1960-07-14

Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware meetings were held on Tuesday and Wednesday last of the Canada-United States committee on joint defence. At the conclusion of that meeting a communique was issued which I thought hon. members might wish to have printed as an annex to today's Hansard. If that is agreeable I would submit it for that purpose, but I would be glad to read the communique if hon. members so wish.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house concur in the suggestion made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the communique be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For communique referred to above, see Appendix A.]
(Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Could the minister report to the house on the meeting of the Canada-United States committee on joint defence, which was held yesterday?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the delegates who attended the meeting held in July 1959 had decided how many ministers would attend this year's meeting. It was agreed that those who had attended last year's meeting at Camp David would also attend this year's meeting. As a result, I did not take part in the discussions, and I would prefer to leave it to those who were present to make appropriate comments.
79951-0-396
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would care to comment on a statement of the secretary of defence of the United States of America which is reported in this morning's press-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Which paper?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is reported in the Globe and Mail, it is reported in the Montreal Gazette and it is reported in other papers through a Canadian Press story which has been issued on the statement that nuclear warheads for Canadian Bomarc missiles in R.C.A.F. squadrons could be released for use and fired only with authorization of the United States President who, however, would consult with the Prime Minister of Canada before such authorization was given for Canadian forces to use such weapons.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that United States law requires that the ownership of nuclear weapons must remain with the United States and that the use of such weapons requires presidential authorization. That is the law as it now stands and as it has been in effect since 1945 or 1946.
At the same time, as I have said before in the house, if and when nuclear weapons are acquired by the Canadian forces, these weapons will not be used except as the Canadian government decides and in the manner approved by the Canadian government. These two elements together constitute joint control, and joint control is consistent with the view I expressed in the house on February 20, 1959, that it is important to limit the spread of nuclear weapons at the independent disposal of national governments.
I think I should add this, that negotiations and consultations with the United States have been continuing for a very considerable time, and the reason for the continuance of the negotiations is in order to attain the objectives I pointed out in February, 1959, so that if and when an agreement is arrived
6272	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry at under the terms and on the conditions that I have repeatedly placed before the house, we shall be in a position finally to determine this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister believe that the requirement for Canadian control of which he has spoken will be satisfied by an arrangement which provides for joint control?


John George Diefenbaker: It will require the consent of the Canadian government. The United States has certain laws. Those laws are today made applicable to the United Kingdom, while at the same time retaining for the United Kingdom that right which we ask in Canada to ensure the fullest control over the use of atomic weapons if and when the Canadian forces are equipped therewith.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Should we take it from the Prime Minister's announcement that the Canadian government is now desirous of having nuclear weapons on Canadian soil provided all these other conditions have been met, or is the government still considering whether or not, even in those circumstances, Canada might be making a greater contribution to peace by keeping nuclear weapons out of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: One determines a course by first taking the necessary steps as to the principles on which nuclear weapons would be accepted. Then when we have arrived at that point a determination will be made on the basis of international situations now existing, which are very grave, and in the light of any subsequent circumstances that may develop between now and the time we would be in a position in any event to have atomic weapons.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister say whether as a result of contemplated action by the United Nations to assist the people of the Congo, Canada has offered any contribution of food, which I think is needed, or whether Canada has offered to make transportation facilities available to move food and other necessary supplies?


John George Diefenbaker: I think the proper course, if the house will permit me to make a somewhat lengthy statement, would be for me to bring hon. members up to date on the situation in the Congo.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed that the Prime Minister may revert to motions for that purpose?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, of course. Perhaps if the statement is a lengthy one and some comment is required from this side, the same leeway should be shown with regard to the comments.


Mr. Speaker:: It would follow that comment on the statement could be made.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the government has been following with much concern the tragic developments which have led to internal strife and violence in the new republic of Congo. Reports on the situation are conflicting. Even at the present time there is no clear picture of what is actually happening, but it is apparent that the Congolese nation is facing a serious threat to its existence. There is need to bring about the restoration of law and order throughout the country, and the government of Congo has requested outside assistance to achieve this end. It goes without saying that the Congolese government must be the primary source of authority, and no outside power including the United Nations can or should assume that responsibility. All that can be done by other nations is to respond to reasonable requests for assistance.
On July 12 the secretary general of the United Nations received from the president and the prime minister of the Congo a cable resquesting the urgent dispatch of military assistance by the United Nations. This request was in addition to the Congolese request for technical assistance which had already been discussed between the Congolese authorities and Dr. Ralph Bunche, as I said two days ago.
The secretary general requested that the security council be convened on July 13. The council met last evening and until the early hours of this morning. The proceedings began with a statement by the secretary general on the steps which he envisaged as part of a United Nations program of assistance to the republic of the Congo.
The secretary general has emphasized that the difficulties in the Congo are connected with the maintenance of order and the protection of lives. The request for urgent technical assistance which had been made by Dr. Bunche in the field of administration was aimed especially at assistance in restoring the civil authority. This request is within the competence of the secretary general, and he has been considering steps to implement it including the secondment of some military

officers now serving with the United Nations truce supervisory organization in Palestine to service in the Congo.
To meet immediate needs, the secretary general considered it necessary to respond to the second Congolese request, that for military assistance. Notwithstanding the risks and difficulties, he believes that a United Nations stopgap arrangement through establishing in the Congo a United Nations force for restoring and maintaining order is preferable to any other formula for meeting the situation. His conclusion, which he conveyed to the security council, was that the United Nations should accede to the request of the Congo, and he strongly recommended that he be authorized to take the necessary steps.
This authorization was given by the council early this morning. A resolution submitted by Tunisia and reading in part as follows authorized the secretary general-
-to take the necessary steps in consultation with the government of the republic of Congo to provide the government with such military assistance as may be necessary until, through the efforts of the Congolese government with the technical assistance of the United Nations, the national security forces may be able, in the opinion of the government, to meet fully their tasks.
The resolution was adopted by a vote of 8 in favour, none against and 3 abstentions, China, France and the United Kingdom. The resolution also called upon Belgium to withdraw its troops from the Congo. It was the secretary general's understanding that if the United Nations were to act as he had proposed the Belgian government would see its way clear to withdrawing its forces.
The secretary general has said that arrangements for placing the military force in the Congo would be under way in a matter of hours. He has been consulting with member governments concerning the contingents for the proposed military force. It is his intention that they should be drawn mainly from African countries, and it is these countries which he is currently consulting. The house will recall that yesterday I pointed out that I felt that whs the proper course to be followed at this time, so as to place the Congolese under no misapprehension regarding the action taken by contingents mobilized from countries other than Africa.
At the same time the secretary general is proceeding with his plans for putting in motion the long term program of administrative assistance along the lines of the question asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Assiniboia. In particular, he is arranging for the temporary secondment of UNTSO officers and in an initial request has asked that Canada agree to the secondment of two Canadian officers. He has also been considering whether R.C.A.F. aircraft at present on duty 79951-0-396-J
Inquiries of the Ministry with UNEF should be used in this emergency for ferrying supplies and personnel to the Congo.
The government is responding favourably to requests of this kind because it believes that this is the most useful contribution which Canada can make in the current situation. If there are additional requests of the same nature they will be considered seriously.
The hon. gentleman asked me with regard to food. The United Nations reported that there is a very serious food shortage. Some governments have been approached about supplying foodstuffs. This is an area in which Canada might very well be able to make an effective contribution, and the government stands ready, to consider requests in that regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will have listened with interest to the statement which the Prime Minister has made, and will certainly join him in approval of any action which the United Nations can take to restore this confused and almost anarchial situation, judging by reports, in the Congo.
I think it is important to provide technical, economic and administrative assistance to this new state. As a matter of fact I have always felt, as other hon. members have, that one of the most useful things the United Nations could do in current circumstances is to build up a corps of administrative experts which would be available for new states at the beginning of their existence, when administrative help of that kind is perhaps the help that would be most valuable to them. No doubt that is why Mr. Ralph Bunche was sent to the Congo in the first instance, but these things cannot be effective until order is restored. I think the United Nations has been correct in taking action in that field at once.
If there ever was a situation which underlines the necessity of having available a stand-by United Nations police force, ready, trained, equipped and with transportation so it could be moved into action at a moment's notice, this, Mr. Speaker, is it. In the light of these circumstances it is discouraging to realize that no progress has been made in recent years to build up that stand-by force. However, that being the situation, I think the United Nations through the secretary general and in compliance with the resolution of the security council, is doing everything presumably that can be done, and we can leave the matter with confidence in the hands of the secretary general who is acting with his usual speed and efficiency.
Although I think the Prime Minister is quite right in indicating that at this stage such police assistance might properly come
6274	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry from African nations to avoid any kind of misunderstanding, I hope if that kind of help is not available in the numbers that are required, or are presumed to be required, perhaps the government of Canada could let the United Nations know that we have a battalion trained, equipped and available for that kind of service that could be made available if it were required by the United Nations.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a day for renewed hope and justifiable pride in the action that is being taken by the United Nations. I think this is a strong indication of the effectiveness of the United Nations in preserving the peace of the world and in bringing order out of chaos in this emerging African nation. I am delighted with the action that has been taken by the security council. I express the hope that they will be able to raise the required police personnel within the bordering nations of Africa.
I think the Prime Minister was quite correct when he stated it would be preferable to have the United Nations police force composed of troops from neighbouring nations rather than to send white troops into that nation, which action might be misinterpreted. However, I know that Canadian troops are available if they are required in any way. I am sure all Canadians will support any effort that may be made by our country to provide technical assistance, food and necessary transportation in order to move personnel and supplies to this country.
I am confident that as this situation unfolds in the days ahead, peace and order will be restored, and that the citizens of this new nation will enjoy freedom and an improving standard of living. I am exceedingly pleased with the action taken by the United Nations security council, and I know that in any assistance the Canadian government is able to render the government in this instance will have the full support of the nation.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I apologize for not giving her notice, but my question is based on a telegram from Vancouver just handed to me. In view of the fact that the government apparently thinks that Miss Irene Rebrin is a security risk to Canada, does the government consider that the security of the country is endangered by


her continuing to teach at the University of British Columbia and to maintain her office there?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should express an opinion on that subject.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister advise the house whether hearings have been held in Ottawa by the Canada labour relations board with respect to the certification of a bargaining agent for C.P.R. merchandising services in British Columbia? If such hearings have been held, will the minister advise the house what decision has been reached?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware whether hearings have been held, but I will check into the matter and give the information tomorrow.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In securing the information will the minister also find out whether the labour relations board has authorized the holding of a vote to allow the determination of the wishes of the employees of C.P.R. merchandising services?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State. Could the minister inform the house whether French Canadian organizations have been invited to be represented in the council in charge of planning the celebrations for the centenary of the Canadian Confederation?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to clear up a misunderstanding which has spread among the public, to the effect that the Canadian council for the centennial celebration is a government body. On the contrary, it is an organization which was set up in May of this year by non-governmental associations. The council has neither solicited nor received any financial aid from the federal government,

and has no authority except that conferred to it by its own members. I have inquired from its secretariat, and was informed that some 75 French Canadian organizations have been invited to be represented in the council, that at least 25 of them have already shown special interest in the matter, and that about 15 were represented at the meeting held in Ottawa last May.
(Text):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) on July 12, arising out of an article in L'Action Catholique with regard to visitors to departmental ships going north, may I say this. This complaint probably relates to the N.B. McLean which stopped briefly, from 6 a.m. to 7.30 a.m., at Quebec on July 7 to load last minute stores. The previous day a number of calls were received to permit relatives to visit the ship. This was probably because last year a longer stay at Quebec made this possible. In view of the very short stopover of the N.B. McLean, and because there was no suitable ship available at the agency to transport relatives, it was not possible to grant permission this year.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the report in Le Devoir of July 13 to the effect that of the 104 commonwealth students coming to Canada under the commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan, only four will be enrolled in French language universities, will the minister state whether any consideration is being given to broadening the plan to include nations of the French community, as recommended by myself and other members of the house on March 25?


Howard Charles Green: In reply to the hon. member's question may I say this. I understand that in addition to the four commonwealth scholars who will be studying at French language universities in the province of Quebec, there will also be three students at the University of Ottawa. As the hon. member observed on March 25, it is difficult,
Canada Elections Act
considering all the circumstances, to provide a very substantial portion of training in French language universities for students coming to Canada under a commonwealth scholarship scheme.
I might say, however, that the participation of the French language universities in the operation of the scheme through their representatives on the commonwealth scholarship committee has been exceedingly helpful and welcome. The commonwealth scholarship scheme was not designed to apply to nations of the French community. This whole situation is under review, but at the moment I am not in a position to make any further report.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, July 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Balcer for third reading of Bill No. C-83, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker:: The order has been read for resuming the debate. I understood the wish of the house yesterday to be that yesterday's discussion of this matter would not be counted as part of the debate so as to prevent anyone from speaking again who had spoken at that time in the discussion which took place. Subject to any other order of the house, I shall regard that as being the situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on third reading of this bill to put forward a proposition which has been supported over the years by the C.C.F. party. We believe that the bill being discussed on third reading today is in general a good one, and contains many improvements as the result of the work of the committee on the Canada Elections Act. However, there is one particular feature of the bill that we should like to see changed, namely the provision as to the age of voters.
Throughout the bill it is provided that in order to be qualified as an elector a citizen must be of the full age of 21 years. We feel for many reasons that it would be helpful and that it would be a mark of progress and would receive the support of the Canadian people if the age of voters in this country could be reduced from 21 years to 18 years.
As the years go by it is well known to members in this house that young Canadians are getting a steadily improved education and are taking a growing and wider interest

Canada Elections Act
in public affairs. I do not think the knowledge of public afEairs of our 18 year olds today can really be compared with the knowledge of people of this age of 40 years ago or 50 years ago. The availability of mass communication, radio, television and newspapers, has made it possible for our young people to have an extremely wide knowledge of public affairs at an early age.
Our educational facilities in this country are being improved all the time. More and more young Canadians are availing themselves of these educational opportunities, so that as the years go by our young people are getting a steadily higher education. The 1911 census showed that 18 year olds in this country had on the average a grade 7 education. Thirty years later, with the 1941 census, the average education of young Canadians of the age of 18 had improved to the level of grade 10. Ten years later, at the 1951 census, it was shown that on the average young Canadians were in school for ten and a half years. I have no doubt that when the census is taken next year, once again a steady improvement in the education of our young people will be demonstrated.
We think it is quite an anomaly that many school teachers, when they first become qualified to teach school in this country, are in fact themselves under our present law too young to vote. Yet they have the qualifications that enable them to teach history, civics and social studies. In other words they are considered to be sufficiently qualified to impart their knowledge of public affairs to Canadian students, but we take the position or we have been taking the position as a parliament that they teach on these questions of public affairs but we do not think they have the suitability or the brain to cast an intelligent vote.
Some provinces have shown the federal government the lead. The province of Saskatchewan was the first province in Canada to lower the voting age to 18. In two other provinces, namely Alberta and British Columbia, the voting age has been lowered to 19. From practical experience, and from having taken part in election campaigns in provinces that have the lower voting age, I know that young people at the age of 18, 19 and 20 take a very active interest in election campaigns, in the discussion of public issues and in fact take sufficient interest to exercise their franchise. I might also say they are rather disturbed, frustrated and disappointed when a federal election being held a few months later denies to them under this kind of law the right to exercise their franchise in that election.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if hon. members who are in the house and those who are in its precincts would moderate their conversation. I appreciate that they have to converse, but would they lower their voices, as there is an unusual amount of noise in the house at the moment.


Hazen Robert Argue: 
Mr. Pickersgill:: Whoever said that?


Hazen Robert Argue: That was said by the representative of the former administration. He said that one of the objections-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On what occasion?


Hazen Robert Argue: After I sit down I think I will be able to look in the debates volumes which I have and get the precise quotation; but I make the statement without any fear whatsoever of contradiction that that was one of the arguments put forward on a previous occasion as an impediment to this being done. I answered it and objected to it when that argument was put forward before, as I will object to any suggestion that monetary considerations should be a factor in this question.
In answering this argument previously I even made the point that on the basis of the cost per elector, by bringing in a larger body of electors you would reduce the per voter cost. But I think it was such a misplaced argument that it scarcely deserves a substantive reply. I do not think the minister, when he answers our argument, will put forward that proposition as a reason why the government should not take action at this time.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Skeena, who is an authority in the field of the election act and who made an outstanding and brilliant contribution to the deliberations of the committee, put forward very plausible arguments which I think were exceedingly sound as to why the voting
Canada Elections Act
age should be reduced. It is because of the work that the C.C.F. party has done in this house over the years, in which I have had the honour to play an active role, and the work done by the hon. member for Skeena and many other members of this party over the years, that it is my pleasure at this time to move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena:
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 14 with respect to lowering the age of electors from 21 years to 18 years.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I have looked up the precedents on motions of this type which have been dealt with in this house in the past, some of them by Your Honour, and I feel that this motion is not only desirable in its terminology and its effect but has been drawn in accordance with the rules of this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a just a word or two with regard to this amendment which would reduce the voting age in federal elections from 21 to 18. As the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment has pointed out, in the past the party which I now have the honour to lead has opposed this reduction in the voting age, and in the committee which considered this matter there was a division of opinion, I believe, among the Liberal members of that committee. There was at least one who advanced' some arguments against this change.
Perhaps this gives me an opportunity to reaffirm what I have said before, namely that because the Liberal party in the past did not take certain action that is no reason why its policies should not change as conditions may change. If I may paraphrase the words of Sir Winston Churchill, though they were applied to a different situation, we try to keep our party in harmonious concord with the development of events.
There is a great deal to be said in the circumstances of today for the reduction of the voting age from 21 to 18, and most of the major arguments in favour of such a change were given by the hon. member for As-siniboia. The argument which I think must make the greatest appeal is that we do not hesitate as a state to call on young people to fight for our country and, if necessary to die for our country, as thousands under the age of 21 have done. We ask them to accept the supreme obligation of citizenship in this regard, irrespective of whether they are 21 or 20 or 19 or 18, so it seems to me that if we ask Canadians to take on that obligation the time has come when they should have the privilege of voting so they

Canada Elections Act
may do their share in determining the policies which might affect the situations in which they would be asked to share in this supreme obligation. I think young people of 18 or 19 or 20, as a result of the training they received in our educational establishments today, are quite qualified to use their judgment wisely and well in respect of the franchise as well as in respect of other matters on which we ask young people today to exercise their judgment.
We do place obligations on and grant privileges to young people in many fields now, including the privilege of paying taxes. If we are going to ask them to serve in the armed forces and to pay their share of the expenses of government, I think the time has come when we should give them the privilege of playing their part in determining government policy. So I think it is right that the voting age for this purpose should be reduced, all the more so because there have been changes in some of the provinces, though not in all of them, in regard to voting age. This is an indication of a trend. I agree with the hon. member that we should not wait until we have voting rules and regulations in all the provinces.
For these reasons, speaking as the leader of our party, I will be very happy to support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it seems passing strange that a matter as important as this should have been delayed in its appearance before the house, except for the references that were made to it in the committee, until this, the occasion of the third reading of the bill.
I would immediately join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in agreeing that over the years thousands of Canadians between the ages of 18 and 21, and even those between 17 and 21, have made the supreme sacrifice in the service of their country. In so far as the degree of intelligence of young Canadians is concerned, there can be no disagreement in that regard. Certainly some of the most outstanding of young Canadians of this age have made contributions far beyond those that could have been anticipated 25 or 50 years ago. We still have, of course, the rule with regard to legal liability fixing the age of responsibility at 21 years.
I have just had handed to me a record showing the voting ages in various parts of the world. While it was placed in evidence before the committee on May 19, to place it in Hansard would, I believe, be helpful. This

is the table of countries and states showing the ages at which people are allowed to vote:
18	years of age:
U.S.A.-states of Georgia and Kentucky, province of Saskatchewan, Bulgaria, Venezuela, Mexico (married persons), Bolivia, Costa Rica (married men and teachers), Union of South Africa.
19	years of age:
Province of Alberta, province of British Columbia, State of Alaska.
20	years of age:
Costa Rica (other than married men and teachers).
21	years of age:
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, United States of America (except Georgia, Kentucky and Alaska), France, Belgium, Portugal, Peru, Chile, Mexico (single persons), Norway, Sweden, Finland.
22	years of age:
Turkey.
23	years of age:
Denmark.
23 years of age:
Netherlands.
The Leader of the Opposition says "While the lights still burn, the greatest sinners may return". I paraphrase his remarks and apply them to an unusual change of attitude; for after all in the committee, so I am informed, that exponent of parliamentary democracy the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate- I notice the hon. member immediately identifies himself even before I finish speaking -voted against the reduction of the age to 18, as did the various Liberal members on that committee-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not all.


John George Diefenbaker: -with one exception, the hon. member for Hull.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Only two voted.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: We belong to a party where freedom is recognized.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there you see another change in that party in recent years. Does it not show, Mr. Speaker, the benefits that flow from being in opposition? This changing world is bringing about changed conditions because of the changed situation of party members in this house.
In speaking particularly to the amendment may I say this. This is a subject of considerable importance. It was dealt with in a cursory way during the course of the committee hearings. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, when it was pointed out that there was only one commonwealth country with a voting age of 18, South Africa, made the following statement which appears at page 325 of the minutes of proceedings:
I notice that people of 18 years are allowed to vote in the Union of South Africa. I do not know what conclusions would be drawn from that.

I do not know what the meaning of that observation is, either, but I observed that that was one of the statements the hon. member made during the course of his contribution.
I have been in this position now for a period of approximately three years.


Mr. Hellyer:: Time for a change.


John George Diefenbaker: While many matters have been brought to my attention during that time, I think the total number of resolutions, letters and communications received on this subject does not represent a volume that would indicate a general demand on the part of the people of this country for a change of such importance and significance. I do not mean to suggest that the contributions that young people can make are not realized. Indeed, one of the outstanding features of the membership of the present government party arises from the fact that we have, I think, some 50 members who are young enough to be members of the young people's Conservative organization. This indicates that we have been particularly successful in mobilizing fine young men and women.
I can see the value of action along this line, and I can also recognize the traditional arguments that are made, but this is not a matter to be decided at a time when the bill is before us for third reading. This is not the time to refer back to the committee a bill which has already been thoroughly considered by the committee. That committee has already voted on this matter and with the support of the official opposition, with one exception. After all, conversions come suddenly to some.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And never to others.


John George Diefenbaker: I think of Saul on the road to Damascus. But the change on the part of a political party with respect to a matter on which it took an entirely different stand only two or three months ago leads one who is not of a suspicious nature to conclude that there must be reasons for this sudden change of front.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are a Liberal party.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter that deserves serious consideration. It is not to be decided at a moment like this, suddenly and without thought and consideration being given to the full implications. I think it is one of those things that might very well be studied in detail by a committee at a subsequent session of parliament, a committee that would recognize on the one hand the extreme worth of the contributions of young men in the service of their country in two world wars, and at the same time recognize all the other
Canada Elections Act
matters which must be considered and which apparently have been considered by every other democracy in the commonwealth.
I therefore suggest that the amendment cannot be accepted, for it would simply have the effect of bringing about a delay in any final consideration of the Canada Elections Act. In a subsequent session I will join with hon. members in giving the membership of the house an adequate opportunity to fully explore all the considerations relative to this question; then having given them that opportunity, after hon. members have through deliberation and consultation arrived at a conclusion, we will be in a position to reach some determination on this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is your last chance.


John George Diefenbaker: In other words, we do not wish to conclude a matter as important as this on a sudden gust of emotion introduced at third reading, which would have the effect of defeating the purpose of the amendments introduced to the Canada Elections Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I
should begin by correcting the Prime Minister's bowdlerized version of the quotation; because I think the hymn reads-and I understand why he changed it-"the vilest sinner". As the vilest sinner in this particular case I am rising to make a short confession.


Hazen Robert Argue: You will require your full 40 minutes for this.


Mr. Kucherepa:: Confession is good for the soul.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the parliamentary committee, where we are all equal, I did not vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena and my friend the hon. member for Hull did. The Liberal party was represented in that committee just as much by the hon. member for Hull as by me. With one exception I never pretended at any time to speak in that committee for my party. There was one occasion with respect to something that was not adopted, that is to say the regulation of broadcasting, where I was authorized by the party caucus to put forward the views of the Liberal party. On every other occasion I spoke entirely on my own responsibility as a member of this house.
I confess that over the years I have had some bias against reducing the voting age but not for the usual reasons. I admit, however, that there was one point raised by the Prime Minister which I believe I raised in the committee, and which I certainly raised in the house some years ago when I was

Canada Elections Act
secretary of state. I feel there is quite a valid argument to be made that if the voting age is to be reduced to 18, the age of legal liability should also be reduced to 18.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a matter of
provincial responsibility.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I recognize, of course, that that is a matter not within the jurisdiction of this parliament, as the Prime Minister has so properly pointed out. I do not think it is too strong an argument. As a matter of fact I do not think any of the arguments on one side or the other of this matter are very strong. In spite of the eloquence of the hon. member for Assiniboia I do not think that Canada has not been a democracy because over the years people have not had a vote at age 18, nor do I think it will suddenly turn into a democracy if they do have a vote at that age. I think that kind of exaggeration does not really help very much in a discussion of important public affairs.
I think the most compelling argument is that emphasized by my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, the argument that we accept people into the armed forces at age 18, and of course as long as they are on active service they do have the vote. All our regular armed forces have been on active service since 1950, so all of them have had the vote. All those who are liable to be immediately called upon to act in any sudden emergency have the vote now. I do not think there is any objection in principle, and I have never thought so, about giving the vote to people at the age of 18.
I said I was going to make a confession. I made it in the committee and I think I might just as well make it in the house. In any event I think the facts are pretty well known. At the age of 18 I was a hereditary Conservative; at the age of 21 I had seen the light and had become a Liberal. That is not an infrequent happening. It certainly was not unusual in the 1920's when it happened to me in western Canada. It was a very common experience. What was, of course, more unusual and more uncommon in western Canada in those years was another conversion of a much more distinguished member of the house than myself. While I was advancing another gentleman was receding. Of course I know it is not right to impute motives, so I will not attempt to identify the hon. member. It has always seemed to me that there is-perhaps it is a part of human nature-a tendency, once one has cast a vote, to become more identified with a political party than before one has cast a vote.
By giving the vote to people at the age of 18 it, might in fact cause many of them

to remain in that hereditary position that I was in, instead of forming rather more mature views as to the right course to take. I do not think this is a strong argument; I have never maintained it is. I must confess that when I was secretary of state and was called upon to express a view on a private bill on this matter, when I was younger and more zealous than I am now, I did put forward that argument; but I never put forward the argument which the hon. member for Assiniboia attributed to the Liberal party-


Hazen Robert Argue: Not you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I will not say what I think of that argument, but I would not get into a quarrel with the hon. member for Assiniboia for what he said about it. The idea that it would cost a little more to let people of 18 vote does not really impress me at all, and I do not think it would impress anybody who is sitting around me now. Indeed, so little would it impress us that one of the most intelligent and brightest young members of this house has a bill on this matter on the order paper at this very moment. I suppose someone conceivably might have raised a point of order because of that fact, but I am not raising it because I am quite prepared to have this matter come to a vote. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) has a bill on the order paper to do precisely what it is suggested the committee should do if this bill goes back. The Leader of the Opposition said the bill was put on the order paper with his knowledge and approval.
The position I took in the committee I took in a very mild sort of way. Having made a fundamental change in my political position in the year 1926-


Mr. Churchill:: There was another change in 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I will have no twinges of conscience and no worries of any kind in joining with the Leader of the Opposition in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I had not
intended to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, but so many amusing comments have been made that perhaps I might be allowed to make one or two. Perhaps I should start by referring to the confession that we just heard, but I doubt whether it will get the hon. member either forgiveness or absolution because it is the type of confession that he entered into only after he had been discovered and found out. I should like to compliment both him and the Leader of the Opposition on adopting a progressive attitude

toward these things, and on accepting once again the leadership provided by the C.C.F.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have a bill on the order paper.


Frank Howard: I would recommend to the Leader of the Opposition the Churchillian phrase, which I think runs something like this: "Keep in harmonious tune with the times". In any event, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will understand that it is much easier to do that when you are in the government than after you have been defeated as a government. Perhaps he should have adopted that attitude while his government were in power, and they might still be sitting on the other side of the house.
I was also rather amused that the Acting Secretary of State, who is piloting this bill through the house, did not take advantage of the occasion to make the first reply. I should have liked to hear his comments. However, the Prime Minister chose to speak on his behalf. Perhaps this is a forerunner of what we may expect, and we shall be permitted to have the Prime Minister in the house when the estimates of the Department of Labour are up for discussion so that we may get his reaction as well as that of the Minister of Labour.
The Prime Minister said that introduction of this amendment was a delaying tactic; that it should have been done before, and he also made some slighting comment about a cursory examination in the committee which reported on this particular proposal. If the Prime Minister will read through the reports of the committee he will find that we discussed this matter in some detail on two different days, not only on the day he mentioned when he read from the proceedings.
Second, because of the action of the government in pushing this bill through as quickly as possible the other day, by proceeding from the resolution stage to second reading and through the committee stage without the bill being before us, we were prevented from dealing with this matter earlier. In any event a third reading amendment of this sort is more formal than an amendment in committee because it affords an opportunity to each hon. member to take part in the debate or express his views by way of his vote.
It was rather unkind of the Prime Minister to read only from pages 323 and 324 of the proceedings of the committee, which contain the names of the countries which have the voting age of 18. The Prime Minister engaged in a sort of campaign of denigration, because he skipped over one of the references and then attached this reference to the
Canada Elections Act
Union of South Africa by saying that in South Africa people can vote at the age of 18 years and so can they in the province of Saskatchewan. They are not in that order. This, of course, was a slick way of attempting to blacken the name of Saskatchewan and the attitude of the Saskatchewan government in reducing the voting age, by connecting it with the name of South Africa. The Prime Minister need not be proud of his attitude and approach when it comes to a consideration of what has happened in South Africa.
The Prime Minister also made reference to the fact that not too much desire is being expressed by those younger people to obtain the right to vote; therefore we should not do too much about it. The Prime Minister is not noted for meeting the people of this country. In fact he is noted for brushing them off.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: After all, not too long ago I went to a meeting in the Chateau Laurier at which many members of the house were present, and a petition with some 300,000 signatures of western farmers was presented to the Prime Minister asking for deficiency payments. What has he done about it? He has forgotten about it. He has put it aside.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is engaging in a debate on the personality of the Prime Minister rather than on the principle of the bill. He is getting away from the subject under consideration in talking about the agricultural liaison committee, about which we hear frequently in the house.


Frank Howard: It was not my intention to leave the impression that I was engaging in a debate on the personality or the personal life of the Prime Minister. However, the Prime Minister is the one who raised this question in the first place, and he did it in such a slick, legal way as to create a wrong impression. It was not my intention to leave the impression that I was making a personal attack on the Prime Minister, although I think he justly deserves it on many occasions.
I will refer to the attitude of the government rather than that of the Prime Minister. Speaking on behalf of the government, the Prime Minister said their attitude was that the amendment if accepted would defeat the bill. In other words, it is a good idea but let us do it later. All this indicates is a lack of courage on the part of the government to face up to something which should be done, but rather than doing it they hope to leave the thought in the minds of the people in this age group that it will be done when the government gets around to doing it.

Canada Elections Act (Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, having, at the committee, supported the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) with respect to lowering the age of electors from 21 years to 18 years, I think I should add a few remarks on the matter.
I think that, in stating that all Liberal members, save one, had voted in favour of the status quo, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) gave the house a wrong impression.
It is true that only two Liberal members were present at the committee, that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) voted with the majority, and that I voted with the member for Skeena, even supporting his amendment. This would indicate that 50 per cent of the Liberal members favoured the amendment, while the other 50 per cent opposed it. And if the Prime Minister seems to be somewhat shocked, as was the hon. member for Skeena, at the fact that today the Liberals seem inclined to approve the proposal to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, it is because he fails to understand the Liberal party, which stands for development and progress according to circumstances and needs. The Liberal party does not want to remain conservative, along the old principles and in the full sense of the word.
For my part, I have always favoured development and the right to vote at age 18 because, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said a moment ago, since our young people can be compelled at 18 to risk their lives for their country, without even being consulted, they should at least have the right to express their opinion on that matter which decides their lives.
Furthermore, if young people at 18 are called upon to pay substantial taxes to the country, it seems to me they should have their say in the matter since they have to pay a substantial proportion of the country's expenses.
I quite perfectly understand what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate means when he says that, had he been allowed to vote at age 18, he would probably have committed the monumental blunder of supporting the Conservative party, but that by the time he was 21 he had seen the light and had sided with a progressive party, the Liberal party.
I think there is another good reason in favour of the proposed change.
In 1926, radio and television were not nearly as developed as now, whereas today, after young people have left school, they can

supplement their education, and are therefore more able to express purely personal opinions. I contend that today more than ever, young men are prepared for the future, are entitled to express their opinions and to decide their own fate, especially in the event of a war, for it is not after our young people are in the armed forces that they can make their views known. It is before the government decides that our young people must go out and get killed that they have a right to have a hand in the choice of the government that will be taking the final decisions.
Those, Mr. Speaker, were my reasons for supporting the resolution of the hon. member for Skeena and that is why, again today, I am proud to join with my leader in openly supporting this progressive measure giving young people the right to decide their fate when opportunity offers.
(Text):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the question of the voting age was one of the major considerations of the committee that studied the Canada Elections Act. This point has been covered very thoroughly. Arguments on both sides were put forward and a motion was made which was defeated in the committee. As far as our party are concerned, we have had the privilege of listening to the Prime Minister briefly answer the leader of the C.C.F. party and the Leader of the Opposition, but we have not closed the door. The Prime Minister suggested that if it was desired at another session to have the committee investigate this particular matter he would be quite agreeable to this being done.
On the other hand, the C.C.F. leader has chosen to move this amendment at the very last minute of the consideration of this bill. The hon. member for Skeena tried to leave the impression that we had taken him by surprise the other day and had tried to force the bill down their throats, but there was absolutely nothing to prevent him moving this amendment when we were in committee on the bill. Therefore, even if we had wanted to lower the voting age, to do so at this stage would amount to a vote of non-confidence in the government, and we certainly cannot accept that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, a number of very good arguments have been advanced in favour of the amendment. It is not my wish to repeat them now, but one argument has not been presented about which I should like to speak very briefly.

I refer to the question of awareness of political activity and the political aspects of our national life. This is a very fundamental subject and one in which I know we are all very much interested. If it were possible by reducing the minimum age of electors to 18 from 21 to increase awareness of political affairs and encourage wider participation at an early age in political activity which would form a base for continued interest throughout the adult lives of such people, I think this change would be very worth while.
I have been particularly impressed by the students who have come here to visit parliament in session. High school and university students in their teens have shown an interest in and knowledge of the affairs of the house which I think would even put some members of the house to shame. Unfortunately I do not think this is true of all the young people of our country. In my opinion we should take all possible steps to encourage wider and deeper participation. Those who come from the maritime provinces, for example, know that among students there political awareness and activity are much keener and much more widespread than in the central provinces. At the University of Toronto interest in political activities and political party organizations is very small and is in fact minimal in proportion to the total enrolment in that great university. I think this situation is unfortunate, because it is an indication that the young people are not fully aware of and are not interested in the system which has made this country great.
Our party believe in the Liberal democratic system. We believe that the continuance of this system in the world is now subject to challenge. We are involved in a life and death struggle with another ideology, namely with the godless communist atheism which threatens to engulf us and our system. If our Liberal democratic system is going to survive it will require not only the participation of dedicated, informed and competent people to seek and hold public office, but also an informed and interested electorate at large.
If by lowering the voting age we could even to a small extent encourage a greater awareness and a wider participation, then I think this step would be worth while. Apathy is something that we must not encourage. Apathy permits abuse. Apathy opens the door to the disintegration of the parliamentary and the democratic system. If we can encourage our young people to participate in and to identify themselves with political movements, political ideas and political knowledge at an early age, I think this is a goal worthy of our
Canada Elections Act
support. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I think those of us on this side of the house welcome the opportunity to express our feelings in this matter.
As was stated, we had on the order paper a bill which would do exactly the same thing as the amendment now before us. It has been some time since I have read the elections act, but I presume that if this amendment were carried and if the committee of the whole house made the change suggested, these young people would be able to seek election to this House of Commons at the age of 18. This possibility has been presented as one of the arguments against the adoption of such an amendment.
I am not sure that this would be a disadvantage. There is no reason why younger people should not present themselves for office when they would have their merits, their background and their qualifications for public office judged by the electorate at large on the same basis as those of their elders. It might even be that a few young people, a young ginger group in the House of Commons, would do something to the deliberations of this august body and present a leavening of new ideas which would make us even more aware than we have been of the tides of change.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is something that is badly needed on your side.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is for these reasons that I think those of us among the younger element of the House of Commons, and particularly the Liberal party, welcome the opportunity of taking a step which we would hope would increase the sense of responsibility, participation and activity amongst young people, something which would then form a solid basis for their continued political awareness throughout their adult responsible lives.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take much of the time of the house at the present time. However, I should like to say that I, along with other hon. members, have noticed quite a conversion here. The hon. member for Trinity made mention of the fact that if this amendment were carried, young men and women of the age of 18 might possibly sit in this House of Commons. The conversion strikes me most forcefully. I certainly see a great change in attitude among members on the front benches in the party alongside of me. Just in this session they have used all kinds of expressions in the middle of a very serious debate, and not speaking at all on the merits of the matter under consideration. In committee the hon. member for Essex East once referred to me as a school boy.

Canada Elections Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member for
Laurier in disdainful terms once said, "Oh, the juvenile member for Brome-Missisquoi". We all know that they have lost the support of the young people of this country by their high-handed and disdainful treatment of them. The young members of the Progressive Conservative party have noticed that in the past weeks and months in this house. We have been called school boys. They have said, "Oh, you were not born at that time". They have called us everything, Mr. Speaker. There is a long list of expressions they have used. All I am saying is. that I personally am most forcefully struck by this change of attitude on the part of that party, especially the front benchers here who at times in this house have treated certain young members in a disdainful manner.


An hon. Member:: Are you against the amendment?


William Heward Grafftey: I only hope that if some people 18 years of age find their way into this House of Commons, their attitude will change in a slight way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, only the eloquence of the hon. member who has just taken his seat causes me to rise in support of the position which the leader of this party has taken.


An hon. Member:: Have you changed again?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister said he was amazed that there was a lack of unity in this party in so far as its members on the committee were concerned. I can well understand the Prime Minister's concern about making sure that those who sit behind him subscribe on all occasions and under all circumstances to the views which he has and to the policies of his government. The Prime Minister understandably is concerned on this point because the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) has dared to assert that within and outside the precincts of the Conservative party he should not be denied the opportunity of expressing his opinions on matters as he sees them. That, of course, is the position of this party, the Liberal party; that has always been its position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because one of our ablest members on the committee dared to express a point of view contrary to that taken by the hon. member for Hull, the Prime Minister sees dangerous implications regarding the integrity, the growth and the potential strength of this party. All I can say to the Prime Minister is that political
[Mr. Grafftey.l
parties must grow with new situations; and if at the present time the hon. gentleman wants to have the discarded opinions of the Liberal party, that is up to him. But a party that subscribes to the principles to which we subscribe must move with new situations, as our leader gave indication.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not quite appreciate what is the cause of the laughter, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know what it is. What I said was that the Liberal leader gave an indication of willingness to move with the times. That is the essence of the matter. The Prime Minister said that he has now been in office for three years. I have recognized that the longer the Prime Minister stays in office the more concerned he becomes about the preservation of things which at one time he strongly advocated should disappear or be liquidated.
The Prime Minister is now getting back into the groove of Conservatism. That will please the old line Conservative and Tory in this country. By the attitude he has adopted today I know he will increasingly satisfy those who are reluctant to see change take place at a time in our day when change everywhere is taking place.
The Prime Minister reminded me today of a former distinguished statesman in another country, who at one time was the head of that country, and who inquired of a man who is conceivably going to be the next president of the United States, was he mature enough for the office? He addressed that young man over television. Did he think he had reached that stage in life where he could responsibly take over the direction of the affairs of the nation? That was an understandable attitude, though a wrong one. The Prime Minister seems to play the same tune. He says "Are we ready to accord the right to vote to those of 18 years of age who have participated in the maintenance of freedom in our time?"
This is undoubtedly a difficult question, but surely it is not one that should be faced by implications in the arguments adduced by the Prime Minister. The leadership for this particular proposal does not come from the hon. member who raised this matter this morning. The leadership for this matter comes from the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have in my hand a copy of the bill which he presented, not today but on February 24. This bill received

first reading on February 24 and was proposed by the hon. member for Beauce. It provides that the age of voters under the Canada Elections Act be 18 years in lieu of 21 as at present. So that leadership for this measure must at this time go to the hon. member for Beauce. It is significant that when he proposed this bill he had discussed the matter with the Leader of the Opposition. And because the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, exercising his right of judgment, had a different point of view, I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, notwithstanding what may be the lack of security in this regard on the part of the hon. member for Madawaska-Twillingate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John William Kucherepa: You are really confused now, Paul.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree that this is a very unhappy interchange of words. I say that notwithstanding the lack of security which the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) may feel in this matter, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate need have no fear about his security and his right to stay in the Liberal party.
The hon. member for Trinity has certainly provided a strong argument, and it is one which I think made an appeal to this house. By this measure we can demonstrate our faith in the young people of our country at a time when in so many places and by so many people their good faith is being questioned. They have demonstrated in more ways than one their qualifications to participate in politics and in the direction of our national affairs.
All that is being asked by this amendment and, even this does not meet the approval of the Prime Minister, is-
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 14 with respect to lowering the age of electors from 21 years to 18 years.
Surely the government is not going to prevent this house, in the light of this discussion, from reconsidering this matter; but better still, let the government and this house give to the hon. member who introduced this measure this session the opportunity of having his bill voted upon. If that is done the purpose of this particular amendment will be met.
We are going to be here all summer. There should be no difficulty in dealing with this matter, particularly for the reason that this will be a demonstration of our faith in our
Canada Elections Act
young men and young women, so often referred to by the Prime Minister as the future leading citizens of this country.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Why did you not give them this demonstration ten years ago when you were in power?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member asks why we did not do it ten years ago. That is all hon. members can say, "Why didn't you do this, why didn't you do that?" My hon. friends do not recognize that a government that did as much as the Liberal government did in the past is not afraid to recognize through its present membership that even it can grow with the experience of new situations.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. member tell me, if he and the Leader of the Opposition felt so keenly about this matter, why he left the initiative this morning to the hon. member for Assiniboia, and why no member of the Liberal party moved an amendment when the house was in committee of the whole?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reason we did what we did was that we recognized that the young men of our party in this house ought to be given an opportunity of sharing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have had a bill introduced by our youngest member. I invite the Prime Minister and the members behind him to rise now from this Conservatism into which they have been plunged during the last few months and join with those of us who are Liberal-minded and recognize that this is a change that should now be made in the interests of our young people and of the pursuit of the political affairs in this country.


Mr. Mariineau:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it is not too
difficult.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. member say if his party is in harmonious tune with political expediency?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a very good and fair question. I can only say that now that the parliamentary secretary has been with the Prime Minister for some six

Canada Elections Act months, perhaps he is the best judge of the kind of answer which should be made to that question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if you are
going to put the motion now, before it is put I would like to raise a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is entitled to raise a point of order at any time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is this. The Acting Secretary of State said in his speech that this amendment was a motion of want of confidence in the government. I just wanted to put to the Prime Minister by way of a point of order that my understanding was that the elections act-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; there is no procedure by which the hon. member can do what he proposes to do.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have been very interested for many years in having a reduction in the age for federal voting from 21 to 18 years. I have been very concerned about the remarks the Prime Minister made today, because this motion was not a last minute idea, as was suggested. It was advanced on two separate occasions in the committee and was finally voted on there.
This question has been raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia on a number of occasions. It was raised first in March, 1954. It was raised again in March, 1955 and it came to a vote in that year. In this regard I think it is very interesting to note the conversion of the Liberal party, because at that time the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River voted against the proposal, and among the 18 other Liberal members who voted against it were the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), as he now is, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mc-Ilraith), the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)-


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Arnold Peters: That is right. The hon. member for Essex East did not express an opinion on that occasion.


An hon. Member:: He escaped that vote.


William Arnold Peters: The Prime Minister used the argument that he had received very little correspondence with regard to this matter. I believe he said he had received only two letters expressing the opinion that the voting age should be lowered to 18 years. I think that is only part of the story, because the speaker went on to say that many young Conservatives had been showing some


interest in this proposal, and one of the young Conservative members was of the opinion that if any people younger than himself came here they would receive more abuse because of their age than he himself had received-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: -because he was a juvenile. It may be there were only two letters received, but I do not think that makes a great deal of difference. I do not think 200,000 letters would have made any difference. I believe we have to face realities. These young people are liable for service with the armed forces. They have to go out into the world at the age of 18 and make their own living. We no longer pay baby pensions in respect of them. We do not make contributions to their medical plans. We do not even carry hospitalization benefits beyond that age.
I think the government is being unfair in accusing us of making this into a want of confidence motion. A similar motion was moved in the committee, and now we are in the house where a decision can be reached without the question being one of confidence in the government.
We in this party sincerely believe that young people should be given the opportunity of voting at the age of 18. We believe this, and we want no credit for having obtained the vote for these young people. When they get it they will decide what they want to do, and will vote for whoever they think best qualified to receive their votes, which is the only way a politician can be rewarded. If the Prime Minister will give us an assurance that he is of the opinion that persons of 18 should be given the vote, and that this can be arranged, I am sure we will be quite happy to withdraw our motion and allow the right hon. gentleman to make the motion in the name of the government. If the Prime Minister does not wish to give us such an assurance, the only conclusion we can reach is that all he was doing was talking and that he has no intention of doing anything about this matter. The right hon. gentleman is going to have to make such a commitment, or the house will be voting on the issue.
May I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Chevrier:: On a question of privilege, I think it is the understanding that when we are considering matters of legislation we do not sit through the lunch hour.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not yet one o'clock. When one o'clock comes we shall deal with that matter.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Arnold Peters: I think some of the arguments which have been raised in favour of allowing young people to vote are worthy of further consideration. We are continually increasing the ability of our youth through education. We are sending them to schools for longer periods and we are teaching them many subjects which are not being taught in some countries where the voting age is lower than our own.


Mr. Speaker:: It is one o'clock. My understanding is that when the house is considering legislation on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays it should rise from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is correct.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before the
luncheon recess we were discussing some pressures considered to be factors in deciding whether or not something should become law. I checked the report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, and at page 177 of the report for Tuesday, May 3, 1960 there appears a resolution on this subject from the legislature of the province of Manitoba which reads as follows:
Resolved that in the opinion of this house the federal government and the government of Manitoba should jointly consider the advisability of lowering the age and qualifications of persons voting in federal and provincial elections.
This resolution was agreed to in the legislature of Manitoba on Friday, March 28, 1958 on the motion of Mr. Hawryluk, as amended on the motion of Mr. Burch. The committee records do not show the amendment, but presumably it is included in the resolution.
I presume this will not carry weight with the government, because other representations on the subject made by large bodies have not carried weight. These problems should be solved on their own merits, and although outside pressure should be considered it should not solely dictate the course of action.
I observe that the Prime Minister has just entered the chamber. The suggestion was made by the Acting Secretary of State that this motion represents a want of confidence motion. We do not think it does, but if the Prime Minister considers it in that light we would be happy to withdraw the motion provided he is willing to put forward in the name of the government a motion that would accomplish the purpose of reducing the voting age.
(Translation):


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the duty of a member
Canada Elections Act
elected in the last federal election to rise in support of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).
If I had been on the committee on privileges and elections, I would certainly have voted for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) if I had personally not had the opportunity of proposing a similar amendment.
Mr. Speaker, in 1952, I had the honour to be elected president of the Quebec young Liberals association, and it seems to me that, by reason of this fact, I have a special duty to fulfil with regard to those young people. Young people were allowed to join our federation, even if they were under 21. I think that if those young people are allowed to join in a political movement, they surely have enough maturity to vote in a general election.
If the great majority of Canada's young people do not have to be 21 to start earning a living, they also have a right to choose those who will run the country.
Moreover, if by the time they are 16 young people are allowed to enlist in Canada's armed forces, and if, at 18, they are considered old enough for active service, I think they are also old enough to vote.
This morning, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) stated in the house that a bill had been placed on the order paper by his colleague from Beauce (Mr. Racine), whom he described as the youngest Liberal member. At the very moment he said this, I heard certain members of the government side say repeatedly: "Where is he? Where is he?"
I therefore considered it my duty to telephone the hon. member for Beauce at his home, at lunch time. The hon. member was in the house yesterday, but as you know, Mr. Speaker, this is July 14, Bastille day, France's independence day. Now, the district of Beauce is one of the oldest in Canada, and was among the first to be settled under the French regime. Therefore people in Beauce join with the many sons and daughters of France living in Canada in celebrating France's national holiday. Thus it is that the hon. member for Beauce had a special duty to perform today, that of laying a wreath at the foot of the monument erected in memory of the citizens of Beauce and others who made the supreme sacrifice for the survival of France.
I can assure the house that, had it not been for this very special duty, the hon. member for Beauce would be here today to support the proposal of the hon. member for Assiniboia.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the few remarks I wanted to make.

Divisions
I will therefore wholeheartedly support the motion of the hon. member for Assiniboia, if it is put to the vote.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise briefly-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -to express support for the amendment and to say how delighted I was to see the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate approach the parliamentary penitential bench and make his open confession. This group are pleased to know that we have converted the Liberal party to a policy advocated by us for 15 years.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment
lost. The question is on the main motion. Is the house ready for the question?
Aitken, Miss	Campbell (Stormont)
Allard	Campeau
Allmark	Cathers
Anderson	Charlton
Asselin	Chown
Balcer	Churchill
Barrington	Coates
Baskin	Comtois
Beech	Cooper
Bell (Carleton)	Creaghan
Bell (Saint John-Albert)	Crouse
Belzile	Diefenbaker
Bigg	Dinsdale
Bissonnette	D orion
Bourbonnais	Doucett
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	Drouin
Brooks	Drysdale
Browne (St. John's West)	Fairclough, Mrs.
Browne (Vancouver-	Fane
Kingsway)	Fleming (Eglinton)
Brunsden	Fleming (Okanagan-
Cadieu	Revelstoke)
Campbell	Grafftey
(Lambton-Kent)	Green


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, before the minister begins will he be good enough to tell us when the estimates were reported back to this committee?


Howard Charles Green: I do not have that information offhand, Mr. Chairman; the officers of the house would have it.


Lionel Chevrier: I have asked for it and have not been successful in getting it.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently on April 27.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, once again I should like to thank hon. members of all parties for the very friendly reception they have given me this afternoon as I commence to deal with the estimates of my department. This, I am sure, reflects the interest that all hon. members are taking in external affairs, and also reflects the fact that generally speaking there is a tripartisan attitude in the house in connection with the problems that come under the jurisdiction of this particular department.
In addition I should like to express thanks to those hon. members who served on the standing committee on external affairs. Once again that committee has done an excellent job, and hon. members this year have maintained the high standard which has been in existence from the start of that standing committee of the house.
I was also very much impressed by the interest taken by hon. members of the other house. They, too, have a committee on external affairs. I am not sure whether it is called the committee on external affairs or the committee on foreign relations, but in any event it deals with external affairs. They asked me to appear before that committee and we had a very helpful discussion.

Supply-External Affairs
I sometimes worry about the extent of the interest being taken in external affairs across the country. I am sure this thought must have occurred to one of my predecessors, the present Leader of the Opposition, from time to time. There are many complicated problems in the world today. Everyone has his or her own personal problems and is affected by problems in the home, the community and so on. One can understand why it must be a little difficult for large numbers of people to follow closely what goes on in international affairs; yet if a country is to take an active part in world affairs-certainly a country which is under a democratic type of government-it is vital that there be a wide awareness across the country of the different policies involved.
Canada, of course, has taken a very active part in foreign affairs for many years, and today is filing a role which is a great deal larger than one would expect of a nation with our population. I am very hopeful that in the years ahead this role will continue to grow. That means, of course, that the Canadian people and their representatives in parliament have rather a heavy obligation to endeavour to understand international problems and to create an informed public opinion. As I say, sometimes I am a little worried for fear that across the country there is not the interest being taken in foreign affairs that is essential if Canada is to maintain her place.
I wish to express a word of admiration for the members of my department. I include in that not only the foreign service officers but all the members of the department in the administrative branches and the clerical help. They are a group of Canadians who have a spirit of adventure. I think most of them are in the department because they are intrigued by the possibility of being posted abroad and of seeing something of the world. There is, I find, this spirit of adventure throughout the department.
It is not all pleasant for a foreign service officer or anyone else going abroad and taking his family overseas. The problem of the education of the children arises; how the children are to be sent to school, how the relationships with the relatives who remain at home are to be cared for, and so on. In some cases these public servants are living under conditions which are not as attractive as would be the case in Canada, but as I go around to different countries and have a chance to see them at their work I am very much impressed by the spirit they show and by the splendid work they are doing.

Within the last few days I had a very fine compliment paid to them by a distinguished diplomat from another country who has been in very close touch with members of the Canadian service. He said that man for man the Canadian foreign service is the best in the world. Unfortunately I am afraid he did not include the minister in that comment; but still I pass on this remark because I think these men and women deserve the praise.
I am also very grateful for the assistance which has been given by the representatives from other countries in Canada. We have a large number of distinguished diplomats in the diplomatic corps here, and their relations with us have been excellent. They bring to us a knowledge of conditions around the world, not only in their own countries but in other countries in which they have served, and they are a great help to the department. I believe in every case-I hope in every case; certainly in all that I have known-they go back to their own countries or to an office in some other country as friends of Canada. These men and their families have quite a lot to do with the good name Canada has in world affairs. I meet them in different places, at the United Nations, at NATO; wherever I go I meet someone who has served in Canada, and invariably they speak well of the way in which they have been treated and they have a great liking for our country. It is a privilege for me to be able to pay this tribute to them today.
In opening my report this afternoon I think it might be worth while to outline some features of the world situation at the present time before going on to make some comments on Canada's activities in world affairs. Since the disastrous blowing up of the summit conference we have all been living in the shadows caused by that event. Hon. members will recall that for many months the whole of the western world, indeed the whole of the civilized world, had been expecting wonderful things of the summit conference. Here in Canada we had hoped that there would be not only one successful conference but a series of such conferences, with the result that at least some of the difficulties in world affairs would be overcome.
I am not today going into details as to the reason for the failure of the summit conference or for the subsequent walk-out of the eastern five from the disarmament committee of 10 nations; but the cold, hard fact is that today we are living in the shadows caused by these two break-downs. There has been a lot of rather nasty name

calling and there has been a lot of propaganda certainly not designed to create good will in the world.
I find it rather difficult to ascertain exactly where communist propaganda ends or begins as related to policies. I think perhaps the communist nations have used propaganda in a different sense from the way in which we use it. Their propaganda might go off in one direction while their actual policy might go off at right angles, and they see nothing inconsistent in that. The policy is what they are really working at, but the propaganda is designed to influence world opinion. On the western side we always think that the propaganda and the policy are exactly the same, and it is very difficult for us to understand that probably they do not mean just the same thing. I do hear reports that the communist propaganda may be complaining bitterly about something, yet at the same time they are saying quietly, "We will go right ahead and carry on our negotiations. Don't be upset about what is being said in public; we still want to negotiate".
In any event, there has been an increase in tension in the world and, of course, Canada stands to lose as much as any other nation by tension. We lie between the two main protagonists, and the more tension there is the more likelihood there is of our sovereignty being interfered with and our right to run our own country being in jeopardy.
So much for the dark side of the picture. I will point out the other side. No doubt I will be accused of being an optimist, but I do not think a foreign minister would be of much use if he were not all for optimism. If he went around with his head down and thinking that the world was coming to an end, then in my judgment he would do much better to take on another job. On the bright side of the picture the conference on nuclear testing, in which the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet are participating, is still continuing. I was reading a dispatch this morning from Geneva, and I think it was reporting on the 267th meeting of that conference. Mind you, throughout all this time there have been no nuclear tests, apart from the French test in the Sahara. It is now almost two years since there was a nuclear test by any one of these three powers.
Another fact which I think is hopeful is that nuclear war still makes absolutely no sense, and I do not think it makes sense in anybody's country or in any language. The situation is still that if there is a nuclear war, in all probability civilization will be destroyed. There are voices raised occasionally to the effect that oh, well, we could have nuclear war and we could clean up this
Supply-External Affairs country or that one; but there are not very many responsible people anywhere in the world today who are not admitting that a nuclear war would probably mean the end of civilization.
Another hopeful fact is that in all countries there is a great, deep human yearning for peace. Perhaps most significant of all is that the nuclear powers are highly sensitive to world opinion. If they were not, if they did not get upset when criticized, I think the world would be in a very bad state. But you will notice, Mr. Chairman, that each of these nuclear powers is very careful not to go too far in the way of upsetting world opinion. They want to be able to justify their actions. At the United Nations in New York they rush to the rostrum to defend their actions just as quickly as some of the smaller nations rush to the rostrum to criticize.
It may be that the fact of their sensitivity to world opinion will be the means of saving civilization. That, of course, can only be done through the United Nations, but I am hopeful that world opinion as expressed through the United Nations by countries such as Canada and all the other countries that feel this way will eventually bring about the result that something will be done about cutting down and getting rid of armaments and living in a sane way in this world, in which under present conditions no one is more than 24 hours away from anybody else in any part of the world.
I go on now to review Canada's activities in certain fields. I am not going to try to cover them all in my opening remarks. My parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Oxford, will be dealing with some of them, and I know that others will come up in the course of the discussion of the estimates. However, I should like to make a brief review of five or six different fields which are of great interest to Canada.
First of all there is the field of disarmament. Canada has had and continues to have a very heavy responsibility in the field of disarmament because of our membership on the 10-nation committee. Last fall I thought it was a wonderful thing for Canada to be a member of the 10-nation committee on disarmament, but now I am not quite so sure that it was such a wonderful thing. Certainly it involved and still involves a great many difficulties and quite a few heartaches, and at times one is inclined to think it would have been very nice to be No. 11, not quite on the 10-nation committee but in a position to criticize the other ten. I suppose I get that from being so long in the opposition. There is quite a lot to be said for being an opposition member unless you are in the opposition too long.
6292	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
However, I repeat that Canada has had heavy responsibilities in the field of disarmament. They involve, not only the work of the committee itself but the five western members on the committee had the additional job of advising the three western heads of government on the question of disarmament in connection with the summit meeting. That meant quite a bit of work, and unfortunately the work was all lost when the summit meeting blew up. But it did involve a great responsibility, and I am confident that nobody in Canada or in any other part of the world will dispute that our country made a sincere and honest effort to get results in the disarmament negotiations. We will, of course, continue to do so . either in this committee, if its sittings are resumed, or if disarmament is considered in the disarmament commission of the United Nations. In whatever field is available, Canada will be doing her best to further the cause of disarmament.
I should like to trace briefly our main activities as a member of the 10-nation committee. In the first place, we pressed for an early meeting. There were some of the western countries that did not want to have the disarmament talks commence until after the summit meeting had been held. If that advice had been followed we can see now just how tragic the result would have been, because very probably there would not even have been a meeting of the disarmament committee. We believed it was essential that the committee should get to work as quickly as possible so that progress could have been made by the time the general assembly meets again this fall and also because of the urgency of the problem. Our wishes in this regard were fulfilled and, as hon. members know, the committee commenced its sittings in March.
We have been in the forefront throughout on that committee in insisting that the United Nations should be tied in just as closely as possible with the work of the committee. It was at Canada's urging that references to the United Nations appeared in the original western proposals, and we had a good deal to do with a representative of the United Nations being in Geneva while the talks were in progress. We also stressed the need for bringing forward the problem of disarming so far as nuclear weapons are concerned. Some of the countries thought that should be deferred until the third stage, that nothing effective could be done about nuclear weapons until a lot of other things had been agreed upon. We believed, and in this we agreed with France, that nuclear weapons were of the first importance, and that there should


be at least some moves made to reach agreement on cutting down or doing away with nuclear weapons in the first stage of the proceedings.
We tried to avoid being provocative in the meetings of the disarmament committee. From time to time that was difficult for the Canadian representative, because some pretty violent accusations were made by the eastern side and I guess there were some pretty violent accusations made by the western side as well. Human nature being what it is, this is the result that follows. When one side starts to abuse the other there is a great temptation not to just sit and take it. Our Canadian representatives are human beings, too, and I suppose fall into the same temptation; but we have done our best to avoid provocative attacks on the eastern side.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have urged that there should be a series of balanced concessions. Some of the countries on both sides, but more so on the eastern than the western, wanted first of all to reach a general agreement which in effect would say, "We are all going to disarm", and that would have been about what it would have amounted to. That would have been about the sum and substance of the agreement. If they could not get everything at once they were not going to make a move.
It seemed to us that that was not a practical way in which to go about getting actual results; and as I reported to the house some weeks ago we decided to try to urge that there be a system of balanced concessions thereby at least making a start. Then we hoped that once a start had been made, we could go on to further saw-off arrangements and finally attain an agreement which had some value. In that course we have had support in Canada. I have here an editorial from the Globe and Mail of June 28. It is quite comforting to the government on occasion to have a favourable editorial of this kind from the Globe and Mail. Referring to the statement I made in the house it said as follows:
-the constructive approach at Geneva would have been for both sides to accept "a process of negotiation of balanced concession''. Instead of seeking agreement on a plan for wholesale disarmament, the delegates should have been willing to make gradual progress, finding agreement in limited fields.
I should not be surprised if, in the final analysis when a disarmament agreement is reached, that objective will be gained by some such system as this of starting from the bottom and working up rather than trying to build from the top down.
When the 10-nation committee reconvened after the failure of the summit conference

the Russians had new proposals to place before it. They issued them on June 2. They said that these proposals had been in their pockets when they were at Paris but that, because there had been no opportunity to hand them across the table, the proposals were going to be submitted when the disarmament committee resumed on June 7.
These proposals went part of the way to meet suggestions which had been made by the western countries. They were issued with a great flourish of trumpets. All the ambassadors to Russia were called in, they were handed a copy of these proposals and there was great press publicity about them. Obviously they were designed for propaganda if for nothing else. In any event, we believed that they merited the most careful consideration. After careful study of the proposals we had suggestions to make as to what the reaction to the proposals should be.
I have here a summary of the Canadian reaction to these soviet proposals. Mind you, this summary is not complete because there are some things which have had to be left out as four other western nations were involved and also there is always the question of security. However, if the committee is willing, I should be glad to have these Canadian proposals printed as an appendix to today's Hansard, so that they can be studied.


The Chairman:: Does the committee agree to have this document printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: I may say that I have expressed the view previously that when a document is to be printed as an appendix to Hansard permission must be secured from the house. When the committee reports to the Speaker he asks for this permission. Also at this time I must indicate to the minister that his time has expired. I presume that the committee is ready to allow him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the committee would want the minister to go on and finish his statement. However, with regard to his immediate suggestion may I say this. He speaks of proposals. That seems to me to be a new characterization of the situation. I did not think they could be so defined. In view of that consideration, does the minister not think it would be better for him to outline what the so-called proposals are?


Howard Charles Green: They are quite lengthy, Mr. Chairman. There are three and a half pages. In effect, this is a summary of the instructions given to our delegation and they were
Supply-External Affairs to be used for a response to the Russian proposals. On the day that the meeting of the disarmament committee broke down the United States proposals were tabled; and by the way that was several days after the Canadian proposals were sent forward. In the face of that sudden break-up or break-down the five western members decided to table the United States proposals which at that time were under consideration by the five western countries. I thought that the committee might be interested in seeing what the Canadian reaction had been to the Russian proposals. Actually it turned out to be much like the United States reaction. There was not a great deal of difference in the attitudes of the two countries. I can read this, if it is the wish of the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had hoped that the minister could give us, without reading them all, an indication of the nature of the proposals. I had not understood that there were proposals; I had understood that they were observations.


Howard Charles Green: There were not in the way of proposals that were actually put forward in the same way as the Russian proposals were put forward. However, this was the Canadian reaction to the Russian proposals. It followed, or it was made as an answer to, the Russian proposals. I can read it if the hon. member wishes me to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are just reactions to another proposal. That is a different matter and I have no objection.


Howard Charles Green: For example, on the package proposal we have this view which is paragraph 2 of this paper;
In concert with other western negotiating countries, Canada should now react with specific proposals lor packaging-
(a) proposals from each side that should be related to preserve balance, and
(b) proposals from each side that disclose a fundamental similarity of view despite superficial differences in detail.
An example of (a) would be measures in the nuclear field linked with the measures in the field of conventional arms and force levels along the lines detailed below in III and IV. Two examples of (b) would be proposals for disarmament in outer space and for peace-keeping machinery. In essence, the approach would be the offer of concrete suggestions for balanced concessions in the interests of early agreement on partial measures and of the adoption of a practical method for negotiating first on areas which should occasion the least delay before implementation. Gen. Burns has already been instructed to advance this approach in the committee.
Then we go on to deal with the single treaty concept, nuclear disarmament, force levels, conventional arms, control, foreign bases and finally peace-keeping machinery.

Supply-External Affairs The hon. member for Essex East would probably be interested in our thoughts on peace-keeping machinery:
The new Soviet proposals concede that should the militia forces which will continue to exist in a completely disarmed world be used for aggression, it may be necessary for the United Nations to collect forces to repel the aggressor, as provided for in article 43 of the United Nations charter. There are still uncertainties about what this apparent Soviet concession actually means. Nevertheless, the Soviet union has moved a step towards the western position and provided the basis for a package containing balanced concessions to both points of view. The Canadian reaction should be willingness to negotiate agreed conclusions in this area which would emphasize the ultimate responsibility of the United Nations for disarmament and the vital interest of other states in the safeguarding of peace. In the interests of focussing attention on more immediately significant matters, Canada would stress the need to concentrate at this time on practical measures rather than on theoretical studies relevant to some future stage.
Unless the hon. member wishes it I will not read the other paragraphs. However, I am sure he will be interested in the paper and if it is agreeable we can have it printed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: Once there had been this breakdown at Geneva in the 10-member committee we thought the best course would be to refer the whole matter back to the disarmament commission of the United Nations. In the final analysis the United Nations has the responsibility for disarmament; that is where eventually any final disarmament agreement will have to be arrived at. It was our opinion that there should be a request made to call the disarmament commission as quickly as possible and that the whole situation should be discussed there. We took that position throughout and we still take that position.
Mr. Hammarskjold, the secretary general, said at first that the disarmament commission should not meet until the dust had settled, and by that he meant meeting perhaps about the middle of August. Our belief is that it would be advisable to have a meeting of that commission at some time next month, rather than waiting until a week or two before the general assembly meets in September, as this has been suggested by some of the other countries. Whether or not this course will be followed I cannot say, but we believe that is the wisest plan.
The 10-nation committee has only been adjourned, it is not dissolved. It may be that eventually it will go to work again. Strange things happen in the world these days and this may occur. We suggested in the letter which the Prime Minister sent to Premier Khrushchev in reply to his rather critical letter to Canada that the past should be forgotten and that the 10 nations should

resume their work in the disarmament committee. I do not know whether that will happen or not; but as I say the committee has not been dissolved and Canada is only too anxious to carry on with this work either in that committee, in the disarmament commission of the United Nations or in any other body which may be set up for the purpose.
Now a few words about Canada's activities in the commonwealth. As you know, Mr. Chairman, our own Prime Minister once again played a very prominent part in the commonwealth prime minister's meeting which was held a few weeks ago in London, just as he did in 1957. Canada has a very responsible position in the commonwealth; we should realize that fact very clearly. After all, we are the senior member of the commonwealth next to the United Kingdom. We have had some experience in world affairs and we are looked to for leadership. I do not mean taking over leadership from the United Kingdom or anything like that, but Canada has a very big responsibility in the commonwealth today. I believe that responsibility was shouldered in an admirable fashion by our Prime Minister at this last conference.
One of the very valuable proposals which came from that conference was the plan to set up a system of aid to the underdeveloped members of the commonwealth in Africa. The decision was to study the possibilities of co-operative action for assisting the economic development of the commonwealth countries in Africa as the first step toward a program possibly along the lines of the Colombo plan. Work is going on at the present time in all the countries of the commonwealth in order that some scheme of that type may be got underway.
A decision was also made to investigate the possibilities for increased exchanges between commonwealth countries of persons with specialized skills and experiences, particularly senior administrators. The aid to Africa plan has those two different features and progress is being made on both of them. I believe this may turn out to be one of the most beneficial plans that the commonwealth has ever undertaken.
That brings me to the fact that Canada has a very important part to play in helping not only the nations which have become independent and are now fully fledged members of the commonwealth, but also the nations which are about to gain their independence. At the present time most of these nations are on the continent of Africa.
Hon. members will appreciate from what has been happening in the Congo within the last few weeks what a vital continent Africa is in the world today. At the same time I think

we will all be very grateful that the manner in which the commonwealth has launched new nations in Africa has been such that these new nations have been able to stand on their own feet and make real progress. This I think is one of the greatest accomplishments of British statesmanship.
On October 1 Nigeria is to become independent. She is the largest country in Africa with a population of between thirty and thirty five million people, and I believe Nigeria will play a very large part in the commonwealth, in Africa and in the United Nations. We are very hopeful of the future of Nigeria. A few days ago I had the minister of information of Nigeria visiting here, and in another two weeks we expect to have the premier of the territory of northern Nigeria with several of his officials. I also hope to be able to visit Nigeria on the occasion of their independence on October 1.
The relations between our two countries are very close. We now have a commissioner in Lagos who will become high commissioner upon Nigeria attaining its independence-I point that out to the hon. member for Essex East-and I do not think there could be a better friendship existing today between Canada and this country which is so soon to become one of the leading members of the commonwealth.
In addition the commonwealth scholarship plan which was initiated by Canada in 1958 is now getting underway. Eventually Canada will have 250 students from other parts of the commonwealth studying at our universities. This year we have only 104. Of course, these are two-year scholarships and there will be another course beginning next year, so there will then be approximately 250 in Canada. The department issued a press release the other day containing a list of the countries from which these young men and women will come. There are 14 from India, 11 from the United Kingdom, 10 from the West Indies Federation, nine each from Australia and Pakistan, five each from Ceylon and Ghana, four each from New Zealand, South Africa and Kenya, three from the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Malta, Uganda and Singapore, two from Malaya, Nigeria, British Guiana, Mauritius and Tanganyika and one from Basutoland, Bermuda, British Honduras, Fiji, Somaliland, Swaziland and Sierra Leone.
Some question was raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia as to the number of these students who would be going to French speaking universities, and this morning I answered that there would be seven out of the 104. This is one of the problems. There are not a great number of French speaking 79951-0-397
Supply-External Affairs students across the commonwealth and some way will have to be found to meet the situation. I am not yet in a position to say just how it will be done. If we suggested, for example, that arrangements be made to bring students here from the French community, which is what the French call their commonwealth, we could run into difficulties with France. I am not sure. But I realize this situation, and we would certainly like to get more French speaking students into Canada. The French speaking universities have cooperated wonderfully in this scheme. All the students have been passed by committees from the different universities, including the French speaking universities. There has been the best co-operation one could possibly hope for from the universities and this is a problem we should do our best to solve.
I am not yet in a position to say how many Canadian students will be going to universities in other parts of the commonwealth, because the final arrangements have not yet been made, but to date we have offers from the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, Malaya and jointly from Kenya, Tanganyika, and Uganda. This commonwealth scholarship plan is, I think, a splendid one and it could have far-reaching effects both on the commonwealth itself and on world affairs.
There is one difficult problem facing the commonwealth, and I would appreciate suggestions with regard to it from members of the house or of the Senate. It is this: are the smaller colonies, for example Malta and Mauritius, to have the same status as such countries as Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Canada, the United Kingdom and countries of that sort? There are about 16 of the larger countries which obviously would become fully fledged members of the commonwealth and about 30 or 35 of the smaller countries. What is to be done about the smaller ones?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Cyprus would be a good example.


Howard Charles Green: An example, though not to the same extent as Malta. Is there to be some different arrangement for them, or are they to come in as fully fledged nations of the commonwealth? This is a very difficult question. At the moment my own opinion would be that it would be unwise to have first and second class citizens of the commonwealth. That does not make much sense to a Canadian. Just what course will be followed is certainly not clear yet. This matter is being studied very carefully and I have no doubt that the genius of the commonwealth for working out practical solutions will be in evidence here, too, eventually. But at the moment this is a difficult question, and we

Supply-External Affairs should be grateful for any bright ideas that hon. members of the house may care to put forward.
Now a word about Canada's activities in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. One of the main questions now before NATO is the proposal to draw up a 10-year plan. The United States suggested it last December, and everybody agreed that it was a very fine idea. I do not think anybody knew just exactly how to go about it, but now we are all working on this problem. The secretary general, Mr. Spaak and his officials are trying to work out a 10-year plan. Canada is trying to work on a 10-year plan, too. We have only got to the fourth year as yet. This, too, is a difficult operation. The United States are working out a plan and I hope that at the December ministerial meeting a 10-year plan will be put forward which can be considered and recommended for final consideration at a meeting of the heads of government of the NATO countries.
We are still plagued by the question of consultation in NATO. As hon. members know, we have done our share of howling about the three big countries going off into a corner and making decisions. We thought that was bad, and still do. We have been on this disarmament committee of five nations, and now the other 10 NATO nations think we are just about as bad as the three were. In so far as disarmament is concerned, there is a temptation for the five to discuss matters and then report to the NATO council about all the things they are agreed on, but not on what they are arguing about. The NATO council finds out anyway, in the corridors, what the arguments have been. But Canada has been on the receiving end in so far as consultation in regard to disarmament is concerned.
It is obvious you cannot keep an alliance strong if you do not have adequate consultation, and we must remember that just as much as the United Kingdom, France and Western Germany. We must remember the fact that there must at all times be adequate consultation.
Of course, there are many questions facing NATO. I am not quite as sure this year as I was a year ago that the Leader of the Opposition was being unwisely pessimistic about NATO. There were a few problems which gave him some justification for being a bit gloomy about the prospects of NATO. However, the spirit of the organization is very good. For example, every member of this house who belongs to the NATO parliamentarians association would agree with me that there has been built up quite a good comradeship in NATO. In addition to there being some very nice trips to Paris and other

centres, I am sure there is an attraction in this association for the members who belong to it because of the work that can be done to help strengthen the organization. Just a few weeks ago we had a visit here by NATO youth from various countries in the alliance, and there again you have young men, some of whom are parliamentarians, meeting together and discussing problems in a way which will help to increase the strength of the alliance.
With regard to our activities in the United Nations I can only say that Canada is continuing to play an active part there. The parliamentary secretary will deal with the refugee problem, radiation, the problems of outer space and several other questions which have been under very active consideration. We are continuing to be greatly interested in the peace-keeping machinery of the United Nations. Canada already plays as big a part as any other nation in the peace-keeping arrangements of the United Nations and the government is continuing that policy. It may be that some provision will have to be made for further support for the United Nations in this field. Certainly our minds are not closed and we are very much in favour of doing everything that Canada can do that is practical to help strengthen the peacekeeping machinery of the United Nations.
The Prime Minister indicated this morning that we are willing to have our observers in Palestine go to the Congo if Mr. Hammar-skjold wishes that done. We are also willing to supply airlifts to the United Nations to help in that country. Some question was raised about our battalion which was earmarked for service under the United Nations subject to Canadian government approval. That is not a practical step to be taken at the moment. For example, we have received dispatches today about the reaction of Ghana to supplying forces in Nigeria. Ghana considers that the present difficulty in the Congo should be solved primarily through the efforts of the independent African states within the framework of the United Nations machinery. Intervention by powers from outside the African continent in the view of the government of Ghana is likely to increase rather than lessen tensions. However, it is our general policy to give whatever support is practical and will be effective to help strengthen United Nations peace-keeping machinery.
At the session of the United Nations this fall I presume one of the main subjects will be disarmament just as was the case last fall and we shall try to help focus world opinion on the vital and urgent necessity of relaxing tension. I cannot give the committee any further details about Canada's plans for the session. They are in the process of formation

at the present time and it is too early to indicate what stands we will be taking on other questions.
A word or two about Canada's activities vis-a-vis the United States. We have just returned from a very successful conference of the ministerial defence committee. Ministers and their officials at these conferences are able to discuss problems in an informal way. There is no big table with one group lined up on one side of the table and the other group opposite them, with briefs and so on. There is no formality of that sort. The participants are able to review situations in the world which are of interest to both countries and of course they are able to review such questions as defence, NATO, disarmament, defence production sharing and all the questions which are of interest to the two countries. These are reviewed in a most informal and helpful way. I do not believe it would be possible to bring about such frank exchanges of views in any other way. These meetings are particularly helpful.
The same is true of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group. I am not sure that I have the right name of that organization but I refer to the plan under which 24 Canadian senators and members meet with 24 United States senators and representatives. That informal committee is doing excellent work in improving relations between our two countries. Canadians are able to talk to United States public men on a basis that is understood by the Americans and vice versa. For example, the action of the United States in holding off the diversion of water in Chicago last year was brought about to quite a large extent, I think, because of the discussions that took place in that interparliamentary group.
I had the opportunity to visit on the floor of the United States senate about three months ago. Their attitude toward us is very significant and it is so often overlooked by Canadians. Senator Aiken who is the head of the American section of this interparliamentary group was my host. He is, of course, a wonderful person with great attributes of friendliness. Referring to Canada he said:
It is a country which is closer to us than any other country in the whole world.
There was great applause from the senators following that remark. Senator Mansfield of Montana speaking for the Democratic party referred to Canada as:
-a nation which is most close to us; it is close to us not only in a geographic sense, but more important, in the sense of a shared outlook, shared ideals, and one may say, even a shared destiny.
It is possible to conceive of points of differences between the foreign policies and the immediate interests of Canada and the United States; that is inevitable among independent and equal nations.
79951-0-397i
Supply-External Affairs
It is inconceivable, however, that Canada and the United States will ever permit these differences to transcend the deeper intermingling of the fortunes of the two countries.
I know I speak for my colleagues. Mr. Minister,-
He was referring to me, although I was too bashful to get up and make any reply. I know that hon. members can hardly believe that but it is true. I continue:
-when I say that the senate of the United States nourishes only the warmest sentiments toward Canada and the Canadian people. We wish for nothing more than a continuing abatement of any differences which may exist and a continuing growth of cordiality and co-operation in all spheres of relations with our great neighbour to the north.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question. Is that the Senator Mansfield who is supporting the increase in base metal duties to be imposed against Canadian imports?


Howard Charles Green: It may be, I am not sure. He comes from a zinc and lead producing state. He is entitled to have opinions about that just as we are entitled to have a few ideas of our own about zinc and lead on our side of the line. Senator Mansfield expressly stated that we would have differences and, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, we have differences and are going to have a lot more in the future, but we are able to sit down and talk about them and in most cases to work out some solution.
Finally, a word about activities in Latin America. There have been several visits between representatives of Canada and Latin American countries. The foreign minister of Venezuela was here last fall. The president of Mexico visited Canada and our Prime Minister returned the visit to Mexico a few weeks ago. The foreign minister of Brazil has also been here. Hon. members know that I visited Buenos Aires on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Argentina in May. I also visited Chile and Peru with brief stopovers in Brazil and Mexico. Within a few weeks a Canadian minister will lead a delegation to attend ceremonies marking the 150th anniversary of the independence of Mexico.
We have invited President Frondizi of Argentina to visit Canada after the first of the year, and these visits are building up a great deal of good will.
The visit to Chile was particularly helpful because it came at a time when they were suffering the great tragedy of their earthquake, which was followed by floods and all sorts of troubles. The house was very good in supporting the action of the government with regard to that disaster and I think hon. members might be interested in two of the messages which have come back to us showing the reaction of the Chilean government

Supply-External Affairs and of the Chilean people to this aid given by Canada. I hold in my hand a message to the Prime Minister from the president of Chile, dated June 17, which reads:
It was the deepest sense of gratitude that I felt on reading the kind note which the ambassador of Canada in Santiago handed to me personally, and in which you reiterate the expressions of sympathy felt by the Canadian people and government for us, in the hour of these disasters caused by the series of earthquakes that have ravaged numerous provinces.
You further confirm in your letter information given me previously concerning the government's intention to send a large shipment of flour and canned meat so as to help in our relief work,- work that in view of the magnitude of the damage caused throughout the devastated areas, means every resource and effort must be strained to the utmost.
It is a duty incumbent upon me to express to you, Mr. Prime Minister, the profound gratitude felt by the government and by all Chileans because Canada's attitude towards us has been extremely noble in these, our tragic times. We shall always think of the help which you are sending us as an expression of closest solidarity with us and as evidence of the profoundly humanitarian sentiments of the great Canadian people.
I avail myself of this opportunity to tender my warmest personal regards as ever,
Jorge Alessandri R.
A very interesting report showing the reaction of the Chilean people came from the Canadian Red Cross representative in Santiago. He said:
The total Canadian effort is being recognized here in a very big way. We talked to people last night who had just come from a movie where R.C.A.F. planes, Canadian Red Cross disaster relief supplies, and Canadian personnel were shown. They said the whole theatre audience stood up and applauded for over five minutes at the sight, right through other news items.
I am sure that the hearts of Canadians will be warmed by that appreciation which was shown by these very courageous people of Chile in the face of their disaster.
As I told the house upon my return, we are setting up a Latin-American division in the department. We plan to have an observer at the conference of the organization of American states to be held in Quito, Ecuador, next winter and I am very hopeful that it will be possible in the near future to open a Canadian embassy in one of the Central American nations. We have no embassy in any one of those six nations at the present time. We have one trade commissioner in Guatemala, but I think there is a blind spot in Canada's diplomatic service and I am very hopeful that it will be possible to establish at least one embassy in Central America. We have embassies in all of the South American countries except Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay but we have none whatever in Central America.
Those Latin-American nations are developing very rapidly. They are going to be very big and strong before very long. There will be many millions more people south of the Rio Grande by 2000 A.D. than north of that river. All the nations there are very anxious to work more closely with Canada and I suggest that Canada would be wise to develop a western hemisphere outlook to a much greater extent than we have such an outlook at the present time. We do not seem to be able to see very far beyond the United States. For many Canadians the western hemisphere consists of Canada and the United States, and we just do not seem to realize that there are millions and millions of people beyond the Rio Grande who are playing a very important role in world affairs and who are extremely anxious to have closer relations with Canada.
Many western hemisphere problems involve us. We happen to live in the western hemisphere and we cannot get away from the effect of many of the events which take place on this side of the Atlantic. I suggest it is about time that Canadians realized that fact.
I had intended to mention the Pacific. However, I will defer my remarks on that and also on the law of the sea. I can deal with that later on when the estimates are open for question and answer.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I simply point out that Canada can play and is playing now a tremendous part in world affairs and can play an even greater part. We have the capacity to do that and we have the standing in the world to do it. For this I give credit to my predecessors who have been in this portfolio; they have all done great work. Canada has the capacity and she has the standing, and she can play an even greater part in world affairs. I do not put it forward as a challenge. I used to put it that way, but I put it forward rather as a responsibility. I believe we owe it to the world to play this great part that can be played by our nation, and in that suggestion I am sure I will be supported by every party in the house and by every hon. member. After all, it is something to be a citizen of a great country which is in a position to accept such responsibilities. My belief is that Canada in the years ahead can have a very large part in bringing the world back to reason and to co-operation and in so doing can attain the destiny which all of us have believed should be the destiny of our nation.
I thank hon. members very much for giving me extra time to make this review.


Paul Joseph James Martin: First of all, I should like to say it is regrettable that the management of our affairs at this time of the session has been such as to render it necessary for committees of this house to be sitting while this important debate is under way. I as a member of the committee dealing with the bill of rights, because of a higher obligation at this moment in this house, have denied myself the opportunity of attending to my duties in that committee. I merely mention this; I am sure it represents some of the frustration that attends many hon. members in the house at this time.
To the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to say that I am sure we all appreciate his sincerity and his devotion to duty. We appreciate very much, particularly those of us on this side, the references made to his predecessors, than whom, of course, there was none more distinguished than the Leader of the Opposition.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, the gap of differences in foreign affairs between the political parties in this house is certainly not as great as the gap of differences that exists in the matter of domestic problems. I think that generally we in this house agree on the basic principles of Canadian foreign policy. This, however, does not mean that we in this party are in accord with every phase of the government's policy, nor does it mean that we are precluded, because of agreement on basic principles, from expressing our differences and pointing out, as I shall endeavour to do today, what I believe are some inconsistencies in the foreign policy of the government of Canada at the present time.
When the minister spoke in the house on February 10 last he spoke, as he himself noted a moment ago, with an air of optimism. He had a confidence about him that in turn gave us confidence and that suggested that he saw some of the major problems of the day as not incapable of solution. Indeed he thought some of them were not incapable of ready solution, and among these was the problem of disarmament.
But since that speech on February 10 great deteriorations in international affairs have taken place. I refer to the failure of the four great powers to meet at the summit, as a result of the intransigent position taken by Chairman Khrushchev and the break-down of the 10-power disarmament meetings. The atomic powers are still in session on the question of cessation of nuclear tests, nevertheless the optimism the hon. gentleman had in February as to the likelihood of agreement
Supply-External Affairs between the three nuclear powers has certainly been marred by subsequent events. The good thing about those discussions, apart from agreements already entered into prior to February, is that they are still in session but the possibilities of settlement on the final points in issue are not too clear at this moment.
And so the minister began his tour d'hori-zon today with the background of these three situations confronting him and, indeed, if he had wanted to draw a more complete picture he could have pointed to other events in the world which are causing great concern at this time in the hearts and minds of civilized men and of their governments. The events in the Congo; the disturbing events in at least one section of Latin America, Cuba, involving as the situation there does very serious directions in Cuban-American relations, with their implications and their effects for other countries in the Americas, including Canada; the truculent attitude of the Soviet union during these latter days as evidenced by speeches involving threats of the use of force; all these situations present now a picture which I believe should cause all of us the greatest concern. I am sure they do cause concern to the minister just as much as to every other person who appraises the situation.
The great regret-I think that more and more now we may have to be prepared to affirm this-is that there seems to be lacking in the western world-I am not saying in every instance-the kind of direction from particular countries that we must look for if we are going to find a way out of the problems into which we, along with other nations of the world, have been plunged. Whatever may have been the situation in the past, I believe that no country today, regardless of its size, regardless of its importance, should shun its responsibility in asserting its position constructively and with responsibility regarding the great moving events now touching all peoples and all nations.
I believe that Canada has a particular responsibility now, perhaps more so than at any time in our history, to take the lead unhesitatingly in these matters where a lead is not or may not be taken on the part of great or smaller nations, particularly the former. There is no reason why we should not be prepared to embark on a carefully conceived and responsible foreign policy which would permit us to take initiatives toward this end. In the past, we have taken initiatives and have ventured into areas where before Canadian tradition would have denied us the opportunity. I do not say this because he sits on my left and is my leader, but the

Supply-External Affairs fact is that when the Leader of the Opposition occupied the post of secretary of state for external affairs he daringly did not hesitate to give leadership in great events not only in this country but to other nations of the world. It seems to me that the time is now more opportune than ever for that kind of responsible venture, daring and initiative. It seems to me it is with all this in the background that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has now got to look upon his heavy obligations as affording increasing opportunities, for constructive action, even though that may impose on him and on the government concerns that normally would not have attended a country like Canada.
The minister has dealt with a number of matters. I do not propose to deal with every situation he has covered. With a lot of the things he has said I am in full accord. He said, of course, that while he was an optimist in February he was not without optimism today but, to paraphrase his words, he did not now want to be regarded as a prophet of gloom. In the face of the situation that confronts us, I suggest that perhaps realism demands that we occupy a position somewhere midway between the optimism of the hon. gentleman in February and what he reluctantly refers to at the present time as moved of gloom.
I suppose we will not find it difficult to agree with the minister that he was right in part in February when he suggested that the situation in the world warranted us taking an independent position. I should think he regrets having taken the strong position he did at that time when he repudiated our former role of honest broker. I suggested to him at the time that we could still be an honest broker and provide our services in conciliation and mediation when opportunities presented themselves and without failing to look at matters through our own eyes and in the light of our own interests. Indeed I think on that occasion I said to the minister that while we had served in some particulars as a linchpin we had given a valuable demonstration of our desire to look at things in the light of Canadian eyes, particularly during the 10 years immediately preceding the advent of the present government into office.
I agree with the minister that for Canada one of the most important areas for constructive effort is in the field of disarmament. The minister was sanguine or overly optimistic I thought in February and earlier with regard to the possibilities, in spite of the failure to arrive at a settlement of major political problems of the world, when he discussed disarmament. The minister's enthusiasm was perhaps best reflected in the words which

he uttered some months after taking office when, in speaking of our opportunity in Canada, he said this:
Canada is growing in stature by the hour as a world power .. . Canada can play a vital part in world affairs today, perhaps just as vital as any other nation in the world. I believe we can make a greater contribution to world affairs than any other country in the next ten years. Above all Canada is a nation with an idealistic, unselfish approach ... Add Canada's good record generally . .. and the courage, common sense and God-fearing character of her people, and you will agree with me that we can give leadership in the finest sense of the word.
That is exactly what we want now. We want leadership. However, I would have expressed our opportunity in different words. The minister is not a boastful man, but it seems to me that in the statement I have quoted, there was a use of words not really characteristic of him. They have too much of the bravado in them, and they were words that possibly could best be left to others.
In terms of the role we can play I would prefer to rely on the assessment made of our foreign policies, of our governments, of our public officials, in the words of Mr. Kenneth Younger, a former minister of state for foreign affairs in Britain and now director general in the royal institute of international affairs who recently-as a matter of fact, it was early this month-in speaking of Canada's former role in foreign affairs said this:
Canada is a less important power in most ways than we are, but by sheer consistency in her support for the use of United Nations machinery, for new techniques of international conciliation and for collective organizations of various kinds, including NATO, Canada came to have an influence in Washington, in London and on the continent of Europe, which was disproportionate to her national power.
It seems to me that gives us an opportunity of playing a role of leadership in this setting -at the United Nations, at NATO, in the commonwealth, and in the context of the tur-bulency of our modern world-greater perhaps than at any other time. The minister has that opportunity, and I suggest to him that he has that responsibility.
The government must be clear in its own mind as to the course it wishes to pursue. The government has said that it is in favour of disarmament. I believe that is a proper objective, notwithstanding the fact that there are many voices in great countries today, who regard this as a dangerous pursuit in the light of the present international situation.
Only a few days ago I was reading an article which I have here and which was written by Mr. Chester Bowles. I mention him because of his growing importance in this field in the United States and because of political events now current there. He expresses

the view that the Soviet union does not really want disarmament, that we must assume that to be the case and, having made that assumption, that the United States must take certain positions that are certainly not fully consistent with the stated objective of the government of Canada.
Then of course there are other strong expressions of opinion along this line. We have recently read or heard of the report prepared by the so-called Gaither committee and the Rockefeller brothers, a report which produced, according to Mr. Bowles, a persuasive case for an immediate strengthening of the United States military position in which emphasis is given to the need for extended ground forces capable of fighting localized wars in any part of the world.
Those are important observations. They must be carefully considered by the government in the light of the stated objective that it has presented. Of course the minister qualifies this objective, as do we all, by stating that at this time we are not talking about unilateral disarmament, but we are talking about disarmament on conditions and under circumstances that will not prejudice our unity, the unity of the western world, the unity of the United Kingdom, of the United States and Canada nor are we talking about a disarmament that will in any way prejudice our security. We are all agreed on the necessity of the proper safeguards being observed, in order to see that all the terms of a disarmament agreement are maintained and adhered to by all sides. However, the government will have to assess carefully the position that some people in the United States take. Then it will have to determine if it is prepared, without destroying unity essential for the preservation of the free world, to take strong independent positions to promote the cause of disarmament within conditions which recognize interests of security and the unity of like minded states.
However, in order to do that, as I say, the government must know where it is going. The government must not only have a proposal in mind, it must not only be prepared to accept proposals or parts of proposals put forward by other countries, but there must be full agreement within the ministry on those matters that are of such vital concern.
Let me give an example, Mr. Chairman, of what I have in mind. The minister has said that the government is in favour of the cessation of nuclear tests. When questioned on the point, he said that the government was in favour of such a cessation with or without control; and the minister took pains in the committee on external affairs to repeat
Supply-External Affairs this position. He has never equivocated on this point. However, as he was reminded, or the Prime Minister was reminded on the orders of the day on June 6 last, that there was some equivocation in the government's position as stated by the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister went to Washington during Easter week. There he conferred with the President of the United States. Following these conversations a communique was issued. Among other things the following sentence appears in that communique;
Particular attention was paid to the importance of achieving with effective international control, an end to nuclear testing and progress towards general disarmament.
The words to which I draw the committee's attention are "with effective international control". That is not the stated position of the government.


Howard Charles Green: I wonder if the hon. member has forgotten that the Prime Minister was questioned about that statement. I think it will be found in his reply that he said our policy was against further nuclear tests.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I remember because the Leader of the Opposition and I had asked questions. The record is in Hansard and I looked at it again this morning. I asked the minister to look at this communique, to read its words and to see if any other possible interpretation was open other than that the Prime Minister was publicly on record as agreeing with the president that particular attention was to be paid to the importance of achieving the end of nuclear testing with effective international controls.
The United States does not support the position at the present time, that those tests which would take place under the ground can safely be left, until such time as scientific detecting machinery becomes available, to a mere agreement not to carry on tests. That is the position taken by the government of the United States. That is not the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in this communique that is the stated position of the Prime Minister.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member would not object to my correcting him on that. The Canadian policy on this question is different from the policy of the United States, and when the hon. member suggests that the Prime Minister's policy is the United States policy he is quite wrong.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree fully. I said-


Howard Charles Green: The communique simply refers to the question of control. The communique

Supply-External Affairs does not say that the Prime Minister is in favour of having further tests until there is a system of control.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister and I can spend much time on this and perhaps during the course of the estimates there will be an opportunity for further elucidation. But what I am saying, so that there is no misunderstanding, is that there is no doubt about the position of the hon. gentleman. There is no doubt about his having stated, without difficulty in comprehension, what he believed the position of the government of Canada to be. All I am saying is that the Prime Minister joined with the President of the United States in a statement which suggested that there could be progress toward the cessation of nuclear testing and general disarmament, with effective international controls. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the policy of this government was the cessation of nuclear tests with or without controls.


Howard Charles Green: That is still the policy of the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that that is still the policy of the government. I am sure he will agree that in these matters the greatest care has to be taken. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will remember that he said in answer to a question of mine he had not had an opportunity of reading the communique at that time, and I queried the Prime Minister about whether this particular communique had been reviewed by the Department of External Affairs at the time.


Howard Charles Green: What page is the Prime
Minister's reply on?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am reading from the communique which will be found at page 4594 of Hansard for June 6.
We are, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, now a member of the 10-power disarmament committee just as we were a member of the former subcommittee. The minister will remember that in February, on the basis of what the United Kingdom had done at the United Nations and what the Soviet union had done too in outlining proposals for disarmament, we asked him what were the proposals of the Canadian government. The Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested to me during the course of the request which I made that I should appreciate that because of the delicacy of the negotiations, it would be unwise to publicize at that stage any proposal which the Canadian government had in mind.


I took issue with that particularly because, as I pointed out, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the foreign minister in the United Kingdom, had unhesitatingly stated in detailed form early in September the proposals which his government was prepared to advance as a means of bringing about a program of disarmament within the context of a system of controls.
However, when the Prime Minister spoke in the same debate on February 10 he did not seem fully to agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs because he did outline what he regarded as the proposals which the Canadian government would present to the 10-power disarmament committee. Some of these proposals were outlined in a statement issued by the information division of the Department of External Affairs of February 11. First of all the Prime Minister said, among other things, in the third paragraph:
I suggest that immediate consideration and priority might be given to the control of missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons of mass destruction and also to bring about an agreement as to whereby the location of missile sites should be designated.
I am not aware that there was any proposal put forward by Canada embodying this concept. I am aware that the French government, through Mr. Moch, did propose that there should be an agreement with regard to the means of delivery of nuclear instruments, and that Canada gave support to the French plan; but there is no Canadian proposal along the lines mentioned by the Prime Minister of which I am aware.
Then the Prime Minister made this further proposal, and all of these are, I think, depending upon their relationship and priority, important measures which must be achieved. I am talking about them in terms of a proposal and the extent to which we have taken an initiative, the extent to which we have asserted a position of responsible independence. The Prime Minister said in the fourth paragraph:
I believe the time has come that the nations should agree that the manufacture and use of biological and chemical weapons should be banned.
That of course is an objective with which we all agree, but I am not aware that there was any proposal put forward by the government of Canada embodying that objective. Then the Prime Minister went on:
.. .we come to the problem which transcends all these problems, namely that of outer space. 1 believe that outer space should now, before further advances are made in its exploration, be declared banned to other than peaceful purposes and that the mounting of armaments on satellites should be outlawed.

I am not aware that there is any proposal before the disarmament commission put forward by Canada which embodies that recommendation. Then the Prime Minister further said:
I would think that a major course leading to disarmament would be a declaration that the production of fissile material for weapons should be ended and that existing stocks should be transferred to peaceful uses as soon as a practical plan can be agreed upon.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


Charles Edward Rea: Would the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the committee.
I am not aware that that concept was put forward by General Burns on behalf of Canada at the 10-power committee meetings.
I do not have access to the verbatim proceedings of the 10-power committee, and I could be wrong. But I do share with the minister the desirability of making some progress in this very difficult field, a field where at least two nations have at their disposal instruments which, as he said, are capable of destroying even civilization itself. I share fully the minister's concern, and it is only because I do, that I am searching, through the means of this debate, for answers to some of my concerns.
What proposal did we make at Geneva? The minister said in February that we had a proposal but he did not feel it should be disclosed. So far as I can find out, the boldest step we took at Geneva was to make a statement, through General Burns, containing two passages of a speech made by the hon. gentleman in which there was a proposal for balanced concessions. Then there was a reference in the speech of General Burns to a stage by stage process. I suggest that an examination of the words of General Burns will reveal that there was no proposal put forward by Canada at all. What was done was to express, if I may use this phrase, a belief in a particular methodology, in a particular procedure that might or should be pursued at the Geneva discussions in order to bring about disarmament. Here is what General Burns said as reported in the Hamilton Spectator of July 6. He is reported to have said, inter alia:
He added this quotation from Mr. Green: "For example, the west might offer to negotiate a controlled limitation on force levels and related conventional armaments if the U.S.S.R. side would agree to negotiate on the nuclear disarmament 79951-0-398
Supply-External Affairs measures in stages one and two of the western plan ... if package deals of that kind could be made in several instances, the first thing we would know there would be a worth while disarmament agreement."
General Burns went on to suggest possible common ground between east and west on prohibition of placing weapons of mass destruction in outer space, a joint study of the cessation of production and destruction of stockpiles of nuclear weapons, and measures to set up international machinery to keep the peace in a disarmed world.
These are desirable procedural recommendations but they do not involve proposals to which could be attached these suggestions of procedure. Proposals were put forward by Great Britain in September, 1959. Proposals were put forward by the Soviet union on two occasions, one before the summit meeting and one immediately prior to the break-up of the 10-power talks. The United States put forward a proposal-


Howard Charles Green: I would point out to the hon. member that the proposals put forward were western proposals. It was not a United States proposal, but a western proposal in the making of which Canada had a very large part.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I fully agree, and I do not deny that for one moment. But there was, first, this Soviet union proposal. There was a proposal put forward by France. There was a proposal put forward by the United States. It is true that Canada supported the French proposal-


Howard Charles Green: I do not want to have any confusion here. There was a western proposal put forward by the whole five western nations. On certain features of that Canada felt as France did, but the proposals were western proposals. When the western proposal was worked out Canada was just as much responsible as the United States, or the United Kingdom.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not disagreeing with what the minister is saying. I am trying to emphasize that this western proposal was not a proposal put forward by Canada on her own initiative. The proposal put forward at the first meeting of the disarmament committee by Mr. Moch was put forward in the name of France. It was not supported by the United States, but it was supported by Canada. It was a French proposal. There is on the record as far as I can ascertain no proposal that stands in the name of Canada.
The minister may say that the proposals of the various powers were such as to embody all the ideas put forward by Canada, and that there was therefore no need to put forward a Canadian proposal. The point is that the minister did say on February 10

Supply-External Affairs that there was a Canadian proposal, and I had been looking forward to seeing that proposal. The reason I emphasize this question of a Canadian proposal is that it could be that because of the competition that prevails in this matter and the pre-eminent place in disarmament discussions of the great powers, a proposal put forward by a country such as Canada with its recognized disinterestedness, speaking as she does not only for herself but for so many other nations, so many other thousands or millions of people in the world, might conceivably, I do not know, have made some impression on even the Soviet union.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member think there should have been five different proposals put forward by the five western nations in the 10-member disarmament committee?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps there should not have been, but why talk of our independent stand? Why talk of our special Canadian proposal?


Howard Charles Green: Here again, the hon. member must be more careful about these statements. I did not say Canada was going to put forward any separate proposal in the 10-member committee. I did say that Canada had put forward her proposals in trying to work out a western case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me remind the hon. minister of what the Prime Minister said to Mr. Khrushchev in the letter he sent to that gentleman on July 2:
The Canadian government has throughout advocated in the 10-nation committee a strong and independent stand in support of balanced concessions leading toward agreement.
I ask the hon. minister to read Hansard of February 5.


Howard Charles Green: Here again I do not intend to have my statements twisted. I tabled as an appendix to Hansard a statement having to do with balanced concessions. That statement had been made by General Burns before the Prime Minister's letter was written to Premier Khrushchev.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not object to the minister intervening in my speech, because this is an important matter, but the hon. gentleman will recognize that he can do it only if I agree, because these are not points of order. However, I do not object. I simply want to point this out: it may be it was correct for us to support a particular proposal, or series of proposals, because of a desire to maintain unity among the western powers. That may be. But we were confronted by the minister with an assertion regarding this matter, that there was going to be an independant position taken by Canada. No longer


were we to pursue the course of an honest broker. The implication of that was that we would stand on our own against friend and foe, and declare our position on these mighty matters as our conscience dictated. I am suggesting to the minister that he should remember the words he used at the general assembly on September 24, 1959, when he said:
The middle-sized and smaller powers must have an opportunity of being heard, for disarmament is of the deepest concern to all mankind. In Canada's work on the committee, we shall at all times keep these considerations very much in mind.
Those were noble words, and I believe the minister believed them, and I am sure he believes them now. Neither I nor anyone in this committee questions the goodwill and sincerity of the minister, any more than anyone will question the goodwill and sincerity of any hon. member speaking in this committee on this most vital matter, which affects the peace and security of the world.
But these words, in order to be given effect by those in authority, must be followed by action where action is desirable and possible, and I suggest to the minister that when the disarmament talks broke down, as he himself said, he urged that the matter be referred to the disarmament commission forthwith. Canada and the United States took that position. They took it, incidentally, before the Soviet union took the position that the general question of disarmament should be discussed at the next general assembly.
Expressing my own personal view I hope there will not be a meeting of the disarmament committee until the general assembly meets. My reasons for saying that are those given by the Secretary General of the United Nations. He thought that since there was a delay in convoking the disarmament commission all that we would see in the disarmament commission at a meeting prior to the general assembly, would be a display of propaganda, and bad temper, by the Soviet union, not calculated in any way to bring about a satisfactory solution.


Howard Charles Green: Is the hon. member quoting
from the stand taken by Mr. Hammarskjold?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I was not
quoting. I was merely saying what Mr. Hammarskjold said. He said he did not think it was wise that there should be a meeting of the disarmament commission at this time.


Howard Charles Green: But the fact is that although Mr. Hammarskjold said there should be some delay he did not suggest that there should not be a meeting before the general assembly. In fact, I believe he said that he thought

there should be one some time in August. I think that is still Mr. Hammarskj old's belief.


Mr, Martin (Essex East):: It may be that I am wrong in that particular but according to his words, as reported in the New York Times, Mr. Hammarskj old said he did not concur-he did not mention the United States by name-in the proposal that a meeting of the disarmament commission should be called now. The minister can deny this if he wishes but I saw reports only last Thursday to the effect that the Canadian government is still of the view that there should be a meeting of the disarmament commission without undue delay. This is perhaps not a point of great substance, but it has a bearing on what I am trying to indicate, in the thought I am seeking to develop at the present time with regard to the role that Canada should play at the assembly.
At the assembly we will not be speaking in a meeting of the 10-power committee; we will be speaking as one member of the United Nations. I should like to see Canada, because of the experience she has acquired in these matters in disarmament talks, right from the first days at Church House in 1946, take a lead with countries like Australia, New Zealand, India and countries of that kind to see if we cannot develop a program of disarmament which could possibly have at least a persuasive effect, a certain psychological effect, in the world and which would be viewed I am sure sympathetically by western nations and I would hope by the Soviet union. What is to be lost by taking this kind of initiative? It may be there is no hope for disarmament until the question of Berlin is solved. The suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition in his carefully considered article in Foreign Affairs for June may be true. Perhaps it would be very difficult in the face of the opposition which the Soviet union takes with regard to its ideological interests to reach agreement on disarmament. The suggestion may be valid that the Soviet union might be unwilling to disarm at the present time because it does not satisfy her own interests or those particularly of her ideological partner, the Chinese people's republic.
Indeed, Mr. Chester Bowles says there is no hope for disarmament in the foreseeable future. He gives as his reason a genuine fear among the Soviet leaders of the very large forces which they themselves have brought into being; that their land-hungry Chinese neighbours would not permit it; that the Soviet union itself is the victim of its own tradition of secrecy; and that there are also differences in policy in the communist party 79951-0-398|
Supply-External Affairs which make any agreement on disarmament impossible on their part. That may be. Those who desire this-and among these is preeminently the minister-can only try, within the conditions of security to which I have referred, to see if they cannot do something about disarmament.
When the last proposal was put forward at the disarmament committee the minister replying to a question I put to him and to one which was put earlier by the Leader of the Opposition in the month of June-and I have the exact quotation with the four words he used-spoke of the soviet proposal as a definite step forward. Was it a definite step forward? That was not the position taken by the United States. The minister said a moment ago that Canada did not bring forward any individual proposal. Canada's name was attached to certain proposals put forward by the western powers. Did Canada support the last proposal of the United States? We have never been told that.


Howard Charles Green: If I may interject, Mr. Chairman, I pointed out to the house at the time of the break-up of the committee meeting that the United States had tabled their own proposal and that it was almost identical to the Canadian proposal, copies of which will appear in Hansard tomorrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says that the United States proposal is almost identical to the Canadian proposal. I have the United States proposal here, as it appeared in the New York Times and I have read it carefully.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that the New York Times is not a bible yet, and that it is quite often inaccurate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree, Mr. Chairman, the New York Times is not necessarily authentic in all these things, but the minister will know that when it prints the texts of positions taken by countries they are generally regarded as reliable. I am handicapped, of course, because as the minister knows we do not have access to all the documents. I say that on the basis of the United States proposal, put forward on the Friday before the 10-power meeting ended, there is no great similarity or certainly there is not a detailed similarity between those general ideas which the minister calls the Canadian proposal and the proposal put forward by the United States.
The minister said the soviet proposal was a definite step forward. The very statement made by Mr. Eaton in the presentation of the United States proposal was an indictment of the soviet proposal. He referred to it as a plan designed to divide France from the other

Supply-External Affairs western powers. The minister must surely realize that these statements were made and that they call for clarification. I am not saying that my submission is fully substantiated. I can speak only on the basis of the material available to hon. members on this side of the house. I refer to the text of the statement of the United States proposal as given verbatim in the New York Times and I will be happy to see where that statement differs from the original text when that is made available.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member appears to be referring to a speech made by Mr. Eaton-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, no.


Howard Charles Green: I was referring to the United States plan-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was referring to that, too. I was referring to the plan made by the United States government, a plan the terms of which from article 1 to article 11 are given textually in the New York Times, and alongside that text is the verbatim statement of Mr. Eaton in the 10-power committee when he said, as I have just noted, that the soviet plan, which the minister said was a definite step forward, was a plan designed to divide France from the other western powers, and I suppose perforce that if Canada supported the French plan-and I think it was a wise action that the Canadian government took because the French government was seeking to deal with first things first- nevertheless in the commentary that Mr. Eaton made in reference to France, Canada also was therefore included.
Was there any discussion about the place of China in this matter? As Mr. Herter said, there is no question involving the recognition of communist China. But, as the secretary of state in the United States said, ultimately at some point, if there is going to be an agreement, that country has got to be brought in at some point if we are ever to have an agreement on disarmament. I do not know what the Canadian government's view is now but I note that the minister, speaking in Woodstock on March 16, as reported in the Globe and Mail, said:
But, he added, ultimately the Chinese position would have to be taken into consideration if total disarmament is to be achieved. Total disarmament must include China.
I would hope that when he speaks again the minister will have more to say about this particular situation. I know the minister will not mind my emphasizing that the situation today is different from what it was in February when he was so optimistic. I have before me the Montreal Gazette of April 8 in which I find the following:


External affairs minister Green said today that an agreement on cessation of nuclear tests among the United States, Russia, Britain and France is "imminent".
We know today that whatever may have been the situation then it is not imminent now. While Canada is not a member of the three-power nuclear talks, because of the relationship of the cessation of tests to a disarmament treaty the Canadian government owes to this committee and to the people some indication of what brought about this deterioration. Was it because of the position that the Soviet union took prior to the abortive meeting. Was it because of hesitancy at first and the later position taken by the government of the United States? If this is so, were consultations held between Canada and the United States toward bringing about some agreement on the cessation of tests? These and other questions are, I am sure, of concern to the minister and to the people of this country. We ought to be given whatever answers can be given without in any way interfering in the negotiations which we recognize must be carried on sometimes in private in order to bring about results which then must become public.
I believe that in Canada we have a great responsibility. I can understand how the minister feels now about the situation, in terms of our membership on the 10-power committee, but we have a responsibility as a member of the United Nations; we have a responsibility as one nation in this dangerous, turbulent world of ours. Because we do deserve the praise that is levelled at our public service, and the tradition of our foreign service in particular and because of the minister himself and of his predecessors, we do have an opportunity which I believe we are not exercising to the full.
The minister is an able man. The minister, as I said, is a sincere man. He believes in the desirability of controlled disarmament. I suggest to him that if he will develop that sense which we all know he possesses and if he will take initiatives of a responsible kind he will find that those initiatives may have results. I hope that the phrase "easing of tensions" is not too pretentious, but he might be able to bring about positive and constructive results from the efforts that I suggest he make.
The minister has just come back from South America. He made a tour of some nine days, visiting several countries there.


Howard Charles Green: I am an expert now on South
America.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think
the minister would be an expert, but I know he is a more knowledgeable man and certainly

better equipped to deal with certain problems than before his visit. He told us in the committee on external affairs that at a time when United States-Cuban relations were so tense Canada enjoyed very close friendship with Cuba. The minister did not speak today of this situation. This is one of the current topics, one that affects us all in the Americas, one that could easily affect the balance of our position in the world vis-a-vis the Soviet union. What is the minister's view of the situation? Is there any accommodation that can be given by the government of Canada in this matter? Has any offer been made by the Canadian government with regard to this particular situation or does the minister feel that it is a dispute which Canada should keep out of? If that is the position, then certainly it is not consistent I believe with our obligations under the charter of the United Nations. I am not suggesting that the minister should plunge in headlong. He knows I am not making that suggestion. If our relations with Cuba are so cordial, is there not something that we can do or is there not something that we can try to do?
The Prime Minister went to Mexico. That was a successful visit. The Prime Minister was received warmly and, as Canadians, we were all proud that was so. The minister himself was received generously by the people of the countries in Latin America which he visited. The minister did say at one time that he was in favour of joining the organization of American states. Let me refer to the Vancouver Sun of June 17, in which the following appears:
External affairs minister Howard Green said Thursday night that Canada should join the organization of American states if its long term aim is to share in world leadership.
Then the minister is quoted as saying:
"Our objective right now is to increase our contacts with the Latin American nations as much as possible," Green said in an interview.
He denied that if deliberations now taking place in Ottawa decide in favour of Canadian membership, Canada will face obligations of aid to Latin American nations and defence commitments under the Rio pact.
"Any aid we supply goes through the United Nations," he said. "However, it is quite possible that this would be increased."
What is the position of the government? The minister told us of his visit but he did not tell us whether we were going to join the organization of American states. The minister owes it to the country to explain exactly what is in his mind, particularly in the face of the current situation in one close-by South American state.
Is it the policy of the government that we should join the organization of American
Supply-External Affairs states? If that is the case, will the government give us the reasons for this view? This is an important matter. I suggest to the minister of external affairs that in the face of the alarming situation in the world-I do not want to add adjectives that seem to be excessive, but we must all recognize it as alarming-in the face of the situation in Asia and some developments that have taken place in Africa; in the face of the intransigence of the Soviet union and the development in Latin America, are we drifting into a situation where, because of the policies of certain countries that have done so much for mankind and for the world, which policies are practically misunderstood, there is now rising in so many areas of the world hostility toward the things that we stand for basically in the west. If that development is taking place, the man who can speak with certainty about our position is indeed a brave one. Into that kind of a situation the minister is plunged, and I suggest to him that in the position that he takes, during consideration of his estimates, he ought to give us a clear appreciation of how he conceives these developments and their effect on us in terms of their effect on the free world. He should tell us what this government thinks it can do in the exercise of its rights and duties as a member of the United Nations.
The minister spoke of the commonwealth, and with everything he said we fully agree. But because we are in the commonwealth, because we are a close neighbour of the United States, because of our friendship with some of the older members of the commonwealth, countries like India, Ceylon and Pakistan, and newer members like Ghana, we are in a position to exercise a sphere of influence for the good and the peace not only of Canada but of the world. Nothing short of an effort on the part of the government, clearly demonstrated in all its permissible details, can satisfy at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when I view the beauties and glories of this land of ours, when I see happy children at play, when I witness young couples building homes together all across the country I, along with many others I am sure, am frightfully conscious of the fact that their fate rests in the hands of those people responsible for decisions in foreign affairs. Since we last had a debate on the minister's estimates there have been unfortunate developments and an unfortunate change in the atmosphere so far as international affairs are concerned owing to the U-2 incident, the collapse of the summit conference and, more recently, the collapse of the disarmament conference. I am sure we all regret these unfortunate developments,
6308	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs and yet I agree with the minister that regardless of the disappointments we have still got to continue to work in good heart and spirit toward the goals we hope to achieve.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, when dealing with international affairs no party in this house under the present circumstances should seek to gain political advantage by making unsound though what might appear at the time temporarily popular proposals on this question. I also believe that no individual should shrink from unpopularity through failure to tell the truth as he or she sees it on these important questions. The minister mentioned that with respect to foreign affairs we have a tripartisan policy in this country. I think it would be more correct to say that we have a tripartisan purpose in this country and in the house.
I listened with interest to the minister's report. I simply say, and I am sure in saying so I have the endorsement of all hon. members of the house regardless of party, that we hold the minister in the highest regard. As the hon. member for Essex East said, we recognize his sincerity, his devotion to duty and his industry, and we also recognize the capacity and industry of the very efficient staff of his department. Like the last speaker, on several occasions when I have been in New York, Washington, Paris or London I have heard favourable comments from representatives of other governments with respect to our Department of External Affairs, comments by people who come in contact with our officials to quite an extent in these other countries and who have learned to recognize their ability.
We in Canada have been fortunate with respect to this department. Without hesitation I pay tribute to the secretary of state for external affairs under the former government and, as all Canadians do, give him credit for the things he has done in the past. I think his major achievement was the work he did during the Suez crisis in bringing about a common approach on the part of various nations and finally a common approach between those that were on one side and on the other side of the question. Out of that work arose the idea of establishing a United Nations emergency force, an idea that at the time was scoffed at in some quarters, but we are very glad to know it is an idea that has borne fruit, which was very useful in the Suez incident and is going to be useful in the Congo situation to which reference has been made today. In that respect I simply want to say, with all the criticism of the United Nations and the disappointments, what would we do in the world at the present time in meeting
[Mr. Herridge.l

situations from day to day such as the one in the Congo if we did not have a United Nations emergency force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would have to find another one right away.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We would have to find some other type of organization or we would drift into unilateral action which would make the situation even worse. With respect to our present minister, I think we are very fortunate and I have in mind his interest and attention to his work and his very definite statements with respect to nuclear testing. The hon. member for Essex East twitted him somewhat about that but we in this group are very pleased that he has made definite statements and has said "period" at the end of each statement. We think that sort of definiteness is very necessary at this time.
We are also pleased with his interest in and serious concern for the problem of disarmament and also his particular interest in the strengthening of commonwealth ties and united action on the part of the commonwealth on these most serious questions. Finally, we are pleased with his moderation. Under present world circumstances I think we are very fortunate in having a Secretary of State for External Affairs who does not get panicky, who does not get the jitters but takes a moderate and calm approach to these questions. I presume that like the previous secretary of state for external affairs he has learned to be somewhat philosophical as a result of his war experiences. It does not do to become too excited on occasions if you want to survive.
In the limited time at my disposal I intend to launch into a subject dear to the minister's heart, namely disarmament I was very pleased to hear him say that he was proposing the reconvening of the disarmament committee and is making efforts to have the work continued that was unfortunately stopped by the withdrawal of the Soviet representatives from the disarmament committee talks. We were very pleased to hear his statement in that respect and we will support him in all he does.
But on behalf of our party, and I speak for the party on this question this afternoon, I want to deal with a more local aspect of disarmament over which we have control and with respect to which we may set some example to the rest of the world. This problem is causing increasing concern to people across Canada and there is increasing interest on their part because of their awareness of the frightful situation into which the

world could very easily drift through the mistakes of a very few individuals. This is indicated by editorials in newspapers, particularly in the Globe and Mail, a Conservative organ which sometimes criticizes the government with respect to foreign affairs, by church organizations, co-operative organizations, labour organizations, women's organizations and various other groups across the country.
In these proposals on behalf of the group I represent I wish to offer some constructive but definite alternatives to present government policy in this field. I am going to pay closer attention to my notes than I usually do because in dealing with a subject like this I think one must be careful not to phrase a sentence incorrectly. Therefore I trust the committee will bear with me. We think this is a positive approach to a problem over which we have direct control and on which we can demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are doing our little bit in that direction.
Most discussions on foreign affairs in our country start from the premise that Canada is closely bound to the foreign policies of the United States. The implication is that our interests are similar, and there is no doubt that they are similar in many respects. Independent action by Canada is unthinkable, particularly with respect to this premise. The adherents of this view claim that they are being realistic. The realists say: What about defence? You cannot ignore geography. We are placed squarely between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. That is quite correct. Quite so; and in pre-nuclear times we would have been forced to accept the military status of outpost of the United States, a logical complement, besides, to our economic and political status of satellite. But we are now in an age where the outbreak of total war would lead to the utter devastation of North America. Therefore, in our opinion, the acceptance of the status of outpost implies acceptance of the notion of actually fighting a thermonuclear war or, in other words, of committing international suicide.
I am not saying that thermonuclear war is impossible. Lemmings are not the only creatures to act irrationally. What I am saying is that there is no sense in preparing for suicide, especially if such preparations, the major part of our defence activities, cost hundreds of millions of dollars annually and deflect us from doing anything worth while to lessen the ghastly possibiilty of thermonuclear war.
In his contribution to the foreign affairs debate in the house on February 11 last the Prime Minister suggested as point two of his
Supply-External Affairs disarmament plan-to which we listened with great interest-the following:
-immediate consideration and priority might be given to the control of missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons of mass destruction and also to bring about an agreement whereby the location of missile sites should be designated.
Those words may be found at page 991 of Hansard. I read that proposal with great interest and I want to say this. The Prime Minister's suggestion seems to indicate that he is unaware that the defence strategies of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are based on deterrence. Far from "immediate consideration and priority" as he says being given to his point No. 2, this is from our point of view-and I am putting forward our point of view on this matter-practically the last step to be taken after the major powers have disarmed themselves of conventional weapons.
I just suggest this to you, Mr. Chairman. Imagine a situation in which the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., both fully armed, know the location of each other's missile sites. It may be assumed that they already know the location of each other's H-bomber airfields. I make this suggestion to you. Would not each mighty power feel an overpowering urge to strike at the other's missile sites and airdromes lest the other strike at his?
The balance of terror-that is deterrence- is stable only when neither, in striking first, can destroy the other's ability to strike back. If the locations of all missile sites and H-bomber bases were to be revealed now, the balance would become highly unstable, in our opinion, since with sufficient missiles each side could be sure by striking first of destroying the other's ability to strike back. Undoubtedly-and we recognize this-the Prime Minister was seeking to have the dangerous deterrent posture of the mighty powers evolve to one of peace. His suggestion, however, would in our opinion cause these powers to adopt a posture of extreme provocation.
Control over the thermonuclear deterrents of the U.S.A., the United Kingdom, and the U.S.S.R. cannot come until the final stage of total disarmament, immediately prior to the dismantlement of these deterrents. We put that forward as a possible new approach to this present situation.
In a letter to Mr. Khrushchev on January 18, 1958 the Prime Minister offered to open all or part of Canada to aerial and ground inspection on a basis of reciprocity. We must realize this when we deal with that proposal. There are no offensive intercontinental weapons in Canada, no H-bombers, no ICBM's. We may be sure there are some in the northern U.S.S.R. How could one expect
6310	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs Mr. Khrushchev to accept the Prime Minister's offer under these circumstances? We put that forward as a question.
In our opinion we must get away from second world war ideas of air defence. There is no defence against thermonuclear weapons, and everyone knows it. From our point of view, NORAD is almost useless. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that when the vote was taken in the house establishing NORAD this party opposed this unilateral action by the establishment of NORAD. For us to be a staunch ally of the U.S.A. in the third world war on this basis, from our point of view, is neither wise nor sensible. I want to emphasize the fact that we have not suddenly lost our friendship for the Americans. The point is that to prepare for suicide, for the third world war, is nonsense, from our point of view. Does a man prepare to celebrate his own wake or does a nation do so? Rather than thinking of ourselves as the northern outpost of the U.S.A., we must think of ourselves as the essential buffer, in the opinion of this group, between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.
Since all parties recognize that a major war is international suicide,-and the minister himself has made that statement on a number of occasions and we agree with it- we must do all we can to prevent it. We Canadians can best prevent it, in the opinion of this group, by separating as much as we can the U.S.A.'s strategic air command from the U.S.S.R. and the Soviet long range air force from the U.S.A. In this we believe we serve peace and serve the best interests of the U.S.A. and of the Canadian people.
The D.E.W. line serves as a deterrent to thermonuclear war by its constant ability to alert SAC of the approach of soviet H-bombers. The U.S.S.R. will not send H-bombers against the U.S.A. knowing full well that SAC will be alerted in time to attack the Soviet union. I think that is a sound proposition or a sound way in which to analyse the matter.
But the balance of terror tends to be unstable. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that by internationalizing the D.E.W. line, by giving the Russians the same assurance against United States attack as we at present give the United States against Russian attack, we lessen the necessity of both sides to think in terms of preemptive attack. Of course, this assurance will not be absolute. Bombers do not have to fly over the D.E.W. line and ICBM's and nuclear missile-firing submarines operate outside the scope of the D.E.W. line's radar. But internationalizing the D.E.W. line-that is, by permitting Russian radar technicians to sit side by side


with United States radar technicians-we believe would be a wise step forward.
It is a true step toward disarmament for it disarms, to a certain extent, the opposing strategic air forces. It is something we Canadians can do. It would be a much more worth-while proposal to bring to the disarmament conference than are some of the proposals made to date.
Finally, this proposal points the way to control of ICBM's: world-wide internationalized missile tracking radar scopes. If each side knows it cannot fire a missile toward the other without the other knowing of it within seconds, then we have eliminated fear of surprise ICBM attack and we have eliminated what will otherwise become the major cause of pre-emptive attack in the future.
In this connection we would recommend to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as to all those engaged in disarmament negotiations, that they read the first rate article in the July issue of Foreign Affairs by the distinguished United States professor and author, Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, a very interesting article indeed. The article is called "Arms Control, Inspection and Surprise Attack" and commences on page 557 of this issue. If members of the government would read this article we would hope that our future disarmament negotiations might take more account of the realities of the present situation in this age.
It may well be that we will not have complete and general disarmament until we have true world government. We do not underestimate all the difficulties and the risks involved; anyone who did so would be foolish. Until then the least we must work for is an end to the nuclear arms race, disengagement as far as we can achieve it and disarmament in peripheral areas, and a scaling down of the thermonuclear deterrents of each major power to a level where they deter but do not provoke an attack by the other.
Disengagement in North America means, as I have explained, that Canada must leave NORAD. I agree that when Canada does some people in NATO will claim that we have gravely weakened the defences of the free world. We oppose NATO because we oppose the unilateral defence system. We believe in action through the United Nations by the United Nations organization.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Did he say he was opposed to NATO?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should have said I was opposed to NORAD and I correct myself. We

insist that NORAD adds little to our defence. The only intercontinental defence is deterrence and this is a function of the strategic air command, Polaris-firing submarines, missile cruisers, aircraft carriers and United States nuclear weapons based in Europe and Asia. We want to emphasize the fact that in all this Canada has no part whatever.
But we must not think that leaving NORAD means we can sit back and let the rest of the world go by. We see no virtue in isolationism. Indeed such an approach is repugnant to every true democratic socialist. Anyone who understands the socialist philosophy knows that you cannot isolate yourself from the rest of the world and become an isolationist if you are to accept your responsibilities. We know that we will have to operate the D.E.W. line and back it up with fighter aircraft capable of identifying and intercepting the most modern bombers. That is, we will still require armed forces in Canada sufficient to allow us to be a buffer. But we cannot do this on the cheap. For Canada to play an honourable role in world affairs we must spend what is necessary to provide this type of defence and increase our aid to underdeveloped countries in which we believe we should play an even greater part.
Now I turn to NATO and explain our position there. First, it is in Canada's interest that the nations of NATO not fall under communist domination. Second, the defence problems of the European members of NATO and Turkey are fundamentally different from those of the United States and Canada; the NATO area is contiguous to the U.S.S.R. and we are not. I believe it is in Canada's interest that NATO'S strategy reduce the dangers of war to the minimum consonant with the territorial and political integrity of the nations which comprise NATO. Regardless of why massive soviet forces are in eastern Europe, so long as they are there NATO must be powerfully supported by the western allies. However, the present military situation in Europe is that the NATO forces are greatly outnumbered by the Russians in effective combatant formations.
Western policy is to balance NATO's weakness in conventional forces by being ready to use so-called tactical nuclear weapons. This idea is based on two false premises: first that a weak force armed with nuclear weapons is going to beat the large force armed with nuclear weapons; second, that a nuclear war in Europe could possibly remain limited.
Canada must insist that NATO recast its strategy, its tactics and its organization so that its defensive forces are capable of meeting any soviet aggression with conventional weapons long enough to allow diplomacy to
Supply-External Affairs seek a settlement before, progressively, tactical nuclear weapons and thermonuclear weapons are used. We say that we should make it very clear to our NATO allies that we will withdraw from the alliance unless they all honestly strive to give effect to disarmament and disengagement. The whole idea is to work toward the creation of a buffer zone in Europe at the same time as we make a buffer zone of Canada. That is our approach to this problem at the present time.
We believe that the NATO powers must give the Rapacki plan the consideration it deserved in the beginning. From the beginning NATO has unfortunately been a purely military alliance, and so many cultural and economic organizations have grown up outside of NATO that it is useless now to think of NATO in any terms except military terms. We say that our membership in NATO must be contingent therefore on NATO fulfilling a useful defensive function, which we believe it can.
At first sight it may appear strange to advocate that Canada leave NORAD at home and yet support NATO abroad. The reason stems from what must be the basic aim of our defence policy, and that is to prevent war. The fact of the matter is simply that in the first place NORAD, from our point of view, is useless and, in the second place, by being a buffer in North America Canada can best prevent an all-out, pre-emptive war between the United States of America and the U.S.S.R.
On the other hand, were we simply to quit NORAD without making the slightest attempt to modify NATO's strategy and organization, we would not have done all we could to prevent world-wide war breaking out in Europe, a war in which we would surely suffer annihilation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have dealt with that situation as a contribution toward the study of the question of disarmament within a field over which we have control and in which we can make decisions, and as a contribution toward lessening world tension. We in this group are very keen on nuclear disarmament and we are very pleased with the statements the minister has made from time to time on this question. This is a matter of increasing concern to people across this country, as evidenced by resolutions passed by various organizations, churches, trade unions, co-operative societies across this country and so on.
A very interesting resolution was passed on this question by the fiftieth congress of the co-operative union of Canada last April. Another was passed by the United Church of Canada and unanimously passed at its council meeting.

Supply-External Affairs
Then I noticed recently that Commander Sir Stephen King Hall from Great Britain has taken a strong stand in the leadership of the movement to work for nuclear disarmament. In that connection I would like to draw the attention of the committee to a statement made by the Prime Minister in the house recently, when he said that he wanted to make it abundantly clear that nuclear weapons will not be used by Canadian forces except as the Canadian government decides and in a manner approved by the Canadian government, and that Canada would retain its full freedom of choice and decision. In view of the newspaper reports I received we would much like the minister to reconcile that statement with the reports we have been reading in the press in recent days when he replies at the end of this debate.
However, we do want to emphasize our support for all efforts to end nuclear testing and to promote nuclear disarmament. As the minister said this afternoon, nuclear war means the end of civilization so it is up to us to contain ourselves and do the best we can in the circumstances though they may be trying at times.


Jacques Flynn: Has the hon. member leave to continue beyond the limit of time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank hon. members for allowing me time to complete the main portion of my remarks.
It is easy for people to become impatient and for those in high places, as has happened in the United States on a number of occasions, to make hasty statements, and we give our government credit for not indulging in hasty and unwise statements. This is a matter of such seriousness for mankind as a whole that we have to exercise the ultimate in patience and we give the minister full credit as far as that is concerned.
C.C.F. policy is that we should work for agreement between the major powers to suspend nuclear tests. An increasing number of people, including mothers, are concerned about these tests because of their fear that radiation from these tests will affect the health of the children. In addition, we believe the Canadian government should make it clear that no nuclear weapons shall be installed on our territory and that no foreign plane shall be allowed to fly over our territory for the purpose of reconnaissance or aerial photography.
I have one or two questions I want to raise concerning buffer zones and disengagement. As far as nuclear armament was concerned there was a most interesting debate in the United Kingdom House of Commons on

February 10 last when the Labour party introduced a resolution taking strong exception to providing Germany with nuclear weapons. It was a most interesting debate, and while the motion was amended by the government, the spokesman on behalf of the government of Great Britain showed a very sympathetic and careful attitude to the resolution introduced by the Labour party which no doubt represented at that time and still represents a wide section of public opinion in Great Britain.
The Rapacki plan, in our opinion, has not received the attention it deserves. We believe in getting people apart. We believe that if you get some disengagement there is less likelihood of war developing as a result of some unfortunate decision by local persons on the spot and things of that sort. Just think of the position of the Polish people. I talked to some of these persons, Polish citizens of Canada, and told them we were trying to work for world peace and yet in the present situation in Europe without any working toward the Rapacki plan we have a most dangerous situation especially when one reads that some West German statesmen, and even members of the cabinet of the West German republic, have announced their intention to change the frontiers of the German republic back to the frontiers of 1937. The only head of state who has agreed to the retention of the present line as laid down in the Potsdam agreement has been General de Gaulle. That may seem rather surprising, but he made a positive statement on that and he is the only western statesman who has.
I have no hesitation in saying that this group was opposed to the armament of Germany when the house passed the measure connected with that, and it is still the policy of this party to be opposed to the armament of Germany. We thought it was unfortunate at that time with respect to an increase in the forces of NATO. We can understand the fears of these people when we read, for instance, a headline in the Ottawa Citizen of February 10: "Meyer Says He'll be In Third War", or the headline in the Globe and Mail of June 30: "Kurt Meyer now has support of half-million Germans". I have here yet another report which appeared on January 6 in the Province where a German is telling people in Vancouver that Hitlerite generals are again in control of the German army. I call attention, also, to an appendix which appeared in the Congressional Record on June 14. Hon. Frank Kowalski had included in the record excerpts from "West Germany and Anti-Semitism" by Lillian Levy

and obviously the senator did not have that included in the appendix unless he agreed with the article.
Here is an editorial, which also appeared in the Province dealing with the rebuilding of the German arms industry. It concludes by saying that though this might make good economic sense it does not make sense of any other kind while the people of the world are so desperately anxious for peace. There was a strong editorial in the Trail Times along the same lines. That is a paper which supports the party to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs belongs.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, July 14, 1960
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wilfred Judson, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 14th July, at 8 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
E. Joly de Lotbiniere
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker went with the house up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Criminal Code.
An act respecting Wabush Lake Railway Company Limited and Amaud Railway Company.
An act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.
''Supply-External Affairs EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



CANADIAN REACTION TO SOVIET DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS OF JUNE 2, 1960

["In view of the hour I wonder if I might be allowed to call it eleven o'clock?\nProgress reported."]
Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has a request to make.


Howard Charles Green: This afternoon I suggested that the Canadian reaction to the Russian proposals in the disarmament committee be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard. Apparently that can only be done with Your Honour in the chair. I understand that the deputy chairman of the committee referred the matter to Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to give unanimous consent to the request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For document referred to above see Appendix B1


Mr. Speaker:: The house will now resume the business which was interrupted by the arrival of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

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



[Stage Direction]
75. Departmental administration, $6,370,736.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when we recessed for dinner I was at the point of urging support for the Rapacki plan and the principle of disengagement in central Europe in order to lessen the tension between the east and the west in that area and to reduce the danger of war arising from some unfortunate circumstance, and I had just about concluded giving some examples of the fear of resurgent nazism from various Canadian papers and from editorial opinion. I have just one more illustration of the concern felt on this question by Canadian editors and writers. This is from the Canadian Commentator of February, 1960:
So much has been written recently about former nazis in high office that It seems unnecessary to deal with this point at any length. At first, these people were employed only in the lower echelons of the administration. This was probably unavoidable; there just were not enough men and women of the necessary qualifications available who had not been members of the nazi party. Care was, however, taken that they should have been only "Mitlaeufer"-in literal translation this means that they had only "run along" with the pack. The real break came after the general elections of 1953, when in Waldemar Kraft and Theodor Oberlaender two
6314	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
really prominent members of the old nazi heirarchy joined the Adenauer cabinet...
There is a quip current in Germany that Mr. Strauss should put all the nazis into the German navy: they won't go down. The staying power of the nazi remnants and the attraction which nazi ideas have to newly formed German nationalist groups have posed quite a problem to the builders of the West German republic and the problem is, if anything, getting bigger as time goes on.
I give these few illustrations, Mr. Chairman, and urge support of the Rapacki plan as a move in the right direction to lessen these tensions that will develop because of the fears of the Poles and others behind the iron curtain that a re-armed Germany under some future leader may decide to change the present Polish borders. I suggest that the other nations of the world would be very well advised to follow President de Gaulle's example by declaring their support for the present borders of Poland to which they have a right according to history. Other members of this group will deal with other aspects of external affairs in continuation of this debate.
To summarize, we suggest that a new approach to disarmament is essential. In our opinion it must be based on the three points I have already mentioned, namely an end of the nuclear arms race, disengagement and disarmament in peripheral areas and a scaling down of the thermonuclear deterrents of each major power to a level where they deter but do not provoke an attack by the other.
In addition, I want to mention again our support for the recognition of China. Although we realize all the difficulties in that connection, we suggest that particularly at this time China should at least be included in any future disarmament committee negotiations and discussions. In that connection I want to quote briefly from an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of Tuesday, January 26 of this year in which there is the following:
For disarmament without red China a part of it would be obvious perilous nonsense: what, for example, could a disarmed or even partially disarmed United States, facing a nuclear armed China, do about Formosa, or about President Eisenhower's promise to fight for India, or about anything else in Asia?
We urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government to use their influence to have China at least included in any future disarmament negotiations. We strongly urge all support for the United Nations and its agencies, to which the government does give good support because, as I said before, with all its failings it has produced some very good results throughout the years. As I said previously, what would we do now with the difficulty in the Congo if we did not have the United


Nations organization to function and take action to the greater satisfaction of all the parties involved?
We also urge strong support by the government for the United Nations emergency force, or what we have been pleased to call on a number of occasions the international police force which has shown its effectiveness to date in limiting war in certain areas.
I say that when we have evolved a new disarmament plan, a realistic plan in view of the latest developments, let us take the initiative and promote it throughout the world. Let us discuss it quietly first with our friends, especially with those within the commonwealth because it is peace that we seek. In this connection I certainly urge doing everything we can to work together within the commonwealth because the commonwealth is a particular unit in the governments of the world today which has a particular tradition and influence and commands a certain sort of unusual respect. It can have an influence on world opinion and it can have an influence on decisions of the United Nations.
If we can by the use of tact and patience mobilize the whole commonwealth behind realistic disarmament proposals we will at last have done some real good. I am sure the minister is right behind that suggestion. Just imagine Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and the other countries of the commonwealth working together, having in mind the problems on both sides of this question, to support some of the things I spoke about this afternoon. What an influence we would have on world affairs. What we need, what we expect from the government in the realm of external affairs today are not pious platitudes but much honest, hard and humble labour in the shadows which we are certain will bring results to the advantage of this and future generations. Because of our particular geographical position, because we are not a nation seeking territory or improper concessions outside our own borders, we have a particular opportunity and responsibility. We in this group say that is our responsibility to the commonwealth, to the United Nations and to the rest of the world at this time.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Kootenay West but I do not intend to deal with their remarks at this time. Rather, as was indicated this afternoon by my minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I will be dealing with certain government activities in the field of external affairs.

The first subject I should like to deal with in this regard is the subject of atomic radiation and, of: course, particularly as it affects our country. The harnessing of the atom with its tremendous potential to provide mankind with a new source of power has been one of the most spectacular scientific achievements of our age. Too little, however, has yet been learned of the hazards both of peaceful uses and military applications of nuclear fission. For this reason the Canadian government has repeatedly expressed its conviction that there should be no more nuclear weapons test explosions. Despite the moratorium on such tests, which has been in force for almost two years, the genetic and biological effects from previous tests will continue for a long time to be the concern of health authorities both here in Canada and elsewhere.
In contrast to Canada, where for a number of years a program of fall-out analysis has been carried out, there are many areas of the world for which no similar information is available because the countries concerned do not have our scientific and technical resources. Consequently, it is very difficult to assess accurately the nature and the extent of the world-wide radiation hazards. To help meet the need in this important field the United Nations set up the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation in which a number of eminent scientists, including Canadians, have been seeking co-operatively to fill the gaps that still exist in our knowledge of the effects of ionized radiation both upon man and upon his environment. As a further contribution to the same end, Canada took the lead at the last session of the general assembly of the United Nations in giving new impetus to the scientific work involved and announced on November 17 last its willingness to analyse radioactive samples from less well equipped countries.
I think perhaps most hon. members and indeed others may have followed these proceedings of the United Nations with interest and have read the reports afterwards. I do not wish at this time to elaborate again on the work that went on at the general assembly at that time. I should like, however, to point out that when Canada presented this resolution to give impetus to the work of the scientific committee we had anticipated at the time that this effort of ours would receive general approval. However, we found out that the countries of the soviet bloc were not overly enthusiastic about our effort at the time and as a result a long series of arduous and difficult negotiations took place between ourselves and one or two members of the soviet bloc, namely Czechoslovakia and the Soviet union.
Supply-External Affairs
I would say in this regard that while these negotiations took a long time and the members of the soviet delegation were hard bargainers, nevertheless these negotiations were carried out without acrimony and in a very businesslike way, I think, on both sides, and as a result at the end of the assembly our delegation, which was acting on behalf of the other co-sponsors of the resolution, was able to reach a satisfactory agreement both as to content and the wording of the resolution with the members of the soviet group and as a result the resolution was approved unanimously by the general assembly.
I might say that in this regard our delegation was very anxious to receive constructive suggestions from all other delegations and from members of the United Nations secretariat and specialized agencies, as indeed it did. I think I might point out the interesting work involved in the operation. The resolution took 36 or 37 revisions in wording as a result of constructive suggestions received and many of them were received from countries such as India, the United Arab Republic and Norway.
As most hon. members may recall, this resolution was sponsored by nine other countries. We received a great deal of assistance from our co-sponsors which included Japan, Ghana, Norway, Mexico, Argentina, Italy, Ireland and Austria, as I recall. I just mention this negotiation in passing as an indication that while this is only a rather small facet of the problem that may divide east and west at the present time, it perhaps does point out that if the proper atmosphere is created and if countries sit down to negotiate seriously on a matter with appropriate accommodation being made on all sides a satisfactory result can be reached.
I know we found in one or two instances in our negotiations that some initial difficulties were actually caused by genuine misunderstandings. There were other problems, of course. I just recall this example at this point in order to give a little bit of encouragement to those who think that the world situation at the present time is hopeless and to show that things are in fact not hopeless. However, you cannot expect to get results in international negotiations-as the hon. members across the way including the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East will know indeed much better than I-to take place in a minute. It takes long and patient negotiation. I am sure these general principles can be applied to other fields.
Since this resolution was passed we have sought support for the implementation of the

Supply-External Affairs resolution in many of the countries concerned. For its part, the United Nations scientific committee has considered closely how best to ensure uniform standards for collection and analysis of samples of radioactive material, that is to say, air, soil, water and food, and to co-ordinate a program involving a wide variety of member states of the United Nations.
Two specialized agencies and some eight countries, namely the United States of America, Argentina, Italy, the Soviet union, Japan, Norway, France and the United Kingdom have now, like Canada, offered to provide facilities for analysis to countries wishing to participate in this program. The United Nations scientific committee's letter of April 7 last to member governments in addition to listing these offers extended an invitation in formal terms for co-operation in providing additional information on all areas of the globe.
Since that time Canada has already received four requests for assistance in conducting analyses of radioactive samples. I repeat again these are food, air, soil and water. Appropriate programs to meet their l'equests are being worked out and the radiochemical laboratory facilities of the Department of National Health and Welfare are being extended to meet the requirements of what is estimated to be a program involving the analysis of up to 25 soil samples, 300 food samples, and 300 human bone samples per year.
To stimulate the flow of required information and to assist the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation in establishing and maintaining contact with scientists and scientific bodies in Canada, the government is bringing to the attention of scientific associations and other interested persons and organizations the invitation which the secretary of the United Nations scientific committee issued on April 7, 1960 for increased participation in the program. Three Canadian scientists will be attending a seminar on genetics, radiation and health statistics in Geneva next September. In these and other ways this government will continue to do all that it can at home, in the United Nations and in the specialized agencies in order to ensure the success of an international cooperative endeavour which is vitally concerned with matters of first importance to the health of mankind.
The next subject with which I should like to deal very briefly is the question of outer space. In this regard I cannot help but recall that some years ago when I was a student at high school I was severely chastised by my parents for reading magazines which had

to do with wars involving atomic bombs and rockets to the moon. I think all hon. members are aware of how rapidly things have changed in a rather brief period. I know that the term "outer space" evokes a certain amount of amusement and some facetious remarks. However, I think hon. members will realize the multiplicity of problems that now face the people in the world with the penetration of space, anything from the very serious problems to the world in general, such as the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction being hurled from outer space on to a portion of the globe, down to the more pedestrian interests of individuals in the event that one of the man-made satellites might happen to fall down on somebody's home. The problem then arises, of course, who will pay for the damage. These are, of course, just an indication of the types of problems we face now and will continue to face in the future.
There has been good progress in recent months in Canadian space research programs. The main emphasis of Canadian research is on upper atmosphere research. Canada is particularly well suited to such research, largely because the country's geographic location permits studies of the aurora to be made. In this field some of the work being done by Canadian government scientists is the most advanced in the world. With the co-operation of the United States authorities, and with liaison arrangements with United Kingdom scientists, Canadian scientists are providing advanced instruments for the study of the upper atmosphere which are being sent into orbit with United States rockets.
While good progress in co-operation with Canada's close friends has been achieved, progress in the United Nations context I am very sorry to say has been disappointing. The United Nations committee on outer space, whose establishment on a permanent basis the Canadian government welcomed and supported at the last session of the general assembly, has been unable to meet as yet. The world scientific conference on outer space which the committee had the task of arranging will now not be held until sometime next year. While this development permits more time for the careful preparation which is essential if scientific exchanges in this field are to be fruitful, it is nevertheless unfortunate that even the preliminary administrative arrangements for the conference have yet to be taken in hand, nor have any of the other aspects of the work of the United Nations committee on outer space been taken up.
All these matters have been kept pending while representatives of the United States and the Soviet union have sought in quiet negotiation to arrive at solutions to certain problems connected with the arrangements for

the scientific conference. These negotiations, like a number of others in which representatives of east and west have been participating, have felt the impact of the collapse of the summit conference.
It may be that the committee on outer space will not be able to report any substantial progress in this work at all to the United Nations general assembly which meets in the autumn. This will be very regrettable and the Canadian government will work in this field as in others which have been affected by the recent deterioration in relations between the east and the west for a return to the more hopeful international atmosphere of a year ago.
The last thing I should like to deal with, and I hope that if I go over my time for a moment I will have the leave of the committee to continue, is the subject of the world refugee year. The hapless plight of tens of thousands of people all over the world who have been displaced by political, indeed in some cases by economic evils throughout the world are the object I am sure of the great sympathy of all members of this committee and indeed everywhere else in Canada. Ever since the end of world war II this refugee problem has been plaguing the conscience of mankind, and finally, human beings being what they are, although I suppose sometimes we all take a little stirring up, world refugee year was brought into effect last year.
I do not wish to spend time on the antecedents of this very worth-while effort on the part of humanity in general. There are a number of people who claim a certain amount of credit for giving it impetus, but I would like to say at this time that I think it is something we all have the greatest interest in and sympathy for. I have heard the odd person say "Well, it is quite true that there are these people in a sad condition throughout the world, but after all there are certain groups of persons here at home who also need attention and perhaps we should look after them first". My answer to that is this, and I have heard others express the same view. While it may be true that "charity begins at home" it does not stop there. I think there would be few in Canada who would not be wholeheartedly behind the project of the Canadian government, and indeed the committee on world refugee year in this regard.
The Canadian government was one of the early supporters of the concept of world refugee year. On December 5, 1958 the Canadian delegation supported a resolution in the United Nations general assembly calling for a world refugee year, and shortly thereafter the secretary general was informed that Canada would actively participate in the program.
Supply-External Affairs
Before dealing with the special steps taken by the government in support of world refugee year I shall refer briefly to the regular annual contributions which have been made by the government to the various refugee assitance programs being carried out by the United Nations. In 1959 Canada made the following contributions to the regular budget of continuing refugee programs:
(a)	To the camp clearance program of the high commissioner for refugees, $290,000;
(b)	To the 1959 budget of the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees, $500,000 in cash and $1,500,000 in wheat flour;
(c)	In addition Canada contributed in 1959 the sum of $60,000 to the Far Eastern project carried out jointly by the high commissioner for refugees and the intergovernmental committee for European migration. Under this program refugees of European origin in China, many of whom have been refugees for close to 40 years, are being resettled elsewhere. This contribution was made in 1959 but was made applicable to the 1958 budget of the Far Eastern project.
In 1959 therefore Canada contributed $2,350,000 to regular budgets of programs being carried out by the United Nations refugee agencies. Last winter Canada pledged a further $290,000 to the 1960 regular budget of the high commissioner for refugees and .$500,000 in cash to the 1960 budget of UNRWA. In May last the government announced a further contribution for 1960 of $1,500,000 in wheat flour to UNRWA.
On June 30 the Secretary of State for External Affairs informed the house that the government had decided, subject to parliamentary approval, to make an additional contribution of $1 million in wheat flour to UNRWA. This is not a regular contribution but is a special grant to mark the end of world refugee year.
When the possibility of such a contribution was discussed recently with the director of UNRWA the director pointed out that such a donation would have a twofold significance. In the first place it would help feed close to one million Arab refugees. It would also permit UNRWA, with the money which would otherwise be spent by UNRWA on food purchases, to build, equip, staff and maintain for three years two vocational training institutes for young Arab refugees. These two schools, which would provide technical training for perhaps 500 students each year, would permit the graduates to provide permanent maintenance for a large number of Arab refugee families. The addition of such a number of skilled workmen to the economies of the Middle Eastern countries will be a
6318	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs considerable contribution to the prosperity and stability oi that troubled area.
I should like at this point to read a telegram which was received by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this regard from Dr. John Davis, the director of UNRWA. This was after the last contribution of $1 million of wheat flour which was announced in the house on June 30. The telegram reads as follows:
Ambassador Paul Beaulieu has just conveyed to me a copy of your statement before the Canadian House of Commons thirty June 1960 announcing Canada's gift of over million dollars of flour to UNRWA. This is thrilling news and I am asking UNRWA's comptroller immediately to transfer one million dollars in cash from our general fund to the special reserves for vocational training and related activities. On behalf of UNRWA and the refugees it serves I thank you and your government and the people of Canada for your wonderful generosity.
I thought that hon. members of the committee would be interested in hearing that communication from the director of UNRWA.
It is well to keep in mind that for the latest year for which complete figures are available Canada was surpassed only by the United States in its contribution to the program of the high commissioner for refugees and only by the United Kingdom and the United States in its contribution to UNRWA. I understand that after this latest gift to UNRWA our contribution is very close to that of the United Kingdom. Canada is the only middle power which contributes on this scale to these United Nations agencies.
Canada does not merely contribute money to part of its regular program of assistance to refugees. I have been surprised to hear some people say that prior to world refugee year Canada did nothing to provide resettlement opportunities for refugees. For years Canada has admitted refugees from European camps and many who were not actually in the camps. Since world war II it is estimated that more than 250,000 refugees have been admitted to Canada. It is difficult to give an accurate figure because Canada has followed the policy of admitting all new arrivals as immigrants without establishing a special category or label of "refugee".
The flow of refugees varies from year to year, but it is accurate to say that in every year since 1945 there have been thousands of refugees admitted to Canada. In the last six months of 1959-that is to say, the first six months of world refugee year-between 1,300 and 1,400 refugees arrived in Canada as part of the normal immigration program.
Canada has also for a number of years permitted the sponsorship of handicapped refugees who would not meet the normal criteria for entry into Canada. Under this


program relatives or one of five recognized church agencies could sponsor specific refugee families from Europe by undertaking certain responsibilities which, in essence, served as assurance that the handicapped family would not become public charges after their admission. Although the federal authorities could not fix a time limit for these responsibilities, it was, of course, open to the various provinces to exercise their jurisdiction in respect of welfare assistance so as to accept responsibility for any future assistance required by the sponsored refugees and thereby terminate the financial undertakings of the sponsors. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced last autumn that the categories of eligible sponsors would be broadened for WRY so that private individuals, voluntary organizations, and municipal and provincial authorities could act as sponsors for handicapped refugees. On March 17 the Prime Minister announced in the House of Commons that this arrangement would be extended beyond the end of WRY.
At the present time there are 100 handicapped cases-involving a total of 249 persons-that are now being processed by the immigration branch. These 100 cases are being sponsored by community groups, voluntary or religious organizations and do not include cases being sponsored by relatives in Canada. The groups that have undertaken to sponsor refugees deserve the warmest commendation.
The government's major special contribution to WRY is, of course, the program for the admission of tuberculous refugees and their families to Canada for treatment and rehabilitation. On September 24, 1959 the Secretary of State for External Affairs was able to announce in the general assembly that as a special contribution to WRY Canada would waive immigration regulations and admit a substantial number of tuberculous refugees and their families for treatment. At a subsequent press conference the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the number to be admitted would be at least 100 and possibly more.
The 100 tubercular refugee families arrived in Canada by early 1960. The first 100 families were settled in Canada with a high degree of success. With the modern methods of treatment available in Canada the family member suffering from tuberculosis responded quickly, and by early spring almost one-third of the cases were already cured. At the beginning of June 75 of the cases had been discharged from sanatoria. On June 1, 54 of the men in the group admitted were employed and 31 women were employed.

In these circumstances, the government decided to extend the program. The provinces expressed interest in joining in the extension and a similar arrangement was agreed upon under which they accepted the cost of treatment in the provincial sanatoria and all other expenses-including transportation and maintenance where necessary until the families are reasonably able to support themselves-were paid by the federal government. Under the extension so far arrangements have been made to bring 112 tubercular cases and their dependents from Europe to the various co-operating provinces in Canada. These cases will be arriving in Canada in chartered aircraft which will leave Europe on July 18, July 25 and in early August.
I referred a few minutes ago to the government's special contribution of $1 million in wheat flour to UNRWA, by which the government marked the closing of WRY. It may be appropriate for me at this time to mention the figures which were announced by the Canadian committee for world refugee year on June 29 which represent the results of the private fund-raising campaign in Canada so far as they were known at that date. The local WRY committees across Canada had reported that $866,798 had been raised for United Nations refugee assistance program. An additional $50,000 was contributed directly to the central committee in Toronto. It was pointed out that these returns were incomplete and that some committees appeared to be reaching the peak flow of contributions at the time their report was made. It is therefore expected that the amount reported will be substantially increased by the time a final tally is made.
In addition, sponsoring organizations of the Canadian committee for WRY reported that during WRY their own refugee assistance projects raised $747,263 over their normal annual budgets. These projects are continuing programs carried out by religious and charitable organizations and are quite separate from the fund-raising campaign of the WRY committees. The national sponsoring organizations also reported contributions which they had made directly to United Nations refugee assistance programs totalling $128,495. The total voluntary fund-raising effort in Canada during WRY amounted to $1,792,556 as of June 29.
Before concluding this review of the program in Canada in support of world refugee year I feel I am obliged to refer to the remarks which were made last week in this house in the context of another debate by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam speaking on behalf of the C.C.F. group. The
Supply-External Affairs hon. member suggested that the government and the national organizations which have joined together to form the Canadian committee for WRY are guilty of utter discrimination in connection with refugees. The hon. member indicated that the Canadian committee's advertising amounted to misrepresentation since it depicted the tragic situation of refugees in areas other than Europe, while in fact contributions were devoted exclusively to assisting European refugees. He also included the government in his reference to discrimination in favour of European refugees.
I should like to point out that when preparations were being made for WRY the executive committee which advises the high commissioner for refugees decided that the clearance of the refugee camps in Europe should be a top priority project during WRY, since this was one of the problems of longest standing and one which could be liquidated through WRY with the result that available resources in personnel and money could be concentrated on the remaining refugee problems. In accordance with this view some stress has been placed, not only in Canada but elsewhere, on the necessity of achieving this top priority objective. I would point out, however, that during WRY the government will contribute far more to assist refugees outside Europe than it will to help refugees in Europe. For regular programs in 1959 and 1960 the government has announced contributions totalling $4 million to assist Arab refugees, and contributions of $580,000 for the European camp clearance program. Similarly the government's special WRY contribution for Arab refugees is considerably larger than its contribution to assist European refugees.
With regard to the Canadian committee for WRY, I might point out that while the committee hopes to clear 11 camps in Europe at a total cost of $755,000, it also proposes to contribute $475,000 to build a technical training centre for young Arab refugees in the Middle East. The Canadian committee also hopes to contribute to other United Nations refugee programs involving Chinese refugees in Hong Kong and refugees from Algeria in Tunisia and Morocco. Perhaps I could quote from a press release by the Canadian committee on June 29, which states:
In addition to camp clearance projects, many local world refugee year committees and other refugee organizations pledged themselves to help refugees in many other parts of the world besides Europe, such as those in the Middle East, Hong Kong, Algerian refugees in Tunisia and Morocco, and European refugees on the mainland of China.
I think it would be most regrettable if further contributions to the fine and worthy

Supply-External Affairs work done by the Canadian committee were discouraged by a misunderstanding on the part of the public.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank the committee, Mr. Chairman. I have only a brief further word. As I was saying it would be most regrettable if contributions to the splendid work done by the Canadian committee for world refugee year were discouraged as a result of misunderstandings such as this. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was misinformed. I have taken this opportunity to clear up the misunderstanding because it would be unfortunate if this false impression got abroad and further contributions to this worthy cause were thus subject to interference.
I believe it is fair to say that the contribution to world refugee year which has been made by the government and by the private campaign co-ordinated by the Canadian committee has been a substantial one. Although we have reached the end of world refugee year it is clear that this does not mean the end of Canadian support for programs of assistance to refugees. The Canadian committee will continue its campaign until September 30 and the national voluntary *organizations will continue their regular programs indefinitely. For its part, the government intends to continue its substantial contributions to the regular budgets of the United Nations refugee agencies and will continue to give sympathetic consideration to proposals designed to ass;st refugees.
That concludes the remarks I have to make on this subject. Again I wish to thank the committee for permitting me to complete my remarks.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I ran across a rather interesting item in the New York Times magazine of February 9, 1959 which reads as follows:
At no time in history have nations been granted the privilege of defending themselves both successfully and also at a level they think they can "afford". There is no reason to suppose that history has obligingly reversed itself for the benefit of the west.
This paragraph, of course, refers to the tremendous financial cost of nuclear armaments and the equally high cost of nuclear defensive weapons. No one will disagree that

this is a rather striking statement. I think it is even more striking when we stop to consider that in spite of its astronomical cost, nuclear warfare because of its unprecedented destructive power is not and cannot be the accepted solution to the relatively minor international Conflicts between the nations who will resort to it. Of course, these conflicts and incidents such as we have read about recently will be the excuses given for launching into nuclear war but the true spark of nuclear war will be an absolutely insane pride and thirst for power on the part of one nation and the fear of losing face on the part of another. Of course, this would not be the first time in history that the world has been plunged into the horrors of war because of the ambition and pride of madmen, but precisely because it is not the first time and precisely because we do not want to repeat what has happened in the past we should not make the same mistake and suffer consequences which would be infinitely more disastrous than we have ever known.
If we are willing to pay prohibitive costs for the production of nuclear weapons knowing that a nuclear war is not the solution to international problems, surely we should not hesitate to do all we can to seek, find and accept truly imaginative, determined and even revolutionary foreign policies which might prove to be a more practicable approach to world peace and stability.
No one doubts, I am sure, the intellectual ability of man in finding true safeguards to world peace. This has already been done theoretically in the United Nations, but there is an evident though understandable lack of determination and a hesitation among the members of the United Nations in implementing these safeguards and in making them work.
I think we are all agreed that the United Nations is not only the best but is the only means devised to date of establishing healthy, intelligent and practicable international relationships. Although it has never been overpublicized, the United Nations has been particularly successful in bringing much-needed economic and social aid to many nations of the world and it has created better understanding among them in these particular fields. But it would be ridiculous to pretend that the security council and the general assembly have been able to come up with anything more than almost meaningless resolutions in the political field and it would be hazardous to pin all our hopes for settling of international disputes and maintaining world peace exclusively on this agency as it now operates.

Now more than ever before are we being challenged to find and to live up to international policies which can be the alternative to war and destruction and which can bring about the greatest amount of security and stability toward which each nation is striving and to which it has every right. One thing is evident, that we have not yet found that alternative and the world is being brought gradually closer to the brink of a disastrous war. It would appear that there is a very strong and stubborn tendency to attempt to fit old solutions to new circumstances rather than analysing current problems and accepting the solution suggested by the facts no matter how far removed from the traditional practices.
One notable exception to this tendency of applying old formulas to new situations is the revolutionary principle on which is based the European common market which has been found to be a practicable solution to Europe's economic problem but which ten years ago was considered impossible because it did not fit in with the accepted economic principles and the traditional theories of national sovereignty. It may well be that before we can hope to find the appropriate solution in international affairs we must be ready to analyse the real causes of world unrest and instability and be determined to accept the solution that would be most apt to bring about world peace, no matter how unorthodox it may at first appear.
A look at the world picture today is the best indication that an alternative is necessary and urgent and to ignore these warning signs would be a repetition of the years prior to the second world war when as an excuse for inaction we tried to convince ourselves that Hitler would not dare, and war in our generation was impossible. Well, he did, and it was.
There is, among other things, internal strife in the Congo, Italy, Japan, as well as in Algeria, South Africa; there are most disquiet-ening events between Cuba and the United States with several disconcerting asides between the United States and the U.S.S.R. The summit meeting was made to collapse and plunged the world again in the deep freeze period of the cold war. All our hopes of attaining some agreement on disarmament have been dashed to the ground and we are back again to where we were 15 years ago.
It would be very easy and indeed not unwarranted to rile the government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the unrealistic optimism displayed earlier this session with reference to the summit meeting and the disarmament committee. But without saying "I told you so" I think we can be
Supply-External Affairs permitted to point out that, unlike the government's optimism which was based on nothing more than bravado and wishful thinking, the foreboding of the opposition which was characterized by the government as doom and gloom was based on reality and on a thorough knowledge and realistic appraisal of the behaviour of the U.S.S.R. over the years. Subsequent events have confirmed our forebodings. It is not only folly, but it is dangerous for the government to continue its off the cuff foreign policy based on nothing more than wishful thinking and pious hopes apparently oblivious of the fact that the U.S.S.R. has never followed the rules, has always played very rough and for keeps, and that it is deadly serious as well as formidable.
To my mind the main causes of world unrest and instability today are twofold: First, the rise of nationalism and the justifiable desire for complete sovereignty in many new nations of the world today. This is, of course, part of the natural evolution of nations and peoples which cannot and should not be objected to. A great deal of strife could be avoided by helping rather than by hindering them in their achievement of their natural goal. Canada could play, of course, as the minister stated, a tremendous role in this field because, having achieved independence by peaceful means, never having been an imperial power, having no axes to grind with any other nations in the world, those countries do not fear Canada; indeed, they trust her to be objective and impartial as well as sympathetic.
The second and main cause of world unrest and tension is the evident deadlock between the world's two most powerful nations, each championing its own different political ideology. Neither, of course, is willing to give way and the rest of the nations of the world just watch and wonder what the outcome will be. It is about this second cause of world tension that I should like to say a few words.
It has been stated many times by this government and by the previous government that the United Nations is one of the cornerstones of Canadian foreign policy. However, because of the lack of authoritative power of the United Nations the western powers have had to resort to defence organizations such as NATO and NORAD. Canada's participation in both these organizations is certainly justified, and indeed vital, but the very existence of these auxiliary organizations points out the serious weaknesses to be found in the United Nations organization itself, and it is these weaknesses that I believe should be analysed thoroughly and
6322	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs objectively and from a study of these weaknesses we might achieve, perhaps unusual but workable solutions for greater world stability.
I am convinced that no country will willingly seek out a nuclear war but I am not convinced that our present attitude toward international relationships and the present lack of confidence and trust among the nations of the world is the best road to peace. I feel very strongly that the indecisions, the lack of determination, the mistrust, the fears that plague the member nations of the United Nations and thwart the useful decisions of the United Nations in the political field come about because of the undisputed fact that the member nations of the United Nations, as indeed all nations of the world, have today no political life of their own but live and breathe in the shadow of two powerful nations, each representing two completely opposite political ideologies, each having its own circle of sympathetic nations and each having its national prestige to maintain. The intense rivalry between these two nations, whether we are willing to admit it or not, is alone responsible for the international political climate and tension that exists throughout the world today.
The two powerful nations, of course, are the United States and the U.S.S.R.; the two competing ideologies are capitalism and communism. The sympathetic nations are the western countries and the satellite countries. The national prestige that each of these two giants has to maintain can be translated in materialistic terms of strength of armament, of scientific accomplishments, of national production, of economic strength and power. The strategic deployment of this power at the least provocation by one or the other of these two world giants as a justification of their respective political ideologies has not only caused fear and instability among the older nations of the world, but it has caused indecision and confusion among the newer nations who have only recently attained their sovereignty and who cannot help but hesitate as to which of those two political ideologies they will embrace. Unconsciously, perhaps, these nations, as indeed all the nations of the world, are waiting for the outcome of a decisive clash between these two world powers.
It is this final physical clash between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. which must be avoided at all costs because it cannot and will not solve any existing international problems, and can only create greater problems, greater fears and greater distrust among nations. I have never heard it said that young giants have ever excelled in diplomacy and negotiations; they have never been trained to


negotiate closely or to compromise because their strength and power were to them sufficient justification in attaining their objectives. Although this might have been efficient it was seldom just and always dangerous. Giants have always been the exceptions and the rest of mortals have had to temper their desires, and even their justifiable ambitions, to what could be obtained by compromise and diplomacy, and it was under those conditions that the maximum of stability could be maintained.
Unless we are willing to concede that might is right, then we must avoid a showdown of strength between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. as proof of the soundness of their respective political systems and substitute some other criterion which might not only avoid a nuclear war but which would be a more reasonable, a more practicable and indeed a more civilized basis on which to compare the intrinsic values of both political ideologies. Surely, strength of arms cannot be accepted as a true criterion of political philosophy by rational people.
And then, too Mr. Chairman, are we so sure that the only political systems available to the countries of the world, particularly to the new countries, are to be found only at either extreme of a political philosophy that we would be willing to destroy the world in an attempt to prove which of the extremes is the better? Because of the tremendous differences in the economic and social structures of nations I do not believe that absolute standards can be applied successfully in every case, nor do I believe that the nations of the world have no other alternative but to choose between either communism or capitalism. If the nations were free to adopt political systems which best corresponded to the needs of the people and to the circumstances of their countries, the political systems would range from one extreme to another, and that to me is as it should be.
I think the world by its rather passive role as spectator in the growing conflicts between the United States and the U.S.S.R. has placed both these countries in a most unfair position in forcing the two most powerful nations in the world, who psychologically cannot help vying with each other in the military field as well as in the economic, scientific and political fields, to decide upon and to determine what political and economic system will prevail throughout the countries of the world. If you take away all the frills, you realize that that indeed has been the nub of the international problem that has plagued the world since 1945.
Each giant is striving today with increased ardour and aggressiveness to win as many nations to its cause as possible. Each is highly

sensitive to rebukes, each is jealously guarding its international prestige and afraid of losing face, each is striving to attain a strategic advantage over the other. Both are carried away by righteous indignation to the point of brinkmanship and the tempo is increasing with the result that because of specific activities about which we read every day the world is being carried closer and closer to open warfare.
If instead of pushing the United States and the U.S.S.R. into the limelight of a deadly political ring as we are now doing the nations of the world, whether satellite countries or western countries, assumed the responsibilities which are rightly theirs and acted as a group with energy and determination in their own best interests, they would become an effective and, indeed, a necessary counterbalance to the world's two greatest powers.
It is clear that the interest of all nations of the world, because of marked economic, social and, indeed, cultural differences, is not necessarily that of either the United States or the U.S.S.R. I cannot help but believe that the nations of the world other than the United States and the U.S.S.R. have many common problems and many common interests. I also believe that between satellite countries and the western powers, other than the United States and the U.S.S.R., there is much more in common than the differences that may arise because of their respective policital systems, and I feel certain that agreement and understanding could be reached among these nations far more easily than between the United States and the U.S.S.R. I cannot but believe also that both the United States and the U.S.S.R. would be secretly relieved to be taken off the horns of a dilemma that could result in a war which I am sure neither country wants and that they would not object but would indeed welcome the initiative of holding informal meetings and discussions of problems common to all the other nations of the world. In this way we would perhaps relieve them in part at least from an almost unbearable responsibility.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has spoken of the independent stand that Canada is to take in international affairs, and although we have as yet seen no evidence of this perhaps the minister might consider extending an invitation to all the countries of the world, excluding only the U.S.S.R. and the United States, to send a responsible representative to an informal consultative meeting of nations to be held in camera in the parliament buildings at Ottawa as soon as possible for the purpose of discussing what role these nations can play to avert the
Supply-External Affairs catastrophic war that is becoming more and more imminent, and to study the possibility and the best way of forming an effective and practicable counterbalance, within the United Nations preferably or outside it if necessary, to these two world powers between whom there now exists an extremely dangerous and explosive tension.
I do not in the least underestimate the difficulties involved in my suggestion and I have a pretty good idea of what criticism will be levelled at it. But I cannot help but feel that owing to the seriousness of the situation as it exists today the response of nations to the invitation and, indeed, the suggestions that will be made during the meeting could indeed be surprising and extremely useful. It would seem to me that since the powerful nations of the world have not been able to bring world peace and stability and the conferences at the summit have proven to be ineffectual because of rivalry in power, perhaps the united strength and indeed the wisdom of the majority of nations of the world, who have no axes to grind and are not handicapped by being in the limelight, might put them in a far better position to find a surer and more stable road to lasting world peace which I feel sure every nation, including the United States and the U.S.S.R., earnestly desires.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with the greatest interest to the addresses made this afternoon. Not only were they interesting but they were all marked with a degree of high seriousness which seems to me appropriate to the occasion. As Tom Paine said of his day, these are times which try men's souls, and surely we can subscribe to that point of view. Certainly it is a time for cool heads and stout hearts, a time for avoiding that danger which sees a reverse as a catastrophe and a setback as a disaster.
Having faith enough to believe that we creatures of this earth have a future despite our own worst efforts at times, I should like to deal briefly with what might be described as a more long range aspect of Canadian foreign policy. I was greatly interested in what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said about the Latin American area. I welcomed his statement to the effect that a Latin American division is being set up in his department, that moves are being made on the diplomatic front in the Central American region and, most of all, that Canada proposes to send an observer to the forthcoming conference at Quito. I recall the minister dealing with the interest he found in Latin America and the questions that were raised there as to Canada's non-membership in the organization of American states.
6324	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
Some years ago another Canadian cabinet minister visited South America. He came back and said that he found all South America desirous that Canada should enter the PanAmerican union. That was Mr. McKinnon, minister of trade and commerce at that time, who made an extensive and helpful tour in that area some years ago. Canada, as has been pointed out today, is a member of a good many international organizations and has actively and splendidly discharged its duties to them. Yet we are not a member of the organization in our own hemisphere, the oldest peaceful international organization in the world.
The organization of American states as it is now called was set up formally in 1889-90. It existed in an informal way prior to that time, but it is doubtful whether we could have been a member because we did not have independence. But then even if we could have been a member there is not much likelihood that we would have been welcome. The secretary of state of the United States wrote to the president at the time:
The fact is we do not want any intercourse with Canada except through the medium of the tariff and she will find she has a hard row to hoe and will ultimately, I believe, seek admission to the union.
This was secretary of state Blaine who was once described by his political opponents as "Blaine, Blaine, the continental liar from the State of Maine". I would not comment on his veracity at all even though he is now an historic figure. But, I must say, he was not very profound as a prophet. But 20 years later great changes had come in the United States and Blaine's successor Eliuh Root, who presided over the building of the PanAmerican union building, suggested that in the inner cornice of that building the coat of arms of Canada be placed and that a Canadian panel be set up in the board room. Indeed it is said that a chair was ordered in which the Canadian representative would some day sit. I have seen the coat of arms. It is not a very good one in that it shows the arms of only the four original provinces, which does not include Prince Edward Island. The chair I have not seen but it is said that the optimism of Mr. Root's was expressed in this practical way.
In 1909 the director of the Pan-American union was in Ottawa and he discussed Canada's membership with Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier. The prime minister was enthusiastic about Canada's future membership but he thought it would be impractical at that time. During the years this machinery was improved, developed, headquarters were set up at Washington, a bureaucracy established. But for a long time it was not a very viable poli-
[Mr. Macquarrle.l

tlcal international organization, continually under the domination of the United States, a veto placed on political discussion because in all candor we must admit there were certain activities of the United States in the hemispheric field at that time which her ministers would probably not relish being discussed in international gatherings. This was the era of the taking of the canal, the era of the expansion of marine activity in the central and West Indies areas, the era of the dollar diplomacy, the Monroe doctrine and other aspects of United States policy in respect to Latin America.
If United States popularity in Latin America reached its nadir under Teddy Roosevelt it was under another Roosevelt that it reached its zenith. The good neighbour policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt inaugurated an era of understanding and of co-operation. This international machinery became truly a hemispheric body. No longer did it function as an adjunct to the state department. The Latin American states took their place in the most prominent committees and boards. The Latin American outlook was given expression. Political discussions were encouraged and the United States, with great wisdom, abandoned many of the policies which had made it unpopular in the hemisphere and which had prevented it from becoming a true leader in this hemisphere despite its great material, physical and military strength. The colossus of the north by its own wisdom decided to pursue policies which enhanced its prestige and strengthened its position. Today this organization now called the organization of American states exists as a regional agency under section 52 of the U.N. charter with a highly developed group of specialized organizations and agencies to many of which Canada belongs. Indeed, this country participated in specialized agencies as early as 1893. All the ad hoc arrangements were brought up to date in 1948 in the Bogota charter, as it is called, the charter of the O.A.S., which now functions as the basic document of this hemispheric organization to which 21 states belong. An agreement of mutual assistance was entered into in 1947 providing for mutual defence of the hemisphere and interestingly enough including in that area the territory of Canada. At one time the United States attitude was hostility toward our admission. At a later date it was indifference. Then came a desire to have us join and I think that change found its most eloquent expression in the splendid invitation issued by Senator Vandenburg:
By every rule of righteousness she Is eligible to this association. By every rule of reason we should wish her here. I should welcome the final and total New World unity which will be nobly

dramatized when the twenty second chair is filled and our continental brotherhood is complete from the Arctic circle to Cape Horn.
Decision as to the question of our eligibility has long since been made. We are, of course, a sovereign nation with many international commitments. I think there is no reason to doubt that our welcome would be genuine, sincere and universal. The question now is this. Should Canada take that chair? In my brash youth I once suggested that membership in the Pan-American union, as it was called, would be a good thing. In discussing external affairs last session I gave voice to the same opinion. As I grow older I am more convinced that this is a good move and an important one.
In Canada, as the minister said earlier, there has long been a lack of interest in the hemisphere beyond the Rio Grande. Over the years in this chamber there have been a few members who have spoken about Canada's membership in the hemispheric organization. J. S. Woodsworth and Miss Agnes MacPhail were strong advocates of our membership. I ran across an interesting speech by the hon. member for Essex East which I should like to use to adorn this dull discourse but because of the hour I will desist. Mr. Coldwell was another one who approved. Members of the Conservative party at times also spoke on this matter.
I think it is a happy thing to encourage interest in this field and I am very pleased that King's University in Halifax is developing a Latin American institute. I think that is a forward step and it is one which I heartily welcome. Some who talk about membership in the Pan-American union would say that we are not intimately concerned about this part of the world. They would say it is the northern hemisphere or it is the commonwealth tie that should concern us. One cannot in this modern world rope off an area and say "In this part we are not interested". As the minister so rightly said, anyone is 24 hours away from anyone else in this modern world. Gone is the day when any Canadian can say, as one once did say: We live in a fireproof house far from inflammable material, why should we pay high insurance premiums?
Peace, stability and prosperity of the whole western hemisphere are a matter of real interest and concern to us. To those who say "Don't get involved" I can only say in all candor, "We are involved". Where are the frontiers of any state today? I remember Prime Minister Baldwin making a statement that Britain's frontiers were now on the Rhine. Where are ours? Are there any of these distant and remote countries, as
Supply-External Affairs Mr. Chamberlain once inanely described Czechoslovakia just before the second war broke at that time? The people of Latin America are our friends, people with whom we work closely at the United Nations and elsewhere. Twenty members of that body are Latin American. Their influence I believe is even greater than that figure would indicate. It is an area which produces a great sense of real international feeling.
One might talk about sociological similarities. We, like they, are new world states where we have transplanted our old world traditions; and again we, like they, are dedicated to the free world because in these present tense days, although within our inner structures we differ one from the other, I think one can say that the free world today needs all its friends in as friendly a mood as possible.
Perhaps I might deal with the question of trade. In 1938 our exports to the Latin American world were something over $19 million. In 1948 they had risen to $132 million, and in 1958 to $180 million. Our imports have risen from $23 million to $350 million. That is not as high as they might be, and indeed steps might be taken both by the Latin Americans and ourselves to foster an expansion of trade. I think that increased trade might better further both the social and political contacts between us.
Another reaction that one has seen to a suggestion of Canada's participation in this hemispheric organization might be described as a holier than thou attitude. Sometimes one reads of the tendency of these countries toward dictators and of the primitive nature of their political institutions. And of course we have to recognize immediately that it would be folly to judge their political and social societies by our own values and standards. But even by those I think we could say that political democracy in general in Latin America is stronger today than ever before.
But then, to be realistic, if we take this holier than thou attitude toward other countries, what international organization could we belong to if disapproval of their form of government should cause us to abstain? In recent days I have seen reports in the papers which are interested and do not shy away from the question about the events in the republic of Cuba. It would be highly unfortunate if we should miss all the accomplishments of Pan-Americanism in our concentration on the excesses and exercises of the present ruler of that particular nation. Looking back over its history we could see that this hemisphere has survived somewhat similar threats before. Indeed, I am inclined to

Supply-External Affairs believe that the events in Cuba should cause us to look all the more closely at these hemispheric developments.
It is not for me to discuss the internal politics of Cuba or any other country; nor has the Canadian government, or as far as I know the Canadian people, interfered in any way with the changes that appeared to be taking place some months ago in this country. Yet it should be recalled that Pan-Americanism had its origin in an effort to bring co-operation and unity and greater strength within the hemisphere against a threat from without. The spiritual father of the Pan-American movement was the great liberator Simon Bolivar. In 1826 he saw that these new American states were in danger from activity across the waters and he thought that by bringing them together, from their unity would come the strength of survival. There are far greater threats from across the waters today than ever existed in the nineteenth century in Bolivar's time.
The evil effects of communist encroachment in Cuba would be visited not only upon the people of Cuba but upon the whole hemisphere, and one of the first casualties would be this whole system of hemispheric solidarity and co-operation which has been built up so successfully and largely on the basis of Latin American leadership and inspiration. One can but hope that that same leadership will be aware of the grave dangers which would come to any transgressions by a hostile and alien force.
Then again one hears the regrettable argument that it would be unfortunate if Canada should join the organization of American states, because once in that organization we might find ourselves in disagreement with the United States or lining up against Latin America. This argument is almost contemptible. To suggest that such a thing would deter us is unworthy. We have disagreed with the United States before and have so far survived. The reluctance to enter any organization because we might fear that at some time a situation would arise where there would not be unanimity is to me a most wishy-washy notion and is not really deserving serious consideration.
It has been said at times that our membership in the commonwealth should preclude our membership in the organization of the United States. This, I think, is a holdover from thinking which was prevalent in the days before we attained full national sovereignty. I would look forward to the day when not one member of the commonwealth but two would take their place in the organization of American states and act as an important liaison between two very important
[Mr. Macquarrie.I
and very valuable international bodies in the world today. The second member I think of would be the Federation of the West Indies.
But there is another side to this. Not only should we ask ourselves, what can we get out of it; what will it mean in terms of economics and increased trade, in terms of increased prestige in the councils of the world? A country like Canada with its values and ideals might ask, what can we contribute rather than what can we get? -One hon. member mentioned earlier in the debate the important contributions which Canada was able to make in the international field. He outlined many reasons for this, one being the lack of a legacy of ill will which some other countries may have.
It seems to me we are uniquely qualified to perform usefully and helpfully in this hemispheric organization. We are not without experience in dealing with a powerful and in earlier times somewhat expansionist neighbour. We can recall some instances which are similar to those which occurred between Latin America and the United States. We, like they, have passed into a period where complete independence has meant an improvement in relations and the strengthening of the bonds of friendship, a situation indeed which prevailed throughout the various stages of our development with our former mother country and our great ally and friend, the United Kingdom.
We are a country, like many countries in Latin America, with great national resources yet to be developed. We have that common situation. We are a country with an advanced technology and a mature economy, a country which could move forward to greater things in association with these great peoples further to the south.
One might devote a good deal of time to discussing just this one aspect of our international relations. I think it would be worth while to do something more than simply hop from one crisis to another; we might undertake to do something the benefits of which would unfold as the years go by and allow us to make a greater contribution to the world beyond our own shores.
I think Canadian membership in this organization would be warmly welcomed by both Latin America and the United States. I think our joining it would be a move which would benefit both ourselves and our neighbours. It would strengthen the peaceful purposes of a very important part of the world and it would be a contribution to stability and to international goodwill. I do not think we should now miss the opportunity which is presented to us, and if the government should

decide to play its full part in this organization I think the people of Canada would welcome the move. I look forward to the day when we shall occupy this twenty second chair and accept the full responsibilities of our position as a free state in the western hemisphere. I hope Canada will be at the conference as an observer, and that this will open the door to full-fledged participation in this important international body.


Mr. Batten:: In taking part in this debate on external affairs I do so for the purpose of making a few comments regarding the question of territorial and fishing limits and to comment also on the conference which was held at Geneva a few months ago.
I believe we have reached the time in Canada when to protect our fishing interests some system of uniform maritime regulations is required. Such international regulations of territorial and fishing limits are of the utmost importance to Canada. Along the coasts of Canada lie many old and historic fishing grounds which for generations, indeed for centuries, have provided rich harvest for our people as well as for those of many other countries. On the west coast of Canada we have the United States fishing for salmon and halibut with our own fishermen. On the east coast of Canada we have France, Spain, Portugal, Russia and many other countries fishing with the fishermen of eastern Canada. Hon. members will remember that a few years ago in 1956 there was a celebration at St. John's, Newfoundland which marked the five hundredth annual expedition of the Portuguese to the Grand Banks off Newfoundland.
Canada is one of the largest fish producing nations in the world. In these years the annual catch by Canadians is in the vicinity of two billion pounds having a gross value of about $100 million. The value of these fisheries is emphasized when we compare the total catch with those of other countries with far greater populations. For example, the United Kingdom, with three times our population, has about the same annual catch. The United States, with ten times our population, has only three times our annual production of fish" products. But while it may be important to compare the total annual production of our fisheries with the annual production of other nations and also with the total production of all commodities in our own country, it may be of still greater value in a country of such wide expanse as Canada to compare the regional value of the fisheries with the total production of the area in which they are operated.
There are indications that in the years which lie ahead markets for fishery products 79951-0-399
Supply-External Affairs will become highly competitive. In recent years many countries in order to increase employment and to provide greater sources of protein and secure a greater share of world markets have made real efforts to expand their fishing industry, As a result, over the five-year period from 1953 to 1958 world production increased from 25 million metric tons to 34 million metric tons, or an increase of 35 per cent. In the same period Canadian production has remained relatively stable.
Here two points are of interest to Canada. First, that the fishing industry in Canada is not maintaining its position among the countries of the world and, second, that some of the nations which have contributed to the increase in world production have secured a large percentage of their increased production from waters off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of Canada.
Canada's share in the total catch in the northwest Atlantic is gradually decreasing while foreign vessels become more numerous each year. More than 160 Russian ships up to 14,000 tons each, and with crews totalling 25,000, are, during the present season, off the banks of Newfoundland. This figure is 30 per cent higher than the total number of fishermen in the province of Newfoundland. Also in the area are 60 Portuguese vessels, with 6,000 fishermen, together with 80 ships from Spain with more than 2,500 crew members. Obviously these operations will have an effect on world markets, and may tend to dislodge our exports which account for two-thirds of our total catch.
I hasten to say that I am not arguing that these ships when on the Grand Banks are within the proposed 12-mile limit. The point I am making is that if other nations are attributing such importance to the prosecution of the fisheries that is all the more reason why the fishery resources within the 12-mile limit on both coasts of Canada should be protected.
These regulations are important to Canada for other reasons. We live in a country with an increasing population. Since 1956 our population has increased by 1.5 million, or 9.9 per cent. About one third of our population is 15 years of age or under, and 40 per cent of our population is less than 20 years of age. We must anticipate here in Canada a much larger population and at the same time look forward to some means whereby employment can be provided for these people.
These regulations regarding territorial and fishing limits are important for another reason. Canada may be the only country in the world which has its borders on three great oceans, the Atlantic on the east, the

Supply-External Affairs Pacific on the west and the Arctic on the north. It has a coastline of 60,000 miles, one of the two longest in the world. Canada is one of the largest trading nations in the world exporting annually to all parts of the globe about 50 million tons of cargo. A nation such as ours must consider regulations governing territorial and fishing rights to be of extreme importance.
The Hague conference of 1930 was in many ways similar to the two conferences of more recent years. It called for codifications of the law of the sea. Forty nations attended that conference but the conference broke down on the question of territorial limits. Since then, and in the absence of international law on this question, many nations have unilaterally declared limits to their own territorial sea. The three-mile limit has less validity now than it had in 1930. Many other aspects of the law of the sea demonstrate the need for a codification of these laws.
In 1947 the United Nations formed the international law commission. Ten years later that commission, after a very exhaustive study of virtually every aspect of the law of the sea, presented its report covering the whole topic of maritime law. As a result of this report the United Nations in February 1957 called for a conference to be held in Geneva in 1958. We will remember that that conference was held from February 24 to April 28. Eighty-six nations were present. This conference produced four conventions covering some 74 articles. By no stretch of the imagination could this conference be considered as a failure. Many of those things which were done at this conference needed to be done and gave to the countries of the world some definite direction in maritime matters.
No such conference is a failure because it does not reach agreement on all the points on its agenda but it is a success only in so far as it makes progress in the desired direction. True it is that the first conference was not a complete success but if it was not a complete success it was a notable success. It was not a complete success because it failed to reach agreement on territorial and fishing limits.
The position taken by Canada at that time was similar to the position stated by the Canadian delegation at the United Nations in 1956. At the second conference the position of Canada outlined in the booklet tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and distributed earlier this year was made very clear. May I at this point commend the minister for this very fine booklet.

I think this booklet gave to people in other countries a very clear conception of what the Canadian stand was but I also believe it gave to our own people an excellent conception of where Canada stood in this very important matter.
I believe that the question of territorial limits should be a separate and distinct question from that of fishing limits. The absence of international law has led many states to take unilateral action in extending their own territorial and fishing limits to protect what they consider to be their own national interests. All states have a responsibility to safeguard the interests of their own people but when such action interferes with the freedom of others then a re-examination of the pertinent sections of international law becomes urgent.
For many years Canada like many other countries has adhered to the three-mile limit. Other states, on the other hand, have expressed the idea that the three-mile limit is no longer adequate to serve what might be considered their reasonable interests. Obviously the problem is to find some common ground for conciliation between the special interests of states on the one hand and the concept of the freedom of the seas on the other.
The international law commission expressed the opinion at the first conference that there was no legal permission for states to extend their territorial limits beyond 12 miles. Because of this there are those who contend that nations have the right to determine their own territorial limits up to 12 miles. Such contentions are not conducive to uniform practice and tend to develop uncertainty in international affairs. Other nations have supported the idea of a 12-mile territorial limit. While such a suggestion of implemented would offer a solution to some problems it might in some areas reduce the freedom of trade and commerce which we now enjoy.
For example, if a 12-mile territorial limit were accepted by the conference 116 important international straits would become territorial waters of some country and of these 18 would come under the authority of countries which might indeed terminate or interfere with the free passage of ships of some other countries. Even if the territorial limit were only extended to six miles there would still be 52 such international straits which would come under national jurisdiction but only 11 of these might have any tendency toward curtailing the free passage of ships.
Many nations are fortunate in having great fishery resources in the waters surrounding

their coasts. It is understandable that these nations would want to conserve these resources against depletion in order to maintain any existing fishing industry they may have as a source of employment and exports. When fishery jurisdiction is being considered not only the question of conservation must be kept in mind but also that of the utilization of the coastal fisheries. It may be that in one area all the conservation measures may be observed in order to maintain a sustainable yield and yet that total yield may not be of sufficient quantity to meet all the demands which may be made upon it. Surely in such a case a country should in some way attempt to protect its own interests.
For example, Iceland's economy demands that nearly all the necessities of life have to be imported. These imports have to be financed through exports which are 97 per cent fisheries products. Fishing limits in some countries have seen considerable changes over the years. In the 17th century in Iceland these limits were 32 miles. Later they were reduced to 24 miles and in the 19th century to 16 miles. At the close of the last century foreign pressure was sufficient to force the recognition of a 14-mile limit. In 1901 by agreement with the United Kingdom, a 10-mile rule in bays and a three-mile limit around the island became recognized. This agreement was terminated by Iceland in 1951, and I know that hon. members are well acquainted with the results of the termination of that agreement.
It is necessary to find some compromise between the views of nations with commercial fishing fleets operating far from their own shores and those nations with large fishery resources in the waters around their own shores. In their own interests and in the absence of international law many nations have declared fishing limits. For example, in 1906 Norway declared her limit to be four miles; in 1907 Argentina, 12 miles; in 1909 Spain, six miles; in 1912 Italy, seven miles; in 1914 Greece, six miles; in 1923 Colombia, 12 miles; in 1933 Ecuador, 15 miles; in 1938 Brazil, 12 miles; in 1949 Costa Rica, 200 miles; in 1951 Korea 50 to 60 miles; in 1952 the Dominican Republic, 12 miles; in 1955 El Salvador, 200 miles; in 1957 Cambodia, 12 miles; India 100 miles; Ceylon 100 miles. I have given these figures to point out that although many of us may believe that the three-mile limit is one that is observed by most nations, the fact is that these figures prove that many nations have not observed the three-mile limit but have gone well beyond it.
In the fall of 1958, at the United Nations when the nations discussed the possibility 79951-0-399J
Supply-External Affairs of having a second conference on the law of the sea, of the 80-odd nations then present only about 20 of them were observing a three-mile limit.
In 1911, Canada declared that as a conservation measure trawlers over 65 feet in length should not be permitted to operate inside the 12-mile limit. This regulation was applied to Canadian boats and for almost half a century we have denied to our own fishermen a right which has been accorded to the fishermen of every other nation on earth.
When fishing limits in areas of other nations engaged in the industry are discussed there arises the question of historic fishing rights which are honoured either by custom or by treaty. In the northwestern Atlantic there have been a number of treaties dealing with these rights which played such an important and significant role in the discussions at both Geneva conferences. For example, in 1783 there was a treaty recognizing the independence of the United States of America, but it also provided among other things that United States subjects should have the same rights as those granted to British seamen on all coasts.
In 1818 there was agreement that the citizens of the United States should have forever the right to catch fish of all kinds in waters around the then colony of Newfoundland and in waters along the east and northeast coasts of Canada, with the exception of certain rights of the Hudson's Bay Company.
In 1823 there were discussions between the British and the United States governments dealing wih difficulties in the areas of the bay of Chaleur and the bay of Fundy. In 1854 the reciprocity treaty settled some of those difficulties and produced an agreement for the duration of 10 years and termination by notice of one of the contracting parties.
In 1866 the required notice was given to the government of the United States and the reciprocity treaty was terminated on March 17.
During the years in the 18th and 19th centuries fishing rights in Newfoundland, then a British colony, were subject to changes and modifications by a number of treaties. I do not propose to make any further comment on those treaties at this time, Mr. Chairman, but they do add to the long history of fishing rights on Canada's Atlantic coast.
On July 20, 1912, an agreement of major importance was signed between the British government and the government of the United States of America dealing with north Atlantic fisheries as well as confirming some aspects of the special agreements signed between the two countries on April 4, 1908.

Supply-External Affairs
Canada's position in the last conference recognized the importance of historic fishing rights by suggesting a period of 10 years during which time historic rights within the proposed 12-mile limit could be terminated. This, in my opinion, was a fair compromise. My own province of Newfoundland has always had a particular interest in fishing limits. Perhaps no other part of Canada, on either coast, has been subjected to the long history of fishing treaties and regulations as has the province of Newfoundland. From the early days of the fishing admirals to the present day, our fishermen have been aware of the importance of limits to protect the inshore fishery and to reserve it for those whose livelihood depended upon this particular type of fishing. Today the inshore fishery is not protected from large draggers, except within the three-mile limit, either from foreign countries or from other Canadian areas. Many of our fishermen allege that grounds, even within the three-mile limit, are sometimes destroyed or to a measure depleted by vessels equipped to fish in deeper waters. Fears of what may happen were expressed in the convention of the federation of fishermen of Newfoundland last November. This attitude was well stated in an editorial in the St. John's Telegram of November 9, 1959, which I should like to quote, Mr. Chairman:
The delegates to the federation of fishermen convention are alarmed and rightly so about the "tremendous tonnage" of fish being taken off the northeast coast by foreign fishing fleets. They fear such inroads may destroy the large bodies of breeding codfish known to be concentrated in that area from which most of Newfoundland's inshore fishery is supplied. The result could be the loss of that fishery which is the economic mainstay of thousands of Newfoundland families.
Ships from every maritime country in the world, not satisfied with the Vast resources of the banks of Newfoundland, penetrate our territorial waters, well inside the three-mile limit to fish.
Most people are aware that the visits of these foreign trawlers bring a certain amount of business to this province, apart altogether from the purchase of bait supplies. But events are moving to a point where the whole question may have to be examined to see if the advantages on the one hand outweigh the disadvantages on the other. While the fishery of Newfoundland does not constitute anything like 97 per cent of the economy as in Iceland, nevertheless it is a vital factor in the over-all economic set-up.
Indications are that it is taking a new lease on life and serious account must be taken of international or local developments that may hinder its progress.
The second conference on the law of the sea which opened in Geneva in March of this year held out considerable hope that progress would be made on the two fundamental questions of territorial and fishing limits. Many who followed the proceedings of the first conference and noted the discussions at

the meeting of the United Nations in 1958 considered that there was a real possibility of arriving at some satisfactory solution to this most vexing question. The position taken by the different countries was well stated beforehand with the result that when the conference opened it did so with a clear understanding of the problems before it.
I believe that the Canadian six plus six formula was the only alternative to the proposal of a 12-mile territorial sea and, if agreement had been reached, not only would there have been a great stride forward by the international community in maritime matters but the codification of the law of the sea would have been completed. The Canadian proposal, even after being amended to provide a period of 10 years during which time historic fishing rights would remain in force, failed to get the necessary two-thirds support from the 87 nations represented at Geneva. Fifty four nations voted in favour, 28 nations against and five abstained. One more vote in favour would have carried the proposal which would then have been international law. By one vote the nations disagreed on territorial and fishing rights for the third time in 30 years.
Of the 15 NATO nations who were present all voted for the proposal except Iceland. Of the commonwealth countries who were present all voted in favour of the Canadian proposal except India. The opposition came mainly from the soviet bloc together with the African, Asian and Latin American groups who favoured universal extension of territorial waters to 12 miles.
Following the decision many of the big maritime nations indicated their intention to withdraw their support for the Canadian proposal and stated that they would not recognize the unilateral claim of any nation to a jurisdiction beyond the traditional three miles. Mr. Arthur Dean, the United States delegate, commenting on the result of the second conference, said: "It seems we go back to the old chaos". The United Kingdom delegate, Mr. John Hare, said that the failure of the conference "will face the world with many great problems which could have been solved".
What is Canada's position now? In the light of the results of the second conference, what is the position of the other maritime nations of the world? Some nations have indicated their intention of recognizing nothing but the traditional three-mile limit and argue that under present international law they are forced to recognize for other nations nothing more than the limits which they proclaim for themselves. For example, if a nation declares

its own limits to be three miles then it is not required to observe any more than three miles around the shores of any other nation. Others will contend that there is no breach of international law in extending their limits to any distance up to 12 miles. Obviously the stage is set for a good deal of misunderstanding and increased international tensions.
On May 13, 1960, following the results of the Geneva conference, the foreign minister of Norway announced in a speech in parliament that Norway would extend her fishing limits from four to 12 miles. This action will certainly not go unnoticed in Ottawa and I suspect it will not go unnoticed in the capitals of other maritime countries which have fishing industries to protect.
What action will the government now take? Will it be possible and, if so, how effective will it be to arrive at some agreement between those 54 nations who voted for the Canadian proposal at the second Geneva conference? Or there may be some merit in attempting to arrive at agreements with those countries fishing in Canadian waters, including Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain and Norway. In such a case Canada might have to permit these nations to fish up to some prescribed limit for a few years and then gradually increase the limit to 12 miles while efforts are being made to find fishing grounds outside that area.
There may be some advantage into entering into negotiations with those nations participating in regional fishery conventions. Even though limited this would still be an improvement over the present situation. A north Atlantic fishery convention, where fishing limits could be discussed by those concerned, would have some attraction. This might take some considerable time but might provide answers, in some measure at least, to many of the problems which now beset maritime countries.
For example, in the Icelandic dispute Britain has now offered to begin further discussions with a view to terminating gradually her historic rights to fish in waters off Iceland. Certainly some such plan might be effective for the waters off the east coast of Canada. Canada might adopt a similar course and in the absence of any international law enter into negotiations with those countries who voted for the Canadian proposal at Geneva or with those who, either by custom or agreement, have traditionally fished off the Canadian coast.
Finally, Canada could by unilateral action declare her fishing limits to be 12 miles. It may be that in the blush of disappointment after the second Geneva conference there
Supply-External Affairs would be many people who would say that this is what we must do, that we must extend our fishing limits unilaterally to 12 miles. But maybe on sober reflection, when we take into account the position of Canada within the international community and also take into account our position as an exporter of two thirds of our total fishery production, we should take another look at such a proposition and decide that such action should only be taken as a last resort.
Most people will agree that the sea should be open to all but at the same time will recognize the need for coastal states to exercise sovereignty over a narrow belt along their coasts. The present three-mile limit is neither practicable nor realistic. In addition, it seems to me there should be special consideration in areas where observance of conservation measures is urgently required or where the economy of isolated populations is to an exceptionally high degree dependent on the resources of the sea.
Whatever policy the government proposes to adopt, two facts must be borne in mind. First, Canada has fishery resources which must be protected. The present 12-mile regulation relating to Canadian trawlers in some areas provides very little protection when foreign vessels have rights which are denied to our own fishermen. Second, such protection as is required cannot be provided by accepting the failure of the second Geneva conference as the final answer but by continually pressing for a solution to this most disturbing problem and adopting as firm an attitude as the circumstances of the case require.


Mr. Jones:: I think the hon. member for Humber-St. George's is to be congratulated upon the presentation he has just made on an important topic and one that has continued to exercise the attention of this chamber over the years. The subject with which I propose to deal tonight is in a slightly different vein and perhaps the hon. member will pardon me if I do not comment on his speech at this time.
The problem we face is this:
What sort of future are we trying to create for ourselves and our children? Is it to be better, or worse than that which we have inherited? Are we trying to make a world in which the peoples that inhabit it shall be able to live out their lives in peace of mind and in the enjoyment of a constantly rising standard of all that makes life worth living, of health and comfort, of recreation, and of culture? Or are we preparing for ourselves a future which is to be one perpetual nightmare, filled with the constant dread of the horrors of war, forced to bury ourselves below ground and to spend all our substance upon the weapons of destruction?
These words were not spoken today or even yesterday but they were uttered almost 23 years ago. They were words spoken in

Supply-External Affairs the first public speech made by Neville Chamberlain after he attained the office of prime minister of Great Britain. Summing up as they do the dreadul alternatives of his as well as our time, they place beside the "great and human yearning for peace" mentioned earlier today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs the nuclear madness that permeates the very air we breathe. Our problem is to assure the one without subjecting ourselves to the other.
It must never be forgotten that peace in freedom is our objective, the peace of free men, peace in freedom and not the peace of slaves. It is to this end that we must pursue courses that assure the end that Neville Chamberlain sought but that he did not reach because he and his country at that time were not willing to believe that peace without safeguards is an illusion and is just as unattainable as the mirage of the desert.
I say this because there is a danger that, in our anxiety to reach the goal we may forget the paths by which that goal may be reached, the pathways which we must build painstakingly across the morass of suspicion and hatred. We must protect our pathway as we build it against the undermining, the encroachment upon its foundations, of sly and subtle or ignorant or uninformed exhortations to weakness.
There is no short and easy road to peace. There is no short and easy way in which we can bridge the hostilities and the hatreds which have been built up by almost three generations of communist leaders. Nor is there any short and easy way in which we can allay our own suspicions, our own fears, founded as they are on many instances throughout many years of examples of the communist character, and on their declared aims and objectives to wrest from us by force, if necessary, control of the sacred institutions of freedom and liberty which are our heritage.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, in effect this is a task we must approach with optimism, sure in the knowledge that in all men's hearts the desires expressed by Neville Chamberlain find an echo. We shall not reach our goal by pessimism or by gloomy doubts, or by hope-denying postulations of pseudo-realism, for without perennial hope and without perpetual optimism we shall not have the heart, the will or the wit to complete our task. I say these things for from some quarters there have been suggestions that we should abandon our alliances, that we should forsake our friends in favour of a doubtful and defenceless position of neutrality.

These suggestions are of course not new, and although they have persistently arisen in the deliberations and suggestions of the C.C.F. party, they are not by any means restricted to that party alone. As hon. members may recall, the latest major effort in this field is "Peacemaker or Powder-Monkey" by James F. Minifie, an ex-patriate Canadian who incidentally warns us against the dangers of national expatriation. An echo of this view was reflected in a resolution passed by the C.C.F. convention of the Saskatoon constituency as reported in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix a couple of weeks ago. They called for the withdrawal of Canada from NATO. It was a resolution similar to one put forward by them last year and which, I am happy to say, was opposed by both Mr. Coldwell and Premier T. C. Douglas.
Freedom must be guarded if peace in freedom is to be assured. I go back to the days of 1937 when this proposition was ever on the lips of one to whom at that time the world paid no heed. Writing in his "History of the Second World War", in the volume entitled "The Gathering Storm", Sir Winston Churchill recalled:
We shall see how the councils of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the quiet middle course adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull's eye of disaster. We shall see how absolute is the need of a broad path of international action pursued by many states in common across the years, irrespective of the ebb and flow of national politics.
To those who advocate the course of neutrality, the course of unilateral disarmament, the course of withdrawal from NATO, to those who continually heap strictures upon the United States, the United Kingdom and others with us in the vanguard of freedom, may I put these questions: Are we to disarm our friends? Are we to have no allies? Are we to neglect our own defences entirely and, at the same time, by struggling in this direction are we to weaken the unity of the forces that keep us free? This course would, indeed, lead us to a miserable and perilous situation. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it was to guard against this outcome that NATO was formed. It was to guard against this result that NORAD was formed. To those who would have us dismantle the implements of our protection, may we point out the painful example of history.
On the subject of disarmament, may I recall the words of Sir Winston Churchill of July 13, 1934 as reported on page 102 of "The Gathering Storm". This was on the occasion of the indefinite adjournment of the

standing committee of the disarmament conference at Geneva, which happened in the course of June, 1934. He said this:
I am very glad that the disarmament conference is passing out of life into history. It is the greatest mistake to mix up disarmament with peace. When you have peace you will have disarmament. But there has been during these recent years a steady deterioration in the relations between different countries, a steady growth of ill-will, and a steady, indeed a rapid, increase in armaments that has gone on through all these years in spite of the endless flow of oratory, of perorations, of wellmeaning sentiments, of banquets, which have marked this epoch.
Europe will be secure when nations no longer feel themselves in great danger, as many of them do now. Then the pressure and the burden of armaments will fall away automatically, as they ought to have done in a long peace; and it might be quite easy to seal a movement of that character by some general agreement.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has set the first objective as the release from tension, and I think that is sound. It is broader in scope and it was indeed the context in which the latest disarmament committee worked, at least on our side. It must not be assumed that we can relieve tension by making ourselves weak, by disarming ourselves, by withdrawing from those alliances and agreements that add our efforts to a mutual arrangement for our security. Tension will not be relieved if their side remains strong and our side becomes weak. We have already had sufficient evidence since the war of what happens when the communist finds before him, like a pork chop on a plate, as it were, a weak and defenceless nation. The way to relieve tension is to remain strong; to make it abundantly clear that that strength stands ready for the defence of freedom, and at the same time to make absolutely certain to everyone in the world that that strength will never be used except for the defence of freedom.
When we get these two points across, when they become accepted, tension may be relieved in the security of peace. Then the activities of such disarmament committees as the most recent one may show their value in exploring the depths of the sincerity of the other side and of making manifest our own abiding determination to continue on the path to peace. But we would be quite wrong if we were to assume that disarmament committees and disarmament conferences were the only way in which the sincerities and the peaceful determinations of the two sides might be explored, tested and encouraged.
On the subject of aid to the less developed nations I recall again to hon. members of this committee the resolution agreed on by that great assembly of the Atlantic congress in London a year ago last June, which reads:
Our nations should form a partnership in freedom with the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America
Supply-External Affairs
for the great task of development of those continents. Our nations should provide a massive and sustained effort toward this end, believing it to be as essential to the well-being of the world as the welfare or the defence of our own citizens.
Much has been said by this government in that regard. Our aid has been increased, particularly under the Colombo plan, but in other ways as well. However, we must not forget that much more remains to be done, and it is significant to note that in that portion of the resolution which I have just quoted the emphasis was not that our governments alone should do these things, but that our nations should provide that massive and sustained effort that will bring a rising standard of living with the hope of individual freedom, human dignity and democratic institutions.
The efforts of this nation in this regard should not be left to the government alone, and in saying this I do not forget the valuable work which has been done by many associations, groups and private individuals in this general field. I am thinking particularly of our business and financial institutions, of our commercial organizations, and I am using that word in the broadest sense. Exports are rising. As at the end of May of this year they were over $250 million greater than for the same period last year; but the proportion of our manufactured and processed exports, the exports that provide more jobs for Canadians, has not risen in like proportion.
I am not getting on to the subject of trade, but in order to advance the proposition I wish to make it is necessary to refer to this fact in regard to our exports and I quote from an editorial in the Gazette of June 1 of this year:
The hard fact is that the average costs of manufacturing in Canada (excluding such primary industries as pulp and newsprint, where scale is no problem) run some 35 per cent to 40 per cent higher than in the United States.
This editorial goes on to say:
This difference in the cost of manufacturing is explained by the fact that the U.S. market is some 15 to 20 times as large as the Canadian market. U.S. manufacturers can obtain much greater economies of scale, with bigger production runs, more specialization in machinery and labour, and lower costs of overhead and distribution.
I might recall to the hon. members of this committee that this is so despite the disparity in wages paid in the two countries. To me this points to one solution. Our markets abroad for our manufactured and processed products must be expanded in order that the greater economies of scale which bigger production runs bring about may inure to the benefit of Canadians, not only the Canadians

Supply-External Affairs in those industries but all Canadians who will receive the advantage of the reduction in costs.
To this end I have suggested on several occasions that the time has come for the Canadian financial and business world to join actively in the general program for development of the less developed areas. Over a year ago, speaking to a group of Toronto businessmen, I suggested that they look to the underdeveloped areas for expansion and for profit. The initiative should be with them.
I do not underestimate the problems. The problems of governmental instability in underdeveloped areas is real, but so are the potential profits. In areas where the risk is greater because of instability and the possibility of nationalization, you may feel that the risk is greater than your capacity to endure it. As I said to them on that occasion, in such instances this is one approach which you may think deserves consideration. Where you find governmental assistance necessary in the form of guarantees of investments, of loans or of sales, or assistance in the creation of general conditions which would make operations possible, talk it over with your government. It may not be possible to do all that is asked or even what is asked in any particular circumstance, but may I say that only by your effort as a result of your initiative will your own position in freedom be assured. The activities of other nations in this regard have to be appreciated in this country. The German government assists the manufacturers in that country to obtain markets in the way I have mentioned, and provides jobs for the German people in the process.


Mr. Creslohl:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Henry Frank Jones: My time is limited.


Leon David Crestohl: It is right on this point. Does the hon. member not believe that if we created a larger consumer market by accelerating our immigration program much of this problem could be solved?


Henry Frank Jones: I am afraid the hon. member for Cartier, whose advice in this connection I always desire to seek, does not evidence by his question a realization of the magnitude of this problem. I said we were facing a situation where production costs in this country are between 35 and 40 per cent higher than the United States which has a market between 15 and 20 times greater than our own. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that our flow of immigration should be stepped up so that it would provide a market in this country within a few years of the proportions of the United States market?

We have to look outward. We have to expand our markets abroad. In this way jobs for Canadians may be provided and the benefits of larger production with its lower costs may be made available to the generality of Canadians. The Canadian business, commercial and financial world must go to work for Canada. Let them not be disheartened by those who say that the export of capital in the form of assembly or distributing plants in the form of long term credits for Canadian goods is not possible because Canada is a capital importing country. In the periods of the greatest and most rapid expansion of Great Britain, Great Britain imported capital. But she exported it again in the ways I have mentioned, providing jobs for its people in the process because they understood that there was always capital available for the capable, the industrious and for the stable productive elements in their nation who were willing to use their skills, their initiative and their judgment in its re-export to other areas. There are always some who require the greater stability, the greater security of investment in countries such as ours and who are content that those who use that capital take the greater risks and the greater profits in the export field I have mentioned. This is one side of our nation's aid program which should not be forgotten as we deal with the purely governmental side of our economic and technical assistance to those in the less developed areas.
Another thing I should like to mention is the progress which has been made toward the establishment of an Atlantic institute. I mention that here because if it comes about it is possible that the government will be requested to make a small contribution. I see there will not be time to go into that question. Perhaps on a future occasion we may be able to discuss that particular item. I should like, in closing, to remind the committee of words which are not often quoted now, the words of Alexander Pope:
In Faith and Hope the world will disagree,
But all mankind's concern is Charity:
All must be false that thwart this one great end,
And all of God that bless mankind or mend.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the hour I wonder if I might be allowed to call it eleven o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if I might ask the leader of the house if he can tell us the business for the next few days.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we shall carry on with the estimates of the Department of

External Affairs and I hope we shall be able to complete them. If so, we shall then start the estimates of the Department of Public Works. On Monday there will be three legislative items for consideration, Bill No. C-68, the Income Tax Act with amendments reported from the other house; Bill No. C-80, the Canada Shipping Act, and Bill No. C-81, the Freight Rates Reduction Act. These three measures have been before the house and to the committee, and they are reported back and perhaps they will not take up much time on Monday. When they are completed we will then deal with the estimates
Business of the House
of the Department of Transport. There are six items remaining and I think perhaps they could be finished off on Monday. That being the case, we shall carry on with the estimates of the Department of Public Works and of the Department of Veterans Affairs if there is time available. On Tuesday, the estimates of the Department of Finance will be the first item for consideration. That is as far as I can go with regard to the business for next week.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes past eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
79951-0-400
[Stage Direction]
Question

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

Mr. Robinson: 1.	Was the collector of customs and excise at Southampton, Ontario, transferred in the year, 1958?
2.	If so, was there any shortage of funds found in the transferred collector's account in connection with the Southampton office?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):
1.	Yes.
2.	No.



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;


[Stage Direction]
The third meeting of the Canada-United States ministerial committee on joint defence was held at Montebello, Quebec, on July 12 and 13, 1960.
The United States was represented at the meeting by Hon. Robert W. Anderson, secretary of the treasury, Hon. Thomas S. Gates, Jr., secretary of defence, and Hon. Livingston T. Merchant, under-secretary of state for political affairs. Secretary of state Christian A. Herter regretted that developments requiring his personal attention obliged him to cancel his plans to come to the meeting.
Canada was represented by Hon. Howard C. Green, Secretary of State for External Affairs, Hon. Donald M. Fleming, Minister of Finance, Hon. George R. Pearkes, Minister of National Defence and Hon. Raymond J. O'Hurley, Minister of Defence Production.
Ambassador Wigglesworth and Ambassador Heeney with other senior officials of the two governments, were also in attendance.
The committee was established as a result of discussions in July, 1958, in Ottawa between Prime Minister Diefenbaker and President Eisenhower. It was established to consult periodically on all matters affecting the joint defence of Canada and the United States and reviews not only military questions but also the political and economic aspects of joint defence problems.
The members of the committee welcomed the opportunity which this meeting afforded them to have a timely discussion on a broad range of recent international developments of interest and concern to the two governments. They agreed that situations which arise should always be dealt with in a manner which will promote the objectives of the United Nations and contribute to international peace and stability.
By its nature the committee's discussions are largely concerned with matters involving the vital security interest of the two countries.
The committee reviewed the current position concerning negotiations aiming at complete and general disarmament under an
effective system of control. They deplored the recent action of the Soviet union in withdrawing from the 10-nation meetings, thus frustrating its work. The committee agreed that efforts for the resumption of meaningful negotiations must be continued. They were further agreed that pending the achievement of general and controlled disarmament there could be no relaxation of defensive measures.
Particular attention was given to a review of the progress achieved on co-operative measures designed to improve the defences of North America and the committee reaffirmed its conviction that these contribute importantly to the greater strength of collective security within the broader framework of NATO.
The committee reaffirmed the common desire and intention of both governments further to strengthen the north Atlantic alliance and to improve consultation between members within the North Atlantic council, and considered ways and means whereby the alliance's objectives might be achieved in the years ahead.
The committee also reviewed the field of defence production sharing between the two countries. They recognized that this is a long range program. They reaffirmed the concept as one in the best interest of each country and discussed further steps which might be taken to assure a greater measure of co-operation.
The committee noted with satisfaction that the existing machinery for consultation on defence matters between the two countries is operating effectively. It was noted in this respect that the permanent joint board on defence, created by the Ogdensburg declaration of 1940, would this year be completing the twentieth year of its existence and the committee expressed its confidence that the board would continue to play a significant role within the area of its responsibilities.
The date of the next meeting of the committee will be arranged later.
July 13/60.
79951-0-400i