannot convince uncommitted countries of our sincerity, nor win their adhesion to freedom in the ideological war.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I failed to quote an extract from this speech that all Canadians should know.
According to Prime Minister Diefenbaker, no country with so small a population has as much responsibility in the world as Canada. It is a respected country because it has no territorial ambition, because of its position between the United States and Russia and because of its rank, the fourth among trading nations. Canada's prospects for the future depend on good understanding in the world. Canada must be a world spiritual power in keeping with its material wealth.
Canada must deliver ''its message to mankind". It has proved that people of different races can live together; it is respected because it does not practise discrimination; and it has recognized the necessity of applying Christian principles internationally.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the Canadian government for its splendid success at the last session of the United Nations when, after two months of negotiations, it achieved unanimity on its resolution concerning the world study of radiation and nuclear fall-out.
This success must be credited largely to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to his parliamentary secretary, a tireless and efficient worker, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).
I must point out that, at the United Nations the new minister for external affairs has in record time gained from representatives of various countries the same affection and respect he enjoys here at home. In spite of differences of opinion on certain important matters, he was able to stay on the closest and friendliest terms with France and, as he pointed out last Wednesday in his remarks, Canada was firm and consistent enough to vote for the resolution urging France to refrain from making nuclear tests. On that occasion, the Canadian representative made a point of emphasizing that, in spite of the cultural bonds, the blood ties and the friendly

relations that bind us to France, Canada had deemed it proper, because of its sense of duty and logic, to vote in favour of the resolution asking for a stop to nuclear tests.
Furthermore, what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, last Wednesday, should be recalled to the house, and you may be assured, Mr. Speaker, that a Frenchspeaking Canadian is particularly proud to repeat the following words loudly, and I quote from page 934 of Hansard February 10, 1960:
I suggest that Canada must at all times have the deepest understanding for France and for her problems. She, of course, is one of our mother countries, and one feels that when he goes to her shores. I am of Anglo-Saxon descent, and yet when I went to Paris, in fact the minute I stepped off the plane, I felt that I was at home with members of the family. We were treated in just that way on both occasions that I had the privilege of visiting France.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I express the unlimited hope the world has placed in the disarmament program, and the benefits that will result therefrom. I recall the pride that Canadians feel at the thought of the important role our country is assuming in world affairs.
To sum up, in order to safeguard world peace, let us hope that the spiritual and moral values of mankind will develop at the same rate as material knowledge and scientific progress.
(Text):


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, like many hon. members I too was intrigued by the minister's very pleasant invitation to a wide open, free-swinging debate. He said that he would like to see as many members as possible participate in the debate and that he would speak off the cuff. Largely he did speak off the cuff but I find that in a debate on a subject such as external affairs there are some very precise things that perhaps have to be said. Therefore it was understandable that the minister should refer to his notes when he did make certain precise statements. Because of the very nature of the debate and the minister's invitation, I know he will take with good grace whatever constructive criticism I may, in my humble way, have to offer. The minister knows that almost from the first day when I came into the house 10 years ago I have always held him in very high esteem and do so at the present time. However, I shall take his advice and perhaps be a little more free-swinging than 79951-0-72
External Affairs
I otherwise would. When I make some precise statements, as I shall want to do, I too will refer to some of my notes.
The first thing the minister did, and very properly, was to pay a compliment to our diplomatic corps abroad. The minister was quite correct. Our foreign diplomats certainly deserve to be congratulated and to receive the recognition of the house and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). We have a fine diplomatic corps abroad. Recently I have had occasion to meet a good number of our ambassadors, high commissioners and their staffs, and I certainly confirm everything the minister has had to say in lauding their efforts. These people have to be our eyes and our ears outside of Canada. We depend much upon them to win the sympathy and friendship of the people and countries in which they are stationed. I should like to point out to the minister, and I do not have to say this to him but I should like to say it to some hon. members who have not been in the house very long, that it takes years of hard training, careful training, to develop a diplomatic corps that will reflect credit on our country. Let me point out to hon. members that this wonderful diplomatic corps of which we are so proud today was not established and trained only within the last 2J years.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: You trained them.


Leon David Crestohl: Indeed, yes, we trained them. Certainly, over the past 10, 15 or 20 years they received training and they are the people who deserve the praise they received from the minister. Perhaps if some of the members sometimes complain that they have inherited a certain legacy from the Liberals they might bear in mind that this is also one of the legacies they have inherited and it is certainly a wonderful legacy.
I should like to say, too, that when we travel abroad and meet our foreign diplomats and see the other countries it gives the people of Canada a far better perspective of Canada. When we have this opportunity we realize we must come to the conclusion that we are living in the most wonderful country in the world. This, too, is not something that was created in the last 2 or 2J years, but is something that has taken years of hard work, careful work to establish. Certainly this also is a legacy that hon. members opposite should appreciate.
Over the week end, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of carefully reading the minister's speech. It is true that he covered a great deal of ground and a great deal of time. However, I could not find very much solid foreign policy contained in it and even less in the way of important basic principles. Apart

External Affairs
from the reason which the minister gave for not recognizing red China, there was no forthright declaration of policy. We listened to a very careful survey of the situation throughout the world, but nowhere did he stop and in any sense emphasize the trouble spots in the world and what our foreign policy was in relation to those trouble spots.
He did mention some of them, but he persistently refused to state what the government's proposals on disarmament are. This fact has been mentioned already by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). I, like the other members, wondered why it was that he so persistently refused to mention what the proposals are for the disarmament meeting which is to take place shortly. He did say very clearly and very categorically that they will be presented to the conference for the first time.
In this stand he was supported by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), who visualized the situation as a kind of poker game. The hon. member said, why should we show our hand? It may have been quite right and quite proper for the minister to have taken the position that he would not disclose in advance to the house what the proposals of Canada will be to the disarmament conference. It may be quite right, too, for the hon. member for Calgary South to follow the minister's lead. Perhaps it is wiser for us not to show our hand. As a matter of policy, this may be so.
However, if that were so, and if that were the government's position that we should not show our hand before the conference, how shocking, how astonishing it was to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) stand up and give to the house the 10 points-


Mr. Graffiey:: Those were general principles, and you know it.


Leon David Crestohl: I beg your pardon, but I should like to ask-


William Heward Grafftey: Just a straw man, and you are going to thresh it around.


Leon David Crestohl: I can assure the hon. member that I can understand general principles as well as he, and perhaps a little better. We will ask the minister, when he speaks, to tell us whether these were only general principles. If that is what they were, will the minister tell the house whether these were the principles, in the form in which the Prime Minister gave them, that were given to his colleagues who are now meeting in Washington. I should like the minister to tell us whether these are the 10 points that were given to his colleagues now meeting in Washington.
[Mr. Crestohl.l
I may say it was shocking to me to hear the Prime Minister give these points to the house. I believe somebody mentioned to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that it was humiliating to him, but the minister said he was not humiliated. What else could he have said? I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to be in the place of a minister who says I cannot tell parliament anything and then have my prime minister stand up and tell parliament those things which I was told I could not say and did not say. It is a rather disturbing thing. I was wondering why the Prime Minister did that. There may have been some reason for the Prime Minister stating these 10 points, these principles, call them what you like. As the hon. member for Assiniboia suggested, the Prime Minister is clever and shrewd. He also used the word "cagey". I am not using that term. I am just repeating that term. Perhaps it is shrewd and cagey parliamentary strategy or tactics for the Prime Minister to have really given Canada's program for disarmament at such a time that it was not possible for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the opposition critic on foreign affairs to answer him.


William Heward Grafftey: Why do you not answer him now yourself?


Leon David Crestohl: As I say, that may have been very shrewd, careful, cagey chamber tactics. If that is what it was, I do not think it to be very creditable. It may be good politics or good manoeuvring, but I do not think it is very creditable to a country that has in the past been so unanimous on its foreign policy and especially on the matter of disarmament.
Perhaps the minister did not want to launch into a statement on foreign policy. I think he skated rather carefully but not too skilfully over everything that might have been a trouble spot, and this may have been a trouble spot. I am also wondering whether he did this so carefully in order to enable him to proclaim as he did, "Canada has no enemies, all friends". As I said, it is quite cautious on the part of the minister to have avoided trouble spots and then to have announced to the country that Canada has no enemies, that we have nothing but friends.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Leon David Crestohl: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Was he in the house when the Leader of the Opposition confirmed that statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: When did I confirm it?


Leon David Crestohl: Yes; I was in the house. But let us have a look at it, if he confirmed it.


Howard Charles Green: He did confirm it; there is no doubt about that.


Leon David Crestohl: Yes; I remember. He certainly said that Canada enjoys the confidence of the other nations of the world. I am not denying that now. The minister is perfectly right in saying that. It is a proclamation or a statement, justifiable as it is in the opinion of the minister, but I do not know whether it is really a compliment to our country. I will stand by my statement.


William Heward Grafftey: Which one?


Leon David Crestohl: Does the hon. member think he can make headway by unbecoming interruptions? We are dealing with a rather serious matter and one which I think does not lend itself to light cajolery.
Mr. Speaker, a country or a person that has no enemies but has only friends is one that I would look upon askance. If we try to please everybody, you know what happens. You will recall Aesop's fable about the man who tried to please everybody and ended up by pleasing nobody. I think the modern version is that he who tries to be everything to everyone is nothing to anyone.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Your party has been doing that a great deal of the time.


Leon David Crestohl: Of course that is a gratuitous statement; and if that is the kind of statement the hon. member is making for Canada at the United Nations I am indeed sorry for our country.
It has been said that anyone can avoid criticism. Surely one can avoid criticism. How? You do nothing, you say nothing and the end is that you are nothing. We can continue to avoid criticism in the world if we will say nothing that will offend, if we will do nothing lest it offend, and we will suffer the consequences.
The minister said that Canada has no designs on any other country. It is just because of that fact, because Canada has no designs on any other country and because Canada enjoys the confidence and respect of every country, that Canada can be of great service in the cause of world peace. If we enjoy that impeccable reputation about which the minister speaks then I think we can become an instrument for peace, as we have been in the past, and for establishing good relations throughout the world. But simply to 79951-0-72J
External Affairs
say that we will at all costs avoid making enemies, is not, in my opinion, sound government policy.
As I said, Canada enjoys the respect and confidence of all nations; and we would be delinquent indeed in the cause of world peace if we were to withdraw from making our contribution as a mediator or as an honest broker, wherever we can do so, only because we might not be able to please everyone. That certainly is not a basis for withdrawing the services of Canada as an honest broker or as a mediator, as she has been in the past. Just to say "We will not interfere because we might displease someone" should not be the basis for our inaction.
The field of international mediation may perhaps be a field with which the minister is not very familiar or in which he may not have sufficient experience and for that reason wants to keep away from it and designs for Canada a new foreign policy of no enemies, all friends.


William Heward Grafftey: Who wrote that speech?


Leon David Crestohl: But is that the best way in which to serve the cause of world peace?


William Heward Grafftey: Who wrote that speech?


Leon David Crestohl: I wrote it myself, if the hon. member wants to know. I want to ask the minister whether it is the plan of the government to surrender this world reputation of Canada as a peacemaker or an honest broker, a reputation it has so enviably earned over the past number of years. Canada's great reputation amongst all nations was acquired as a result of courageous action and not by fearfully standing on the sidelines in international crises lest we might offend some friendly nation. The record shows that, even if we had to be critical of friendly nations they are now very close to Canada. We were critical and did not hesitate to criticize them when we thought they were wrong. We did not hesitate for a moment to point out where they were wrong and to be extremely critical where it was necessary. It is because our criticism was always honest, sincere and impartial that we earned this respect of the world and confirmed the Canadian courageous character by speaking up against international wrongs at all times.
May I illustrate by pointing out some of our country's diplomatic achievements since the creation of the United Nations which gave to Canada what I like to call Canada's golden era in international diplomacy. As the first example, I say it was the courageous action of Canadian diplomats which made it possible in 1947 to set up the state of Israel and the return of an age old people to its age old land. The decision of the United Nations was based on the conscience of the parliament of

External Affairs
man, as Mr. Justice Rand then called it, and recommended the setting up of the state. Later it was the sympathetic support of the Leader of the Opposition, minister of external affairs at the time, that gave to the recreated state membership in the United Nations. By this action Canada has earned in history and for all time the eternal blessings and gratitude of my co-religionists the world over. It may not have pleased some nations, but it was morally and historically the right thing to do, and our country had the moral courage to do it.
Then, Mr. Speaker, it was Canada's Louis St. Laurent who virtually fathered the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which was later developed in great detail by his deputy, the then minister of external affairs. This, too, may not have pleased the Russians, but we had the moral courage, it was the right thing to do and we proceeded to do it.
The third item I would like to mention is this. It was a great compliment to Canada and showed the esteem in which our country was held when our representative to the United Nations in 1952, the Leader of the Opposition, was elected president of the general assembly of the United Nations. It was again a Canadian proposition that resulted in an armistice and in a measure of peace in the Middle East when the Leader of the Opposition convinced the United Nations to set up a supervisory force to control the uneasy borders between Israel and Egypt.
Another compliment to our country was manifested in the fact that Canada was selected as one of three nations to provide the personnel to supervise the truce in Indochina. We assumed without fear of displeasing anyone this responsibility and provided three teams which, with the personnel of the other two countries, Poland and India, made possible the truce in Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam.
Then Canada was again complimented when the Leader of the Opposition was named by the NATO council as one of the three wise men entrusted by it to solve some perplexing problems in the expansion of membership in NATO.
These things are cold historic facts, and they are all things which have made our country so popular and so respected by nations the world over. It is a good thing for us to hear these things, no matter which side of the house we are on, because they have earned for Canada the great position it holds in world diplomacy. It was unquestionably Canada's courageous stand at the

United Nations, expressed by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), our representative then, which made possible the expansion of its membership and admitted some 16 additional nations to the United Nations. This, I point out, was done notwithstanding the displeasure of the United Kingdom, the United States and France, our close allies. It was the honourable thing to do, it was the advisable thing to do, and it mattered not that we had displeased friends or otherwise. That is a perfect example of independent action, and the yardstick for measuring independent action should not be whether or not it pleases a friendly nation or displeases it.
Canadian diplomacy was manifested in courageous action again when Canada interceded in the Sinai campaign and at Suez to stop the fighting and set up a truce committee notwithstanding the fact that at that time it may have again displeased Great Britain and France.
The golden age for Canada in international diplomacy was crowned, with much glory to Canada, in the recognition of our country's dedicated and courageous effort toward world peace with the awarding of a Nobel peace prize to the then secretary of state for external affairs, the Leader of the Opposition.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that these are unusually high standards for a new minister to try to live up to and it would be unfair to expect him to reach these heights without a little more experience. But I say it is equally unfair and sadly disappointing to find that in order to reach such heights an entirely new foreign policy for Canada has been designed, making the objective of Canada's new foreign policy one of, "Do not make enemies; try and make friends only". On that basis, as I have said, if we are to direct our entire foreign policy on the premise of whether we make friends or not, I wonder at what price such friendship is to be won?
Daniel O'Connell, the well known political and diplomatic writer and philosopher, once very properly said that "nothing is politically or diplomatically right if it is morally wrong". That is the principle which I like to believe has guided, and will continue to guide, the decisions and actions of our country. To do that requires courage, strong, moral, Canadian courage. It cannot be achieved by fear lest a moral decision may displease another country. It is diplomatically immoral to stand mute on flagrant breaches of international law and United Nations decisions, and I say that Canada was guilty of a moral wrong for standing

mute in connection with the Suez crisis, and went beyond that and voted that the world bank should grant that loan.
It is true that the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this house did say to us that our stand on the Suez crisis was well known. I say that that is not sufficient.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I made no such statement.


Leon David Crestohl: No, not during this session. The minister will recall that I did ask him, I think in the last session, something about Suez and he did say, "Our stand on Suez is well known", and I accepted that statement at the time. I have not the quotation here, but I am absolutely right on that. I can understand the minister saying that, and perhaps it is well known. But I say that in these crises it is not sufficient to state that your views are well known. Do not leave it to chance. It may be all right when answering someone during the question period to say that our stand is well known. I say, most respectfully, that the minister or the government should say what that stand is, and then we will know what it is. I say that to have supported the loan made by the world bank was morally wrong.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member what the policy of his party was with regard to the loan of the world bank?


Leon David Crestohl: I beg your pardon?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Leon David Crestohl: What is there funny about that? Our hon. representative in the United Nations laughs very heartily. What is there humourous about that?


An hon. Member:: You.


Leon David Crestohl: I am sure even hon. members in the government will agree with me that if the government had had the moral courage to say, we will support the world bank, but you Egypt have a moral and legal obligation to the United Nations to keep the Suez canal open; you want money to extend the canal, and you want us to help provide that money, but you, Egypt, must conform to the decision of the United Nations and of international law. If you want the benefits, you have to fulfil the obligations. That would have been a perfectly wholesome position for Canada to have taken. I could have expected nothing more; the world could not have expected much more than that we should have said: yes, we will vote for the loan, but we draw to your attention the terms of the United Nations decision. You are members of that organization and we are members, and we call on you to obey that decision of the United Nations.
External Affairs
If Canada had taken that position it would have been all that could have been expected. But Canada has not done so, and I do not know why.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member what is the Liberal policy on this question?


Leon David Crestohl: If the Liberal party had to make a decision on that matter I have sufficient confidence to believe that if they were sitting on the benches opposite they would certainly have taken the position of pointing out to Egypt that it was in violation of a United Nations decision.


Howard Charles Green: They have been awfully quiet about it.


Leon David Crestohl: They are not the ones who are responsible now. If hon. members opposite will allow us to speak for the government, we shall do so. Let the Conservative party take a stand on this issue and we will back it up. I do not think it is a proper answer to say simply that the government did not do something because they did not know what the opposition would have done. I say, with respect, that the government could have taken a more laudable position. It would not have interfered with its policy very seriously. But they did not do so. Instead, they followed blindly the course of action taken by the United States and that is a dangerous thing. Perhaps they are afraid to displease the United States. I appeal to the government not to follow the United States quite so blindly, and my appeal is based on how the United States has acted. I am reading, now, from the Israel Digest of January 8, 1960:
The world bank is an instrument of the society of nations, the same society to which President Eisenhower was referring in his television address to the American people on February 20, 1957, when he said:
"Egypt by accepting the six principles adopted by the security council last October in relation to the Suez canal, bound itself to free and open transit through the canal without discrimination and to the principle that the operation of the canal should be insulated from the politics of any country."
The President emphasized that it should not be assumed that in the future Egypt would prevent Israel shipping from using the Suez canal and said that if Egypt violated her international obligations, thenand I am quoting his very words-
-this should be dealt with firmly by the society of nations.
But what does the United States government do after this declaration by the president who so forcibly says to Egypt: do not take this action; if you do, you will be called to answer before the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, only a short time after that the

External Affairs
United Nations sponsored this loan to Egypt which contradicted the president's own statement and allowed Egypt to be in violation of international principles.
What is Canada doing? The minister spoke about some degree of independence. How can Canada speak in terms of independence when it accepts so blindly a breach of a United Nations decision. The minister and the house know that it is a United Nations decision that the Suez canal be kept open. I am just wondering what an outcry there might be if Canada should at one moment decide that it would not give access to the St. Lawrence seaway ships of certain nations, or if the United States said: we will deny passage to ships of certain nations through the Panama canal. These things have to be dealt with on an international basis and international decisions should be respected. When they are not, because of the moral standing and the great reputation which our country enjoys for fairness and justice, we should be the first to speak up. However, I must say, sadly, that this government has not done so on this question in particular.
Former governments have done so in the past, as I pointed out earlier. It took courage to make certain decisions which displeased many of our friends. But Canada did take those decisions. I call upon the government and upon the minister to give an answer, to speak and let his voice be heard where it will do the most good. Let him tell the government of Egypt: you come to us for assistance to authorize loans, but you are in breach of United Nations decisions; we want you to know that we do not think you should be in breach of those decisions; obey international law, obey international decisions, and you will deserve help.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Howard Charles Green: My first words this evening must be to thank those hon. members of the house who have taken part in this debate. I suggested that it should be a free-swinging debate. Sometimes, from the speeches that were made, I thought it was more swinging than free, but still there has been a very worth while discussion.
It has always seemed to me that these external affairs debates were much too formal and much too dry; that they did not reflect the thoughts of the Canadian people on foreign affairs and that they were of little value. One reason for this has been the history of external affairs debates in this house. The late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King did everything he could to dissuade

members from even mentioning external affairs. He took the attitude-a totally unrealistic attitude-that if anyone here expressed an opinion that might annoy somebody in Timbuktu, Canada might cause a great war. Ever since then we have had what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) calls a "hangover" from those days of Mr. King. I hope that from now on hon. members of the house will not only feel free but will feel it is their duty to get up and express their opinions about foreign affairs.
This country of ours faces too great a challenge in world affairs today for the hon. members of this house to fail to do everything they can to focus the attention of the Canadian people on world affairs and to help work out proper stands for Canada to take on the various difficult questions which arise. And so, I am very grateful for the fire that has been displayed in this debate. I do not mind being criticized because that is all part of the game, but hon. members across the way must not mind it either if they have a few bricks thrown back at them this evening.
The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) started out by discouraging me very much. If I heard him correctly he intimated that I was a do-nothing, say-nothing, be-nothing minister in so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, that my main objective is that Canada should have no enemies, and he rather scoffed at that plan. Let me remind the hon. member that the Leader of the Opposition agreed with me when I said that today Canada has no enemies. I refer the hon. member to page 976 of Hansard of February 11 where we find these words of the Leader of the Opposition:
He-
That reference is to me. I continue:
-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.
That is the Leader of the Opposition speaking. Then the hon. member for Cartier went on to say that the present government's new foreign policy was extremely changed from the policy of the great Lester B. Pearson; that the new policy is that Canada will offend nobody and aims to have no enemies. We do have that aim and the country which aimed at anything else would be very foolish. However, the Leader of the Opposition did not think it was a new foreign policy on the part of this government. He said these words, to be found on the same page of Hansard:
There was one other thing that became clear as the minister spoke. After the 21 or perhaps 3

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.
My hon. friend cannot have it both ways. Either the Leader of the Opposition is right or the hon. member for Cartier is right. I am afraid that the hon. member for Cartier has simply been carried away by his enthusiasm and, may I say with respect, by his partisanship. The hon. member went on to picture all the wonderful things that the Liberals had done for Israel. I remind hon. gentlemen that when the chips were down in 1956 at the time of the Suez crisis it was the Conservative party that stood beside Israel and not the Liberal party. Today Israel has no finer friend than Canada and the hon. member for Cartier, I observe, nods his head in approval. I point out to him that he does not help Israel very much by the kind of remarks he made this evening.
The hon. member mentioned that the world bank made a loan for improvements in the Suez canal and intimated that we just followed along behind the United States. The facts are that this loan was approved unanimously by all of the members of the world bank and that his own leader did not utter even one little peep to suggest that Canada should protest the making of that loan. It is all very well for the hon. member to rise and suggest that the Canadian government should have followed another course but if his party thought such action should be taken then it should have had the courage to say so and not try to cash in now by a speech made by the hon. member for Cartier.
The hon. member suggests that under my direction of the external affairs of Canada we have been afraid to criticize anybody. The situation in fact is that we have criticized so many people and stood up to so many countries, I wonder at our having any friends left at all. We have taken far more independent stands on foreign affairs than the Liberal government ever took when it was in power and this within the last eight months.
I intend to point out some of these stands we took. Most hon. members already know them. Let us take, for example, the stand on the resolution concerning the nuclear test in the Sahara by France. We voted for that resolution right down through the piece when very few western nations were doing so. We voted for the resolution because we thought that was the right thing to do. Here we were with a resolution of our own urging that there be a more effective collection of information on radiation and fall-out and a more effective distribution of that information. We thought that test was wrong and
External Affairs
we did not hesitate to vote against it. In doing so we incurred a great deal of displeasure in France. Here was one of our oldest friends, one of our mother countries, and yet we voted against her and against the United States, the United Kingdom and various other countries because we thought they were wrong. The very last thing we can properly and fairly be accused of is standing on the side lines and failing to take a stand.
The hon. member for Cartier and several other hon. members including the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) and my old friend, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), had a happy time during their speeches ringing the changes on this charge that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had repudiated his Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: What else can the hon. member call it?


Howard Charles Green: My hon. friend asked what else I could call it. I should have thought that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres would have had more sense. He fell a great deal in my estimation this afternoon when he made that ridiculous speech which had nothing in it of any value from start to finish. His famous uncle would have hung his head in shame if he had heard that speech. The only topic he had to discuss was that the Prime Minister had repudiated me.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Exactly.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member says "exactly" and he pounds his desk.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Right.


Howard Charles Green: May I tell him that the Prime Minister and I have fought shoulder to shoulder in this house on issue after issue for the last 20 years-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Not on this question.


Howard Charles Green: -and there has never been any question of either one of us repudiating the other.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Not until this issue.


Howard Charles Green: The trouble is that this type of thing went on in the Liberal cabinet time and again but it does not go on in the Conservative cabinet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was allowed to declare policy and you are not. That is the difference.


Howard Charles Green: Let the Leader of the Opposition take his medicine. He was very good at making political attacks last Thursday. Perhaps he can just sit still and listen today.


Lionel Chevrier: You had better give that advice to your own followers.

External Affairs


Howard Charles Green: My followers are all right.


Lionel Chevrier: They are interrupting all the time.


Howard Charles Green: What was happened is that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres has either been consulting the Liberal brain trust or he has been reading some columnist-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I just listened to the debate.


Howard Charles Green: -who intimated that the Prime Minister had been pulling the rug out from under me.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I read the Prime Minister's speech and that was enough.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps when I tell the hon. member what actually happened he will not be so suspicious.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If we can get the truth now, all right.


Howard Charles Green: Do not start talking about getting the truth.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: We have not had it so far.


Howard Charles Green: That is really hitting a little low.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Telling the truth is hitting low?


An hon. Member:: You cannot take it, eh?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Who cannot take it?


An hon. Member:: You.


Howard Charles Green: Hon. members will recall that when the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was speaking about disarmament he wanted to know all the details-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, no, he did not.


Howard Charles Green: -of the instructions to General Burns who is representing Canada on this very important disarmament work. This plea was made several times during the course of his speech. The Leader of the Opposition made similar suggestions and I think that they were also made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and possibly by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). The Prime Minister and I are old parliamentarians. We have a deeply ingrained respect for the House of Commons and the suggestion that we are not being fair to the House of Commons, that we are trying to conceal things, is an anathema to both of us. We discussed the situation, and you will find that in the evening the Prime Minister, during the course of his speech, said as recorded on page 989 of Hansard:
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-
I repeat those words, "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.
On the next page we find this further statement by the Prime Minister:
The hon. member for Essex East apparently believes that each nation should produce a collection of competing plans. What we believe in 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.
As found on the next page the hon. member for Essex East had this to say:
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.
Then the Prime Minister said:
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.
Then the Prime Minister proceeded to give a general idea of certain concepts. He did not give all of the concepts but he went as far as we thought we could properly go in giving the general background. We did not give the details because it would be highly improper to do so. Our objective is to get a proper disarmament agreement, and were the Canadian government at this stage to go into all these details in public it would very seriously prejudice the chance of the five western nations to bring about a proper disarmament agreement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister permit a question on this point? He has suggested, in fact he has stated, that we asked for all the details. He has said that twice with respect to the hon. member for Essex East and myself. Will he point out any place in Hansard where we asked for the details of the Canadian proposals for disarmament?


Howard Charles Green: Throughout the whole of the speech of the hon. member for Essex East he kept badgering us for a statement as to Canada's disarmament proposals. If the Leader of the Opposition says now that they did not mean the details of the proposals, I accept his explanation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He said it himself.


Howard Charles Green: But I do point out that the Prime Minister merely gave certain general concepts.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is all we asked for.


Howard Charles Green: In concluding his speech the Prime Minister said, as found on page 993:
I am not going to say more at this time. The hon. gentlemen asked, what general principles have you in mind? These are some principles that I believe contain more than a germ for the settle-men of our international difficulties and for survival itself.
There has been such a hue and cry today about the Prime Minister's action having been improper and about his having repudiated me but there has not been one suggestion from the Liberal party as to what policies should be adopted at the meeting of the disarmament committee. They have spent all their time criticizing what the Prime Minister said and have given us absolutely no assistance in the way of ideas for Canada to advance at the meeting of the 10-nation disarmament committee. So they will have to look around for some other club with which to beat the government than this broken reed they have used in the debate today.
We were also criticized by the hon. member for Assiniboia who, by the way, made a very good speech. I did not agree with much that he said but as usual he made an effective speech.
We were criticized for not giving sufficient economic assistance to the underdeveloped countries. Canada, I think, has done more than any other country in this regard. I do not suggest for a minute that we have done enough. We will be looking for ways to do more. However, when you compare what has been given by other countries, no matter in what part of the world they may be, Canada's record is exceedingly good. We are all deeply conscious of the importance of this help, not only to the world as a whole but to the individuals who need help. We are all deeply conscious of the merit of a policy of this kind. The hon. member for Assiniboia may rest assured that this government will do everything it possibly can to provide economic assistance to the very utmost of Canada's capacity.
Then the hon. member mentioned the tuberculous refugee program. As everyone knows, the government adopted as its plan to help world refugee year the bringing of 100 tuberculous refugees to Canada with their families. This could only be done with the aid of the provincial governments because the hospitals were under their jurisdiction. We wrote the provincial governments, and most of them co-operated. Unfortunately
External Affairs
my own province of British Columbia did not. The hon. member's province of Saskatchewan co-operated very well, and so did nearly all the other provincial governments. I think in one or two cases we have to pay for the hospitalization, but in most of the provinces the provincial government is paying for the hospitalization of the tuberculous refugee. The federal government is paying for the transportation of the family and is also paying for the maintenance of the family until they are able to become established in Canada.
We have been criticized for not doing enough. This is one of those cases in which you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. The other day I received a wire from the high commissioner for refugees in Geneva. It read as follows:
Am pleased to inform you of the remarkable interest which has been aroused generally in Canada's one hundred t.b. refugee family scheme. The successful completion of this scheme which has now provided haven for a total of 344 persons otherwise debarred from emigration overseas under normal criteria marks new achievement in the field of governmental action. Could not let this occasion pass therefore without reaffirming my personal thanks to you for the support you have steadfastly given me in solving the problem of refugees who are my concern.
In addition, Canada took in 2,700 other refugees in 1959, and 1,390 in the first six months of world refugee year. This is over and above the 100 tuberculous families. It may be possible that further help can be given. I am not in a position to say. We had expected that the voluntary committees for world refugee year would be raising a lot of money and that at least some of that money could be used to bring additional handicapped refugees to Canada. We are hoping also that institutions, like churches and other organizations of a similar nature, will be bringing out some refugee families. I believe the voluntary committees have raised a great deal of money, but as yet there have not been many handicapped families come out under any of these other plans. I am not saying this evening whether there is any blame for that, and if so where it rests. Certainly, this government has had a very effective scheme in bringing out the 100 tuberculous refugees and their families. We will do anything further that can reasonably be done.
Mention was made also by the hon. member for Assiniboia of the French test in the Sahara. He thought we should make further protests now. I indicated in opening my remarks that Canada had taken a very strong stand in the United Nations, a stand frankly which was resented. We have taken this stand right through, and there has never been the slightest wavering. We were against these tests, and we have taken the position we were against

External Affairs
any further nuclear tests by any nation. We would have voted the same way if it had been a test by the United States or a British test. I do not believe there is very much more we can do on that particular question.
There has been a great deal of discussion about our action in votes at the United Nations on apartheid. I dealt with that question when I spoke last Wednesday. There is one feature I should like to clear up tonight. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Assiniboia, and perhaps others, said that we were choosing between South Africa and the other members of the commonwealth. The fact is that the representatives of the other commonwealth countries are just as intelligent, just as bright, as the Canadian delegates at the United Nations. This question was thoroughly talked over with them and they understood the reasons for our action on this question. It is not a case of the new nations not understanding views. Their men are well trained and we could talk with them frankly on this question or on any other question. As a matter of fact, they were so pleased about our vote on the nuclear test in the Sahara, because at first they were doubtful that a western country would stand up and vote with them, that I do not think any hon. members across the way need worry that Canada's prestige with the nations of Africa and Asia has fallen in any degree whatever. I think it is higher today than it has ever been.
By the way, there is one further comment I should like to make on that. These new nations understand adherence to principle. They understand when a nation believes that it should take a stand based on its own judgment, and that is right in line with their own views. They are noted for their insistence on being able to exercise their own independent judgment on issues as they arise in the United Nations. I believe they admire Canada for following a similar practice.
I now come to my notes which I had prepared for a reply this evening. First of all I want to deal with the two Liberal foreign affairs twins. I am not sure who the foreign affairs critic is across the way. One minute I think it is the hon. member for Essex East and the next minute the Leader of the Opposition jumps in and I find I have two critics vying with each other for pages in Hansard, sometimes coming up on opposite sides of the question and quite often covering the whole issue from one side to the other so that it is rather hard to tell just where the Liberal party stands.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are not sure who the minister is; it is worse to have two ministers.


Howard Charles Green: The government is convinced that Canada's role is not-and I repeat "is not"-to be a go-between among the nations. I pointed that out in my opening remarks. As reported at page 930 of Hansard I said this:
-the time has come to drop the idea that Canada's role in world affairs is to be an "honest broker" between the nations. We must decide instead that our role is to be to determine the right stand to take on problems, keeping in mind the Canadian background and, above all, using Canadian common sense. In effect, the time has come to take an independent approach.
It was interesting to see the reaction of these two Liberal foreign affairs critics to that statement. The comment by the hon. member for Essex East will be found at page 941 of Hansard. He said this:
I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the evolution of this nation from colony to nation, from a country playing a limited part in foreign affairs to one where its position is recognized as important, is not now to be characterized merely as that of honest broker.
The hon. member for Vancouver East took the same position, to be found at page 961 of Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the minister read the rest of that paragraph in fairness to my friend the hon. member for Essex East?


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes. There was a little bit of praise in there for the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Go ahead and put it on the record.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Essex East continued:
I agree with what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said in that regard-


Lester Bowles Pearson: You see, we do agree.


Howard Charles Green: The quotation continues:
-as indeed we were often reminded in this house by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) -
But you ought to hear what the same Leader of the Opposition said in this debate.
-when, as secretary of state for external affairs he said repeatedly-
And so on.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And so on.


Howard Charles Green: Then the hon. member for Vancouver East had this to say, as reported at page 961 of Hansard:
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.

But the Leader of the Opposition, as reported at page 979 of Hansard, had this to say:
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 middleman or honest broker.
Then he went on to quote from Sir Winston Churchill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read it.


Howard Charles Green: I am going to read it. The Leader of the Opposition said this:
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.
The trouble with the Leader of the Opposition is that he is just an old Tory who is right out of touch with the times.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I refuse to be insulted.


Howard Charles Green: He has been away from external affairs for nearly three years now and he is right out of touch with the actual situation. Today it would be extremely hard to find two nations between which Canada could be a go-between. This idea that we should be a link pin is hopelessly out of date, in my judgment. As to Canada's taking a clear stand, an independent approach, this is very well shown by our stand with regard to nuclear tests.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Your latest stand.


Howard Charles Green: The Liberals seem to be greatly worried about this stand on nuclear tests. We decided last year that the time had come for Canada to make it crystal clear that she was against any further nuclear tests. I explained that at the United Nations when I spoke on September 24. I used these words:
The Canadian people are unanimous in their wish to see an end to nuclear testing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the minister read the next sentence to that one? It is extremely important.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. It is as follows:
It is true that the principal difficulties have yet to be resolved; again they centre on the question of control.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Exactly.


Howard Charles Green: Our stand has been against any further nuclear tests and, as I explained, we actually paid for that stand by voting against France on the question of the Sahara tests.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.
External Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not wish to interrupt the minister in his extremely interesting speech but this is a very important matter. He has said, quoting himself last September, that Canada is against any further nuclear tests, and then he quoted from that speech a sentence which said the central problem was control. Will the minister clear that matter up?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know how anybody can make the matter plainer than I have done. The Canadian government is opposed to further nuclear tests, period, and has been ever since that stand was taken in the United Nations.


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


Lionel Chevrier: Let the minister go on.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to give the minister additional time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: I thank hon. members for that consideration.
As reported at page 942 of Hansard the hon. member for Essex East had this to say, and here again there was a divergence between the hon. member for Essex East and the Leader of the Opposition:
The gist of my question had to do with the reply that he made yesterday when he said that Canada took the position that there should be a ban on nuclear tests. I am not now quarrelling with that position.
He then went on to ask how we could possibly take that stand when some of our fellow members of the 10-member disarmament committee were taking a different stand? He said, as reported on page 943 of Hansard for February 10 last:
-we might find ourselves in relation to the Soviet union, assuming that they were not insistent on controls at that particular point, taking the same position which that country takes and finding ourselves opposed to the position which the United Kingdom and the United States might be taking in a matter where apparently they may continue to insist on controls even at what is called the threshold level.
Once again I can only say that we are against these tests, whether the United States or the United Kingdom are against them or not. This year we will be carrying on that policy in the disarmament committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister explain, then, what his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Nesbitt) meant when he said on November 2 at the first committee of the United Nations that there must be control in relation to the abolition of tests?

External Affairs


Howard Charles Green: I think the Leader of the Opposition is misconstruing the statement made by the parliamentary secretary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to read his
speech.


Howard Charles Green: Our position has been absolutely clear on this.
What does the Leader of the Opposition say on this subject at page 980 of Hansard? He gave the Liberal policy with regard to nuclear tests. I said at that time that it was just as clear as mud, and if anybody can make anything out of it which is practical or makes sense, then I give them credit for being extremely intelligent. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said, and he made this speech in Vancouver. I am reading from page 980 of Hansard for February 11:
I said then and I repeat tonight:
I suggest our policy ... should include the following:
(1)	There will be no more nuclear tests on our side-
How he thought that would help very much, I do not know. Apparently it did not refer to the communists carrying on tests.
-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 ... the prohibition can be re-examined in the light of what has happened...
(2)	During this period ... 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 . .. that do not now possess atomic weapons that they will not in the future manufacture such weapons...
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.
There is no clear cut statement there on the question of nuclear tests, and this question had to be faced last year. It is of vital importance now, not two years from now.
The Leader of the Opposition accused us of changing our policy on the eve of negotiations. I have pointed out that we made our policy perfectly clear last September within a few weeks of the time that the 10-member disarmament committee was set up, and there has been no variation since.

This very policy gained us widespread support from the countries in Africa and Asia, as I explained earlier in my remarks. They now realize that we are in earnest in this policy of being against nuclear tests. There was no such comfort for them in the policy enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition. Our plan was a clear-cut plan. This is one of the reasons that today all of these nations are so friendly to Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on this extremely important point would the minister then explain the words used by his parliamentary secretary on November 2 last at the United Nations. I quote from the text of his speech put out by his own department:
In particular we hope that a solution will be found to the central problem of how one reaches decisions in the control organ regarding inspections which may provide a useful guide for other deliberations.
That does not mean the end of testing without control and inspection, that is clear. It is not the policy talked about now.


Howard Charles Green: The Leader of the Opposition is not right. My parliamentary secretary recognized the need for working out in the three-member committee now dealing with this question of nuclear tests some method of control. That is one thing. The other thing is that Canada believes there should be no more nuclear tests of any kind.
I can give hon. members one instance of the great friendship for Canada felt by people from Africa and Asia. Just about three weeks ago the Department of External Affairs held a reception for the trainees who were in Ottawa under various assistance plans. In addition, there happened to be about twelve African economists visiting here under United Nations auspices. We had young men and women at that reception from the following countries, and I think the number will amaze and prove inspiring to hon. members of the house:	Ghana, Nigeria,,
Guinea, Liberia, Libya, Somaliland, United Arab Republic, Pakistan, India, Ceylon, Malaya, Indonesia, North Borneo, Sarawak, the Philippines, Laos, Burma and Thailand., Right through those two continents today Canada has many friends.
Then the Leader of the Opposition made some strange remarks the other day about the commonwealth and our attitude to it. I had been pointing out that the commonwealth must be for peace and I put it in this way, as reported on page 934 of Hansard for February 10:
This commonwealth of ours Is so spread out around the world that it must work for peace. If there should he 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.
The Leader of the Opposition took that statement and twisted it out of all recognition and came up with the following conclusion, as reported on page 983 of Hansard:
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 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.
The words used by the Leader of the Opposition were certainly not very realistic. Picture a nuclear war, and picture the fallout; not where the bombs are actually dropping, but the fall-out everywhere. No one escapes in any part of the world. You cannot now have half the commonwealth at war and the other half not at war. They may not be actually bombed, but they will be suffering from fall-out just the same. The whole world will be suffering, and no part of the commonwealth will be suffering more than Canada, because here we are between the two main contenders, the United States and the U.S.S.R. and if there is any place in the world where bombs will be falling other than on those two nations it will be in Canada. Further, we are in a temperate zone where fall-out is far more serious than it is in other zones of the world. Canada is the nation in the commonwealth which will have the most to lose if there should be a nuclear war.
Worse than those statements made by the Leader of the Opposition which I have just read were two other amazing statements he made about the commonwealth. At page 982, we find this:
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-
This is the same old line as we heard for so many years from Liberal cabinet ministers when I was sitting in the opposition, and I thought it had died out long ago. Then, on the next page:
-if we think of the commonwealth in old terms as a commonwealth based on London with white supremacy we may find ourselves faced with some insoluble problems in the years ahead.
External Affairs
Here we have the Leader of the Opposition reverting to the old Liberal tactics of baiting the British. It reminded me of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King in the thirties taking the position that he could be informed by the British of what was happening but he could not be consulted because that might involve Canada in some obligation. Within a few months of the time the Germans declared war he took the position in this house that the British would not be allowed to come to Canada to set up an air training scheme because that would be the equivalent of establishing a foreign military base in Canada.
That action, if carried to its conclusion, might very well have cost us the war. Now we are getting back to the same sort of thing from the present leader of the Liberal party. He mentioned white supremacy, I did not mention white supremacy. It was farthest from my thoughts, and the policy of the government is just the opposite. Here we are sending out representatives to Nigeria; increasing our help under the Colombo plan from $35 million to $50 million; providing additional aid for the commonwealth countries in Africa and for the West Indies; taking the lead in establishing a commonwealth scholarship plan; having visits all the time from representatives of African nations-I have had leading men from Uganda and Nigeria here within the last few weeks, and we are to have representatives from Tanganyika within the next few weeks-and it is a strange attitude for the Leader of the Opposition to take, referring as he did to white supremacy.
Then the hon. gentleman went on to explain how worried he was because there are new African nations gaining membership of the United Nations. Turning to page 986, I find he said this:
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.
The hon. gentleman did not stop at that; he went on:
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

External Affairs
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.
These nations are now being welcomed in as equals. The Leader of the Opposition may not have meant his statements in just the way they read, but it is not a very good welcome that he holds out to the new Asian and African nations, that they should be coming in to participate in a type of town meeting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure the minister would wish to be fair and that he would like to add the paragraph following the one he quoted, to the effect that the security council should be enlarged to give the Asian and African nations adequate representation on this smaller organization.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, but the idea is there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The idea is to give them more representation.


Howard Charles Green: The Leader of the Opposition was wrong in stating the situation in that way, because the one thing these nations prize above all else is their equality in the United Nations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We want to give them a more effective voice, as I said.


Howard Charles Green: Then, at page 983, the minister chided me-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not the minister.


Howard Charles Green: -the Leader of the Opposition chided me about not being worried about continentalism. I would be a lot more worried about continentalism under a Liberal government, because this has been their record from the time of confederation

always looking south. The hon. gentleman said this as recorded on page 983:
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.
He was referring, of course, to our relations with the United States. And he mentioned trade dependence. He said, as reported on page 984:
Let me mention one that has not been settled, and that is the problem of our growing trade dependence on the United States.
What are the figures? Our adverse balance of trade with the United States in 1956, the last year the Liberal government was in power, amounted to $1,282 million; over $100 million a month. In 1959-these are the figures for merchandise trade in millions of dollars-it was less than half of that, $625.3 million.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Those are not comparable figures.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. gentleman mentioned uranium. He blamed us for the present situation with regard to uranium. The Prime Minister dealt with that question very effectively the other evening. I would just like to point out to the house what the Leader of the Opposition himself said, because that indicates where this trouble originated. Referring to the time when the Liberal government made the deal with the United States, the Leader of the Opposition as reported at page 984 of Hansard of February 11, 1960, said:
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.
Why on earth did the Liberal government not get that in writing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the hon. member like an answer to that question? I do not know if the minister would care to have an answer but I am prepared to give one.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Howe gave the
answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister will be aware of the fact that when this agreement was before the house there was not a word from the opposition of that day as to the five-year period or the option and the minister knows that the criticism advanced by the opposition was to the effect that the government of that day was tying up Canadian uranium commitments for too long a period.


Howard Charles Green: That is a very poor excuse. The Leader of the Opposition has no right to attack this government now on this question when his own government failed to provide for the renewal of this contract. Our policy with the United States has been to hold frank discussions with them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On this question?


Howard Charles Green: On all questions, including uranium. The result has been that today relations between Canada and the United States are just as good or better than they ever have been before.
Now a word about NATO. I will not go into that in any detail this evening but I do plead with the Leader of the Opposition to stop attacking NATO. The hon. gentleman is always pointing out the weaknesses in NATO and the other day he said it might come to an end.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am trying to make it
stronger. I was quoting Mr. Spaak.


Howard Charles Green: I admit there are problems in NATO and we all know that, but why not stress the accomplishments instead of always harping on the problems? You would think that with his experience in NATO the Leader of the Opposition would make suggestions for

strengthening it but the only suggestion he made in his speech the other evening was that ministers should go to NATO to represent their countries rather than having permanent representatives. That was the only suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition and I am afraid it is not a very practical suggestion. He also said that perhaps NATO could bring about a common Atlantic foreign policy. That, I am afraid, is also a highly impractical suggestion.
Finally, a word or two about disarmament. The hon. member for Essex East asked us whether the disarmament negotiations were to be subject to many political questions being first decided. That is not the case at all. These disarmament negotiations are supposed to go right ahead regardless of what progress is made on the political issues.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read the speech made by the Prime Minister.


Howard Charles Green: I believe the Prime Minister said that in his speech the other evening. Canada's course has been clear. We accepted responsibility under the 10-member disarmament committee. We at once put our officials to work making studies. We took a firm stand at the United Nations on disarmament. We encouraged all the small nations and the other middle nations to bring forward their disarmament suggestions. We arranged for the appointment of General Burns and now he is busy in Washington. The members of the five western powers on the disarmament committee are directing working groups on the different problems which will arise at the disarmament conference. Just about four weeks from now they will meet the five eastern powers in Geneva and it is hoped there will be a western plan worked out before that time.
The statements made by Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Khrushchev at the United Nations were very general proposals, Mr. Lloyd making them for the western countries and Mr. Khrushchev for the east. No other member of the 10-nation disarmament committee has gone that far in outlining principles. We will do our best to keep the house informed just as closely as possible on what progress is made.
I know there are great obstacles in the way of the disarmament committee but I also know of the eagerness of the people of the world to see some agreement reached on disarmament. They seem to realize much more clearly than some of the leading figures in the world today that there is a hydrogen bomb and that today we live in a hydrogen bomb age. I am certain that the people of Canada are deeply interested in this question of disarmament.
Business of the House
If there is a will to reach agreement it will be reached. If there is not on both sides a will to reach agreement on disarmament there will be no agreement reached and we will go from bad to worse, I am afraid. Of all the nations of that 10-member committee Canada must have faith. Canada must believe that progress can be made. That is why I feel it is very unwise to have all these doubts being cast up all the time. There will be plenty of people who are interested in armament as distinguished from disarmament and they will see to it that all the doubts that can be cast are cast. I suggest this course of action for those of us in responsible positions who represent the people of Canada. Let us have faith that an agreement on disarmament can be reached. If General Burns goes into this meeting with the conviction that the members of the House of Commons of all parties are solidly behind him in giving leadership which will result in a disarmament agreement, then Canada will be able to make the greatest contribution she has ever made in world affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister said at the opening of his statement that in respect of the world bank there was not a peep out of me or from hon. members on this side of the house. I would remind the hon. gentleman that if he reads Hansard for the very first day of this session when questions could be asked-Hansard for January 18, 1960, page 39-he will find a question addressed to the government by an hon. member on this side of the house on that very point.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, there may have been a question but there was not much of a peep.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what the business of the house is for tomorrow and Friday?


George Randolph Pearkes: Tomorrow we shall start with No. 9 on today's order paper, namely the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice to amend the Department of Justice Act. Then we shall go to No. 10, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works to amend the National Housing Act. Then we shall take No. 12, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport to amend the Railway Act. If we get through these items we shall deal with supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions