1960-04-27

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. Lennard.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The house will recall that on January 20 I announced the retirement of General Charles Foulkes as chairman of the chiefs of staff. It has now been agreed that the general's retirement will take effect on May 31 and that Air Marshal F. R. Miller, at present deputy minister of the Department of National Defence, will be appointed chairman of the chiefs of staff, effective June 1.
Air Marshal Miller previously served in senior appointments in the air force and at SHAPE in Paris before he received his appointment to deputy minister in August,
1955.	Air Marshal Miller will be reappointed to the air force on May 31 to take up his new appointment on June 1.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: It is, I know, not customary for us on this side to comment on government appointments and on retirements from the public service, but in view of General Foulkes' very long and distinguished service as chairman of the chiefs of staff committee perhaps I may be permitted to express our gratitude for that service and our regret at his retirement, along with our very best wishes to Air Marshal Miller who has been chosen to succeed him. I know from his past record of achievement that Air Marshal Miller will be a very worthy successor to a great Canadian public servant.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: On
behalf of this group I want to support the remarks made by the leader of the official opposition with respect to General Foulkes and with respect to the appointment of his successor.


John George Diefenbaker: So there may be no misunderstanding may I say that I have already paid tribute to General Foulkes and am naturally in agreement with what the Leader of the Opposition has said.
79951-0-210


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I have a short statement to make concerning Canada's Colombo plan aid program in Pakistan.
The house will be interested to know that under the 1959-60 Colombo plan capital aid program, Canada has agreed to make available to Pakistan $15 million, which will be used to provide Canadian commodities and equipment requested by the Pakistan government to help it carry forward its economic development plan. This $15 million will be used for the following purposes:
$3,730,000 for the provision of industrial metals including tinplate, aluminum, steel and sheet metal which are required to maintain a satisfactory level of industrial activity and employment in Pakistan's metal-working industries;
$3,650,000 for the provision of wheat to meet food shortages;
$3,010,000 for the provision of fertilizers which will be used to help Pakistan meet one of its most urgent problems, the increased production of food;
$60,000 to be used to carry out economic and engineering studies on a number of new capital projects which Pakistan has requested Canada to consider;
$4,550,000 will be set aside for allocation to new projects which are under consideration at the present time.
In addition to these capital aid allocations Canada is continuing its program of technical co-operation in Pakistan as part of its over-all Colombo plan program for south and southeast Asia.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: I am
sure the house will be pleased to hear this announcement of the continuance of Colombo plan aid to Pakistan and will be, generally speaking, in accord with it. I am glad to observe that the minister is continuing the course of adhering to the purpose of the Colombo plan in trying to divert any expenditure for this purpose to technical assistance and capital works which will increase the productive capacity of the receiving countries and their ability to help themselves.
I notice there is one item included of $3.65 million for the purchase of wheat. I presume there will be counterpart funds set aside, so

Starred Questions
that to the extent that there is a deviation from the original Colombo plan it will be made up in large part through the technique of counterpart funds. I recognize that this is probably their wish and that this is a proper method of handling it.


Howard Charles Green: That is the intention, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a group that throughout the years has promoted policies for the assistance of the needy of the world, we naturally support the minister's announcement and were pleased to hear him make it. We are glad to see this application in international affairs of policies we have advocated for many years.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Robichaud: What was the amount to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund as of March 31, 1960?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the estimated balance as at March 31, 1960 was $359,949,456.11, subject to final audit.



COMBINED MARINE AND AVIATION RADIO STATIONS, LAKEHEAD

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 127
Mr. Fisher:: 1.	Has the Department of Transport announced a plan to combine Port Arthur marine radio station with lakehead aviation station?
2.	If so: (a) when does the protect get under way? (b) what is the completion date? (c) what is the estimated capital cost of the project? (d) how many employees will be required? (e) what is the exact location of the station?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the first and second questions are given together. Literally, the answer to this question is no, since no Department of Transport announcement has been made. However, a possible combination of the lakehead marine and aer-adio operations is under departmental consideration as a means of providing increased efficiency and economy of operation. Details have not yet been worked out because no final decision has been taken.



U.S. DEFENCE PRODUCTION SHARING-CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE PARTICIPATION

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Which Canadian automotive manufacturers have evinced an interest in participating competitively in United States defence programs under the defence production sharing program?
2.	Have any Canadian automotive companies received invitations to bid from major United States defence contractors?

3.	If so, what Canadian automotive companies have received invitations to bid on such contracts?
4.	Have any of them been successful? If so, what are the names of the successful Canadian bidders?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the above four questions are as follows:
1.	The following automotive manufacturing companies included in the Canadian motor vehicles industry as defined by the dominion bureau of statistics have indicated an interest in the Canada-United States defence production sharing program: Chrysler Corporation of Canada Limited, International Harvester Company of Canada Limited, Canadian Car Company Limited and Hayes Manufacturing Company Limited.
2.	Yes.
3.	International Harvester Company of Canada Limited.
4.	International Harvester Company of Canada Limited.



TAX RENTAL PAYMENTS AND ABATEMENTS TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	What was the total amount of tax rental payments and tax abatements to all the provincial governments in the fiscal year 1956-57?
2.	What was the total amount of payments and tax abatements to all the provincial governments under the federal provincial tax sharing legislation in the fiscal year 1957-58?
3.	Was any part of these payments or abatements in 1957-58 authorized by legislation enacted after June 21, 1957, and, if so, how much and under what legislation?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the above three questions are as follows:
1.	$523.3 million.
2.	$628.9 million.
3.	No.



AUTAIR HELICOPTER SERVICES


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did Autair Helicopter Services Limited, have any accidents with its aircraft in 1959?
2.	If so, how many such accidents and what was the nature of each?
3.	What aircraft were involved?
4.	Did the accidents result in partial or complete write-off of these aircraft?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is
yes.
The answer to part 2 is four, as follows:
(a)	CF-KMV, Bell 47G2, 10 miles from lake la Bouille, Quebec, on 25 February 1959; the right ski sank in the snow on landing and the aircraft rolled over.

(b)	CF-KMX, Bell 47G2, lake Gaillard, Quebec, 7 March 1959. While attempting takeoff the helicopter nosed over and crashed.
(c)	CF-KMW, Alouette II, Labrieville south, Bersimus 2, Quebec, 13 May 1959. On takeoff, uncontrollable vibration attributed to ground resonance was set up and the aircraft crashed.
(d)	CF-KMN, Bell 47G, northern Quebec, 10 July 1959. The helicopter experienced a sudden loss of lift and crashed to the ground.
Part 3 is answered by the answer to part 2.
The answer to part 4 is yes, as follows:
(a)	CF-KMV, substantial damage.
(b)	CF-KMX, substantial damage.
(c)	CF-KMW, complete write-off.
(d)	CF-KMN, substantial damage.
All involved partial write-off since major components were destroyed.




Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did Autair Helicopter Services Limited have any accidents with its aircraft in 1960?
2.	If so, how many such accidents and what was the nature of each?
3.	What aircraft were involved?
4.	Did the accidents result in partial or complete write-off of these aircraft?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes.
The answer to part 2 is two, as follows:
(a)	CF-KMX, Bell 47G2, Veza lake, Quebec, 15 January 1960. A cargo net slung below the aircraft snagged on fallen trees during landing, causing the aircraft to crash.
(b)	CF-IKS, Bell 47G2, owned by Western Helicopter Limited and operated by Autair, northeast Quebec, 9 April 1960, was reported as a crash during a forced landing due to control difficulties.
Part 3 is answered by the answer to part 2.
As to part 4, one was considered a writeoff. All sustained substantial damage which would be partial write-off since major components were destroyed.




Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did Autair Helicopter Services Limited ever have its insurance cancelled?
2.	If so, how often?
3.	For what reason?


George Harris Hees: The answer to parts 1 and 2 is yes, on two occasions.
With respect to part 3, the insurance underwriters did not give any reason.
79951-0-210J
Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  OFFICIAL OPENING EXPENDITURES

Mr. Cardin: 1.	What was the cost to Canada of the ceremonies surrounding the official opening of the St. Lawrence seaway on June 26, 1959?
2.	What was the cost to Canada of the reception given by the Prime Minister and held in Montreal in connection with the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway?



REPRESENTATIONS ON FEED GRAIN


Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations for a federal subsidy to assist in shipping and selling wheat and corn as feed grain?
2.	If so, from whom have such representations been received?
3.	Has the government received representations for a reclassification of soya beans and white beans as grain, in order to benefit from lower shipping rates?
4.	If so, from whom have such representations been received?
5.	What was the nature of the reply to such representations in each case?



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to beg leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the threat to relations of confidence and friendship between members of the commonwealth caused by the policy of apartheid.
The importance of this subject does not, I think, have to be emphasized by me; it is reflected in the interest and concern felt throughout the country, which has been demonstrated. The urgency of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is I think underlined by the fact that the Prime Minister will be leaving tomorrow morning to attend a commonwealth prime ministers' meeting in London, and I would think it might be desirable for the Prime Minister to have the views of the house on this matter before he goes to London.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I might speak for a moment on this, I am leaving tomorrow. The subject is one that is of general interest and urgency, and I would appreciate very much the opportunity of hearing the views of the house on this subject. Therefore there is no objection whatsoever to the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
3320	HOUSE OF
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Leader of the Opposition have leave to move the proposed motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion for the purpose of initiating a discussion of a matter which as I have said I think is of great importance, interest and concern to the Canadian parliament and people, and a matter on which the views of the house should be made known before the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: In case the exact motion before the house might be overlooked, I think I should put it before the hon. member continues his speech. Moved by Mr. Pearson that the house do now adjourn.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker -and I apologize for not having given you an opportunity to put the motion-I think it is desirable, as the Prime Minister has already indicated, that the views of the house on this matter might be made known to him and the government before he departs for the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London.
Before dealing with this matter in the context of the commonwealth, perhaps I may be permitted on behalf of the official opposition -as this will be the last opportunity before he leaves-to convey to the Prime Minister our good wishes for his mission and our best hopes for a happy and successful sojourn in London.
Along with that wish we express our hopes that this conference, to which I know the Prime Minister will make an important contribution for Canada, will result especially at this time, as other commonwealth conferences in the past have resulted, in strengthening good and constructive relationships within the commonwealth so that the members of the commonwealth may continue to play an even stronger and more constructive part for peace in the world.
I understand, though I have no official confirmation of the fact, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) will be leaving with the Prime Minister to attend a meeting of the NATO council in Turkey, I believe. If that is the case I should like to include him in our good wishes for a successful and profitable journey. I am sure the deliberations of the NATO council at this particular time will be as significant as on any occasion in the past. It is of great importance to all of us that these deliberations should result in strengthening NATO and trying to work out a common NATO policy on the eve of the summit conference. I hope-


indeed, I know-that the minister will do his part at this NATO council meeting to bring about that result.
I am sure the commonwealth meeting in London will not only be an important one, but in the circumstances of today perhaps in some ways it will be an uneasy and even difficult one. The commonwealth has, of course, faced its difficulties before now and surmounted them. I believe this will be the first meeting of commonwealth prime ministers since July, 1957, and in view of the complexity and difficulty of the subjects which will face the prime ministers perhaps our own Prime Minister may conceivably have changed his mind, as expressed on one occasion, that there should be a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers every year if practicable, I think he added, which is an important addition.
The value of the informal character of these commonwealth prime ministers' conferences-and I stress the word "informal"- is admitted, especially by anyone who has had the privilege and responsibility of taking part in them. Very often they have no specific agenda at all or in the sense at least that controversial subjects are rarely put on any agenda unless they are agreed to in advance. But whatever may be the nature of the formal agenda or lack of it, informal discussions customarily do take place at meetings of this kind on the most controversial and difficult subjects; and they can be, of course, and in the past have been on more than one occasion, the most important discussions that take place.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that recent developments in South Africa make it desirable and, indeed, I should think make it inevitable that, whatever may be the nature of the formal agenda, at least informally and perhaps in a very important way these developments should be considered. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that based on the experience of the past, it would be a mistake to formalize agendas at meetings of this kind; but I think it would even be a greater mistake at this time not to take advantage of the opportunity of exchanging views informally on this and every other matter of interest, however controversial, to the member governments and member peoples of the commonwealth.
The effort to formalize and organize the commonwealth itself through centralized institutions would have prevented its development at all and, if it had been persisted in, I think might well have resulted in its disappearance in its present form. There were those in this country and in other countries who, with the very best of intentions and desires, sought that kind of commonwealth growth. However, I think it is

fortunate for the commonwealth that any effort in that direction was not successful. If such an effort in the twenties and early thirties-and I am talking now about centralizing and institutionalizing the commonwealth-was not successful, it would be, of course, quite impossible now because of the very nature of the membership, with governments having different foreign policies and indeed very different international commitments. So the commonwealth today is a close and family association without the binding commitments which it sometimes undertakes through formal treaty obligations.
There have been great changes, of course, in this association. There have been changes from the old British empire to the first British commonwealth brought about in the twenties and sealed by the Statute of Westminster in 1932, I think it was. There were changes from the first British commonwealth of nations in the thirties to the second commonwealth of nations which developed after world war II. Indeed, the shrinking of the old British empire into the present commonwealth in a sense represents its greatest achievement; for out of this empire, have peacefully emerged by evolution those free nations which make up our new and enlarged commonwealth today. That emergence has taken more than one form and has expressed itself in more than one way. It is well that we should be clear about this matter as the commonwealth faces perhaps some difficult problems in the days ahead.
Some of the members-Canada, Australia and New Zealand-have grown from colonies to independent states, with strong ties of race, sentiment, history and heritage still linking them to the mother country long after they have achieved full self-government. But other nations of the commonwealth have an entirely different historical basis for membership in this association. South Africa, which is very much in our minds today, became a member out of its defeat in war and out of British magnanimity and statesmanship in victory. India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Malaya were British colonies but with old cultures and civilizations of their own, anteceding those indeed of the mother country itself. These ancient nations and modern colonies and now independent states-and we sometimes forget this-learned a great deal from the British. They learned of the rule of law, even-handed justice, fair dealing, administrative and governmental order and methods. Indeed, it was the British, even though they may not have been very conscious of it at the time, who also gave them a sense of national
27, 1960	3321
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth consciousness which, in some cases, they had never possessed before. It was on this basis that their freedom developed.
There is also now a native African member of the commonwealth, and very soon there are likely to be others along with a West Indies federation and perhaps a Mediterranean island. Their peoples have never in the past had a cohesive national identity or a continuous national story as we understand it, but they have nevertheless now become independent, indigenous states with only in some cases a few white Britishers to recall the previous political connection with Whitehall.
All this means that there has been a fundamental change from empire to commonwealth, and there has been an equally important change from old commonwealth to new commonwealth. It is this new multiracial commonwealth which exists today, representing every clime, every religion and almost every culture. Four fifths of the people who make up this new commonwealth are Asian, a fact which has an important bearing on the troubles in South Africa. This new commonwealth includes the second most populous country in the world and the second most populous Moslem state. It represents three of the ancient civilizations of mankind, namely Judeo-Christian, Hindu and Islam. Inside it there are four monarchies by choice and conviction. There are three nations that have stated their intention of becoming republics. There are two that actually are republics and there is one, an elected monarchy, where the local monarch-and I am referring to Malaya -accepts another monarch in London as the head of the association. It must seem all very confusing to any logical student of political forms and organizations, but in its way it works. It has worked well in the past, and we hope it will work even better in its new sphere in the future.
The commonwealth has adjusted itself pragmatically and on the whole gracefully to a long series of changing circumstances. Yet it would be folly-and I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will not accuse me of being pessimistic when I say this-to become complacent about what has been done or to assume that this beneficent progress must inevitably and automatically continue. There is no certainty today that it will do so, although we hope it will. It would also be foolish to try to obscure the new problems facing us in a haze of patriotic oratory, As the United Kingdom prime minister himself said on his return from Africa, I think
3322	HOUSE OF
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth it was about the end of January-and I quote from the press report of a statement he made on his return:
We mustn't take the commonwealth for granted. We could easily break it up or throw it away.
There are undoubtedly difficulties ahead and Africa has shown that they can develop into dangers for the commonwealth association. But there are also opportunities for even greater service of this multiracial association; to its members and to the world-
I therefore think, and I am sure all members in the house will agree with me on this matter, that it remains an important objective of Canada's policy to help avoid the dangers ahead and to help realize the full opportunities of the commonwealth association. It should be a privilege for any Canadian to work for the maintenance and strengthening of this commonwealth of nations as a strong force for peace, security and progress in the world of 1960.
Mr. Speaker, there is one particular and special difficulty very much in our minds, which is referred to in this resolution, which confronts us and the commonwealth today. That is the policy of apartheid in the Union of South Africa. I am sure that difficulty will be very much in the minds of the commonwealth prime ministers when they are in London, as it is also in our minds in this parliament today as well as in the minds of the people of Canada.
Apartheid is a policy founded on racial segregation, on racial discrimination, on racial privilege on the one hand and racial inferiority on the other. Any person who has any affinity at all with liberal views-and I use the word "liberal" with the smallest of "l's"-must protest against that kind of policy wherever it might be found in the world, especially if it were found in any of its aspects in our own country. Because it is a policy of differentiation based on race and colour. It is a policy of separate development, and it has been applied in South Africa in a strict, determined, and I believe narrow way. It is a policy particularly offensive to the other members of the commonwealth, especially those in Africa and in Asia who make up four fifths of the people of this association.
This question of apartheid has over the years been before the United Nations for international consideration. So far as the period during which I, as a member of a government, had some responsibility is concerned, I recall that the Canadian delegation at the United Nations joined other delegations in condemnation of the policy of racial discrimination but were cautious about condemning South Africa itself. In those earlier


years we hoped that more liberal trends, more liberal policies and more liberal people, if you like, in South Africa would get stronger in their influence and that the South Africans themselves would remove any legitimate causes of international complaint.
We feared in those days that outright and formal condemnation of the South African government, quite apart from any special problem or difficulty arising out of the commonwealth association, would weaken rather than strengthen these liberal forces by rallying all white South Africans behind their government and its policy in the face of attack from outside, because that kind of attack by condemnation from outside very often has that effect inside. We hoped, then, that Canadian and other commonwealth influences could be used as opportunity offered to impress on South Africa that the policy of apartheid was wrong, that it could not succeed; that it was hurting South Africa itself and should be changed. Any such intervention or friendly pressure of that kind would of course have been made difficult then, if not impossible, by supporting outright strong and formal condemnation of South Africa itself at the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, whatever may have been the situation earlier, whatever may have been the considerations which at that time seemed to prompt caution, whatever may have been our hopes in those days, in the light of later developments, recent developments especially, it is surely no longer possible to refrain from speaking out; because these recent developments have shown depressingly and conclusively that the hoped for evolution in the right direction has not been taking place. Indeed, these most recent developments, have confirmed among other things, what was becoming increasingly evident, that South African policy was moving, if it were moving at all, in the wrong direction.
So there was bound to be violence, and it culminated in the tragedy of Sharpeville, an event that shocked the conscience of the world; at least that part of the conscience of the world which has the right to express itself in freedom. That tragedy and subsequent events, as I have already stated outside this house, should cause dismay and distress to us all.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been referred to during this session. It was brought up on January 29 by my hon. friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who, dealing with apartheid, asked the Prime Minister, as reported on page 491 of Hansard, whether he did not think, in view of the character of these meetings-that is, the commonwealth meetings in London, with their

secrecy-that this was among the kind of questions that should be discussed, as they have been discussed, among the prime ministers of the commonwealth.
This question was referred to later, on February 11, by myself, when I had this to say as reported on page 983 of Hansard:
I do not think anybody in this house, certainly nobody in this party, would wish to take any course of action which would drive South Africa out of the commonwealth, but we surely do not wish to see a course followed by South Africa which will drive four fifths of the people in the commonwealth outside the commonwealth.
Then on March 23 I asked the Prime Minister whether, having had an opportunity to examine the reports from South Africa, he could express the distress and dismay of this parliament at the violence which was used in South Africa in measures taken in connection with a coloured demonstration against the racial policies of the South African government, which violence resulted in such tragic loss of life. The Prime Minister replied that he had not received the report he had requested through diplomatic channels, and that until he had done so he thought it would be inappropriate to make any statement except to reiterate the fact-and I here quote from Hansard, page 2349-
-that we deplore the development of a situation which has given rise to such tragic violence and loss of life.
Then on March 25 I asked the Prime Minister whether he had received the report in question and whether he had any statement to make. He replied, as reported on page 2448 of Hansard:
The conclusion of the government is that at this time no beneficial purpose would be served by diplomatic protests or by even more extreme measures to intervene in this tragic situation.
Then on March 31 I asked the Prime Minister whether he would instruct the Canadian representative in South Africa to inform the South African government of the alarm and distress of this parliament at political developments which had led to such violence and might lead to anarchy. The Prime Minister replied that the views that had been expressed in this chamber in recent days had been made known to the representative of South Africa in Ottawa.
Then on April 1 I asked the Prime Minister whether he would make provision to express the views of this parliament through a resolution on the policy of apartheid, and provision has now been made for a discussion of the matter.
Mr. Speaker, I think one of the first questions we should ask ourselves as we discuss this matter is this. Have we the right in the Canadian parliament to intervene and express
27. 1960	3323
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth our views and have those views made known to the government of South Africa? I think we have not only that right, but now we have that duty.
It has been suggested in some quarters that if the governments of the commonwealth took irresponsible or drastic or strong action it might drive South Africa out of the commonwealth. Certainly that is not the purpose of anything I am saying today, and I hope it is not the purpose of any hon. member of this house. But we cannot refuse to face the situation-it is one which, I hope, will not materialize-that South Africa may drive herself out of the commonwealth by forcing a choice between her policies and the views of other members. I read only this morning a report from Kuala Lumpur in Malaya which underlines this danger. Perhaps this is the kind of danger which the prime ministers' conference to be held in London may be able to avoid. Before he left for London the Prime Minister of Malaya, with the unanimous support of his parliament, said he was going to raise this question in London, and he added these words which I quote from a Reuters dispatch:
If South Africa chooses to get out of the commonwealth as a result of my actions, then I say "good riddance".
That, surely, is the sort of thing which the right kind of intervention by the parliaments of the commonwealth could perhaps prevent rather than bring about. Therefore the purpose of this intervention on my part is to express my own views and the views of my party on this matter in the hope that this kind of expression and intervention may help to correct the situation in South Africa which, if it is not corrected, may have the worst kind of result for the commonwealth association.
Our Prime Minister is reported as having said toward the end of January of this year to a delegation of the Canadian Labour Congress-and I quote from the press report-
The essence of the commonwealth is the independence of its members. I ask you what would be our reaction in Canada if some other part of the commonwealth were to criticize us.
Up to a point I agree entirely with that. We have to be careful and responsible before we indulge in idle criticism of not only other members of the commonwealth but other friendly states. But surely this situation in South Africa now has gone beyond the point of no criticism.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but I would point out that the suggestion made in the representations by the labour congress was
3324	HOUSE OF
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth that South Africa, if it failed to act in a manner suggested, should be put out of the commonwealth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I remember that. It came up in the house, and the Prime Minister made it clear he would not subscribe to any purpose or action of that kind. I think I have already indicated my agreement on that point. Now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who is as responsible and careful in these matters as, I think, any leader of a government could be, speaking in Capetown to the South African parliament itself in January of this year had this to say-perhaps I may quote from what he is reported to have said-
In this shrinking world in which we live today, the internal policies of one nation may have effects outside it. We may sometimes be tempted to say to each other, "Mind your own business". But, in these days, I would myself expand the old saying so that it runs "Mind your own business, but mind how it affects my business, too."
Let me be very frank with you, my friends-
Remember, he is talking to the South African parliament.
As a fellow member of the commonwealth, it is our earnest desire to give South Africa our support and encouragement, but I hope you won't mind my saying frankly that there are some aspects of your policies which make it impossible for us to do this without being false to our own deep convictions about the political destinies of free men-
That was a courageous statement, particularly in view of the fact that it was made in South Africa. Thus, I say, we have not only the right but the duty to criticize, publicly dissociate ourselves from and, indeed, protest against the apartheid policies of the government of South Africa.
The correspondent of the London Observer in Johannesburg had this to say on April 23- last Saturday-and I quote from his report:
The recent crisis has heen settled in a way that takes South Africa closer to revolution; it has now entered a shadowy period of complete uncertainty. This is the moment for constructive international influence to make itself felt-
It is no longer possible to argue that what happens in South Africa is not a threat to world peace. It is most decidedly so, and the west should act accordingly.
Certainly domestic violence in that part of the world can become a threat to international order and international peace; and any policy of white supremacy, colour discrimination and race segregation based on the doctrine of apartheid is bound to result in violence. Perhaps I might be permitted to quote what I said on this point outside the house. I said:
Such a policy can only lead to tragedy which will engulf the white minority as well as the coloured majority. It may lead even to anarchy. The South African government should know how Canadians feel about this.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

In taking our stand against these policies and the principles on which they are based, we in Canada have no reason to be smug or superior. It would be hypocritical on our part to praise ourselves that we are not as other men: if we had faced conditions that other people have had to face, who have racial problems that we know nothing of, our record might not be as good as it is.
Our country is not twisted by discords of the past or torn by racial enmities handed down as part of history. We have few of the national prejudices and ancient grudges that, in other and older countries, maintain and foster enmities and suspicions. But who can say that we are free from intolerance and discrimination and bigotry?
So let us avoid any trace of smug holier than thou superiority-nevertheless, it is true-and we have the right to say it-that any governmental policy in any country which is based on racial superiority or discrimination will not succeed but in time will lead only to disaster.
No government, no nation, can have security, peace and progress in the future which bases its policy of the present on these false, wrong and evil assumptions.
We Canadians have the right, and indeed the duty, to condemn strongly and clearly what we cannot approve, remembering that condemnation of these things in other countries will have a hollow ring if we permit them in any shape or form at home.
So our condemnation, our protest, must be constructive and even understanding, and not merely captious and emotional. I do not pretend to know very much about South Africa. Indeed, I know very little except from what I have been able to read and study; but surely any student of history, ancient or contemporary, is bound to come to the conclusion that there must be a change in South African policy before it is too late or the events of recent weeks will be nothing to what will happen in the months ahead. The winds of change are blowing in that part of the world and those who do not recognize this will be blown away. Time surely is not on the side of the white South Africans in this matter any more than the facts and the tides of contemporary history are on their side. What may have been possible, even if it were not right, 50 years ago is now neither right nor possible.
There are deep, dark forces at work which may soon sweep away the chances of any settlement based on reason and justice. This becomes more likely as the moderate, reasonable and more experienced non-white leaders in South Africa-along with white leaders of the opposition to apartheid-are now being jailed. All history shows that in these circumstances there is only one result; the forces and the leaders of extremism and of violence take over even though they may temporarily be driven underground. There are also, no doubt, externally controlled subversive elements present in South Africa who are happy to exploit the situation and happy to see the South African government make easier their task.

Back in 1909 when the British House of Commons was considering the bill to give South Africa self-government as a union- that bill and that action was a great tribute to the magnanimity and farsighted wisdom of Great Britain-a Liberal member of that day-I think his name was Mr. Byles-had this to say, and I quote from the Hansard of that time:
A gulf, a widening and dangerous gulf is being fixed between black and white. Some day they will hear the call of their blood.
That call is becoming a cry as blood is being shed. In that poignant, moving story of South Africa by Alan Paton, "Cry, the Beloved Country", which no doubt many hon. members have read, the author has one of his characters say:
I fear that when we whites learn to love you Africans, you will have learned to hate us.
How can there be any other result if a government in 1960 insists with obstinate determination, yes, with a fierce sincerity, and even in some cases with religious conviction, on applying the policies of apartheid to three quarters of its people, at a time when the universal declaration of human rights has been accepted by all governments as a solemn commitment and by all peoples as their due. In these unhappy circumstances this house has a right and, I repeat, a duty to make its views known clearly and strongly, but with responsibility. I give these views as I see them in the hope that they may commend themselves to the house, and I summarize them as follows. We deplore and protest against the policy of apartheid of the government of South Africa under which persons because of race and colour are denied by law human rights and fundamental freedoms. We have watched with anxiety and dismay this policy lead to arbitrary arrests and detentions without trial, to unrest and violence. We believe that its continuance seriously threatens those relations of confidence and friendship which are necessary for any continued and constructive association between members of the commonwealth.
We are convinced that peace and order in any country can in the long run be secured and maintained only on the basis of freedom and non-discrimination and on full respect for the dignity and worth of all men, whatever their race, colour or creed.
I venture to express the hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he goes to London may see fit to make known views of this kind or views which may be more appropriately expressed than the way in which I have tried to express them, not only to the delegate of South Africa but to all the members of that conference as representing the views of this parliament of Canada
27. 1960	3325
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth and that he also may see fit to send views of this kind directly to the South African government through the diplomatic channels.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to deal with the motion which is before the house may I take the liberty of thanking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) for the good wishes he extended to me in respect of my trip to the NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Istanbul, Turkey at the commencement of next week. It always helps a great deal, as I am sure that hon. gentleman found by experience, to be able to go to these meetings feeling that one has behind him the encouraging thoughts of his fellow members of parliament. I am very hopeful that some worth-while progress will be made during the course of these meetings.
In addition to the ordinary NATO meetings there is to be a meeting of the five foreign ministers of the western countries which are members of the ten-member disarmament committee, for the purpose of preparing the case on disarmament for the chiefs of state and heads of government who will represent the west at the summit meeting on May 16. This particular work, too, is of great importance and I am hopeful that one result will be that more progress will be made in the field of disarmament during the weeks that lie ahead.
The subject under discussion today is one which has touched the emotions and the consciences of all Canadians very deeply. In the heat of political statements there have been some suggestions made that the members of the government are not as much concerned and upset about this problem as they might be. In this connection I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), house leader of the C.C.F., when speaking in this house on March 25, 1960 as reported at page 2453 of Hansard. The hon. member said:
From my associations with hon. members opposite and from the public statements of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs I can say that I know of no one in this chamber who condones what is being done in South Africa.
The Leader of the Opposition has taken that same position in his remarks this afternoon and that is an accurate statement of the feelings of every member of parliament sitting here today.
Unfortunately there have been quite violent criticisms of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on this point and I have found them very difficult to understand because throughout his whole career in public life he has been against discrimination of any kind.
3326	HOUSE OF
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth
May I say on this point, too, that I do not think there is a member in the house who believes down in his heart that the Prime Minister of Canada is not frightfully disturbed about this South African question and just as strongly opposed to discrimination of any kind as he has been throughout his career. This had been shown during the course of the last three weeks right here in the house. I would refer, for example, to the first occasion when the question was raised, which was on March 22. I am reading from page 2299 of Hansard. The Prime Minister had this to say:
The attitude of the Canadian government has been made clear on more than one occasion, that anything in the nature of racial discrimination is not regarded favourably and is indeed condemned.
On March 23, in answer to a further question, he said this, and this particular extract was read by the Leader of the Opposition in the course of his speech a few moments ago. I am reading from page 2341 of Hansard:
It would be inappropriate to make any statement, except to reiterate the fact that we deplore the development of a situation which has given rise to such tragic violence and loss of life.
Two days later, on March 25, the Prime Minister said, and I am quoting from page 2448 of Hansard:
I have already made it clear on numerous occasions that the government has no sympathy for policies of racial discrimination and that we deplore the development of a situation which has given rise to such tragic violence and loss of life.
There were further similar statements, one in particular on March 31, when the Prime Minister was being questioned by the Leader of the Opposition, and I am quoting from page 2641 of Hansard:
The house will be aware, from the statements I have made in this house since the recent disturbances began, of how profoundly the government regrets and deplores the tragic situation which prevails in that country.
The Prime Minister was referring to South Africa. I continue:
I should add, too, that the views that have been expressed in this chamber in recent days have been made known to the representative of South Africa in Ottawa.
I can vouch for that latter statement, as I had made those views known myself to the acting high commissioner for South Africa. Then, on April 11, after Mr. Norman Phillips, Canadian newsman, had been arrested in South Africa, the Prime Minister had this to say, as found at page 3087 of Hansard:
The matter was taken up with me, acting in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and as a result the Canadian high commissioner was instructed to inform the South African government that the arrest and detention of Mr. Phillips could not but add to the widespread


public indignation already felt in Canada at the measures which had given rise to recent violence and loss of life in South Africa.
Those representations were made by the Canadian high commissioner in South Africa to the minister of external affairs of that country. Perhaps I might point out that as a result of those representations Mr. Phillips was released; an act which brought comment in the British House of Commons to the effect that the Canadian government seemed to have a good deal more ability to get Canadian newsmen released than was the case with the British government in its dealings concerning their newsmen who were in difficulties.
These steps have been taken; these protests have been made, and yet three days ago the national leader of the C.C.F., Mr. M. J. Coldwell, for whom we all have the greatest respect, is reported as stating this in Vancouver:
We've heard so much about human rights and fundamental freedoms from our present Prime Minister.
Yet when these human rights and fundamental freedoms are being fought for and people are being put to death in the fight for them, all we have from our present Prime Minister and our government in Ottawa is silence.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this statement was far from fair; it was completely inaccurate and misleading and could only have one effect, namely to stir up the Canadian people unjustly and try to convince them that their Prime Minister and their government did not care at all about what was happening in South Africa, and had cared so little that nothing whatever had been done to try to remedy the situation.
I do not mind criticism at all, but I ask hon. members with respect to the stand taken by Mr. Coldwell, what would they have the Canadian government do? What more could we have done short of withdrawing our high commissioner from South Africa, and would that have been the slightest bit of help in getting this very difficult problem solved?
It might be wise to consider the attitude taken by Mr. Hammerskjold, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and a great world statesman. As you know, Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the security council passed a resolution which condemned the Union of South Africa. Mr. Hammarskjold, of course, then had the responsibility for doing something about the resolution but he did not run around the world making statements which could only incite people. In his effective way he has been able to arrange to have a conference with the foreign minister of South

Africa, and possibly other ministers, in London on May 12; and, furthermore, to visit South Africa himself during the month of July.
I do suggest that a similar attitude might be adopted in Canada. Extreme views on this question or on any other difficult question never help very much, and surely this is not the Canadian way to carry on. It is not the Canadian way to go to extremes of one kind or another. The reputation we have among the nations of the world is a reputation for a cool-headed attitude, and not for rushing off after this mirage or after that mirage and getting all excited and making fantastic statements.
I turn again in this connection to the same speech made by Mr. Coldwell, and may I say that there is no one whom I dislike more having to criticize. According to press reports, he said at Vancouver in the same speech:
The British commonwealth would be better off without South Africa . . . Withdrawal of South Africa from the commonwealth of nations would relieve the commonwealth of a terrific embarrassment.
In answer I would cite a statement made by another socialist public man, Mr. Nash, the Prime Minister of New Zealand. He said on March 31:
There is no way to save a holocaust in South Africa except by quiet reasoned discussion.
The proper approach to this question was given again yesterday by Prime Minister Macmillan in the British House of Commons when he was being questioned on this subject. He said:
All these matters are very much in our minds, terribly in our minds.
Mind you, although we in Canada think this problem is serious it is infinitely more difficult for the British.
What we here have to try to do is to use this coming conference to make all the progress we can in these matters, to preserve the unity of the commonwealth, and to see how far, in the more intimate discussions that the prime ministers are able to have with each other, they can make some useful contribution to the problem. I would venture to ask members and the house as a whole to recognize the very heavy responsibility that lies on this country at the moment.
Then there was an interjection by Mr. Manuel, a Labour member, who said, "On the government". Mr. Macmillan went on to say:
And on this government, in trying to steer in this most complicated question a wise course which will lead not merely to our priding ourselves on taking some outward action for which we can take credit, but which will lead to useful results on the lines along which we all want to see progress made.
These remarks, I suggest, set a very good standard for the discussions which will be taking place next week. It is worthy of note,
27. 1960	3327
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth Mr. Speaker, that even in South Africa there have been some hopeful developments. For example, the acting president of the cabinet, the Hon. Paul Sauer, said on April 19:
We must create a new spirit which must restore overseas faith-both white and non-white-in South Africa.
That is a statement by the man who happens to be leading the South African government at the present time.
I believe it is a very fortunate thing that there is going to be a commonwealth conference at this particular time. The problems that face any such conference are difficult but I do not believe that a more difficult problem has ever had to be faced by the prime ministers of the commonwealth than the particular one we are debating today.
Canada is not in the position of being without influence in the commonwealth. Canada is in a key position. Our attachment to the commonwealth goes very deep. It is probably the strongest attachment held by the Canadian people. Here we have an organization of ten nations, with more coming in all the time. Nigeria will be the eleventh nation on October 1 and will come into the commonwealth club of its own free will because it wants to be a member of the commonwealth.
A few weeks ago Mr. Nyerere, the leader of the main party in Tanganyika, was in Ottawa. It is a party, by the way, which is composed not only of African natives but of the white and Asiatic settlers in that country. He said here on more than one occasion that when his country gets its independence-they hope to get self-government this fall although perhaps not independence for a year or two-they intend to ask for membership in the commonwealth. He said that there are two organizations to which they want to belong, one being the United Nations and the other the commonwealth. He said that the commonwealth only exists as a matter of friendship and for mutual help and that even the communists never complain about it. He said that they cannot complain because there is nothing they can find wrong with the commonwealth.
Here we have this commonwealth, a bridge between all of the continents, under the leadership of the British and with the help of the other members, launching new nations in a way which is not being done anywhere else in the world. It is true that France is now following this example but the British have set the pace in an admirable way in launching new nations. That process is only nicely begun. There will be more and more such nations as time goes on.
It would be a world disaster if the commonwealth were allowed to break up, but if
3328	HOUSE OF
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth the extremists in Canada had their way and our Prime Minister and the other prime ministers went to London determined to make harsh statements and to demand violent action, how long does anyone in this chamber today think the commonwealth would last? This fact is recognized by the members of the commonwealth who have joined it since the second world war, by India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana and Malaya. The statements made by the leaders of these countries on this very question, which touches them far more deeply than it does us and is far more serious for them, on the whole have been very restrained.
I suggest that we send our own Prime Minister to this conference next week with the feeling that the House of Commons and the Canadian people have confidence in him to do his part to work out this difficult problem.
These nine prime ministers and the foreign minister of South Africa-it is unfortunate that their prime minister cannot attend because of his disability-have the responsibility of dealing with this problem in such a way that progress is made toward the objective we have in mind of removing discrimination and of making certain that the commonwealth takes the right turn at this critical time in its history.
It can go on from now to make a far greater contribution in world affairs than it has ever made previously if good leadership is given during the next few days. May I suggest that we need have no fear about the future of the commonwealth being in safe hands at this conference in London.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: This morning, Mr. Speaker, I was reading the Inaugural handbook of the Canadian national commission for UNESCO, I sholud like to introduce my remarks by two references from that handbook which is one of our own publications. On the first page, all by itself, I notice these words:
Peace, like happiness, Is a by-product of efforts directed to other proper ends; and the great advantage of concentration on immediate and worthy ends is that men of good will of all creeds and philosophies can join in them heartily.
Then on page 5 of this Inaugural Handbook I find the short, pithy opening speech that was given at the first conference of the Canadian national commission by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) of our country. He had this to say, and I quote from page 5:
I saw something of the beginnings of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945. I saw there the great dedication of the nations to the principles of peace in the world and to the achievement of a reasonable equality of economic and cultural opportunity in every part of the world.


We could not agree more with the two excerpts I have quoted from this handbook of our Canadian national commission. It is on the precepts of those two quotations that I want to make my remarks this afternoon. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that if time only permitted, every member of our C.C.F. group in this house would like to speak on this matter because we feel so deeply concerned about the situation and what it can mean, if allowed to develop, to the future prosperity and peace of the world.
We in the C.C.F. sincerely hope that as a result of our discussions this afternoon a message will come from this House of Commons appealing to all Europeans in South Africa to recognize the insanity of apartheid and the need to come to terms with the situation by being prepared to negotiate with the African leaders and not to jail them. We feel that we are expressing the opinion of the vast majority of the Canadian people in asking, through the medium of what we say today in this House of Commons, the Europeans in South Africa to come to terms with the situation before it is too late and not to continue with an unsound approach, one which is tantamount to dictatorship, in an attempt to suppress 11 million people because, in so doing, they are not only inviting disaster, in our estimation, but are inviting widespread violence.
We in this group feel strongly a deep sense of shock because of the ruthless and murderous use of armed force in South Africa in order to compel obedience of the native Africans to what can only be termed cruel and unjust laws as exemplified by the apartheid policy. It is now evident-or it should be-that the suppression of every form of opposition in South Africa is being carried out-and apparently is so intended-with force of arms without regard to the grave possibilities of still further loss of life in that country.
I feel certain that all of us in this House of Commons and all the people of Canada condemn the apartheid policy or one of any degree of racial separateness-I believe that is one of the other terms that is used-because it can only mean inhuman treatment of the native Africans. The apartheid policy is based-whether or not they will agree to it in South Africa I do not know-on the master race philosophy. That philosophy was repudiated by western civilization in the last world war and certainly it was repudiated in the establishment of the universal declaration of human rights.
The policy we are now discussing and with which we are so seriously concerned is not only villainous but is perilous in that it denies

to at least 10 million people in South Africa elementary freedoms and rights of citizenship in order to maintain the rule of the whites in South Africa. If my reading is correct, Mr. Speaker, more than half of the entire white population of the African continent is in South Africa; but in South Africa the whites are outnumbered by more than four to one. It therefore surely follows that the apartheid policy cannot be made to work without poisoning the whole continent of Africa and without causing a violent upheaval which, indications would lead us to believe, could endanger the whole world.
It is because of our feelings in this regard that we call upon, request and plead with the Prime Minister of Canada to raise this issue when he attends the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London. We ask that the horror over recent events as felt by the Canadian people be fully expressed by the Prime Minister when he is at that conference. We feel certain that definite and pungent analysis and expression of our feelings on this matter by the Prime Minister will encourage those in South Africa who oppose the government's merciless and dictatorship policy.
At the same time may I on behalf of this group say that we also urge support of any action by the United Nations to mobilize world public opinion on the side of sanity and humanitarian principles in a stern reproof to the South African government. May we also add that we urge upon the Prime Minister and the Canadian government to offer as a humanitarian gesture an emergency measure to grant political asylum in Canada to the refugees from South Africa.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) spoke much of the British commonwealth of nations, and Canada of course is an important part of the commonwealth of nations. But I am afraid that it is not generally recognized that this British commonwealth of nations, of which we are so proud to be a part, is composed of a majority of nations the people of which have a skin pigment which is not white. The last census of which I have taken note gives a total population in the British commonwealth of nations of 629 million. Of that 629 million 500 million are non-white. Therefore, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs comes out with the exhortation which he did and the enthusiasm which he did- and I noticed the ceremony with which he did it-when a few moments ago he said what a world calamity it would be if the British commonwealth broke up, he should remember that 500 million of this 629 million in the British commonwealth are nonwhite.
27, 1960	3329
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth
This means that if you want to hold the British commonwealth together you have to hold together those countries which are nonwhite and which today are waiting very carefully what is taking place in South Africa, the policy of South Africa, and the attitude of the countries which are white in the British commonwealth toward the apartheid policy and the violence, dictatorship and suppression of freedoms which has resulted.
It would be logical and reasonable that those countries should look to us to find out whether democracy has a real and fundamental meaning. I believe I made mention when I spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne of the marvellous opportunity granted to yourself, myself and four others to go to Australia for the biennial conference of the commonwealth parliamentary association, where we met with the non-white members of the commonwealth; where we heard how they were disturbed at the discrimination between races and colours; where we heard of their disturbance at the policy of South Africa; and where we heard from everyone how they looked to Canada to give leadership, to take definite stands and to make its voice known and heard.
On analysis it is understandable that there are reactions and objections by the people of South Africa to what is taking place there under the policy of apartheid. From my own reading I was amazed to find that in a so-called democratic country of this world, a member of the British commonwealth, they have a pass system. And of course it is the pass system to which the African people look with abhorrence, recognizing it as a badge of absolute subjection. I think I am not far wrong when I say that it is against that pass system that the South Africans have been particularly demonstrating in the past few weeks. I gather from what I have been able to read that every African of the age of 16 years and over must hold a pass. Without that pass he cannot move into towns; he cannot obtain employment; and indeed, without that pass he is denied all freedom. If he is discovered without a pass he suffers a fine or imprisonment.
If that were not enough in a free country of the British commonwealth, look at the land system. It is a land system which discriminates against the African population. Less than 15 per cent of the land area in the Union of South Africa is allocated to three quarters of the population which is African. Over 85 per cent is allocated to the white minority of three million, and no African can hold freehold land anywhere in the Union of South Africa, even on the South African Bantu reserves.
3330	HOUSE OF
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth
It is a situation like that which causes us to view the position of the native Africans in South Africa in relation to the policy of apartheid of that government. The Prime Minister of Great Britain has been mentioned several times this afternoon by both the previous speakers. We have to admire the courage with which he spoke in South Africa and admire certain actions which have been taken since his return to the United Kingdom. We noted with interest an eloquent phrase which he used when he spoke in Capetown. He referred to the "winds of change". That is a very eloquent phrase. Africans in all Africa are feeling the winds of change, and this in South Africa no different from anywhere else.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned, in some parts of the African continent the winds are blowing almost like a hurricane. They are blowing through Nigeria, which is going to become independent very shortly. They are blowing through the Belgian Congo, which is going to become completely independent on July 1. It is certainly understandable that the Africans in South Africa want the same rights and liberties as their brothers and cousins elsewhere on the continent and elsewhere in the British commonwealth of nations.
A great deal has been said by myself and the previous speakers about the British commonwealth of nations. Surely the basic principle of our commonwealth is the maintenance and furtherance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. One could wax very emotional about the commonwealth, but I think that fundamentally the maintenance and furtherance of human rights and fundamental freedoms is the basic reason for the continued existence of our commonwealth. If we believe that, then we in Canada have the responsibility to demonstrate by our speeches and our action this afternoon that we firmly believe that the commonwealth has a constructive purpose, namely to insist that the United Nations declaration of human rights is more than wishful thinking, and that it is of concern to us in Canada as a partner in the British commonwealth of nations.
We are very happy that the opportunity has been granted for this discussion to take place this afternoon. We are bitterly disappointed that the procedure is such that all one can do is talk, and that all the Prime Minister can take to the prime ministers' conference in London is an expression of individual opinions as they are given here today. Very often we hear of the leadership given by the United Kingdom; of the true meaning of the mother of parliaments and


of the courage and devotion of the British. I wish the procedure this afternoon in this Canadian House of Commons had been such that the Prime Minister of Canada when he leaves tomorrow could take with him a motion unanimously expressing the views of all members of this house as to what they think of the apartheid policies of South Africa and how dangerous they could be to the future of the commonwealth and to the peace of the world. Surely, if the House of Commons in Great Britain could do it, why can we not do the same?
I was most interested to read the motion which was passed unanimously in the United Kingdom House of Commons on Friday, April 8 of this year. It is to be found in their Hansard report at page 775. This is what the people's representatives in all parties in the United Kingdom House of Commons had to say; this is the motion which was carried, and I quote:
That this house, deploring the present racialist policies now being pursued by the South African government, under which non-Europeans are consistently denied normal human and political rights, including the right of campaigning for a peaceful change in the laws under which they live, and the recent declaration of a state of emergency and the many arbitrary arrests, fearing that a continuation of this repression is threatening the security and welfare of all races living in the Union of South Africa and good relations between members of the commonwealth, urges-
I wish I had the right to insert, here, the name of the Prime Minister of Canada.
-the prime minister to take the opportunity at the forthcoming commonwealth prime ministers' conference to bring home to the South African government the strong feelings of the British people on this question; and states its firm belief that peace and tranquility in South Africa can only be secured on the basis of freedom and equality and a full respect for the inherent dignity and humanity of all men.
That was the motion which was passed unanimously in the United Kingdom. Thus, the prime minister of Great Britain could convey not only the sentiments contained in a number of speeches; he could convey to the conference the unanimous opinion of the people's representatives on the subject of apartheid in its relation to the world and to all the partners in the commonwealth.
If the procedure of this house had permitted I would most certainly have moved a resolution identical with that which was carried in the United Kingdom House of Commons, changing the words only where necessary so as to read "the Prime Minister of Canada" instead of "the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", and "the people of Canada" for "the people of Britain".
Having heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of the government, having heard from the Leader of the

Opposition on behalf of the Liberal party, and having heard the views of the C.C.F., it is clear that we are without doubt unanimous in our views on this vital question, and because of that, and because we wish to help the Prime Minister and to strengthen his hand with regard to this humanitarian and far-reaching question, I should like to ask whether the Prime Minister himself would not give consideration to asking for the unanimous consent of the house-because by unanimous consent all procedure and standing orders can be changed-to permit the introduction of a resolution along the lines which I have suggested which, as I said, is word for word the same as that already agreed to in Great Britain.
To say anything more would be repetitious. I wish to conclude, having made a reference to the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, by reading the last statement made before the vote was taken as it appears at page 848 of the British Hansard:
I know that all the people of South Africa will not hear all of it because their newspapers are censured, but I hope they will hear enough to realize that the House of Commons feels very strongly that it is our duty not to keep silent but to do all we can to help our friends in South Africa to help themselves and to put an end to this terrible tragedy which has overcome their land.
To that, we say "amen".


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I am
pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this discussion which is of such interest to us all. The discussion of such a subject marks, it seems to me, the growing maturity of Canada inasmuch as we are devoting our attention to the outside world and to the consideration of our place and role therein. It is such a short time ago in the history of our nation that a discussion of any aspect of foreign policy was very rare indeed.
I should like to join the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in his words of good wishes to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) as he leaves for the commonwealth prime ministers' conference, and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) as he goes to Europe to take part in very important international gatherings. I am sure all of us will keep them in our thoughts as they participate in these vital deliberations on behalf of world peace.
I think it is fitting that the motion of the Leader of the Opposition should embrace this matter within the framework of commonwealth considerations. He is quite right, and I was interested in his remarks about the development of the commonwealth, that unique political institution which seems capable of such great diversity and variety while at the same time retaining the fundamental values which have made it one of the
27, 1960	3331
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth greatest organizations in the world. I am very proud in this connection that the leader of the party to which I owe allegiance has always been distinguished as a supporter and as a lover of the commonwealth, and with that view I am proud to associate myself.
It is significant, too, that today we are giving our attention to the great continent of Africa, surely the continent of the future. So often we used to refer to Africa as the dark continent and perhaps in many ways it was, although, as has been said by Professor Kimble, it is perhaps true that the darkest thing about Africa was our own ignorance of it. Such ignorance and lack of concern can no longer prevail because today we must consider this great new area that is seeing the emergence of great new nations dealing so importantly in world affairs.
It has been said that the struggle in Africa has not been and is not only for self-government, but for self-respect. We have watched that development and of course Canada is tremendously interested in it because in Africa there are and there will be political and social developments of vital concern. One is perhaps led to think of the ancient parable spoken about putting old wine in new bottles as one looks at some of the sociological, political and economic developments in this great continent which are occasionally disturbing.
The subject of apartheid is of widespread interest today. We read a great deal about it in the press but one cannot help observe that matters of interest to the press are not necessarily equated with matters of importance. But beyond the press and radio and television this is a question being discussed by legislatures and by citizens. Surely all of us are as one in our concern for the human suffering which is taking place in the Union of South Africa. There is surely no monopoly of concern or regard for severe violations of the sanctity of the human personality. Of course, the difficulties have not taken place only in the last few days. There have been problems aplenty in that area of the world for a long time. There are many grave and serious difficulties there and there will be more. Lord Balfour said that in South Africa a white nation has established itself in a black continent and that is something that has never before presented itself in the history of mankind. It is not surprising that some of the problems of that nation are unique and dreadful in their complexity.
We can all share our concern for the future in Africa if certain policies are pursued and if adjustments, accommodations and re-thinking do not take place along certain lines. It would be very easy for any hon. member of
3332	HOUSE OF
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth this parliament-I think I could do it although it is not my nature-to denounce and make inflammatory speeches about what is going on in the Union of South Africa. It was Milton who said it is always easier to be critical than correct. There are some Canadians who say, "Throw South Africa out of the commonwealth." That is a favourite expression. There are some who seem as anxious to have South Africa thrown out of the commonwealth as they are to have red China brought into the United Nations. But are these suggestions in the best interests? Are these the wisest policies to follow?
In his usual wisdom I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed it well when he said that these extreme measures are not the Canadian way. I do not feel called upon to utter inflammatory, condemnatory statements. I do not think that at this juncture they are necessary or helpful.
I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs was quite right when he said that Canada need not go to these extremes to make clear its attitude and point of view. I am sure there is no doubt anywhere in the world as to where Canada stands on the matter of human rights.
I had the privilege to represent my country in one of the committees of the United Nations and for three years had an opportunity to deal in a minor way-and I would not pretend it was otherwise-with delegates from all over the world, from the United Nations and its 82 members. I never found any doubt as to where Canada stood on these matters. There is no question about the liberality of Canada's views in the world scene. Certainly there is no question as to the prevailing attitude of the Prime Minister. I first heard of the man who is now Prime Minister of Canada not in connection with a matter of politics but in connection with his advocacy for certain aspects of human rights and fundamental freedoms to which he has been devoted all his life. It is axiomatic to say he is a great defender of human freedoms. That is known not only throughout this land but throughout the world.
Would we be rendering our best services to mankind in pillorying the government of another nation or castigating its laws, no matter how repugnant those laws are to our thinking and no matter to what extent we may feel they lack something in inward wisdom? For the Canadian House of Commons and those of us who are its members to spend time publicly denouncing the laws of another country strikes in me a minor chord of unease. I wonder what other countries there are in the world upon whose laws and actions


we might sincerely pass critical judgment? Are there not other areas on the earth's surface where the human personality is being violated? I submit that if it were not for certain aspects of freedom we would not know what was going on in the Union of South Africa. The things which emerge from certain other parts of the world represent a far greater degradation of the human personality than what emerges from the Union of South Africa. This is not to be construed in any way as an effort to condone, pass over or diminish the importance of these events which we deplore, but I cannot support as a matter of policy and of function the Canadian parliament and people devoting themselves to this purpose.
There is another aspect of the case that causes me no small feeling of concern. I believe the Leader of the Opposition referred to this in his address to which I listened with the greatest interest. There is the danger of moral priggishness in taking such a course. I would want to avoid any self-righteousness in this regard. It was said that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. I think it behooves us to think very carefully about this, examine the question closely and make sure that as individuals and members of groups we are at all times making the maximum effort to fulfil and develop our beliefs in the fundamental freedoms, in the equality of man and in our repudiation of anything which even approaches racial intolerance or prejudice. Canada has a very fine record in this respect but there are some things in which the area for improvement is fairly significant.
But I think the major consideration of all is again, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed it, that the moderate course is the better course. There are still some moderates in the Union of South Africa; there are still men of liberal mind- I would have to write that liberal with a small "1", of course-and there are still areas for moderation.
If I thought that a bitter denunciation, an inflammatory attack upon this state; if I thought that working up Canadian public opinion to be blistering in its denunciation; if I thought that a blistering denunciation in a group to which I do not belong, namely the commonwealth prime ministers' conference, was helpful, I could easily recommend such a course. We can denounce, we can criticize, but in so doing would we by our act be helping the people of the Union of South Africa who now most need our help in the difficult and trying times which are so much on our minds.

I think of the need of dealing with the great problem of the area of southwest Africa, where the Union of South Africa has a responsibility before the world as a mandatory power from the league of nations. I can recall when this question was before the United Nations. I remember the bitter denunciations and the part of the world from which they sometimes came. I saw that over the last few years there were opportunities for some rapprochement, for some process of negotiation, to which the union would be a part. I thought then how wise and sound it was not to close irrevocably the door for discussion, for negotiation, upon which is based the future hopes for improvement of those people.
The Prime Minister of Great Britain has been referred to by every speaker today. I had the privilege of sitting in the gallery of the British House of Commons some time ago when the Prime Minister of Great Britain was being asked-as was the Prime Minister of our own country-about the very question we have now before us. I was so impressed by the wisdom of his reply. He said:
Of course, what has happened in this tragic situation is a very great source of deep regret to me.
I share to the full the feelings of sympathy for those who have suffered, but I ask the house to consider our position not as a party matter. The British commonwealth has, I think, a great past.
I believe it to have the possibilities of a great future. It will outlast the particular people who preside over the fortunes of any country at any given time.
I think that we must remember not lightly to throw away or to injure what I am certain in the years ahead will be a great instrument for good.
Then he went on to talk about the heavy responsibility which rested upon the government and perhaps especially upon him. He said:
I think it has been made clear already that the agenda of the formal conferences is fixed by the conference itself. There are certain traditions about it.
He expressed the hope that the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa would be there and he went on to say that the course which was suggested to him was quite different from taking an action which would precipitate a crisis in the commonwealth. He continued:
Britain has a great responsibility here, and what I want to do is to use the commonwealth and see it grow, but so to steer a course that we are able to preserve in full the structure which has been built up and to see that we do not err in precipitate action which might have very dangerous results.
He then went on to say:
I have expressed my view privately, and in a courteous way, as I thought, and I have tried to do so publicly. Our duty is to influence and to guide and to hope that, by so doing, the principles in which we believe will be accepted everywhere. But I repeat-and I think the right hon. gentleman
27, 1960	3333
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth
knows the position that he would be in if he had the same responsibility-that we have to be bold in the statement of our views but cautious in any action which, foolishly carried out, might jeopardize the whole structure of our commonwealth proceedings in their formal character.
I commend this particular reference to the hon. member from the C.C.F. who has just spoken. I see no members of that group in the house at the present time. I commend to them this wise and reasoned statement of the Prime Minister of Great Britain but I do not rest my case and I do not rest my concern only on the remarks of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Knowing the record of our own Prime Minister and his wisdom, knowing what the commonwealth has been and will be, I am sure that the counsel of moderation and of reason will prevail.
I have no doubt, and I am sure the Canadian people have no doubt, that we can trust our leaders on this very moot issue that is before us. I know that in the discussion of it in high places our Prime Minister and Canada will play the highest part; I know that Canada will be found to be on the side of freedom and a supporter of justice and a proponent of reason and a purveyor of wisdom. On these grounds I feel that this most delicate issue will be dealt with by our Prime Minister and his colleagues.
(Translation) :


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, having listened closely to the four members who took part in this important debate, I should like at this time to associate myself with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) not only in the splendid speech he has delivered but also with regard to the principles he has stated on behalf of the party to which I have the honour to belong.
The statement he made in this house is one against the policy of apartheid, of discrimination, of segregation, not against a minority, but against a majority which has been discriminated against on account of its race and of its colour.
Mr. Speaker, we, who are sitting on this side of the house, believe that all men are equal before God. We believe that all men were created in his image and resemblance. We also believe that the Creator considers them as such, on an equal footing, and if some men on earth happen to be of a certain colour or to belong to a certain race, or to profess a certain religion, while others belong to a people of another race, of another colour, or to practice another religion, we must recognize that this is an accident beyond the control of those men.
3334	HOUSE OF
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth
The United Nations, as the Leader ol the Opposition ably pointed out, have condemned in principle racial persecution, but were reluctant to go any further, fearing they would violate the doctrine of sovereignty, fearing to intervene too deeply in the domestic and national problem of individual nations.
By virtue of the principle whereby nations should not interfere in the affairs of others, it becomes very important for other nations of the world to know whether that principle does not also affect their personal business or their own position, or whether that principle might not have serious repercussions on other countries of the world. And should it become necessary to intervene in the affairs of another country-and I think that is a distinct possibility in this case-even if only by a resolution of the house or by a statement of opinion such as we have heard from the four hon. members who spoke before me, I think it then becomes important, indeed necessary, to take a stand on a state of affairs which exists in another country and may well have repercussions in Canada.
I think, therefore Mr. Speaker, that we must condemn this policy of apartheid. We must do so because it is a bad policy, a wrong one, and because it is contrary to human rights, to justice, to morality and to natural law.
I wonder how far I can go along with the attitude displayed a moment ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). Personally, I have some doubts as to whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs was entirely right in the statement he made. Oh, I do not say that we should not do all we can to maintain the unity of the British commonwealth of nations, but I wonder if, when that unity is threatened because one of the members of the commonwealth is persecuting a majority, whether the unity of the commonwealth is still easy to maintain.
Unfortunately, the history of minorities throughout the world does not always make palatable reading.
In Canada, our own minority has not always enjoyed equal and fair treatment. This is less true because history, experience, the passage of years and particularly the thinking of a large number of those who make up Canada's majority have taught most Canadians that there was no longer any excuse for such a situation.
I also think we should thank Providence that Canada does not have problems similar to those now prevailing in South Africa.


That is why, coming back to the main theme of the debate, I insist that we, in the opposition, strongly protest against the apartheid policy under which human beings are being persecuted because of their race and colour, and justice is being trampled under foot as if it did not exist for coloured people.
We are concerned about the disastrous consequences of that policy which recently has led to the arbitrary arrest of individuals and their detention without a hearing; a policy which has led to violence, unfortunate killings and bloodshed.
It is a policy that must cease if normal relations are to be restored in that country of the British commonwealth of nations. Peace, order and security cannot exist without due respect for the individual.
Like the previous speakers, may I urge the Prime Minister to take note of the views expressed on both sides of the house and particularly of the suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition who has a wide experience, not only in the United Nations, but in many other places, and to make his views known at the conference he will be attending shortly. We wish him every success. We know very well that his parliamentary experience will help him to remember not only what took place here, but what is taking place at present in Canada, and the anxiety that grips the population in various quarters in this country on account of recent happenings in South Africa. We trust he will also remember the fear and anxiety that is felt in all civilized countries of the world.
On the strength of those arguments and of those views, if not of the resolutions which have been put on record, the Prime Minister will be able to make known with greater justice and greater force the views which, I am sure, he himself intended to express to his colleagues of the British commonwealth countries.
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members in the house this afternoon were impressed by the unanimity of viewpoint, as one might expect among members on both sides of the house, with regard to this very important matter.
My first words must be of thanks and appreciation to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) for the manner in which he presented the viewpoint not only of the opposition but, in general, of hon. members of this house. May I say to him that the restraint with which he spoke was in keeping with what I would expect from one who- whatever our differences of opinion may be,

and sometimes they are very strongly and definitely expressed-is regarded by me and I know by members in the house generally as having made a worth-while contribution to external affairs in this country. He has won for himself the Nobel prize for peace and all of us join in a realization of its importance. I say that because today the House of Commons was at its best. Indeed there was that feeling that here in this chamber all of us are in a cathedral of devotion to the abiding principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I want to thank my friend and colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) for his words. After all, we in public life expect to be judged and often misjudged. However, I want to thank him for his words when he referred to the attitude I have taken through the years, when it was not always popular, on behalf of those things which represent more than life itself, namely the civil liberties of the individual.
On an occasion like this I might be allowed to look back in retrospect. I recall an occasion in 1922 when it was not popular in my province to take a stand on behalf of the rights of the other language in this country and when counsel were afraid that to take that position would be detrimental. That has been my attitude through the years, namely a belief in the need, at all costs, to preserve those things that represent the recognition of the sacredness of the human personality.
I am glad that the opportunity has come to say a few words on this subject which has actuated the minds of my fellow Canadians and indeed those of people in every part of the world in recent weeks. It is not a new matter. Apartheid has existed since 1948. Year in and year out it has come before the United Nations. I criticize no one today when I say that through the years Canada abstained because of the principle that interference in the domestic field of any nation was not a thing to be accepted by the United Nations.
I welcome the opportunity first because it enables the Secretary of State for External Affairs to place before the country the views of the government. But more particularly do I welcome the occasion in that it has provided an opportunity for the House of Commons to express its united viewpoint; for there are no frontiers or divisions between hon. members-whatever their location may be in the house-on the need for maintaining those freedoms without which mankind cannot rise to its full stature.
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth
Some mention was made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) of the fact that an opportunity should have been available for the moving of a motion; and he quoted with approval what had taken place in the British House of Commons. Let me point out that the motion in the British House of Commons was made as a private members' motion and resolution in an hour set aside for the discussion of private members' resolutions. I would also point out that during that day in question, namely April 8, there were several motions. There was one dealing with medical diseases which took from 11.05 to 12.32. The question was put and agreed to. Then came the motion of the hon. member for Wednesbury which was quoted by the hon. member.
There was no other way in which to bring this matter before the house than by the means adopted by the Leader of the Opposition today. I would point out this fact. When about two weeks ago I spoke on this subject and referred to the possibility of there being a debate, my natural view was that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), having regard to Monday being the last private members' day, would have permitted the clearing away of a number of cases on a subject that is receiving general attention from members of the C.C.F. party. If that had been so, we could have placed on private members' motions a motion similar to the one indicated by the hon. gentleman and with consent could have proceeded to discuss it. However, that course has been denied by the attitude taken on Monday last-the last private members' day-by the hon. gentleman's colleagues.
Having referred to that fact, may I say this. Having no disagreement on this matter and having heard the views of the house, we will all be reinforced in the sure knowledge that there are no divisions of opinion on this matter.
The Leader of the Opposition, with the experience that has been his, referred to the nature of the prime ministers' conferences, their composition, the informality that prevailed, and the freedom from any fixed determination in advance as to the course to be followed. Indeed, commonwealth prime ministers' conferences are most informal meetings. The various prime ministers sit about the table in the cabinet room at No. 10 Downing street. Then in that spirit, mystical as it is, which binds the members of the commonwealth together in frankness, but with that tolerance which must always prevail between members of a family, matters are discussed. Determinations are not made.
3336	HOUSE OF
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth Communiques issued at the end of the conference contain nothing upon which there is not complete and unanimous agreement.
The hon. member for Vancouver East mentioned the debate in the British house, and I refer to the words of the minister of state for commonwealth relations who discussed in general the meaning of these conferences. As reported on page 830 of the British Hansard, he said:
The secret of the success which has attended these conferences in the past, indeed the mystery- to use the word in its old English sense-of commonwealth relations lies in the informality of its methods combined with a respect for certain principles which, with the exception perhaps of the Statute of Westminster, are not contained in any formal document-
We must not forget that there are few commonwealth countries whose policies have not at some time or another aroused controversy in one or more of the others.
If a commonwealth prime ministers' conference became an occasion at which any prime minister might have the domestic policies of his government criticized and arraigned by his colleagues, I have little doubt that such conferences would cease to be acceptable to commonwealth prime ministers generally.
I mentioned that on an earlier occasion. There is no formula under which prime ministers meet. There is no record kept except an informal one. There are no motions made. Through the instrumentality of joint discussion comes a realization of the problems of each other.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the good wishes he expressed to me on this occasion and for his wish that a constructive conference will be the result. He dealt with the commonwealth at some length. He described its evolution; difficult to understand, impossible of definition. It has simply advanced not from precedent to precedent but from innovation to innovation. He asked the question whether or not the Canadian parliament had the right and the duty to intervene in matters of concern, particularly to one or other of the member nations. He pointed out, too, that wherever discrimination takes place it leads inevitably to disaster. We say that we cannot win a nuclear war, that no nation can win it. Equally so no nation today can win a race war within or without its territories.
Again quoting from British Hansard, the following appears at page 833. I am quoting the minister of state for commonwealth relations to whom I have already referred:
No one who has ... shared the hopes and expectations of seeing there-
He is referring to South Africa.
-the spread of order, tolerance and freedom can fail to be heart-broken by the events which have occurred there during these last weeks. The antidote is to seek the best way which lies within our power to help to set these things right, and to


prevent a situation arising in which South Africa finds itself in one of the cul-de-sacs of history from which there can be no escape except through violence and tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of this discussion today, to reinforce me as the representative of this nation, having held these views throughout the years, with the conscience, thought and deliberation of the Canadian House of Commons in order to air the views which have been expressed on matters which are of particular moment at this time.
Through the years I have advocated in this house, although my view was not accepted, that nothing could be more helpful to a prime minister than a discussion of such matters, to the end that through discussion the prime ministers' conference may have presented to it the views of the Canadian people bodied in the thinking of the members both of the House of Commons and of the Senate as well as Canadians generally.
I have never quite felt the same after the trip I took a year and a half ago as to the meaning of the commonwealth. I was in the countries of the commonwealth in Asia, and whatever the colour, race or religion there was something intangible there which was beyond description. There was a feeling that never would it be possible for members of the commonwealth to be at war with one another regardless of their differences, however strong they may be. Wherever I went I visited the courts, and I felt that there the rule of law applied and that the common law, brought in line with local conditions, gave to us belonging to the commonwealth a bond. I believe that in the years ahead there will more and more come a realization that only through the assurance and the acceptance of the equality of man can there be that unity which will place the commonwealth, as it is becoming today, in the position of a bulwark against communism and everything it stands for.
That is why discrimination is dangerous. Communism marches not so much on empty stomachs and on poverty as it does on the fact that while all of us pay lip service to the equality of man and to the brotherhood of man without regard to race or colour, none of us is completely free from intolerance. Wherever there is discrimination-as the hon. member said referring to the meeting of the parliamentary association which he attended -there you have the beginnings of a situation which ultimately cannot but achieve a mobilization by the communists, who, whatever their tyranny may be, give every indication in their words of the equality of the individual.

As I prepare for the meeting which will begin next week in London it is of assistance to me to have heard the speeches which have been made today. This subject arouses profound emotions. It cannot but result in powerful expressions of opinion. It requires, however, as the Leader of the Opposition said, clarity of thinking coupled with responsibility. I could make a speech on this subject; it might be attractive for the moment, and it might receive widespread support, but if in dealing with the subject my contribution was not one which led to a solution of this problem but, actually, to its exacerbation, the wish to do so would be denied by the reality.
I do not intend to go over the attitude of the government to date. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has done so. He has referred to the representations made by the Canadian government and by himself to the representative of South Africa. On April 9, in a statement which has been subject to criticism, I spoke of Canada's indignation at what was happening. The work of responsible statesmanship today is not to arouse, is not to please, is not to mobilize the plaudits of the moment. Otherwise instead of bringing about a solution of the problem or an atmosphere in which the problem can be solved, what we do is add to the fires. Our responsibility everywhere within the commonwealth is to make the commonwealth a bridge based on tolerance which will bring to the white, the black and all the other colours that are represented in this commonwealth, equality through moderation. Discretion in discussion does not mean acquiescence, or toleration of the thing with which we disagree.
Mr. Speaker, no Canadian views this policy as being right or workable. What shall we do in order to bring about before it is too late a realization that discrimination wherever practised is a forerunner, first of tyranny and then of ultimate change by force, bloodshed and discord? We recognize the complexity of the problem of racial relations. As I said a moment ago, no country can claim to have a perfect record in this field. Where were we in the days of war and after the war? I criticize no one, but I recall on one occasion speaking when the Japanese, because of their race and for no other reason -not the crime they had committed or which it was anticipated they would commit-could be banished from Canada. None of us can speak without sin on this subject. We have gone a long way along the road toward solving this problem. An organization of coloured people in Toronto-and I wish I had its name here-has made representations to me which I can only commend for their sanity,
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth their reason and their responsibility. This organization realizes that much remains to be done, that the steps forward toward national or international tolerance are slow. We realize that, but at the same time we recognize that repression as a deterrent to progress toward racial equality can never be accepted.
I share in full the feelings of those both within and outside this house who have emphasized their hatred of policies of discrimination. Such policies can only lead to the negation of human rights. All of us, whether we can express our views or not, feel a deep sense of outrage at those things wherever they may be, which constitute a denial of the sacredness of human personality.
What about the situation? The Secretary of State for External Affairs asked the question: what should we have done? We made our views clear. Noising views from the house tops is not always a safe method in matters such as this, indeed in any deliberations or in any phase of life in which you try to secure through arguments the attainment of your objective.
Some say, "What have we done?" My answer is: What of the other nations of the commonwealth? Mention was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs of the text of the resolution at the United Nations. That resolution constituted a major step forward toward the achievement of international tolerance. Nine nations voted for it. Great Britain and France abstained not because they loved apartheid but because the circumstances were such that they felt that this constituted an interference by the United Nations in domestic affairs which in itself would result in a veto on any action being taken. This resolution represented the conscience of mankind. The text of the resolution is as follows:
The security council, having considered the complaint oi 29 member states concerning the situation arising out of the large-scale killings of unarmed and peaceful demonstrators against racial discrimination and segregation in the Union of South Africa.
Recognizing that such a situation has been brought about by the racial policies of the government of the Union of South Africa and the continued disregard by that government of the resolutions of the general assembly calling upon it to revise its policies and bring them into conformity with its obligations and responsibilities under the charter.
Taking into account the strong feelings and grave concern aroused among governments and peoples of the world by the happenings in the Union South Africa.
1.	Recognizes that the situation in the Union of South Africa is one that has led to international friction and if continued might endanger international peace and security.
2.	Deplores that the recent disturbances in the Union of South Africa should have led to the loss of life of so many Africans and extends to the families of the victims its deepest sympathies.
3338	HOUSE OF
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth
3.	Deplores the policies and actions of the government of the Union of South Africa which have given rise to the present situation.
4.	Calls upon the government of the Union of South Africa to initiate measures aimed at bringing about racial harmony based on equality in order to ensure that the present situation does not continue or recur and to abandon its policies of apartheid and racial discrimination.
5.	Requests the secretary general, in consultation with the government of the Union of South Africa, to make such arrangements as would adequately help in upholding the purposes and principles of the charter and to report to the security council whenever necessary and appropriate.
That resolution was brought about in advance. The secretary general, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, will meet the representative of South Africa in London at the prime ministers' conference on May 12. Later on, the secretary general will be going to South Africa. A major step forward has been achieved.
What of the attitude of the British on this resolution? Whatever we would say of them, they have a knowledge of diplomacy and of international rights. The foreign secretary said-and I paraphrase-that he was afraid the resolution would only make the South African government more stubborn. However, as things have turned out there has been a very long stride forward as a result of international action.
What of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? We hear criticism as to what we should do. It is suggested that the government should seek to bring about South Africa's expulsion or exclusion from the commonwealth. I will refer to that in a moment. That statement was recently made by several, including the hon. member for Assiniboia, if reported correctly and in his absence I repeat, if reported correctly. It is also suggested that strong formal protests should be addressed to the South African government. That is the second general suggestion. The third is that at the meeting next week of the prime ministers there should be on the part of the leaders of the commonwealth countries other than South Africa a strong collective and public expression of condemnation or disapproval of the South African policy.
Let us see what the attitude is of those who have responsibility. What did Mr. Macmillan say? The Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned what he had said yesterday. This matter-as I paraphrase what he said-will not be on the agenda formally. Mr. Speaker, can you believe that each of us outside the Union of South Africa will not make clear, informally, our views? Can you see them sitting around that table without informally making known their views? India, Mr. Nehru; Pakistan, General Ayub Khan;
[Mr. Diefenbaker.J

Ceylon-well, they have started another election so I do not know who will represent them-Malaya. Mr. Macmillan already has said yesterday what he would do.
What about Mr. Menzies? Mr Menzies has been in office in Australia longer than any prime minister in the history of that country. That wise statesman said:
Prime ministers' conferences do not have matters listed for discussion. They do not have an agenda. They do not have votes taken. They do not have majorities.
When some people tell me I should bring this up and have a vote, I invite them to consider what would happen if there were a vote in a prime ministers' conference. Suppose someone moved to throw Canada out saying we did something that the others disliked. Suppose someone disliked our policies with reference to the migration of peoples. If we were to start having motions and majorities in prime ministers' conferences it would not be very long before all of us would have voted the rest out. There is no question about that. But it is easy for some who write editorials to say what should be done.
The Leader of the Opposition today-and I again express my views respecting his speech -spoke with the authority and knowledge that experience assures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a tribute to him, it is a fact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I accept it as a fact.


John George Diefenbaker: Making due allowance for the wording which still expresses my idea, Mr. Menzies said this:
They consist of, say, nine people sitting together each of them the head of the government of his own country, discussing matters of common interest informing each other's minds, learning from each other's experience, getting to know something more about the problems of other men. These are not meetings where votes are taken. Indeed, I should like to tell hon. members that even the communique which emerges at the end of a commonwealth prime ministers' conference-and it is always a harmless enough document, as you know-cannot contain anything to the inclusion of which even only one prime minister objects.
Then, he goes on:
The opposition says: "Put it down on the agenda."
How often have I read that in the last few days as coming from those who have no responsibility. I continue:
Put it down on the agenda. Bring along the prime minister of South Africa. Let him be put into the dock and let us all try to cross-examine him. How long does anybody suppose the commonwealth would last if that was the way we went on?
When I read what the pundits say I wonder whether they have read what Mr. Nehru said.

He tabled a resolution in the Indian parliament. It deplored the incidents and sent sympathy to the Africans who had suffered from the firing and from the policy of racial discrimination and the suppression of the African people in their own homeland. He said, "This is a moral issue." There was no question raised by him that he intends to formalize his feelings.
When we hear my friends of the socialist party saying what they would do if they were here I ask them to read what Prime Minister Nash had to say on the subject. I have his statement here which is dated March 31. Prime Minister Nash has not made a request that the South African racial policy be discussed in the commonwealth prime ministers' conference. His words are these:
I have, in fact, repeatedly emphasized that internal affairs of commonwealth countries of a controversial nature are not normally discussed at prime ministers' conferences. If they were-and the inclusion of South Africa's racial policies would be a matter for Dr. Verwoerd-I should make whatever contribution I could in a common endeavour to find a solution to the existing grave situation in South Africa.
Then later he was asked on April 11 about New Zealand's attitude toward the South African question. He replied it was a matter of record that he did not think there were any racially superior people. Then he added these words, that he would not say anything to make things worse than they are. Then he went on to say:
Unless some super statesmanship was used by someone there might be a worse condition than has yet been known in the conflict between the races.
What about Ceylon? Ceylon's feelings were expressed by the representative at the U.N. council, when he strongly criticized the policies of the South African government as ugly and almost indecent. The prime minister of Ceylon expressed his aversion to any form of racial discrimination and felt the security council resolution carried more weight than if countries took up the matter individually. These are the prime ministers who are going to meet; these are prime ministers of another colour who have felt the horrors of discrimination and condemn it. But the pundits say, "Speak up." And do what? Speak up in public and do what?
At the present time I share the feelings of those who have expressed themselves strongly. I am not going to repeat what I have said in the past. Some of them, if they were standing here, would realize that however attractive outspoken criticism may be, we should speak only in a moderate but direct, clear and frank expression of views not in the open market, which, according to many, has made South Africa stubborn, but to the individual who represents that country.
27, 1960	3339
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth
In the few moments remaining I am going to deal with some of the suggestions. "Throw them out of the commonwealth." I reiterate the view I have expressed before that there is no merit in such action. Such a course may have some superficial attractions but what of its objections? It would respond to natural feelings of distaste for racial policy; it may commend itself for its purgatory effect. What would it solve? Would it bring relief to the 10 million blacks in that country? Would it bring relief to the many whites who do not share the view on discrimination? You are going to throw the 10 million blacks out. The whites who do not hold the same views as the government of the day you are going to throw out into outer darkness. That is what some say.
There is no machinery provided in the commonwealth to do so, as there are no qualifications as to beliefs required for membership in the commonwealth. One of the greatest hopes I have for an ultimate settlement is that South Africa has not withdrawn itself from the commonwealth and the fact that it will be represented in London at the prime ministers' conference assures that the channels of informal communication have not been closed.
Mr. Phillips of the Toronto Star was interviewed by a well-known former member of the press gallery, who tried to get him to say that we should throw South Africa out of the commonwealth. What was his answer? He was asked this question:
Do you think it would be ... do good or harm to most people if we somehow kicked South Africa out of the commonwealth now?


Mr. Phillips:: I wouldn't like to see South Africa kicked out of the commonwealth. I've met South Africans who are the same type of people as Canadians and even when I was in jail I talked to a ... I was in prison with a young doctor and I said "Why don't you come to Canada: your career is being blighted here"-and he said "No, my job is to stay in South Africa-I'm very proud of my country and I want to see it have a better future than it's getting."
Phillips spoke with the experience that comes from one who knows. He went on to repeat that.
Then they say "Boycott South Africa." That sounds like something that is attractive to some people. Who would suffer? How many of those who hold that view have any realization of who would suffer? In 1959 Canada's exports to South Africa totalled $51,377,332 while imports from South Africa amounted to $6,631,000. They bought from us eight times what we bought from them. Who would suffer? Members of the C.C.F. party, as reported in the press, talk about kicking a country out of the commonwealth, but I point out that we sold to South Africa $15,642,000 of wheat. South Africa is our fourth largest
3340	HOUSE OF
Apartheid Policy in Commonwealth customer for wheat. Let nobody say that I believe that the cause of freedom should be weighed in the scales of monetary considerations, but I simply ask the question: Who would suffer by the boycott? There are other countries in the commonwealth with quite the reverse situation, whose trade picture is quite different and where the balance of trade is in favour of South Africa.
The next suggestion is that we should make a formal protest. I have already answered that by reference to the attitude taken by the other governments of the commonwealth. So far as our commonwealth governments are concerned, let us exercise an influence of moderation, let us be served by steadiness and restraint, and remember always that this problem did not begin in 1960 but has existed since 1948.
We continue to believe that the clarity and the certainty of the words that we direct to the representatives of that country, coupled with the situation that has arisen as a result of which Mr. Hammarskjold, the Secretary General of the United Nations, will meet with the representative of the prime minister of South Africa at the conference in London and will later go to South Africa, hold the hope that at least there is a realization that something will have to be achieved.
I turn now to the delicate question of how this problem might be dealt with at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference. The house will appreciate that it is impossible to know in what way the matter might arise. I believe it will come about informally, and in informal discussion it is possible to convey the views shown to be in the hearts and souls of hon. members of this house today and of Canadians generally. There is one advantage when you express your views in that way. You do not mobilize the stubbornness which is inherent in all of us. How many of us have reacted to criticism in quite the opposite way to that which the criticism was intented to evoke?
The further question arises whether there should be some corporate expression of condemnation or disapproval. I do not believe that. I think in general that meeting together we shall bring about some realization that within the commonwealth as it expands there will come a day, which cannot be too far removed, when discrimination will not be accepted but rather that there will be a common brotherhood, each country with its own form of government, an anachronism without organization, a family group without treaty or pact and without anything to bind us together which works, as the Leader of the Opposition said; a commonwealth drawing its strength not from sameness but from


diversity, providing the soil and climate in which its individual members can achieve and consolidate self-sustaining growth and the atmosphere in which they can develop talents and capabilities of their own choosing. That is my idea of the commonwealth. It is not something that denies criticism among its members, but that does not mean that it permits of action being taken to exile those of its members with whom the others do not agree. That is not the spirit of the commonwealth.
My time is up and I will conclude if I may have one minute. No problem has caused me more concern. Someone has said that I am torn between what I think is right and, on the other hand, what I think would be appropriate. It is nothing of the kind. I have a horror of discrimination against the individual but that does not mean that I believe in bringing about change by denunciation. That has been tried before. Someone has said that responsibility is rarely easy and for those who are really responsible it is all the more difficult. That has been the situation and I have tried to give leadership to the Canadian people who believe in the commonwealth. There has been no condonation of wrongdoing. I could do the popular thing. I could denounce. I could follow the course of least resistance but denunciation of what I hate would not achieve what we desire should be achieved, the ending of a policy that cannot succeed. Mr. Macmillan spoke of the winds of change. I think of them as hurricanes as men are driven to new heights in their desire for equality and an opportunity for the better things of life. Today in what has been said in the house there has been a freedom from the outcry of political considerations. The debate, which began with leadership, has continued so throughout. For me the debate has been worth while.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I might be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Prime Minister a question, even though it is six o'clock. I ask him this question solely because of the fact that, as far as I can judge, complete una-nanimity of viewpoint has been expressed in this house with regard to the views of the House of Commons on this matter. I ventured to put those views in the last part of my own statement. I ask the Prime Minister whether, when this motion is withdrawn, that expression could be put forward as a private member's resolution. It would have to be done, if it were done at all, by unanimous consent and could be passed without further discussion or change, if the house so desired.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have asked with regard to that

matter and I may say that it cannot be done. The hon. gentleman moved the adjournment of the house. The motion therefore being to adjourn, there cannot be, by consent or otherwise, any motion passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the leader of the house what business the house will be doing on Thursday and Friday.


Mr. Churchill:: Owing to the interruption occasioned by this debate today and the change in the program, tomorrow we will go
Business of the House
on with the Trans-Canada Highway Act, followed by the estimates that I announced the other day. That would be the business for Thursday and Friday. On Monday and Tuesday there will be a supply motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Before announcing the adjournment of the house may I say that some repair work is being done on the bells. If hon. members hear the bells ringing after six o'clock it does not mean that the house is reassembling.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
79951-0-211
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. Mcllraiih: 1.	Have any production contracts been signed with any company or companies for the production of the CF-104? If so, on what date, to what companies and for what amounts?
2.	Have any arrangements been made with respect to subcontracts for airframe components? If so, what is the nature of these arrangements?
3.	Will subsidies be paid to industry so that CF-104 components will be made in Canada?
4.	What is the total number of CF-104's to be produced?
5.	What is the estimated cost per unit?
6.	What is the date for the expected delivery of these planes?
Answer by:	Hon. Raymond O'Hurley
(Minister of Defence Production):
1.	A number of contracts have already been signed, details of which are given on the attached list "A" to the total value of $239,621,209.
2.	The successful prime contractor included in his proposal a comprehensive outline of its recommendations for subcontract arrangements. These arrangements contemplated a wide distribution of subcontract work. The department is being particularly careful to monitor the prime contractor to ensure this wide distribution of subcontracts and, in fact, the term of the contract requires that the prime contractor receive approval by the department for all major subcontracts.
3.	In appropriate cases industry is being assisted to make components in Canada.
4.	The quantity is 200 combat CF-104, plus 14 trainers CF-104D.
5.	The estimated production cost of a completely equipped CF-104 combat aircraft is $1,032,000 and a CF-104 D trainer aircraft is $1,409,800. These prices are exclusive of armament.
6.	The delivery schedule is classified. It is expected, however, that aircraft will be coming off the final line by the end of February 1961.


CF-104 CONTRACTS SIGNED
[Stage Direction]
List "A"
Date	Name of Company	Amount	Contract for
[Stage Direction]
Sept. 17/59	 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation,
Dec. 22/59	 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation
Letter of Intent dated Aug. Canadair Limited 21/59	
April 8/60	 Canadair Limited	
April 8/60	 Canadair Limited	
Letter of Intent dated Oct.
1/59	 Orenda Engines Limited
March 2/60	 Orenda Engines Limited	
Dec. 10/59	 Canadian General Electric	
Jan. 12/60	 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation...
Feb. 15/60	 Computing Devices of Canada Ltd.
Feb. 8/60	 Litton Industries	
Feb. 15/60	 Honeywell Controls	
Pre-Prod. Contract only-
Nov. 19/50	 Canadian Westinghouse
Pre-Prod. Contract only-
Dec. 22/59	 Canadian General Electric
Jan. 12/60	 Northern Electric Co....
Jan. 11/60	 Northern Electric Co....
7,760,000 Licence and technical assistance agreement (aircraft).
19,238,278 Engineering and reconfiguration agreement.
2,000,000 Production of CF-104 aircraft, (included in contract below)
91,074,023 Production of CF-104 aircraft. 766,176 Agency agreement.
1.303.000 (included in
contract
below)
85,128,000
3.400.000
19,654,017
500,000
(interim
contract)
3,000,000
(interim
contract)
1.600.000 (interim contract)
Pre-production of J-79-7 engines.
Production of J-79-7 engines. Licence and technical assistance agreement (engines).
14 trainer aircraft-2 seaters. PHI MK5 (ceiling-$3,985,940).
Inertial navigation system-(ceiling -$25,200,000).
Automatic flight control system- (ceiling-$10,821,700).
1,000,000 NASARR (interim contract)
45,000 G. E. tab computor. 303,000 TAC A N-tooling 2,129,340 TACAN-production.

Questions
List "A"-Concluded
Date
Name of Company-
Amount	Contract for
[Stage Direction]
Pre-prod, contract only-
Dec. 22/59	 Canadian General Electric
Feb. 8/60	 Railway and Power	
Jan. 20/60	 Aviation Electric Ltd...
Dec. 31/59	 Aviation Electric Ltd...
Dec. 31/59	 Aviation Electric Ltd...
Dec. 31/59	 Aviation Electric Ltd...
Dec. 31/59	 Aviation Electric Ltd...
Dec. 31/59	 Aviation Electric Ltd...
Feb. 25/60	 Aviation Electric Ltd...
Feb. 25/60	 Aviation Electric Ltd...
Feb. 25/60	 Aviation Electric Ltd...
Mar. 10/60	 Garrett Manufacture	
Mar. 25/60	 Aviation Electric Ltd...
Mar. 25/60	 Canadian General Electric
Mar. 9/60	 Waltham	
25.000	GE missile in-range computor. 1,454,594 1. Attitude indicator.
2.	Turn rate sensor.
176.000	Accelerometer recording.
96,408 Transmitter-fuel flow.
18.990	Indicator-fuel flow meter.
18.990	Indicator-oil pressure.
25,144 Indicator-tail pipe temperature. 46,415 Indicator-hydraulic pressure. 820,493 Generator bendix 28B23.
564,893 Voltage regulator.
267,480 Control panel.
250.000	Air data computor.
99,468 Accelerometer pioneer central.
97.000	Transmission, hydraulic pressure. 62,500 Clock-Waltham.
TOTAL	 239,621,209

Mr. Cardin: 1.	Did Canada in the last fiscal year purchase or transfer wheat flour for strategic stock piles in member states of NATO? If so, in what amounts and in what member countries?
2.	Have any expenditures been made from vote 506 in the estimates for 1959-60?
3.	Have any terms and conditions been laid down by the governor in council for the purchase and transfer of wheat flour?
4.	If so, what are these terms and conditions?
5.	Have any orders in council been passed in this connection and on what dates?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary
of Slate for External Affairs):
1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No, but when the Canadian offer was made known to NATO countries in 1958, certain terms and conditions were laid down; these were reflected in the exchange of notes that took place in Ottawa on April 25 between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Norwegian ambassador.
4.	Copies of the notes were tabled on April 26, 1960.
5.	Order in council P.C. 1960-490 of April 13 authorized the Secretary of State for External Affairs to conclude an agreement with the Norwegian ambassador.


ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Argue: 1.	How many persons with less than 20 years regular and wartime service have been released from each of the armed services in receipt of a pension during each of the last five years?
2.	Were any of these persons released because of (a) inefficiency; (b) to promote economy or efficiency; (c) medical reasons; (d) misconduct?
3.	If so, how many in each year, in what service and for what reason?
4.	How many persons with over 20 years regular and wartime service have been honourably released from each of the armed services, without entitlement to a pension, during each of the last five years?
Answer by: Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate
Minister of National Defence):
79951-0-211^

Questions


1955,
1956,
1958
2. and 3. Yes.
10	1955..	
16	1955	1115	1956..	
112	1956	4927	1957..	
533	1957	9419	1958..	
261	1958	12834	1959..	
211	1959	127)	(a)	(5) (c) (d)	(a) (5) (c)	(d)
1956
1958
2	8	-10	5	-23	4	-14	4	123	10	-3	10	3	-1	100	11	-4	469	58	24	225	31	13	171	36	14	3	4	-3	39	7	-12	71	11	-10	88	30	-3	101	23	-
1956
1957	NIL
1959
1956
1957	NIL
1959
1955		 -
1956		 1
1957		 1
1958		 1
1959		 4

Thursday, April 28, 1960


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. Lennard.