1961-09-08

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the house is aware, on May 8, 1961, as reported at page 4494 of Hansard, I made a motion with regard to the extended sittings of the house, as follows:
That on Saturday, May 13,	1961, and every
Saturday thereafter until the end of the session the order of business and procedure shall be as for Thursday, a government day.
I think there has been general agreement that a continuation for the next two weeks, in any event, of Saturday sittings would not be necessary. We have to think of the welfare of those connected with the administration of the house. Discussions have taken place among representatives of the government, the opposition and the third party in this matter, and I am very happy to say that an agreement has been arrived at.
We are now dealing with a most important matter, the question of external affairs, to be followed by the estimates of defence, and the house has shown an anxiety and a desire to proceed with these two very important matters without delay. Under normal circumstances on Monday and Tuesday there would be a motion to go into supply in order to open up the other four departments that have not yet been opened up. There has been agreement that the motion will be made and the departments will be opened up on Monday without debate, thereby enabling the house to proceed unbrokenly with the business before us, which concerns all of us. The attention paid by hon. members of the house and the manner in which the debate was conducted yesterday indicate the desire of all to do everything possible to meet the situation that we face.
In view of that agreement with respect to going into supply I move, seconded by Mr. Churchill:
That the operation of the provision of the resolution adopted by the house on April 24 last concerning Saturday sittings, which reads as follows:
"Saturday: 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.; 2.30 to 6.00 p.m." be suspended for the next two Saturday
sittings and that when the house adjourns today and on Friday next it shall stand adjourned until the following Monday at eleven o'clock a.m.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the procedure
which the Prime Minister has outlined and the motion which has just been put to the house is quite agreeable to us. Indeed, it has been the subject of discussion among all parties in the house. The reading of the motion, Mr. Speaker, reminds us that it was as far back as April 24 when we changed our rules to permit these long hours, including Saturdays, and that in turn reminds us that during this time the house was sitting, the staff and officials who serve the house have been working under very great pressure indeed, and very effectively in spite of the pressure.
I think, among other things, this motion will serve to relieve that pressure. In the terms in which it has been put before the house it will not, I think, slow up or postpone any of our deliberations. Perhaps, by giving us a little more time on Saturday, if we are not engaged in other activities on Saturday afternoons, it will permit us to prepare for the debates in the subsequent week. We are entirely in favour of it.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: The
members of this group wholeheartedly support the proposal made by the Prime Minister for this change in our procedure at the present time. We believe it will do something toward promoting the efficiency of parliament by giving members a little more time to do the things that are necessary. We believe it indicates some rather belated consideration of the staff, and it will also be to the welfare of the gentlemen and others who are members of the fourth estate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the further matter mentioned by the Prime Minister might be made the subject of a unanimous order at this time so there will be no uncertainty on Monday when the sixth supply motion is called. I understand that the house is prepared to order that when the sixth supply motion is called on Monday next it shall be disposed of without amendment or debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Question of Privilege
PRIVILEGE	of Waterloo South in the province of Ontario
by reason of the death of William Anderson, Tvi r. starr-congratulations on birthday	the member therefor.



ANNIVERSARY OF COLONEL R. S. MCLAUGHLIN

Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: rise on a question of personal privilege, and I shall be very brief. I do wish to bring to the attention of the house the fact that today marks an event in the life of a great Canadian, a Canadian who has been a pioneer in the automobile industry in Canada. This man has been philanthropic and generous to his native city of Oshawa and to Canada as a whole in an endeavour to better the life of his fellow Canadians. He has contributed a great deal to the development of Oshawa. He has set up a foundation for the medical training of Canadian doctors abroad. A further outstanding contribution has been the financing of the mechanical engineering building at Queen's University, Kingston.
These are only a few of his many contributions. I refer to Colonel R. S. McLaughlin of Oshawa who was born at Enniskillen, Ontario, on September 8, 90 years ago today. I am sure that those who have been acquainted with him, as friends and in business, wish him health, happiness and many more years of life.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, while the procedure is somewhat unusual, the minister having taken the initiative in this matter I should like to associate the Liberal party with the tribute paid today to Mr. Sam McLaughlin, the founder of the McLaughlin Motor Car Company, who has had some 74 years of association with General Motors Corporation and the McLaughlin Company in Canada.
Representing as I do the constituency which is more widely engaged in the production of automobiles than any other section of our country; in view of the fact that there is a General Motors plant in Windsor, and in view of the fact that there is as well in that city the Ford Motor plant and the Chrysler Corporation plant, I am happy to join with the minister in extending a tribute to Mr. McLaughlin today. He is a great Canadian who has performed valuable services to his country and to his company. I hope that on his ninetieth birthday it will be possible for the government to announce some decision to implement the Bladen commission report.



VACANCY

Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice, pursuant to section 10 of the House of Commons Act, that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the House of Commons for the electoral district



URANIUM-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce if he can explain to the house the delay in bringing to a conclusion and formalizing the uranium contract with the United Kingdom, and in the allocation of uranium under that contract, in view of reports that workers in the uranium centres are being let out because of this delay.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce left with me the following information which constitutes a reply to the question. On June 29 last, in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Finance stated that following the departure of Sir Roger Makins, representing the United Kingdom atomic energy authority, arrangements were being made for continued discussions at the official level. Following these discussions certain proposals and counter proposals have been exchanged with regard to price and other conditions. At present we are awaiting the views of the United Kingdom authority with regard to the latest proposals.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the seriousness of the situation will the government take every possible step to impress on the United Kingdom authority the desirability of concluding these arrangements at the earliest possible date?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, that will be done. PUBLICATIONS



ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT-REPRESENTATIONS BY U.S. GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I apologize for giving short notice. I address this question to him because of newspaper reports to the effect that these representations were made to him. Will the minister inform the house whether the United States government has

made representations officially to the Canadian government protesting the recommendations of the royal commission on publications? If so, what action does the government propose to take?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that is a question which I think would be more properly addressed to the Prime Minister as leader of the government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I then direct my question to the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the hon. gentleman's question as notice. I shall look into the record and ascertain the present position with respect to the representations made by the United States, and will then advise what course may be followed.
I might say that whatever representations are made, we are making the fullest study of the recommendations of the O'Leary commission. When we are in a position to advise the house as to the course to be taken thereon or with respect to any portion of the report, the house will be made aware of this.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On May 12 he announced a new policy with respect to government assistance to Canadian ship operators and shipyards. When will particulars relating to the administration of this plan be approved and tabled?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a draft of those regulations has been prepared and was ready about a month ago. This draft was sent to the various shipowners' and shipbuilders' associations for their comments. We have received quite a lot of correspondence on the matter. A final draft has been submitted to the cabinet, and this draft will be tabled in the house on Monday.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Did he, under the powers conferred upon him by the Canada Shipping Act, authorize the entry into Canada of a ship called Vacationland, a Detroit ferry boat, for the express purpose of operating a ferry service between Father Point and Baie Comeau?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has been the practice of the Department of Transport to refuse entry into Canada of any vessels more than 10 years of age. With respect to vessels that are between five and ten years of age, a survey of the situation is made and, according to special circumstances, some of those vessels are accepted in Canada.
That is the situation with respect to the Vacationland, which is a very powerful icebreaker. The ship has been lying in lake Michigan. It was for sale, and a group of Canadians from the Rimouski area formed a company and bought that ship which is well suited for this type of ferry service between Father Point and Baie Comeau.
This ship is a full-fledged icebreaker. According to the experts of my department and the people in the trade she is extremely well suited for this type of operation.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the minister another supplementary question. Can he explain to the house how he reconciles this policy with the government's new assistance policy, which was announced to the house ten months ago, the object of which was to encourage the building of ships in Canadian yards on an occasion such as this?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have just explained why we have accepted this ship. It was built at a cost of $5 million. It was for sale for $1 million. In the circumstances it was the best type of ship available and perfectly suitable for the job. I think it wifi do a tremendous good for the welfare of the industry and commerce in that area.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: May I also ask the minister a question. Do the regulations which are to be tabled on Monday include regulations having to do with assistance in building fishing vessels, which the minister announced at the same time and which, if I remember correctly, he said would be considered mainly by his colleague the Minister of Fisheries?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue the following question. In the light of the reply given to me a moment ago by the Minister of Transport, that a Detroit ferry boat is being imported into Canada, can the minister tell the house whether the taxes payable to his department have been waived in this case, and if so, in what amount?


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I have not the details here at the moment. As far as I know, no such action has been taken. But I will make inquiries and advise the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE



INQUIRY AS TO REPLENISHMENT OF FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to either the Acting Minister of Finance or the Minister of Labour. In view of the finding of the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission, tabled in this house yesterday, that the unemployment fund will be down to its last penny early in 1962, is the government now in a position to say what steps it proposes to take to replenish that fund so that the rights of workers under the unemployment insurance fund in Canada, particularly those who are unemployed, will not be prejudiced?


Michael Starr: I shall bring this question to the attention of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have an Acting Minister of Finance

and I appreciate the circumstances under which he has assumed this responsibility, and in view of the long journey of the Minister of Finance-may I ask the acting minister whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to a matter which is of such vital concern to thousands of workers in this country?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to give an assurance to the hon. member and to the house that this government as always will safeguard the rights of the workers and the citizens of this country.
(Translation):



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliefle-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has the minister received any complaints from public authorities of L'Assomption, Repentigny, St. Charles, de Lachenaie, and even Joliette, regarding the shocking attitude of the Bell Telephone Company toward my constituents who are subject to discrimination?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have actually received complaints to that effect. I have also received a lengthy correspondence from my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and I have forwarded those documents to the board of transport commissioners.

(Text):



REDUCTION IN TRANS-ATLANTIC TELEPHONE RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. C. Coales (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house whether the completion this autumn of the new trans-Atlantic telephone cable owned jointly by Canada and the United Kingdom will have any effect on trans-Atlantic telephone rates?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the president of Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation is today releasing to the press an announcement respecting a 25 per cent reduction in telephones rates from Canada to the United Kingdom which will come into effect on November 1, the expected date of the opening of the new trans-Atlantic multichannel, multipurpose cable.
This reduction has been made possible owing to the successful operations of C.O.T.C. as well as anticipated lower operating costs of the new system, which will also provide the additional capacity necessary to carry the increased traffic which is expected to be generated as a result of lower charges.
I might add that for the time being this reduction is limited to calls to the United Kingdom, but discussions have been initiated with European countries with a view to including them in the area to be covered by lower rates.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he has yet made any reply to the communication sent him by the Newfoundland federation of fishermen on August 24 and, if so, could he give the nature of the reply to the house or make it available to hon. members?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minisler of Fisheries):: Speaking from memory, Mr. Speaker, I am not certain of the identity of the communication to which the hon. member refers, but I will look into the matter and assure myself that we are referring to the same thing. My impression is that he is referring to a communication to which I have replied, but I will make certain of this point and reply further to his question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might assist the minister by pointing out to him that I was

referring to the document from the general secretary making an appeal for federal assistance.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. The minister is aware of the severe drought in sections of the prairies and the necessity on the part of many ranchers to reduce their cattle herds. Will the minister give early consideration to the formulation of regulations whereby farmers and ranchers may be relieved of income tax payments arising from the forced sale of such cattle, on the understanding that revenue from 1961 drought sales will be reinvested in replacement stock when climatic conditions improve?


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member was good enough to send me notice of his question this morning. This is a matter which has been under consideration by the government, particularly by my colleagues the Minister of Agriculture and the acting minister of national revenue during my absence. Correspondence has been exchanged and studies have been made. I think the feeling at the moment is that there are sufficient existing provisions in the Income Tax Act to deal with any problem which may arise. The specific point to which the hon. member refers would involve a change in the act itself. The matter is under study, and the government is giving every consideration to the problem.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of a recent letter addressed to the Minister of National Defence and signed by Murray MacKay, recording secretary of lodge 1667 of the international association of machinists at Point Edward naval base in Sydney, would the minister state whether he will have an investigation made into the wage rate structure at the naval base for prevailing rate employees, to ensure that the wage rates are at least brought into line with those of private industry in the vicinity?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did receive a letter from Mr. MacKay on September 1, and I noted that
Inquiries of the Ministry copies of it had been sent to the leaders of the other two parties in the house. Mr. Mac-Kay's representations have been referred to officials of the department for investigation.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but since he is not here I shall ask his parliamentary secretary to take it as notice.
In view of the difficult social and economic conditions of the agricultural class, will the minister inform the house as to whether he will soon make a statement about the act relating to the agreements pertaining to the development of marginal lands, employment opportunities in the agricultural districts, etc., in which he would indicate the financial arrangements he proposes to submit to the provinces?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Ask Mr. Lesage about that. (Text):


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliameniary Secretary to the Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of the hon. member's intention to ask this question. I will take it up with the minister and have it answered as soon as possible.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether the government has received any communications since July 12, 1961, from representatives of the international monetary fund criticizing or questioning this government's action in forcing down the exchange rate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, of course that question in the form in which it is asked is not proper for the orders of the day.


Lionel Chevrier: Who decides that?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will place that question on the order paper in the regular way an answer will be given to it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Speaking on a point of order may I say this. Surely the suggestion of the Prime Minister is one that cannot go without some comment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the Prime Minister refused a question on a point of order, of

Inquiries of the Ministry course it would be open to an hon. member to discuss the point of order. However, I think the practice is well established that the government is not obliged to answer a question. If it objects to a question and requests that it be put on the order paper, as was done by the Prime Minister, it seems to me that procedure is within the practice we have followed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure we will not disagree with you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister is within his rights.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should hear the hon. member for Essex East because it seems to me-


Mr. Lennard:: We do not.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member for Wentworth will bear with me, because a point of order is involved in objecting to a question on the ground that it is unsuitable for the orders of the day. I could deal with the matter on either point, and I think I should hear the hon. member for Essex East.


Murdo William Martin: Of course Your Honour is correct in saying that it is the right of the Prime Minister or any other minister to withhold a response to a question. However, that is not the point in issue. The point in issue is that the Prime Minister stated that this was not a proper question to ask on the orders of the day.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Murdo William Martin: This is a proper question. In any event, it is not for the Prime Minister to tell this house what is proper. That is the responsibility of the Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. gentleman that I never appropriate to myself the position of Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman does so frequently. I simply pointed out that this was not a proper question. It is not dealing with a matter of immediate moment. It is a matter of detail and, being a matter of detail, it should be placed on the order paper.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Noel Dorion (Secrelary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the first part of the session the hon. member for Kootenay West put to me the following question:

In view of the minister's statement in the house on July 11 that the civil service commission has followed the policy of granting regular leave to full time civil servants only, would the minister care to comment on the fact that as far back as ten years ago the civil service commission advertised positions or part time stenographers in the Ottawa papers and offered sick leave and holiday benefits ?
This is my answer. In my statement on July 11, 1961, regarding paid leave for part time employees, to the effect that the government has followed the policy of granting regular leave only to full time civil servants,
I should have made a distinction between persons regularly employed part time on a set time basis of so many hours per day, or for example on a half time basis, as opposed to persons employed sporadically from time to time on what is known as a casual basis.
In the former cases it is the policy of the government, and this includes the civil service commission, to grant regular leave-vacation, sick and special-on a basis which is scaled proportionately to the number of hours worked. It is true, therefore, that a half time stenographer receives one half the normal leave credits. She would, therefore, receive three weeks annual leave, or fifteen days, but would be paid for half her fifteen days only or, in total, one half of fifteen days' pay. On the other hand, in those departments which have employees engaged on a sporadic or casual basis, it is not the practice to grant leave benefits.
As already reported on July 11, this whole matter is now being studied by the civil service commission.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. My question arises out of complaints from many people at the lakehead against the inability of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to provide telecasts of the big four football games from the east. Can the minister inform the house whether the C.B.C. can arrange that the football games of the western conference be made available to CFCJ-TV, which would offset the disappointment over the failure to televise the big four football games for the benefit of the people of the Thunder Bay district?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as I think

the house knows, the responsibility for this situation rests with the football leagues and the private television network. The big four games were contracted for by a private network or a private television station and that matter is closed. The western conference games were purchased by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I might say, incidentally, that the corporation offered far more for the big four games this year than ever before, and when they were purchased by a private station the C.B.C. offered to recoup the private station the amount which it was out, but no negotiations were possible.
The western conference games were purchased. Then, knowing the interest of the hon. member and the people of the lakehead in western conference football, negotiations were entered into in order to see whether it would be possible to televise the western games at least at the lakehead. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was informed, so I am advised, by the football unions in question that the lakehead came within the jurisdiction of the big four, and that no television could be permitted under the circumstances.



COVERAGE OF SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER TO BAR ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question based on information I have to the effect that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was prevented from giving complete or thorough coverage to his appearance a week ago at the Canadian Bar Association meeting in Winnipeg because a private television station had tied up the event. 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has given consideration to ensuring that in his public role he does not become an exclusive performer for any segment of the communications industry.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman often asks involved questions, but 1 must say that is the most involved one he has ever produced. I do not know about the premise or the basis for the premise. I therefore cannot give any answer to the rest of the question. All I know is that there were in front of me a number of broadcasting appliances. Whose they were and whence they came, I do not know.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister not feel
Inquiries of the Ministry that he is given sufficient consideration by the broadcasting and television interests in this country?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be the last to object, for I know the hon. gentleman will find out when he has something worth while to say, he will always receive full coverage.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of National Revenue is now in a position to answer the question I asked him yesterday about this extremely urgent matter of turning over a large part of the control of the private television station in Toronto to United States interests?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday I think that is a question that I should approach carefully in order to avoid shocks. However, I will try to give a reply Monday or Tuesday after I have had consultations.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister has had the opportunity of studying the statement made recently by the United States authorities to the effect that they intend to proceed with the Champlain-Richelieu waterway cut-off without waiting for Canada, can the Prime Minister say whether the government has decided upon a policy in this matter and whether he intends to set up a board of engineers to study the economics of this program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I am not mistaken a very similar question was asked yesterday and was taken under consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. gentleman was kind enough to send over the clipping in question. I think he deserves an answer in view of the courtesy he showed yesterday and again today. I read the particular article. It was a statement made by a commentator in a dispatch in a Montreal newspaper on July 22. It was to the effect

Inquiries of the Ministry that the United States authorities intended to proceed with the Champlain-Richelieu cut-off.
I have heard of no indication that the United States government intends at this time to undertake any works of construction on that part of the waterway which lies within the United States. I might add, with reference to the further question asked by the hon. member, that on May 24 the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) asked me a question respecting this matter and I pointed out that the appropriate departments were then continuing their study of the project. That review is of a continuing nature and has been in progress for some time. I also pointed out that when, following that examination, a decision was made as to the proper course to be adopted in connection therewith, the house would be made aware Of it immediately.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Does the Prime Minister mean that the house will be made aware of the reports on the survey now being made by the engineers in the different departments?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that question is asked in such a kindly way, as of course it has to be, because it has about it certain implications that would deny my giving an affirmative answer.
(Translation):



SOULANGES CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Could he tell us whether he received an answer from the Quebec department of game and fisheries with regard to the offer made to him on July 6 last concerning the cession of the Soulanges canal.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a letter yesterday from the minister of game and fisheries of the province of Quebec, in which he agreed to all the terms suggested by the federal government with regard to the transfer of the Soulanges canal to the province of Quebec for the nominal sum of a dollar.
(Text):



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In doing so I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
making the return which he promised before the session adjourned. I refer to those returns that had not been made, in compliance with the orders of the house.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether he does not think it would be possible to expedite return No. 15 regarding the travel expenses of ministers, which was passed on November 30, and return No. 22 giving the names and expenses of persons sent outside Canada, which was also passed on November 30. I would also ask the hon. gentleman whether he does not think this would be a particularly opportune time to make these returns.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the first half of the session I believe the hon. member asked me to table all the returns. Yesterday we tabled a list of the returns standing as of that date. However, some of the returns to be tabled require the authorization of the provinces because we have to produce the correspondence with some of them.
With regard to the specific numbers mentioned by the hon. member, I will make inquiries and table them as soon as possible.



NATIONAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the Canada Council has come forth with medals honouring outstanding Canadians, has it altered the Prime Minister's attitude toward the famous Canada Medal originated by Mr. Mackenzie King and as yet unawarded?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that any question connected with Mr. Mackenzie King should be directed to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I thank the Prime Minister for the advertising.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, in view of the suggestion made last night, it is the intention of the government to establish a diplomatic mission in Formosa.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.

Supply-External Affairs

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Department-
76. Departmental administration, $6,924,915.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all members of this house feel that yesterday's debate was a splendid one, conducted in a mood of great seriousness in keeping with the urgency and gravity of this hour in mankind's history. Naturally most attention was given to Berlin, where the iron curtain has now become a physical thing symbolic of those great, deep differences existing today in respect of the political and civil rights of man.
I was, nevertheless, impressed with the fact that a good many members gave thought to other areas of the world as well. Sometimes we tend to concentrate on the major and immediate crisis and allow another one to develop with which we have to deal at a later time. I thought the Secretary of State for External Affairs made one of his greatest speeches. In a brief, simple and straightforward statement he set the record straight on NATO, on the commonwealth and especially on the United Nations and Canada's support of and faith in that great organization.
If I may be pardoned a personal expression I may say that the president of the United Nations assembly is today in my constituency in the province of Prince Edward Island. If it were not for this important debate and my duties in the House of Commons, I would be there to greet this distinguished man as he comes to that most beautiful part of Canada to discuss today's most important events and, I hope, to get a little rest in our beautiful province. Like the Secretary of State for External Affairs I, too, hope that the U.S.S.R. has not lost its sensitivity to world opinion.
As the Charlottetown Guardian said the other day:
It poses a new threat to world survival which the U.N. must deal with at its regular general assembly session this month; and therein lies the last hope that the reaction to its appalling significance will cause a change in Kremlin strategy before it is too late.
All of us are deeply concerned lest war descend upon us, for we know its terrors. We know how utterly it would destroy us all. In many ways it is this awareness of the awfulness of war that makes diplomacy so difficult. There is always the danger of forsaking strength and steadiness in our horror of what may happen, and these are the essential ingredients of successful diplomacy. I noted that the hon. member for Kootenay West said that no Berliners would be left alive if the issue 90205-6-512
were settled by war, and God knows that is true. But how long would freedom itself live if we gave in in the face of the threats that emanate from the Soviet union and continued to cave in in future confrontations?
I am always a little uneasy when I hear the expression, is Berlin worth fighting for? Is this remote and distant city worth pushing the crisis to its ultimate? None of us thinks it would be a good idea to fight because the old idea of war is completely out of the picture these days. Yet I can never forget those inane utterances of Neville Chamberlain when he referred to Czechoslovakia as "that remote and unknown country". We cannot think in these terms any more. Of course we must make every possible exertion to avoid war. Indeed, I think the minister was right when he said we will have to exert ourselves more than we have heretofore. Perhaps it is my Calvinism that causes me to be most impressed when he calls for great physical and moral courage. I think it is very appropriate to the needs of the present day and hour. I think we will have to prepare ourselves for a harder road. We should be ready to recognize that, as the minister said, perhaps we have had enough of the soft life.
In my maiden speech in the house I quoted a brief, succinct passage from that wonderful newspaper the Christian Science Monitor, in which it was stated:
We prefer a tax cut we think-to a satellite or a missile-until the Russians have one. And then the heart searching begins.
Well, soul searching and heart searching were never more needed than in this moment in mankind's history.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly about an area which I have discussed during external affairs debates in previous sessions. I was honoured to be one of the Canadian observer delegation to the special inter-American economic and social conference held in Punta del Este. I am deeply grateful to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government for appointing me as a member of that observer delegation. My status was such that I had to observe with both eyes, because the delegation itself was an observer group. I should like to express my personal thanks to the leader of that delegation, the Associate Minister of National Defence, for the many courtesies shown me. He gave the delegation splendid leadership and I was proud of the fact that in all his contacts he made a great impression and won friendship for Canada.
I think the visits of Canadian leaders to South America are most important. While there I heard many references to the recent visit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as to the visit of the previous

Supply-External Affairs secretary of state for external affairs, the late Dr. Sidney Smith. I hope the Prime Minister himself will be able to go down to that part of the world in which he is held in such high regard by the people who stand for the great things for which he has stood throughout the whole of his public career.
In today's world the southern hemisphere is vital, not so much in this direct kind of explosive contact we discuss when dealing with Berlin but in that socio-political economic contest in which Mr. Khrushchev has promised to bury us. In that struggle the lands and peoples south of the equator are tremendously important. I think they are aware of the importance which they now hold, and they are doing much to help themselves. They realize, I believe, that they are at the crossroads in their historic development.
I havev said before, and I reiterate, that this government deserves compliments and commendation for what it has done to strengthen our ties with Latin America. New missions have been opened, and now we are about to be represented in every single nation in the Latin American world. The appointment of the observer delegation to Punta del Este was most deeply appreciated. I heard that on every hand. The new contacts that are developing, the visits that are taking place, are all to the good. I think it is in our interest to do more of this. I believe we must press for closer and closer contacts, especially in the technical and academic fields.
I was very pleased with the references made by the hon. member for Fort William in this connection. He was almost born in one of the Latin American states and might have become a deputy in Brazil had he stayed there a little longer. Last session I spoke of the beginning of the Latin American institute at King's College, Halifax, the oldest university in Canada. There is great hope in this, for there is a fine program developing there. I should like to see a program of scholarships similar to that in which Canada gave such great leadership in connection with the commonwealth scholarship plan.
There is one more question to which reference has already been made in this debate, and that is membership in the organization of American states. For a long time, indeed for 15 years or more, I have held that Canada would be well advised to become a member of this hemispheric association. I am more strongly convinced than ever that this is the right course. There was one time, many years ago, when we were not wanted. Of course we were technically ineligible then.
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
This situation has long since passed and, publicly and privately, we have been invited to take our place, to occupy that vacant chair which someone in a spirit of optimism had actually built in 1912 when the Pan-American Union building was opened in Washington. We have had the invitation from President Kennedy. However, some years before, that distinguished American Senator Vandenberg issued an invitation in very fine words which now come to my mind. He said:
By every rule of righteousness she Is eligible to this association. By every rule of reason we should wish her here. I should welcome the final and total new world unity which will be nobly dramatized when the twenty second chair is filled and our continental brotherhood is complete from the Arctic circle to Cape Horn.
Among the Latin Americans I was privileged to meet at the conference at Punta del Este I found complete unanimity in the view that Canada would be most welcome. They would be very happy to have us take our place among this group. I am not the first to report with respect to this unanimity. This has been reported by much abler persons than I, and notably by the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself in recent statements.
Should Canada join? What will we get out of it? Perhaps we should also ask what we can contribute to it. I observed that the minister spoke yesterday about the essential need of continuing the ingredient of idealism in our foreign policy. We would greatly strengthen the organization of American states, the oldest collective security organization in the world today. We have much in common with the Latin American countries now forming its membership. We have a colonial past. Our colonial problems and difficulties were different from theirs and we met them in a different way, but suffice it to say that we had our problems and dealt with them in our own way, finally emerging with independent status. Another similarity lies in the fact that our country was settled by Europeans many years ago, and we have close continuing ties with the European continent.
We, like many countries in Latin America, have great natural resources requiring a major effort to effect their development. We have, however, something which not all and indeed not many Latin American states have. We have a long record of political stability. Indeed, between the years 1935 and 1957 I thought we were becoming too stable in our political life. We have a history of settled, orderly government. We also have technical know-how. Canada is a country with a mature economy and an advanced technology. We

have the very things which the nations south of the Rio Grande require so desperately in these difficult times.
I wish to deal now with the advantages that could accrue from our joining. This is no place to discuss the prospects of improving our trade with Latin America, but let me say I am firmly convinced that there is a great potential for expansion in that part of the world. As another advantage I should mention that we would strengthen the western alliance by strengthening the organization of American states. We would improve our contacts and relations with people who wish to be our friends. During the few years I served as a delegate to the United Nations I became thoroughly convinced of the basic friendship between Canadians and Latin Americans. That friendship is extremely important, especially at the United Nations in the light of what has happened with respect to the membership pattern there.
The old arguments against our joining are now passe. There were those who used to argue that our joining would work to the detriment of the commonwealth in some way, that the two were incompatible. The commonwealth has now developed into a new form. There is greater freedom among the members! I think it not impossible that before too long we could have two commonwealth states in the organization of American states. The British West Indies federation might well be a member of both bodies in the very near future.
There is another argument which always disturbs me. Some have argued that there is a danger in joining, that we might find ourselves having to side with the United States against the Latin Americans or side with the Latin Americans against the United States. Someone yesterday in the debate used the word "subservience". I have witnessed the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his dealings with some delegations at the United Nations. While I should not like to use the word "stubbornness" in relation to the hon. gentleman, I have never found him guilty of subservience, nor have I seen him hesitate to disagree when he thought it was proper and in Canada's interest to do so.
The Prime Minister of this country needs no suggestions concerning the proper exercise of Canada's independent role in world affairs. The Prime Minister set the record straight in that famous Dartmouth College speech which he made shortly after he became Prime Minister. The argument of subservience is out of date. Indeed it is contemptible. Canada can differ when it feels there is a point of difference. We are free to agree not because the 90205-6-512J
Supply-External Affairs United States is rich and powerful and we are afraid to disagree, but because in the issues that face the world today we find ourselves in agreement with United States due to the fact that it is on the side of right.
I heard this thought brilliantly expressed by my friend the hon. member for Parkdale when he spoke in my constituency not long ago. Sometimes I feel there is too much anti-Americanism on the part of the would-be intellectuals of the country, the Gamaliels of the press gallery and the general reportorial group. Often this negative sentiment is passed off as Canadian nationalism. I believe this is scarcely the time to indulge in anti-Americanism. It is very easy to find flaws in the record of a country which bears the burdens of world leadership. In the nineteenth century the favourite intellectual exercise was twisting the lion's tail; now it is plucking the feathers from the eagle.
I think these dark days are hardly suited for indulging in such activities. We have to recognize that while we have long since reached the stage where we are capable of asserting and do assert our independence, when the chips are down Canada and the United States are on the same team. I shudder when I hear Canadians equate the aims of the U.S.S.R. with those of the U.S.A., and with a fine impartiality say "A plague on both your houses; we will step on the United States' corns and Russia's corns, too".
There were bad days in the relations of the United States with her southern neighbours. I suppose they were at their worst at the time of Theodore Roosevelt and reached their highest level under a United States president of the same name. The United States has learnt much during the course of its relations with its Latin American neighbours and during the course of its relations with Canada as well. President Kennedy in his recent program, alianza para el progresso, advanced an imaginative, forward looking program designed to improve relations through united leadership as opposed to United States supremacy. Yesterday the Associate Minister of National Defence described the tremendous contributions the United States has been prepared to make-in raw, physical terms, a contribution of $20 billion-to assist Latin America, which perhaps with some justification has felt a little neglected in recent years as Washington has had forced upon it crisis after crisis to which it has had to give its immediate attention.
I was tremendously impressed by the performance of Mr. Dillon, the chief United States delegate at the inter-American con-

Supply-External Affairs ference. He began his opening speech by quoting a statement of the Cuban liberator, Jose Marti, who said:
We Americans are one in origin, in hope and in danger.
Mr. Dillon went on to say:
We meet today in fulfilment of the concept and brought together by our common origin, fired by our common hopes, determined to conquer our common dangers.
Although there are great differences between us and many of the peoples of Latin America and indeed of the United States, we have so much in common that we cannot say, we dare not say, that what happens there does not affect nor concern us because verily it does. As ambassador Adlai Stevenson said:
We cannot look for strong brothers in arms against a common enemy as long as any of our fellow American nations are sapped by stagnation and social decay.
Or as the Associate Minister of National Defence expressed it yesterday:
Our fate will be a better one if the fate of our neighbours in Latin America is also a better one.
To advance, to strengthen this area will make for a better world and strengthen the causes to which we have dedicated ourselves. Happily we are in a position to help. I am convinced that we will do so on an ever increasing scale. It has not been the Canadian attitude to fail in our responsibilities to the world.
In this particular part of the world to which I have been giving my attention in these last few minutes I think the opportunity is great, the challenge is great, but happily we are able to meet both. I would hope we shall go further in this direction than we already have gone, and that here will be one area in which this struggle in the future, if we have a future, will be resolved in the right way for the right causes and on behalf of the right people.
(Translation) :


Mr. Deschatelels:: Mr. Chairman, following the recent incidents which occurred in Berlin and the resumption of nuclear tests by the U.S.S.R., the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) informed us yesterday of the various measures which the government has decided to take, such as increased military forces in Canada and Europe, the establishment of a recruiting and training program to facilitate civil defence in our country.
Quite contrary to his usual optimistic mood, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) yesterday summarized his slightly pessimistic opinion in these words: We are on the brink of nuclear war. It still remains to be seen to what extent the steps [Mr. Macquarrie.l
taken by the government and the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will satisfy public opinion in Canada.
At the end of the speech she made yesterday, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) expressed some disappointment in the very limited review made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I am inclined to share her disappointment since I feel the time would have been most appropriate yesterday for the Canadian government's spokesman to state very clearly the government's policy concerning external affairs, in view of the present problems.
In my opinion, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) brilliantly stated yesterday the views of the official opposition. He made various suggestions to the government and I hope the latter will take them into serious consideration. I think-in fact, I am quite sure -that the government will appreciate the spirit in which those suggestions were made because, at the end of his speech, the hon. member for Essex East called for united action on the part of all Canadian political parties to deal with the serious problem we are faced with concerning national security.
I am sure that his appeal will meet the approval of all Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, the present tension over Berlin does not result from a new problem. Last year, a few colleagues and I had the opportunity of following the deliberations of the NATO parliamentary association and we visited NATO's Canadian military bases and refugee camps in West Berlin. Following that trip and the talks we had with west Berlin local authorities, we had the impression that the Berlin question would one day give rise to the tension we experience today. That problem is not the only important one on which the east and west are divided, but it is definitely the most crucial and capital one; indeed, if there is a strategical point in the world where the western countries must not retreat, it is in west Berlin. The western world's position concerning Germany and Berlin has been clearly stated and it must be forcefully reiterated. I quite agree with the government on this point, but once that position is taken, nothing should stand in the way of negotiations even if a solution of the problem seems hard to find today because of the Soviets' uncompromisingness and insincerity.
In fact, what is the problem? There are in Berlin 2.5 million Germans who are anticommunists and whose sympathies, culture and economic ties lie with the western world.

Because of their affection for democratic countries, I feel that we have an undeniable obligation to see that they are not overtaken against their will by the communists. But in spite of its importance, I think that we can consider the Berlin crisis as a symbolic factor in this fight between eastern and western ideologies.
Therefore, that is the reason why I say that the present issue is much more important than the Berlin and German problems. Let us never forget that if the communists claim to be the defenders of a world wide doctrine, should we weaken on the Berlin issue, the Russians' hunger would not be satisfied.
Communism aims to engulf the yellow race, the black race and the white race-Asia, Africa, Europe and America. The final aim of communism, let us never forget it, is not merely a local victory or a continental victory, but complete domination-communist dominion over the world.
In addition, I feel that if we consider and think over what happened since the end of the last war we will be realistic enough to admit that, and that being admitted, there are two questions we can ask ourselves. What is the position the western world should take in the light of such a crisis, especially after the resumption of nuclear testing? Should we take a rigid stand on the Berlin issue and keep our ground firmly, even though we may run the risk of starting a war? Second, what position should a country like Canada take when faced with problems of a scope much beyond its strength?
Before answering the first question, I should like to read a few lines of a speech delivered by Mr. Khrushchev a few months ago-less than a year ago-before the supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., on January 14, 1960. It will be seen from this statement which seems very clear that even Mr. Khrushchev admits that nuclear warfare between two countries who have nuclear weapons is meaningless. I quote:
Let us suppose that a state or a group of states succeed in preparing and launching a surprise attack against a power which has nuclear weapons and rockets. Could the aggressors, by a single blow of the nuclear weapons, destroy all the installations for the launching of rockets within the borders of the attacked power, even if they succeeded in keeping their attack undetected? Certainly not.
The state who is suddenly attacked, assuming it is a large enough one, will always have a possibility to retaliate with equally powerful blows. We take into consideration the fact that our country is surrounded by foreign military bases; that is why we are installing our launching sites in such a way as to insure a second and a third line of defence. The fact that our territory is enormously large makes it possible for us to decentralise our launching sites and to hide them well. We are building a system by which it will
Supply-External Affairs be possible whenever one of our answering devices is put out of order, to operate a second one and to hit our objectives from reserve positions.
And Mr. Khrushchev concludes as follows:
All this is indeed enough to cool off any psychically normal person, and the men who are responsible to the world and who have its destiny at heart.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure no sensible man would think a nuclear war might mean victory for the victor, in the sense given to that term until now. And, in the light of the passage I read a moment ago, it seems that Khrushchev himself has understood that the introduction and use of nuclear weapons have utterly upset the very notion of war. That quotation from Khrushchev's words is, in my opinion, additional proof of the fact that, in order to manage to survive along with communism, we must negotiate from strength, this being the only language he can understand.
Does that mean that, after having clearly established our positions, as in the case of West Berlin, we must uphold them without entering into negotiations? Of course, that would be a very serious mistake. I was listening, some time ago, to a remarkable interview on "Close Up", of Mr. Walter Lippmann, an American newspaperman who is much listened to and has had several talks with Mr. Khrushchev. On that program, the following question was put to Mr. Lippmann: Now that the die is cast over West Berlin, that both sides have clearly established their positions, what should the west do about the German problem? And Mr. Lippmann replied: (Text):
Well I think that the next step is one which involves a change in our basic approach to the German problem. We have taken the line conventionally that everything in Berlin is as good as it could be from our point of view, that any change in this situation of Berlin would be for the worse, therefore we must stand firm and stand pat. That's Dr. Adenauer's view. Change nothing. Fight-threaten to fight if anything is changed.
Later, Mr. Lippmann, though admitting that we should not basically change our position as to west Berlin, says that as a result we are in a disadvantageous position. He goes on to say:
We should take the position that the freedom of Berlin, in the sense of their ability to govern themselves, to live their own life, to keep their physical and economic and spiritual and political contacts with the western world, cannot be touched. We won't negotiate about that. But the legal basis and the statutory rights that go with that are negotiable. They never were negotiated. The thing is all a clutter of catch-can things made by generals and various people and we ought to say to them- I would like to see the position of saying to Khrushchev, "We don't like Berlin the way it is; we want to improve it, and if you can negotiate with us an improvement we'd be very interested."

Supply-External Affairs (Translation)
Negotiations should therefore certainly be pursued, even if the main problem cannot be settled. Following an agreement, it would be possible to meet and settle the corollaries to the main question and we also, perhaps, might ask for the status quo to be maintained in the Berlin matter, even if it were only for one year.
I even think that, in this attempt at negotiating so as to relieve world tensions, the western nations should take more considerable and marked action than they have in the past. We should prove to the whole world and convince more particularly the non-committed nations, that the western countries want to solve their problems with the east in one way and one place only, that is, at a conference table.
I think we can agree, and there is nothing wrong with doing so, that our propaganda has not always been a happy one in this respect. We know that the western countries have no imperialistic views and do not aim at conquest, but I think that our propaganda has too often been deplorable, which gave rise to some doubts in the minds of too many people, more particularly in the non-committed countries, and those doubts should not exist considering the generosity of the western countries, first of all the United States and Canada.
I believe that Canada can play an important part in this respect among its allies. Let us recall this country's action in the Suez crisis. The former secretary of state for external affairs, who is today the Leader of the Opposition, had, on behalf of a sovereign Canada, taken a position, unimpaired by any inferiority complex. We may recall that results were in keeping with our attitude, and that considerable prestige was earned by our country. This answers in a way the second question I was asking earlier today.
What attitude should be taken by a country like Canada? I believe that we should as we did for Suez, take any position which to our mind, could promote world peace, considering not only the higher interests of Canada but of all the free nations.
As far as the renewal of nuclear tests is concerned, we should obviously condemn the U.S.S.R. without reserve, as we must also regret, if not blame, the American attitude in this matter, though the American nuclear tests are to be made underground
[Mr. Deschatelets.l
and will therefore not endanger the life of individuals by radioactive fall-out.
To my mind, there is no people in this world, including the Russian people, who would favour those tests. When the Soviets decided to break the lull of a three year agreement in order to continue their nuclear tests, we had an excellent opportunity to expose that country to world opinion, but I think this should have been done before the only proper court, that is, the United Nations.
This is a field where a country like Canada can play an important part. But in addition the government should have a clearly defined policy on this issue. It may be difficult to blame others for making those tests when it is possible that the results they obtain may find a use in our own country by the stocking of nuclear warheads on our launching bases. Therefore we should have a clearly defined policy in connection with the use of nuclear warheads. In my opinion, this procrastination on the part of the government prevents us to a certain extent from playing our due part on the world scene in that respect.
Mr. Chairman, here in Canada we have regard for the basic principles which are essential to men of all countries if they want to develop harmoniously and live in an atmosphere of freedom. Our way of life is essentially dependent on other spiritual values not on atheistic materialism.
In his speech, Mr. Khrushchev as I said a moment ago also made the following statement on which I want to comment. Mr. Khrushchev said a few months ago before the supreme Soviet:
The U.S.S.R. will produce more coal, more steel and more oil than the United States within ten years from now.
Commenting on that statement, Mr. Spaak, the former secretary general of NATO had the following statement to make:
I do not believe in totalitarianism nor in historical materialism. There is only one thing we can do and it is to remain true to our essential principles and to accept within our countries as well as outside our boundaries the consequences of that loyalty.
And what he added was actually the truth:
The problem is not to know who produces the most, it is to know what one does with the wealth thus gained, what kind of society one organizes and what sort of hope is given to the people.
It is here, Mr. Chairman, that democracies have a huge advantage over communism. That freedom of action and thought that we are demanding for the men of all countries

and all races, explains the greater economic failure of the soviets, a failure and a fiasco they are unable to hide. That is why hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, at the risk of their lives, want to cross communist borders to enjoy an atmosphere of freedom within the western democracies.
I think that there lies one of the capital issues connected with the Berlin problem. That is why we must be ready to enter any proposed negotiations and also at the same time maintain a strong stand on the principles at stake, because this issue, let us never forget it, is mortgaging the future generations to come. Therefore we must do all in our power to save the sacred heritage we shall transmit to those who will follow in our footsteps.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, the fifteenth session of the United Nations opened in an atmosphere of tension and controversy resulting from the presence of the leaders of the two opposite blocs who wanted to bring forward before the general assembly all the problems that the international community must face today. Colonialism, nuclear tests and disarmament have been some of the main issues which have contributed to sow among the delegations a fever of threats and provocations that could imperil the peace and security of nations.
Fortunately, free nations had state leaders who, with energy and frankness, have unmasked the contradictory and ironical stands of the leaders of the satellite countries who seemed to have undertaken to sabotage the fifteenth meeting at all costs.
Among these courageous leaders, I should like to mention the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, on that occasion, made a speech indicating clearly to our allies how we must reply to the leaders of the countries under the communist regime and how we must successfully defend the philosophy of the nations anxious to live in a true democracy. That day, we were proud to be Canadians and to be governed by a leader with such distinction on the international scene.
The fifteenth session was also characterized by the entry of seventeen new nations into the organization. That was a political revolution with hardly any precedents in history. This sudden eruption, on the international scene, of a great many African countries, in full economic, social, cultural and psychological transformation, will bring about a
Supply-External Affairs radical change in political data and definitely influence the evolution of the rest of humanity. By asking for the recognition of their prerogatives and the granting of the status of sovereign countries, these newly created nations immediately indicated that they were determined to play an important part on the international scene.
While I was at the United Nations, I had the opportunity of working in close co-operation with the representatives of those new countries and I soon realized the importance of their presence within the international community.
In my opinion, the immediate consequences of their presence are the following:
1.	The number of small powers has increased with the result that the latter have made new efforts to unite in a spirit of cooperation to discuss their common problems at the diplomatic level. That does not necessarily mean that the presence of a solid bloc composed exclusively of African countries was felt at the United Nations, but the discussion of certain problems most definitely took on different aspects because of certain new characteristics brought by those new African countries.
2.	The presence of those new nations also had an influence on the activities and the procedure of the general assembly, because it was difficult to forecast the fate of a resolution due to an increased number of votes which could be cast in favour of the east or the west. The results of the vote on the membership of communist China is an indisputable example.
I should now like to say a word about the French-speaking African countries. Of the 28 African countries which achieved independence, 17 were former French colonies and 14 of those 17 countries gained their sovereignty in 1960. It goes without saying that the importance of those states may seem secondary from the points of view of population and economics, but it should not be forgotten that each of these new states has a seat at the United Nations assembly, can cast its vote and express its views on all international problems. Most of the Frenchspeaking African nations which were given their independence in 1960 are small countries whose population varies from 1 to 5 million. They are still getting assistance from France and have signed with the latter mutual aid and assistance treaties in the commercial and economic fields.

Supply-External Affairs
All those states are faced with urgent problems and Canada, as a bilingual country, must absolutely look into their needs and offer them a charitable and brotherly hand.
Last June, I went to Ruanda-Urundi as a member of a United Nations judiciary mission; I met with the aboriginal people of that country and I acquired a first-hand knowledge of their difficulties. I spoke with African leaders who expressed their fears about the future of those countries. Even though the Belgian authorities have carried out extensive material realizations in that territory under trusteeship, those people will still be in great need after they have achieved independence. In my opinion, the most urgent problem is the establishment of an administrative machinery. Africa's future depends on the training of its public officials, teachers, doctors, civil engineers and technicians of all kinds. From the point of view of education, we must strive to help those countries train enlightened leaders by developing education at the high school and university level. It is here that outside help will be necessary; it will include the provision of an ever increasing number of teachers and the establishment of scholarships for the formation of an elite capable of ensuring Africa's future.
The African leaders greeted with enthusiasm and gratefulness the Canadian government's decision to help financially the French-speaking countries of Africa.
You undoubtedly recall, Mr. Chairman, that on April 24, 1961, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) announced that the government was setting up a training assistance program for the benefit of French-speaking African states, by providing grants of $300,000 a year.
On that occasion, the Secretary of State for External Affairs had this to say as recorded on page 3930 of Hansard:
The countries to which the scheme would be directed are vitally preoccupied with the serious task of improving their educational facilities and with expanding educational opportunities for their peoples. They have repeatedly expressed their need for scholarships abroad for French-speaking students and for French-speaking teachers in their own countries. Because of our genuine interest in their welfare and progress and because we share a common language with these new states, Canada is in a unique position to render the type of assistance required. It is therefore the intention of the government to ask parliament to appropriate the funds necessary for this purpose once details have been worked out with the provincial educational authorities.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier), congratulating the government on this move, added the following which appears on page 3931 of Hansard:
[Mr. Asselin.3
In addition, I am particularly glad that the government has decided to confer with provincial authorities regarding the program it intends to submit.
However, I was sorry to learn recently, Mr. Chairman, that the Quebec government had not yet given any answer to the offer made by the federal government.
If there is a government that should support such a proposal, it is the Quebec government, the source of French culture in our country. I urge therefore the government to renew its offer to the Quebec government and, if need be, to remind that government of its responsibilities as concerns African aid.
I congratulate Canada for having shown leadership in this field because already the communists are launching a psychological attack in an effort to convince the new African states to join the communist ideology.
Our ambassador in Paris, Mr. Pierre Du-puy, reminded us of it last fall following a goodwill tour he made on behalf of Canada in those African countries when he said:
Communist propaganda constantly reminds Africans that in 1917 Russia was an underdeveloped country and that it took less than 50 years to make it into one of the most modern powers. Then why not follow its example?
Mr. Chairman, they also claim that the western parliamentary system is the result of a century of evolution and that it could not provide young and vigorous states with the authority, the decisiveness and the efficiency they need. Finally, they use the old and too well known slogan about colonialism. The degree of penetration of those arguments varies according to the intellectual and political maturity of the listeners. It is easy to influence certain African people with well illustrated pamphlets and periodicals. In Ruanda-Urundi I myself have seen some of the pamphlets illustrating industrial, agricultural, social and cultural progress made in the U.S.S.R. and communist China.
Youth in particular receives special consideration from those groups. No opportunity is lost of recruiting the most intelligent and understanding minds to take them on organized tours of communist countries. Thousands of scholarships are offered to students and others of those emerging countries. It was for them that the friendship university was recently founded in Moscow.
So, I urgently call on all freedom loving peoples to assist Africa before it gives in to communist pressure. It is true that Africa's future will require all kinds of capital but, still more, it will depend on the benevolent understanding of its problems by its genuine friends. The worst mistake, we are told time

and time again, would be to try to transform the African continent into a new America or Russia.
Africa, as we know, has a personality of its own, an originality richly endowed with human virtues. External contributions will be valuable to it to the extent that they will allow it to develop its own consciousness and reveal itself to the world at large.
As Mr. Dupuy also said, Africa is showing us the marvellous phenomenon of having survived in the midst of a turmoil of creative and destructive forces, of vegetal and animal forces, as are no more to be found anywhere else on our planet. But it did more than survive. It has assimilated those forces, it has given them a rhythm which now inspires its art, spirituality and its whole life. And it is thus contributing to the greatness of our common civilization.
So, no wonder that in many of those African states external policies are mainly based on the problems of concern to Africa in general. The greater number of new African states are first of all concerned with their own problems. As exceptions to that rule we might mention Mali and Guinea, which are taking an active part in the discussion of more general matters of international interest.
African states frequently meet to adopt certain stands. In fact, they met recently at Monrovia and at Casablanca, where African chiefs took the opportunity to strengthen the friendly relations that must exist between their countries, as well as to determine the policy to be adopted in the United Nations in regard to colonialism, the Congo, Algeria and all the other matters of concern to their continent.
African states of French language already exert a moderating influence within the Afro-Asiatic bloc in the United Nations. They are not in general interested in taking side in the cold war or in following the Afro-Asiatic group when the latter decides to launch an open attack against countries still practising colonialism. However, they have already supported moderate resolutions to put an end to colonialism. Above all they especially strive, and I repeat "especially", to establish friendly relations with the Canadian delegation and With other bi-cultural countries.
In concluding my remarks on this particular subject, I wish to indicate briefly the decisions taken by those new African countries:
1.	They gave vigorous support to the admission of Mauritania to the United Nations.
2.	They acted as mediators between France and Algerian nationalists.
3.	French-speaking African states opposed the apartheid policy of the government of the Union of South Africa.
90205-6-513
Supply-External Affairs
4.	Concerning the Congo, they supported the recognition of the Kasavubu delegation before the general assembly.
Finally, it is to be noted that they played an active part in the deliberations of certain commissions. For example, I emphasize that my friend Mr. Ernest Gassou of Haute-Volta has been appointed commissioner to supervise the legislative elections in Ruanda-Urundi and that Guinea, Senegal and Mali are all members of the United Nations control commission in the Congo.
The fifteenth session of the United Nations has been called the African session. That is why the discussion of the problems of territories under trusteeship and under mandate were the object of very special attention on the part of the fourth commission.
I had the honour of representing Canada on that commission and I should like to report briefly on the most important discussions that took place there.
The most important resolution supported by Canada concerning the territories under trusteeship was a pressing appeal to the administering powers urging them to give administrative experience to the natives in all sectors of public administration, avoiding every discrimination, so that those territories would have an administration already set up when they reach independence. That resolution was heartily welcomed by the African states and only a few nations still steeped in colonialism opposed it.
A problem which, I think, was very difficult to work out was the future of Ruanda-Urundi, a country under Belgian trusteeship. Let me outline the situation, so that it will be better understood.
Serious disturbances broke out in Ruanda in the fall of 1959. Their cause was the strife for the provisional leadership of the country between the tribes, one called Tutsi, a class of feudal tradition, and the other called Hutu, which had always been the servants of the Tutsi and representing 85 per cent of the population. The Muami, an African term applied to the king of Ruanda, who had left the territory a few months before, identified himself with the Tutsi tribe and his return is, of course, opposed by the tribes who wish to retain power.
Having heard the testimony of the political parties, the fourth commission advised both parties to work together towards the national reconciliation of the country, in order to give it an adequate preparation to independence anticipated for 1961.
After a long discussion, the commission passed two resolutions on Ruanda-Urundi. The purpose of the first resolution was to invite Belgium, the administrative authority,

Supply-External Affairs to grant an unconditional amnesty to all political convicts, in order to bring about a climate of understanding and of reconciliation.
Moreover, the resolution advocated that a round table conference be held by all the political parties of the country, United Nations observers being present, and that afterwards the United Nations supervise the legislative election for the independence of the territory which was anticipated for 1961 as I have mentioned a moment ago.
The second resolution recommended the return of Muami to Ruanda and, for that purpose, the institution of a referendum in order to seek out the opinion of the people on that matter.
When I went to that country, my task was to supervise the amnesty called for by the first resolution, and I must say that the judicial commission of the United Nations has enjoyed, during its work, the closest co-operation on the part of Belgian authorities.
(Text) :


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but it being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, when the house took recess this morning, I was explaining the purpose of the judiciary mission sent to Ruanda-Urundi by the United Nations. I was saying that when a United Nations resolution was submitted, the administrative authorities were ordered to grant unconditional amnesty to the political prisoners of 1959 in the territory of Ruanda-Urundi. Our commission was entrusted especially with the revision of the rulings of the special courts established on that occasion by the administrative authorities. At the conclusion of my remarks this morning, I stated that in accordance with the United Nations resolution, we succeeded in releasing practically all political prisoners who had been jailed following the 1959 uprising. However, I must admit that the release of those political leaders had a disastrous effect, since it gave rise to new disturbances between the tribes. At the present time hundreds of people are killed in that territory every week.
I fear that Ruanda-Urundi will one day be the scene of bloodshed. I do not wish to imply

that Belgium is fully responsible for those troubles, but I feel that the United Nations should in the future take a closer look at the social and political conditions prevailing in those emergent countries before giving them their political independence and sovereignty.
Another matter which engaged the attention of the fourth commission concerned the holding of a plebiscite in the south and the north of the Cameroon.
The result of that plebiscite conducted by a United Nations representative showed that the north of the Cameroon wanted to join with Nigeria while the south of the Cameroon wished to unite with the Cameroon Republic, recently created.
The validity of the plebiscite was questioned by the Cameroon Republic on the grounds of fraud and discrimination in the running of the referendum by the United Nations representative and by Great Britain which was the administering authority of the territory. The Cameroon Republic was asking in particular that a committee of the United Nations be set up to investigate the irregularities of that referendum before North Cameroon could be permitted to join with Nigeria. That debate, in my opinion, was one of the most stormy of the fourth commission. Events reached such a climax that during the debate, the delegates of the Cameroon Republic left the meeting with a large number of African representatives and France accused the chairman of showing bias in conducting the proceedings.
On that occasion, the Canadian representative made a very moderate speech, while strongly supporting the report of the United Nations commissioner concerning the holding of the referendum. Canada however refused to support Great Britain's resolution because that would have seriously impaired our prestige with the African countries.
The general assembly adopted the resolution acknowledging the validity of the United Nations referendum by a two thirds majority.
Those are the most important events which marked the fourth commission and especially the second part of the fifteenth session.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to emphasize the devotion and work of the hon. members- government members as well as opposition members and the third party members-who came to New York. I wish to commend the devotion of the government officials who attended that meeting.
The prestige of our country at the United Nations is excellent. For that we are grateful to the parliamentary secretary to the minister (Mr. Nesbitt) and more particularly to the

Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) who has a way of asserting himself by his frankness, his loyalty and his tenacity in the discussion of international problems.
The Canadian resolution on disarmament was supported by many delegations, 18 to be exact, because the minister was able to prove to other nations that disarmament is not the business of great powers alone, but that all countries who wish the well-being of humankind must tackle that question to find a quick solution.
In the international sphere, Canada has become an emancipated power which must not be content to act as a negotiating agent between countries, but must stay in the forefront in order to find solutions to world problems.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, Canada is now exerting a beneficial influence in the international community, because all nations understand that we have no colonial past nor any territorial ambitions, but that our sole desire is to save from definite peril the principles of freedom and real democracy, in trying to develop among all peoples of the world the cult of spiritual values, which alone can give this very disturbed world the guarantee of a lasting peace.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, yesterday, in what I thought was a very impressive contribution to this discussion, my colleague the hon. member for Essex East reminded us that it was 22 years ago on that very day that this House of Commons was called into session to ratify and confirm a declaration of war against, not the German people, but against Nazi tyranny and Nazi aggression. In his very thoughtful and realistic examination of the situation today the Secretary of State for External Affairs informed this committee, and I quote his words, that "the world is hovering on the brink of war". These words were repeated by a man who will have far more to do with the waging of war, if not with the making of the peace, than the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Today that man, Mr. Khrushchev, according to press reports, in Moscow when he said "mankind is on the brink of another military tragedy" which is his way of saying the same thing. We are on the brink of a war which we have been saying to ourselves for years in unthinkable. Everybody is thinking about it now.
In August, 1914, in the realm of opinion and of emotion, war was not unthinkable. Indeed, at that time-and many of us will remember our reaction to the developing circumstances of that month which seems so long ago now-war exercised almost a horrible fascination for many people who knew 90205-6-5134
Supply-External Affairs nothing about it except in terms of the charge of the light brigade or the thin red line. It was that reaction which endangered peace in 1914 and made war perhaps inevitable at that time. There was just enough of that feeling 22 years ago, that war was not unthinkable, to ensure that it happened. If we had felt in the 1930's that war was not only thinkable but likely in view of the policy of Hitler and his Nazi gang, if we had felt that it was thinkable and probable we might not have had it; we might have stopped it. If we had stopped it then we might not be talking about it today.
I think, Mr. Chairman, one danger which we face in the world today is the very opposite to our popular reaction far back in 1914, because we know now that war is so horrible that it literally is unthinkable with the 100 megaton continental destroyer bomb which Khrushchev boasts he can make; and perhaps he can, and also the Americans. If it is so ghastly, then let us not think about it. This is the kind of reaction you get in some quarters in the summer of 1961, the kind of reaction which is reflected on a United States magazine cover which I looked at the other day on which in very black type were the words "Pigskin Preview" and underneath, in smaller type, "Berlin Crisis".
The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated yesterday, and quite rightly, that the situation is tense and serious. There was in his speech-and I am certainly not criticizing him for this-none of the optimism, dogged and determined optimism, that he has shown in the past. At times he has chided us a little for being too pessimistic, and I am certainly not chiding him for being too optimistic in those days because optimism with endeavour is a good foundation for international activity. Now we are facing a serious and tense situation. He said quite rightly that we should face it in this country and in other countries with cool consideration, neither with despair which would be wrong, nor with panic, which might be fatal. In this situation all of us in this house would wish to approach this subject and subjects related to it on a plane far above that of partisan politics or parliamentary tactics, because it is this kind of situation which emphasizes that there are so many stronger things that unite us than divide us. National unity is essential and I believe is possible in times of national or international crisis.
At the moment the centre of our fears is the city of Berlin, but there are other areas of tension in the world, and our fears in the past ten years have switched from one area of tension to another. While we are concentrating on Berlin and all that it stands for at the moment we also have to worry about-I am

Supply-External Affairs sure the government is not unaware of this, especially the Secretary of State for External Affairs-Southeast Asia, Laos, North Africa, Algeria, Tunis and Cuba on our own hemisphere and Tibet in Asia. All these tensions in a sense are related to each other, and the drama and the tragedy of the crisis shift from one to another. Now it is Berlin which is the centre of the current crisis of a recurrent cold war.
All of us have been listening to a great deal of talk about this current crisis. Over the air, in the newspapers, from official reports and official statements we get an analysis of what is wrong and what is right and what is going on, and we get analyses of the analysis; we get interpretation, and we get interpretations of the interpretation. I think perhaps all of us get sometimes a little foggy and confused as to what is happening and what can be done to prevent its deteriorating into war. All this talk, in my view, especially the words which emanate from communist centres, is too often what Father Pire, the distinguished Belgian priest, and the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize, once called the dialogue of the deaf. At times the words used do not mean anything, often not even to the people who utter them, certainly not to us who have to listen to them because many words now have no value. That coinage has been debased when words like peace, democracy and non-aggression can be used in the language of communism to mean something exactly the opposite to that which has always been their natural meaning and significance. Mr. Khrushchev, in a message to the French government on September 5, just two or three days ago, is quoted in the press as saying this:
The people of West Berlin must themselves determine the social-economic system of their city and enter into free relations with any state.
That sentiment, Mr. Chairman, is irreproachable. It is equally irreproachable when it is applied, as it should be applied, not only to Berlin but to East Germany and to all other peoples under foreign domination. Yet, if these words represent the policy of Khrushchev's government and his own personal attitude, we ask ourselves, where is the crisis in West Berlin? He says that the people of West Berlin must themselves determine the social-economic system of their city and enter into free relations with any state, or presumably group of states. So what is the crisis about?
The crisis is not resolved by words like this because we in the west do not take such words at their face value, so deep is our distrust and our fear, with good evidence on which to base that distrust and fear, and because words like that have been contradicted by the same man in other speeches not very long before the one I have just

mentioned. It was Mr. Khrushchev, was it not, or some representative of Mr. Khrushchev-I am not sure which-who said not long ago that the Soviet government would not be the first to resume nuclear tests.
I think Mr. Khrushchev said that again recently in an interview with Mr. Sulzberger of the New York Times.
How can you reconcile that kind of contradiction and how do you get any comfort out of such reassuring statements as the one I have mentioned, especially in the face of some less reassuring ones that appear in the papers today? This is another indication of the gulf that divides us. Perhaps Mr. Khrushchev himself would say, "Oh, well, we are not the first to resume tests", because France, one of the founding and important members of NATO, itself started nuclear tests after he, Mr. Khrushchev, had made his earlier renunciation of tests.
It is because of this feeling that the principles which Mr. Khrushchev has embodied in these words, applied to the situation in West Berlin, and meant no doubt to be reassuring to us, are not reassuring. We must get some concrete assurance in a form that is more effective than words that the principles themselves will be observed. To put it brutally and frankly, we have no faith or little faith in what he says, especially when it is contradicted by what he has said previously and by what he is doing while he speaks.
So we look for some other assurance that will embody and protect these principles, and in the case of Berlin we have had one now for a good many years, as all members know, in the four-power agreement of 1945. The situation which is accepted in that agreement covering Berlin and also a divided Germany, is an anomalous one as we look at it now. It seems to me, with that hindsight which makes everything so much easier, that it was a very foolish agreement indeed to have entered into. But it was a very formal one. The conditions that existed at the time it was entered into, and this may help us to understand why it was done, were very different from what they are now. At the present time, it is unnecessary to underline the fact, there is no good will, no co-operation, no desire to implement this agreement any longer on the Soviet side nor has there been for some time past. In fact, the Russians have made it quite clear to the world that they are determined to alter the present situation in Berlin, to alter that earlier agreement by which the west Berliners were guaranteed freedom and the western allies were guaranteed rights.

Mr. Khrushchev made this perfectly clear at the end of 1958, I believe it was, when he said frankly what he was going to do and he even set a time limit within which he would do it. Our position on the western side, a position that I think has been rightly taken by the governments concerned, is that we cannot admit that agreements of this kind can be abrogated by force or the threat of force. It would be, of course, the very negation of international diplomacy. It would make good international relations impossible. It would create an impossible situation if the west yielded to this kind of atomic blackmail, as it has been called. It would set up a kind of chain reaction. We would go from pressure to pressure and yielding to yielding until we would not know where it would ends. As the French proverb says: "l'appetit vient en mangeant".
Surely we have learned since 1914, Mr. Chairman, that peace is not ensured by surrender to blackmail. Indeed, war is sometimes made inevitable by such surrender. So we ask ourselves: Is there no choice then between the impossible alternatives of suicide or surrender? There must be. But I do not think we will save ourselves from this situation and others like it by merely relying on armed force to avoid a choice.
We have to be armed in the west. Unilateral disarmament would be an invitation to catastrophe, but armaments themselves will not do the job. The dilemma with which we are faced, this awful choice, which some people through oversimplification of the problem, try to force on us, of suicide by atomic war or surrender by yielding to atomic threats; this necessity, as some see it, of relying primarily, if not exclusively, on arms to avoid a choice; this dilemma and the impossibility of resolving it by arms alone, have been very well put by professor Hugh Seaton Watson in what I thought was a very wise book entitled "Neither War Nor Peace". I quote a paragraph from that book, where he said:
One may agree that it would indeed be better to accept communist domination or any other form of totalitarian tyranny in the hope that with the passage of time later generations may restore liberty rather than see the whole human race destroyed, but this is not in fact the alternative that faces the governments of the west.
Or, I might interpolate, the peoples of the west. He goes on:
The choice is not between the certainty of destruction of the human race and the certainty of communist domination but between the possibility of destruction if the west retains atomic weapons and the certainty of Soviet domination at least of Europe if the west unilaterally renounces atomic weapons.
Then he adds this sentence with which I think all of us will agree:
Supply-External Affairs
If the alternative is put in this form most noncommunist Europeans and Americans would prefer the risk to the certainty.
We have heard it said more than once in this debate, Mr. Chairman, that there are people in Canada who say-I know I have talked to some of them who have spoken along these lines and there have been letters in the press expressing the same view-"we will not fight for Berlin or for Germany". To use the words used by the hon. member for Kootenay West in his speech, that would be a monstrous absurdity. I think he put it that way, and it would be a monstrous absurdity in one sense. Many of us have no cause to love those elements in German society which were responsible for the war of 1914 and the war of 1939. It seems to be almost unnatural to line ourselves up alongside those people some of whom-but only some-were responsible for what happened from 1933 to 1945. But Mr. Chairman, surely this is the wrong approach to the problem and represents a misunderstanding of the position. We would not in any event be fighting for Berlin any more than we fought for Korea or for Danzig. We would only, if we were obliged to do so, be resisting aggression, fighting for a principle or fighting for a freedom which is not limited to any one small area of the world.
If we put the problem in those other terms, that we would be fighting for the Germans, we will get into nothing but misunderstanding and trouble. As a matter of fact, if after 1919 we had shown more understanding of those forces in Germany which were just as much opposed as we were to Kaiserism and all it stood for, and if after 1919 we had given the Social Democratic regime in Germany more support and more understanding, we might not have had to fight Nazi aggression and Nazi tyranny in 1939. Therefore, we surely do not want to do anything, by ill considered observations about Germany and about Berlin either, which would discourage those in Germany who are now governing a democratic republic.
As I have said then, the alternative in certain contingencies to resistance against aggression, if that were forced-and it is the only kind of resistance we would be taking part in-would be to surrender to force or the threat of force backed up by nuclear blackmail exploiting our fears. In that case we would have become the captive of our fears by giving in; just as we would become the victim of our fears if we took panic action. I suggest then, Mr. Chairman-and I do not think there will be any disagreement with this statement-that we in the west cannot yield to force or blackmail. As it is so often

Supply-External Affairs put, we must stand firm. But as Walter Lipp-mann mentioned in his column this morning and it has been said by others previously, standing firm is not the same as standing pat. We must realize-and I believe the government does so-that the present situation in Berlin and in Germany created at a time when circumstances were far different than they are today, is not going to last indefinitely and that change will come. In the period between the two wars we used to talk a great deal about the necessity for peaceful change; and it was resistance to peaceful change from 1919 to 1939 that had something to do with the catastrophe of 1939. So change will come. But it must be change not brought about by force and not brought about by betrayal, which I think is a far better way of putting it than by saying we must not give in to appeasement. Force today in terms of armed action, which would mean nuclear war, cannot reunite a divided country any more than force of that kind today can liberate people from the ruins which that kind of liberation would bring about. Surely there must be another and a better way. This necessity for eventual and peaceful change-and I return to it-surely is shown by the very nature of the earlier agreements that were made. At the time they were made those agreements were not intended to be permanent even by those who made them inasmuch as they visualized the eventual reunification of Germany through co-operation between the occupying powers and Berlin as the capital of a united Germany. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we must be realistic about this situation. I think the German feeling for unity must be respected, of course. However, that does not mean that we should give any encouragement to any German feeling for reunification by force or action which would risk imminent war for such unification. Nor does it mean that we should ignore or encourage our German friends and allies to ignore the problems of the eastern boundary, the Oder-Neisse line or the problem of Polish and Russian fears and susceptibilities which are very real and genuine. These susceptibilities are understandable in the light of the human and material destruction these people have suffered in wars from German invaders. I think also, in order to be realistic, we must realize that a Russian rejection-because that is what it is-of a non-communist united Germany, which to them would be anticommunist, in association with NATO and the west, is strong and it is opposed by equally strong western insistence on the right of Germany to remain in NATO for defence and indeed for European development; and we are not likely to weaken on that score. That is a dilemma and I cannot now see any way out of 

it. We are going to have to live with it as we shall have to live with many unpleasant things for some time. However, the problem now is to prevent this dilemma from deteriorating into a crisis and the use of force. All this means that Berlin as a problem cannot be isolated from the German problem and from the whole problem of relationships inside the cold war.
When we talk about the necessity of negotiating these matters, we know that it will take a long time. I do not think we in the west should refuse, for instance, to consider the possibility, as part of a general settlement, of disengagement or pulling back of the forces from the east and from the west. I think that this is a negotiable matter. Very respectable western leaders have put that suggestion forward in the past, including Sir Anthony Eden. It is negotiable but it is certainly not negotiable on Soviet terms as we now know them and it is not negotiable either at the expense of the freedom of any section of the German people. I do not know whether or not the whole position of our collective security arrangements in Europe are negotiable because I do not have all the facts in order to enable me to come to a judgment on that matter. However, I know or at least I am sure in my own mind that the proposals put forward in the New Democratic party resolutions dealing with this particular matter are not those to which I could subscribe. I read one sentence from these proposals:
To relieve tensions Canada should press for a demilitarized zone in central Europe.
I think that is arguable and certainly should be looked into. But then it goes on to say this:
To relieve tensions Canada should press for the simultaneous disbandment of the Warsaw and the NATO pacts.
That puts these two collective security arrangements on exactly the same basis. It assumes that if NATO and the Warsaw pacts were abrogated the results would be equal, in terms of security. We know, surely, that this is not the case and disbandment of NATO would be the abandonment of free peoples. The break up of NATO would mean that its democratic members would be split apart and collective action would go.
What would the break up of the Warsaw pact mean? Perhaps nothing at all. Perhaps it would be almost as simple without the pact as with it for the Soviet government to control and determine the action of the armies of the present members of the Warsaw pact. Therefore to have these two organizations on the same level of importance so far as international security is concerned, and to suggest that their simultaneous disbandment would

not prejudice the situation in any way to our disadvantage seems to me to be entirely unrealistic and indeed dangerous.
If the existing guarantee of Berlin, which goes back to 1944, is a shaky one in present circumstances, I suspect it will become even shakier when the responsibility on the communist side for carrying it out is transferred, as it is going to be transferred, to an East German communist government as a result of a peace treaty made with that government by the Soviet union. Because after that time so far as the Russians are concerned it will be the responsibility of the East German satellite under Soviet domination to observe the stipulations of that agreement.
This would mean a transfer of authority and a recognition of East Germany as an independent, sovereign state by a great many nations, particularly the communist states in the world. A great many of them have already given this recognition. This would perhaps mean a deterioration of the situation. It might mean additional dangers, but I cannot myself think this is a matter over which there need be war.
The Prime Minister in his speech at Winnipeg, to which I have already referred, asked a rhetorical question in that connection. I think it was a good one. I cannot quote his exact words but it was to the effect: "People say, is the recognition of the east German government, is that alone the kind of thing that should result in a crisis which would involve war?" I do not think so. After all, we recognize in fact, if not in law, what the Minister of Agriculture calls the Chinese democratic republic and we do business with it. Perhaps we will find ourselves doing business shortly with the "East German democratic republic". I would hate to see the western powers adopt an intransigent position on that particular point. But they have the right, of course, to do what can be done and must be done to insist that this transfer and this recognition shall not affect the rights and freedoms of the people of West Berlin or the rights of access to West Berlin by those who now have them.
Under this change, so we are told, the allied forces would still have the right to be in Berlin and the right to get to Berlin. Their presence there is still the symbol of the freedom of the people and the symbol of western rights. I think it would have to be preserved. And we now have in Berlin an increase in western military strength following the deterioration of the position there after the closing of the boundary and as a prelude to the transfer of all authority to the East German communist republic through a peace treaty with that government.
Supply-External Affairs
We now have additional western soldiers there. We have those soldiers armed and equipped and facing East German soldiers who are armed and equipped. We learn from the newspapers and from the picture magazines that they are only a few feet apart. They are pointing guns at each other. The other day there was a water cannon fired and there was a reply by a tear gas bomb. One cannot help having nightmares over the possibility of something else being exchanged across that tense and nervous border. Unless there is some way in which that situation can be stabilized these people will continue facing each other at 10 paces, which is usually the prelude to a duel.
What can be done about this? If the guarantee we have, and which we are entitled in the west to insist upon because of the freedoms that it gives the people of West Berlin, is shaky, and if it is getting shakier, and if it is creating these tensions which might explode any minute, is there anything we can do by negotiation to stabilize the position without giving away any essential rights?
I come back to the proposition which I have made and which others have made in the last few weeks, and indeed the last few months. I remember talking about this when Mr. Khrushchev said sometime ago that he was going to have a peace treaty on a certain date with East Germany and after that there would be trouble if there was not some change made on the western side.
An alternative form of guarantee which I think is negotiable and one which I think has the best chance of working out-although I do not underestimate the difficulties *-would be the United Nations replacing the existing agreement with a formal international guarantee; with a United Nations police force inside Berlin and United Nations police forces on the access routes to Berlin to secure that guarantee.
I know the United Nations has had a pretty rough time lately and some of the hopes, and indeed some of the faith people had in the ability of this world organization to help guarantee international peace and security and to provide the kind of international force behind international law which would strengthen peace and security have disappeared in the unhappy developments of the last year or so.
I know the Soviet union-the minister spoke about this yesterday, and other hon. members have spoken about it-has given at least an indication in its attitude at the United Nations that it is not now too concerned whether or not the organization survives. Perhaps I had better put it in this way, that it is more and more insistent that if

Supply-External Affairs it is to survive it will be in a form that will be acceptable to the communist world. That means in a form that ensures there will be a communist veto over every activity of the organization from the secretary general down. I refer to the now famous troika theory of international organization. But this danger to the United Nations does not surely alter the fact that we should work even harder to strengthen it. This is an opportunity to that end.
I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs who has already given a strong indication of his loyalty to this organization, will desire to make it stronger in the interests of peace. I am sure he will do what he can to strengthen it in this connection.
Somehow, perhaps through the "mobilization of the middle", the United Nations must be brought in to guarantee the freedom of West Berlin within the context of Mr. Khrushchev's own statement, about which he should continually be reminded. The United Nations could also guarantee the rights of access of the western powers to Berlin.
This could be done through a United Nations police force. Perhaps it would be possible to transfer some of the United Nations police force from Palestine until we had a separate group for this particular purpose. Perhaps it would also be possible to strengthen the presence of the United Nations in Berlin, by moving some of its activities into that city. I read this morning a letter in the Montreal Gazette which mentioned the idea of moving into Berlin of some of the European activities of the United Nations. United Nations agencies could be moved into Berlin and it could become a centre of international activity. Geneva is already becoming crowded, so some of the European activities and agencies of the United Nations and those concerning the Middle East, could be transferred into Berlin. It should become a permanent centre of United Nations activity. This might create a situation in Berlin over which it would be more difficult for communist powers to ride roughshod than if we have two or three thousand allied troops behind a wall there.
I would hope that this idea could be pursued at the forthcoming general assembly. The important thing, surely, is to remember that the present situation itself is not permanent in Berlin or in a disunited Germany, but also to remember that any changing of that situation by force will provoke resistance which might mean war. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind on either side that this might happen. Then, we would have to start finding another way, making a change at this time, which 10 or 15 years

from now would become inevitable in any event. We must use the United Nations for this purpose.
Now, I admit that all this has been made more difficult by the recent announcement of the resumption of nuclear tests. Every member of the house who has spoken in this debate, Mr. Chairman, has mentioned this unhappy development which represented, I think it is fair to say, a cynical betrayal by the Soviet union of the hopes which up until a few months ago at least we had placed in the possibility of a united front in this one aspect of disarmament. This is a phase of disarmament to which the Soviet union itself, in years gone by, attached the greatest importance. But now, and I do not think I am putting it too strongly, they have used it for blackmail by terror.
I do not know-I ask-whether any protest has been made by the Canadian government to the Soviet union, except in public statements, over this resumption of nuclear tests and the torpedoing of the Geneva conference at a time when the positions, on paper at least, were coming closer together.
If I have any criticism of the technique of disarmament negotiation as exemplified by this Geneva conference, and it applies to other disarmament meetings going back 10 or 12 years now, it is that we in the west allow ourselves slowly and gradually to be pushed into positions we would not accept at the beginning. By the time we get to a position of acceptance, then something else happens and the Soviet union refuses to accept the new position. A very good example of this is what has been happening in Geneva in the last few months. The last offer which was made, if it had been made a year ago, would have been an infinitely more difficult one for the Russians to refuse than when it was made a few weeks ago. This is an unhappy development, then, which is making negotiation more difficult. But it makes such negotiation more essential than ever before.
There is another aspect of this problem which has been mentioned by more than one speaker, and it is a growingly important aspect. I refer to the influence that can be brought to bear on this whole issue by what are now known as the uncommitted countries. I was at an unofficial, private conference in Oxford a few days ago at which there were many delegates from the uncommitted countries. But, they never talked of themselves as being uncommitted but as being representatives of the third world. What can this third world do to redress the balance between the powers of the west and the east? The Belgrade conference was an interesting indication of the possibilities and limitations of this new force in the world.

It is true that the resumption of tests by the Russians did, in a sense, if I may use a colloquialism, take the heat off the attack on colonialism which otherwise would have dominated the discussions at Belgrade. It is true also that this conference in Belgrade did take some action, as a third force, in trying to get the situation solved, as they saw the situation, in Moscow and in Washington. If such a result was achieved in Belgrade, I think we owe a great deal to Mr. Nehru, as one additional contribution he has made to peace. In all the talk about colonialism, neocolonialism and the iniquities of western imperialism that came out of that conference, Mr. Nehru had as much reason from past history to join in that talk as anybody else, but it was his cool, calm voice which pointed out that the danger now is not colonialism, it is destruction. I think he got that conference to take a line which it would not have otherwise followed if he had not been there. Perhaps this great man, one of the great men in our contemporary world, could be persuaded to take a lead at the forthcoming meetings of the United Nations to mobilize this feeling in the middle powers that humanity is not going to be permitted to be destroyed by the great powers. I understand he is going to Washington soon, and I hope he will also be coming to Ottawa on this visit.
There is one factor in this mobilization of the uncommitted nations which we cannot ignore. That is their underlying suspicion of what they still call colonial imperialism and neo-colonialism. I learned last week as I have learned on so many occasions in the past, that to many of these countries who have recently gained independence, colonialism is thought of in terms of conquest and occupation from across the sea, of racialism and discrimination. But this kind of colonialism, what is known as salt water colonialism, is on the way out. The pro-consuls have departed or they are going. There is no danger to free peoples from them now except in one or two areas of the world which are a little behind the times. The balance of good and evil that came from occupation by imperial powers across the water, can be left to history to decide. Perhaps it should be forgotten today in the face of this greater and immediate danger.
Furthermore these new peoples should realize that while that old type of colonialism is on the way out, there is a far more dangerous form of colonialism which is, up to the present, still on the way in. I refer to the colonialism not of imperial forces going across an ocean but in legions moving across a border in the service of communist imperialism and destroying old nations and old civilizations. The nature of this new imperialism was made quite clear by Mr. Khrushchev at the
Supply-External Affairs communist congress at the beginning of this year when he said, and communist doctrine is now officially established along this line, that it is the right and duty of communist powers, communist parties and communist peoples throughout the world to assist others in the struggle for liberation. This is his way of referring to these wars of which the communists approve. It is that spurious doctrine that has caused Russians and Chinese to cross borders and destroy ancient and civilized societies.
I know that at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations assembly we will be facing, as we have been facing in the past, resolutions condemning colonialism. The Prime Minister made a strong speech last year on this subject. After these speeches have been made and when the resolutions are being discussed in committee, that is the time to try to alter these resolutions to make them convey the right meaning of colonialism. We must insist on that kind of discussion, making sure all nations are made aware, as we are aware, of what the new colonialism means.
Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about NATO because the minister and others have said a great deal about it. I should like to refer to the influence of NATO on these developments, what NATO can do and what NATO is not doing. I recall that a year ago in this house I talked about NATO and made a plea for a stronger NATO. I was rather gloomy about some of the prospects for NATO, and I talked about it being at the crossroads. I was chided by the Secretary of State for External Affairs for being so pessimistic. Everything I have read about NATO in the last year has confirmed me in my anxiety. If the members of NATO do not get closer together, they are going to get farther apart. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that this is a defensive alliance. Of course, it is a defensive alliance to us but it is not to those who are opposing us-at least, so they say. We are told that NATO must be kept strong, and that is true. However, in this difficult situation strength is more than military strength. It is also unity.
But what worries me about NATO, and I have no doubt it worries the Secretary of State for External Affairs too, is the disunity that appears now in the co-ordination of foreign policy among NATO members.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that there cannot be any smaller directorate inside NATO to tell the other NATO members what they should or should not do. I agree there must be equality inside NATO in that area even though there cannot be equality of power or responsibility. But if

Supply-External Affairs there is to be that kind of equality there should be a much greater effort made than has been made in the last ten or 15 years in NATO to co-ordinate and unify the foreign policies of the members of NATO before a crisis develops.
A spokesman of the government, I think the Prime Minister, said after the meeting of the foreign ministers of the three main western powers in Paris last August, that this showed how great the unity of NATO was in the face of threats from the Soviet union. Unity in the face of threats is always an immediate result in our coalition. But that meeting also showed, if the reports I read were at all accurate, that while there was this kind of unity against aggression there was also disunity on how that threat of aggression should be met. I think we must somehow do more than we have in the past to unify foreign policy of the NATO members or we will not be able to co-ordinate defence policy and stand united against aggression.
In this connection I wish to repeat what my friend the hon. member for Essex East said about a sentence in the resolution of the New Democratic party with respect to NATO and foreign policy. That sentence has been placed on the record before, but I wish to repeat it:
The New party believes that we should seek a reappraisal and change of NATO's policies and objectives.
I have no quarrel with that. We should always be reappraising and re-examining NATO's policies and objectives and I have made that statement myself more than once. The resolution goes on to state:
The New party believes that the extension of nuclear weapons to any further states and alliances threatens disaster to the world. It therefore opposes Canada's troops being supplied with such weapons at home or abroad. At present, except for those nations which have independently developed atomic capacity, neither NATO itself nor its members individually possess or control nuclear warheads.
I think that is true, except for the United States, the United Kingdom and France. The following is the part of the resolution with which I do not agree. It reads:
Should they do so, Canada must make it clear that it cannot remain in the alliance.
In other words, should any of the other members of NATO accept nuclear warheads either nationally or presumably under NATO control, Canada must make it clear that Canada cannot remain in the alliance. For instance, if the Netherlands inside NATO accepted nuclear warheads under Netherlands control or presumably under NATO control, Canada should withdraw from the alliance. I wish to make it perfectly clear that our party does not subscribe to any doctrine of that nature. We do agree, however, that there must be made a much greater effort inside NATO

in the field of co-ordination of foreign policy and planning in the future than there has been in the past; that collective policies in NATO must be worked out in advance to the greatest possible extent rather than left at times to the impulsive reaction of individual members. There is a weakness here which should be corrected in the planning inside the alliance.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the blocking off of East Berlin by the east German government was foreseen by the governments represented in the NATO council. It must have been obvious that this was going to happen before long. The communist leaders told us it was going to happen. If that is the case, were plans made inside NATO to meet that particular emergency when it occurred? Mr. Khrushchev told us about it in 1958, but when it happened one received the impression that it took the western alliance by surprise. In saying that I appreciate that I do not have all of the knowledge and facts and therefore I do not speak dogmatically on these matters.
We know at this moment that the attempted blocking off of access to Berlin may occur, the attempt is likely to be made; I put it no higher than that. Have we in the NATO alliance agreed plans to meet that blockade or will we react impulsively after the emergency situation develops? You can put this particular exigency in frightening concrete terms if you so desire. What do we do now in the western alliance if a convoy is stopped by the east German forces on the access road to Berlin or if a plane is forced down in the corridor to Berlin? If that should happen, has NATO an agreed policy as to what should be done? Have they made clear to the other side what is likely to happen if it is tried? If we are going to resist this sort of thing because it is aggression by force, have we enough force in NATO in Europe to ensure that it can be made effective without-and this is the terrifying prospect-falling back on nuclear retaliation. Surely that is the most critical question that faces the world at the present time and it is focused right on this particular situation in terms of this particular possibility.
Of course, I am not asking the government to tell the committee what action the NATO governments are proposing to take in a situation of this kind. I am asking whether the NATO governments are looking ahead and planning to take united action in such an emergency so there will be no temptation on the part of any single government in NATO to take impulsive action under pressures which perhaps may not be wise.
As I have said outside the house I am without knowledge of all the facts and am


19B1
[Stage Direction]
therefore not being too critical of this, but I think the United States reaction the other day in resuming nuclear tests was obviously taken under great pressure-congressional or pentagon, or both, I do not know-but it was taken at a time when, if it could have been put off for a few days or weeks, the United States might have made a great impact on the political cold war at the forthcoming United Nations assembly. Because that action was taken under pressure perhaps some of that advantage has been thrown away. I hope, therefore, if we have to face these emergency situations in the future-and I have just mentioned two of them-we will be considering and planning in advance what course we will take and it will not be left to any power to act quickly and perhaps, because we are all human, impulsively, when the emergency takes place.
What is required as the minister pointed out so well yesterday is wisdom and calm resolution as we face these awful situations. What is required is a policy planned and agreed in advance. What is required is the avoidance of sudden policies which, if you like, throw us out into outer space without having made any provision for diplomatic re-entry. What is required is the avoidance of impulsive, panicky, sudden reactions. What is required is a policy which weighs all the risks and opportunities; which establishes the price to pay for peace without the loss of freedom; which realizes what nuclear war means but also makes clear the risk of surrender to the threat of it. As someone said yesterday speaking in the debate, we will not be respected by being weak. That is true, but we will not be respected either by being panicky or rash as was also said yesterday.
As the minister pointed out, a great deal of sacrifice and effort will be required over a long time, sacrifice and effort as never before. As the Pope reminded us yesterday in a statement from Rome, peace is not a luxury. Creative peace has to be bought and paid for by those who wish to enjoy it. That kind of peace is worth a very high price. Perhaps I may be pardoned for quoting what I said on this very point as far back as 1951. I said this:
That kind of peace is worth paying for. The military dangers which threaten the free world at many points are so grave that we will all have to pay a substantial price to protect the peace we value.
This was ten years ago. 1 continue:
We will have to rearm in co-operation with our allies. We will have to pay for rearmament through heavier taxation. We will have to work harder. We will have to forgo some of the luxuries to which we had looked forward. I am sure that Canadians will not complain of these sacrifices when they remember the cause in which they are made.
I went on:
Supply-External Affairs
But there is one price which we will not pay even to secure peace. There are some things we value even more than peace. We will not pay for it by sacrificing our own freedom or the freedom of other countries.
I do not believe that we will have to pay that price. I cannot believe it. Have the resources of man, man's mind, man's heart, man's soul, sunk so low that we will have to pay that price for the avoidance of planetary destruction?
President de Gaulle said on September 5 -and I must say I did not think too highly of those particular words:
War whatever it might bring to the west, would certainly result in the complete overturning of the Soviet regime.
It will do that, but it will result in far more than that, the destruction of vast areas and peoples of this planet, the overturning of much more than the Soviet regime. A nuclear holocaust over Berlin at this time-and we are talking about that; we are told we are on the brink of it-would be grotesque in its absurdity; it would be complete in its consequences and it would be all embracing in its destruction. This must not happen. And so I say, Mr. Chairman-and as I conclude I come back to where I was a few moments ago -let world opinion, expressed through the United Nations, on the eve of this assembly, declare that it will not happen and take action to prevent it by the mobilization of world opinion in the assembly of the world. Canada can play and has played a good part in this kind of mobilization. I am sure that Canada will play a good and strong part at the forthcoming assembly in the mobilization of opinion to reject extermination. Therefore, let us return then to the United Nations in this crisis and let us return to the force which, with all its weaknesses, it can exert. I have never seen this put in better words than these, and as I conclude I may be permitted to read them. They appeared in the Saturday Review under the name of Norman Cousins. This is what he said on this point:
The vital alternative-
That is to national suicide or national survival-
-is a massive attempt through the United Nations to relate the crisis of Berlin to the larger crisis facing the world. That larger crisis is represented by the^ absence of effective law in the relationships of nations, and the likelihood of aggression in a situation in which nations are allowed to decide for themselves what their security requires.
Mr. Khrushchev has warned that he will not be intimidated by what the United Nations may decide. If this is the case, then this should be the central issue, rather than Berlin alone. If the Soviet wishes to take the position that it is stonily opposed to any attempt to settle differences among nations on the basis of world law and world will, then the entire human community should consider the implications of this fact. In any event,
[Stage Direction]
Supply-External Affairs
the issue of Berlin is not just whether the United States is right or the Soviet union is right. The issue is whether the contending nations have the right to proceed without regard for the lives and opinions of others. Mankind is involved and mankind has a right to be consulted. There can be no more hideous arrogance than is represented by a policy that involves other peoples without their fullest participation in any determination.
Not until the United Nations is made central in any attack on the Berlin problem, and not until the power of world public opinion is tapped, can we or anyone say that the only alternative to Soviet intransigence in Berlin is nuclear force.
You may say, Mr. Chairman, that this is vague idealism. Well, perhaps it is, but surely it is the only kind of thing in the long run, which can save us from annihilation. Last night the hon. member for Niagara Falls said that "Canada has no preordained destiny." Our destiny will be what we deserve and work for. Well, Canada has no preordained destiny; neither has the world. Our destiny in the world is what we make it, and we can make it today, if we so desire, one which will make possible the good life for all people beyond the dreams of all previous generations, or we can make it a wasteland of ruin and destruction. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, and I conclude with his words, "We are on the brink".
Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I regard it as an honour as well as a responsibility to take a part, however small, in this debate which deals with matters of such inexpressible gravity. We have just listened to a speech from a highly respected member of this house who has experience beyond almost any of us in external affairs. He talked plainly with no attempt to conceal the gravity of the situation we face.
As I listened yesterday to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has worked so assiduously on these questions since he took on his present job and has come to know so much of the world, I was struck with the fact of the grave words he used. I should like to quote a few of them because he is calling on us to make efforts and sacrifices such as we have known in the past. In fact he calls on us as possibly having to do things that we knew only in wartime. We have never learned, so far as I can discover, that the state deserves any service in peacetime such as we gave in wartime. I should now like to read a word or two from what the minister said yesterday as to the challenge we face. He said, as reported in the Globe and Mail of this morning:
Perhaps we have had enough of the soft life anyway. But the road ahead is certainly going to be hard and there will be tension for a long, long time. We might just as well face that fact. From Canadians courage will be required, both physical


and moral, and sacrifice, and I believe above all, a return to our deep abiding fundamental faiths. If we face this challenge we will win through.
I also wish to refer to the speech made last Saturday, I think it was, by the Prime Minister to the bar association because I welcomed so greatly what he said then. It seemed to me he gave a very much needed lead all over the world when he said quite frankly that we could not expect everything we wanted. He said that we should not expect to gain all our ends. Any final solution he said, is bound to contain "certain elements distasteful to the west" as well as "features unpalatable to the U.S.S.R." One of the things I want to say today-I hope perhaps it may win some hearing-is that I think we have got into the habit of dividing the world into two kinds of people, people who believe in the capitalist system and are good and people who believe in the socialist or communist system and are bad. I think this is a wholly artificial and even childish attitude.
Within the last generation we have worked twice with the Russians in wartime, and were we glad to have them. It almost seems a perversity of fate that we now find ourselves in the position in which we are. Nevertheless I hope we will never despair and I see no reason to despair. Even today there comes some encouragement. I think the interview between Khrushchev and the United States journalist, Sulzberger, shows that there is more than a ray of hope. If Khrushchev had said, "We can smash you all to pieces and we are going to be sitting pretty", I would have been worried. I have not read the full text but I understand Khrushchev said, in effect, "We will both be smashed up". That statement seems to me a great step forward.
I always have it in the back of my mind that Khrushchev, like everyone else in such a position, may be doing a certain amount of bluffing and that he may even occasionally have a quiet laugh at the consternation he is causing. After the interview he gave to Sulzberger, no one will make me believe that he is going to push off with all the chances that pressing the button would carry.
I am not going to attempt to discuss high political questions or questions of strategy. I am not sufficiently versed in them and I think they have been dealt with adequately. All I aim to do today is to say some things which perhaps may win credence as to what the ordinary man should be doing at this time and where people who are not in government, who are not in diplomacy, just ordinary guys, you might say, living their lives, come into the picture. I should like to speak along that line.
I like to look back. I was thinking today of the irony of the situation. I, unfortunately,

can look back to 1914. I remember how we thanked God tor the Russians. I remember what terrible anxieties we went through when they cracked up in the winter of 1917. As I read the lives ot the leaders of those days I realize that I did not understand the terrible strains they were under in the winter of 1917-18 before we had the great German attack in March. That was our experience with the Russians and it was the same again in the second world war after a false start, if you like. Nevertheless, you will remember what Churchill said about them when they entered the conflict. He said in effect that he might not approve of everything they did but they were good soldiers and we were glad to have them. That is a free paraphrase of what he said but that is its effect and we certainly were glad to have them.
Then we came to the time after the war and we encountered ideological difficulties which were so great, and which we have allowed to become so decisive. I sometimes wonder whether we have needed to allow them to become so great. I am going to make a great confession. I have socialist friends. I go and have dinner in their houses. Apparently there are certain kinds of socialists who are not respectable but I do not think their viewpoint prevails too much in our Canadian thinking. As I read United States publications, however, I sometimes wonder where their tirades are taking them.
I think we should remind ourselves that we are talking about ideologies. For some centuries the Protestants and the Catholics tore each other to pieces. They were all good Christians but they were busy tearing each other to pieces. They do not do it so much now. We have learned how to live together and I think we have got to learn something from that experience so far as our relations with the Russians are concerned. In my opinion it is terribly important that we should. My friend asks me if that includes Presbyterians. I realize that Presbyterians are a tough breed but I think it does. I think there is a basis of reasonableness in a Presbyterian if you pursue it far enough.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is a long pursuit.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, between the Baptists and the Presbyterians it may be about 50-50. I want to introduce a word which I understand has become almost a naughty word in the United States, the word "coexistence". Apparently it has now come to mean almost the same as appeasement which, of course, was a very naughty word in the 30's particularly. I want to take the word "coexistence" and ask hon. members to consider what it means. We know, of course, what it means, literally. In plain words it just means living together.
Supply-External Affairs
I was interested to find that that great historian Toynbee, who surveys the centuries in the same way most of us look back on last week, makes this comment which I think is worth reading. It is quite short and I believe it is profoundly true. He said:
Now for the first time in history the whole human race has been united on the military plane.
That, I suppose, is true and if it is true it is a truth that affects all of us profoundly- the whole world united on the military plane. You can go on from that and argue that in view of that fact there is only one thing for the world to do and that is to become united on other planes. At any rate, in the meantime surely any sensible person is entitled to say "coexistence".
What does coexistence mean? First of all I think it means that we recognize that we are not always in the right. In my opinion that is important. We are extremely critical of the Russians now because they make rather devastating remarks about us, our way of life, our society, and what they are going to do to us, but let us not forget that for a long time, particularly after the first war when socialism and communism were young, we were very high and mighty. We proclaimed to the world that they never could succeed and in fact we treated them with a good deal of disdain. It is not altogether surprising that they take a critical view of us. Nevertheless, do not forget that even after all that, when the second war came and common sense prevailed we urged them to join us and they did join us and were of great help, as we know.
I feel that coexistence implies two things. As I have tried to say, it implies give and take. As the Prime Minister said, it does not mean that we should always get our own way. It does not mean that we think we are always right. In his speech I thought the Prime Minister was very wise in abandoning the pretense that everything we did was right and that if there were negotiations we must get everything and give nothing. I am not at all sure that he has not already had some influence in the world diplomacy as a result of that speech.
I am glad to see that Khrushchev, whatever his motives are, is again suggesting negotiation and also, as I said a moment ago, he is not pretending that if the ultimate evil came Russia would come out of it easily. As I said, coexistence implies two things, the first being give and take. In the second place, it implies that we believe that there are certain good things that the other people have, certain things from which we can learn, certain things which our way of life can get from them, certain ways in which we can associate happily with each other. I feel there should be

Supply-External Affairs far more of that kind of thing than there is. Suppose you could imagine such a state of affairs, as the thought which occurred to me this morning, that a group of mad men got into power in Canada and in the United States and set out to bring the two countries to war. I think the citizens of Canada and United States would sit back and laugh at them. I know that is a fantastic suggestion but I am only making it because it seems to me we should not pretend to ourselves that there is no use having anything to do with the individual Russian, that he does not count.
There was a popular play many years ago involving a little principality on the northwest frontier of India. A highly sophisticated and educated Cambridge man-there are educated Cambridge men-was the head of the principality. A brutal and horrible religious ceremony was going to take place. One of his Cambridge friends said, "Surely you are not going to stand by and let that kind of thing happen". "Look", he said, "even the most absolute monarch depends on the consent of the governed. My rule would not last 24 hours if I tried to stop it." That is what he said and I am not at all sure there is not a basic truth in it. When people say that the Russians are ready to rebel it is never very convincing to me. Incidentally, if I may digress for a moment I should like to refer to a very interesting letter which I commend to everyone in this chamber. It was from a man in Moscow. It was addressed to the Globe and Mail which was sporting enough to publish it. It was quite an attack on the Globe and Mail or an editorial in the Globe and Mail. As I remember it, the editorial was headed "The Servile State". In any event the word "servile" was in it. I took this article to the publisher. I did not see him but I left a message for him congratulating him on publishing the editorial and saying, "I want you to read that editorial. I think you will find a good many things in it for you and me to answer". This letter was reasonably written and was really an attempt to answer the suggestion that in Russia they were being tyrannized over and that they hated what was happening. I do not think we can believe that is the situation. You cannot give the figures as to Russian increase in production, as to what they have done in the realm of science which we used to jeer at not so many years ago, without having the feeling that these are people of great achievement.
What I wish to say and to get across is what can be done by the ordinary man. We have in this country many people who know a great deal about Russian civilization. I think of the people who are interested in music, in the ballet and in art. They know a

great deal about those matters. They surpass the rest of us, including myself, who know almost nothing about these matters. Should we not face the situation if we believe in coexistence. As it was put by a friend of mine the other day, it is a question of coexistence or no existence. That remark is worth thinking about. I wish I had thought of it myself. If that it true-and I am speaking of the ordinary citizen-we cannot leave public relations just to the few hard pressed people who are bearing the heavy burden of government.
When you come to think of what should be done you may say, "Well, is anything going to be done?" The answer is, no, nothing is going to be done unless we are greatly concerned. Speeches have been made in this house which would indicate that those who made the speeches would be ready to do a great deal.
A few things that can obviously be suggested that should be done of course, are that the universities should do much more for Russian learning, that we should have more Russian music, although of course, we have a great deal. We are already playing games with Russians. The drama, of course, is a common feature. The other thing, of course, is the press. We should know more about Russia. Our press should do more, our radio should do more. I come back again to this very simple argument: Do you believe that over the years we need to practice this coexistence? You may say that it is extremely difficult at the moment when the Russians seem to spend most of their time proclaiming that we are warmongers. I admit that it is extremely hard to put up with that sort of thing when we know how unsound it is. But then it seems to me that it would not need tens of thousands of people coming here but rather it would need only a reasonable number of intelligent Russian tourists coming to this country to find out that all this talk about our wanting war is crazy, and that this propaganda is crazy. I understand that in some of the eastern countries, when television got out there and they saw for the first time the kind of life that we were really living here, they were no longer content to put up with the kind of economic existence they were having. I mention that matter merely because I am trying very hard to suggest what can be done by the ordinary person who goes about his business, who is a decent fellow to live with and who would probably think that he could no more have influence on what is happening in Russia than he could fly to heaven. But I suggest that these things could be done and should be done; and that once we could get across the idea that the people

in Russia and the people in Canada are not so very different, it might have its effect. My mind went back today to those lines by Rudyard Kipling with respect to Tommy Atkins. Tommy is soliloquizing:
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck 'im out, the brute!"
But it's "Thank you Mr. Atkins" when the guns begin to shoot.
Then somewhere else he makes Tommy Atkins say:
We ain't no blood red 'eroes And we ain't no black guards too But single men in barricks Most remarkable like you.
That is a trivial thing to introduce into this solemn assembly but somehow or other it seems that if we could get across the idea that these people in Russia are people very much like ourselves and if we could somehow have it brought home to us in the press and so on, I believe it might have some effect.
These are trivial and rather obvious thoughts that I have tried to express. The only excuse for them is that I believe that not one tenth of 1 per cent of the people in the country at this time have ever thought there was any duty on them to take any part. They thought that it should be left to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition who know about these things. It is true that they know about these things and are doing the best they can. However, it seems to me that the ordinary Canadian citizen is deeply concerned in this matter and that he has a duty to find out if there is anything he can do about the matter. I suggest with some confidence that our universities, churches, newspapers, theatres and ballet could do something, if somehow we could get across to them the idea that they are great makers of public opinion, that here is a job to be done and that coexistence is not a matter for a month or a year but is a continuing matter. It is a matter of a way of life and particularly when we consider the countries that are on balance. I think it was Chester Bowles who recorded that some Indian statesman had said to him. "You people in the west are on trial. It is going to be a question whether you or the communists can do most to help with economic problems in the underdeveloped countries. Don't you people lose out". I sometimes think of what we would feel like if some fine day we found that India had decided to incline the other way. However, that is another matter and it is no time to be introducing it now. I have been glad to have a small part in this debate.


Mr. Nugent:: In this debate some distinguished speakers have taken part. The subject is the gravest one that I think the house can face. As a rather humble backbencher I
Supply-External Affairs venture to speak in the hope that I may add something to the debate. By way of preface I may say that I intend to be somewhat critical of western foreign policy as it has been followed for some time. I am not entirely convinced that I am correct and that everyone else is wrong. However, I am much buoyed up by that theory of argument that if I am wrong, then perhaps the right policy will be shown up and be proven even more right by contrast with it. I feel that I must be critical because, in my opinion to date, western policy has not been too successful. There are two pieces of evidence I think that back me up in this opinion. One is the present world situation in which we are on the brink of war. The second is the fact that over the last few years communism, a system that we have despised, hated and fought so strongly against, has been able to make such great inroads and such great progress in the rest of the world.
First, as to the matter of brink of war or the situation today, may I say this. I have been alarmed by some of the speeches made in the house and by speaking with some people across the country who talk so calmly about the possibility of war. Every time you mention the possibility of war they seem to give you the answer, "Well, what are you going to do? Give in to the communists?"
I do not think it is a simple matter of one or the other. I think that either one is unthinkable. Of course, the task of diplomacy today is to make sure that both are avoided. However, I do believe-and here is where I differ with many of my friends-that the possibility of war today is worse than communism.
Frankly, what we fear about communism is that were we to become subjected to that system we would lose so many of those things we treasure so much; our freedom, our democratic system and all those wonderful things we have been able to gain in modern civilization, mostly because we have had the benefits of that system.
However, I do not think we gain much by comparing the present situation to the days before the last world war or by talking about appeasement. If there were a war today we would lose much more than we could possibly lose to the communists. If there were a war I am convinced there would be no vestige of civilization left in the world. If humanity could survive at all, I think the disruption of ordinary life would be so great that there would be no type of ordered government whatsoever and we would have the most horrible of all situations in human affairs, complete anarchy. All that would straighten

Supply-External Affairs out that situation would be a regimentation so tight and so severe that communism would be benevolent in comparison.
Surely we cannot take so lightly the possibility of our blind fight against communism leading us into a danger of something even greater, talk about it or even think about the possibility. Surely it is the time to stop and look. Instead of merely saying, "What nasty fellows those communists are", we should say, "Have we done everything we can to protect ourselves and the rest of the world from this frightening holocaust that threatens us?"
I am buoyed up somewhat in my critical attitude by the thought that today there are some 25 uncommitted nations in the world which refuse to join what I call the anticommunist bloc; which are not on our side in the cold war. Surely if after the amounts of money this house has voted, after the extreme gestures of generosity made by the western world toward new and emerging nations, the amounts of money poured in on foreign aid and programs of one type and another, those 25 nations are still unwilling to join us, it could be just possible that our conduct and our character have not been so blameless and so spotless that we should not look critically at ourselves.
I firmly believe that perhaps the most basic error we have made is in being anti-communist first and pro-democratic second. We have seen examples of this in the manner in which some tottering regimes have been bolstered up in the Far East, for instance, where the first test seems to have been. What is the position of these people who are fighting for power on each side in this country? Which group is the most anti-communist? Which group would make the greatest contribution to our side in terms of power against the communists?" Then we pour in the money.
Surely the question that should occur to the minds of Christian, democratic people, should be, "How best can we help these people to achieve those things that they lack? How best can we help them secure a form of government that will give them the most they can obtain of those things that we treasure most?"
I suggest it has been this course of conduct, this indiscriminate choosing of allies that has caused some of the uncommitted nations to be somewhat sceptical of our methods and to appear downright ungrateful for such assistance as we have given them.
Today I think that Russia is afraid of us, as we are afraid of her. There is no doubt in my mind, having looked at the type of immigrants of various races from around the world that we have in this country, that basically the citizens of Russia, Japan, China, Poland or Britain are not that much different.

I think it is not just the western world and the citizens of their countries that are deathly afraid of war, but the citizens of all countries around the world.
I suggest that if those uncommitted nations are suspicious of our methods and our actions when we have been trying to help them, surely it should be understandable why Russia, which has been the object of our anticommunism, should find herself so unwilling to believe we are at all sincere in our protestations for peace and our saying that we do not mean her any harm. It seems to me there are a few common misconceptions which, while they may have been mentioned now and then, are not taken seriously enough into consideration or do not underly our thinking if we are really trying to find a peaceful solution.
First, the hon. member for Greenwood mentioned coexistence. It is a peculiarity of the thinking today, in the United States particularly, that to mention the word "coexistence" puts one sort of into the appeasement class or that of a fellow traveller. Let us look at it very realistically. The communists are there in many countries. Their system is well and firmly entrenched. They are extremely powerful.
There is more than that. There is no doubt that they have the solid support of a large segment of their population. In fact, we can see no reasonable hope that in the very near future they are likely to be overthrown. They are there. They are strong. They are going to remain there unless they can be overthrown by force of arms and, as I said before, I think that any question of overthrow by force of arms means we will be out of the frying pan and into the fire. It cannot be done without destroying us all.
Therefore peaceful coexistence is the only existence there is. It is not an alternate form of action; it is the only possibility. Therefore we must do all we can to try to relieve the tension which might destroy us all. Certainly if we are going to live in peace with our neighbours it would behove us to have a foreign policy more in keeping with our Christian, democratic principles than merely an anti-communist line.
I am all too familiar with an American saying which seems to underly much of their thinking. It was almost a battle cry before the last world war. That saying is, "Make the world safe for democracy". In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, there can be no more dangerous expression. Democracy, by its very nature, can never be safe. It is an idea of government, an ideology. As such it is always going to be under attack by all other ideologies. In fact, by its very nature, in order to work properly it must always allow all other ideologies full

scope and full discussion. Our concept of democracy is not a symbol which can be put up like a flag and held just so. Our concept of democracy today may be vastly different from that which may evolve in 20 years time. Anti-communist policy tends to make our policies all become rigid, and a democracy that becomes rigid leaves itself without its own greatest defence, the fact that it is pliable and can bend to meet all emergencies.
Democracy cannot stand still. It cannot be solid and unbending. It cannot become so dedicated to something like anti-communism that the ordinary citizens in the street are afraid to talk about our way of life in comparison with the communist system. Once we start to do that, we lose any chance of improving our own system. When we lose any chance of improving our own system, we give a chance to the communists whom we are trying very hard to defeat. It seems strange to me that whereas communism is supposed to be a very rigid thing it has throughout the world evolved and changed enough to enable it to keep ahead of us. We have had many manifestations of the extent to which anti-communism will go in our country and the harm it can do to democracy. One example, for instance, is McCarthyism. We can lose, by our own anti-communist struggle, that which we are trying to preserve for ourselves.
We want democracy because it gives us a freedom of action, freedom of speech, freedom of choice and religion. The more we try to channel our efforts into a policy which can only be based on fear and hatred of communism, then the more effectively do we strangle those things which are finest in our own civilization. I believe that in the present world situation not only is it possible for the west and the east to have a war that can destroy civilization, but that any country which has a sufficient stockpile of nuclear arms and the means to deliver them can stand on its own two feet. I do not believe the United States needs any backers in its own defence. Who would dare attack her? There would be no possibility of winning such a war because certainly the amount of destruction would be far greater than any possible gains. Consequently, the United States must feel quite safe standing on its own two feet. The United Kingdom and France are in the same situation.
When we are trying to explain to these uncommitted nations, or in fact to Russia, that our alliances are only defensive alliances and not aimed against Russia, we can at least understand why the Russians fear those alliances. Living in this country as we do and knowing our fellow citizens so well
Supply-External Affairs we sometimes forget that while we are perfectly sure of our motives and our aims, while we know we have so much that we need not look with greed on anyone else's possession, while we have been treated so well by nature and have had so few real enemies, most peoples in the world have not had the advantage of growing up as we have. They cannot take our aims and motives for granted as we do. They cannot even judge them as critically as we do. When I say it is difficult for them to look at our alliances and realize the purpose is only defensive and not offensive and that, for the reasons I have just explained, one country can stand alone and we have banded together for defensive purposes, I mean that even on the basis of western reasoning we can understand why there would be confusion.
I think we too often forget that there are language barriers and other differences in the way in which these people have grown up and lived, differences in the meaning of a word. When one adds all these things together one finds there is a basis for understanding that at least the Russians might have a very real fear of us. There is no doubt, I think, in the minds of most members of this house that we are afraid of the Russians. We have heard their pronouncements about spreading world communism. We do know that they have tried to infiltrate other countries. We do know we have reason to fear communists and the spread of communism. Surely we can understand, therefore, that if we are afraid, they are honestly afraid. If both sides are afraid of a world war, then fear is going to be the complicating factor in negotiations which, while not making it impossible, will make it most difficult to arrive at any solution to our problems.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the western world now has more than sufficient arms and armaments to destroy the Russian world ten times over. I cannot forget that at the end of the last world war we were subjected to V-2 attacks from Germany that were fairly accurate. This was at a time when rockets were practically unknown and there was only 1,000 pounds of t.n.t. in the warhead. Since that time we have had sputniks which have gone into space around the moon. Surely, there cannot be much doubt that there are probably enough intercontinental ballistic missiles stockpiled on either side of the iron curtain to blast the other half of the world. I suggest it is not necessary, therefore, for us to continue to pile proof upon proof of how strong we are and how determined we are.
If, as I suggest, the most difficult factor in negotiations is really fear and not this truculence, then we are only piling fear upon fear.

Supply-External Affairs Could we not afford to make some real gesture by unilaterally dropping some part of our armanent and saying to Russia, "Here, we will start this way." I do not believe we would be exposing ourselves to that much danger. I think we need to show in very concrete form which even the most complex oriental mind can comprehend that our purpose is not aggression. I feel this is part of the reason we have been unable to sell some of the uncommitted nations on our story, and why we do not have the full support of the well meaning nations in the world.
What we have failed to understand is not just the Russian mind but the minds of the members of the new nations. The Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned that these people were too busy with their own problems. This may be one way of putting it, but I should like to say that their problems really should be our first preoccupation. Their welfare and democracy have not been developed as they have in this country. They must strive for such development. They cannot equate, as some people seem to, the concept of the defeat of communism with the gaining of democracy. Those who fought in world war II know that there are other menaces to democracy. Not long ago we fought a war against the Nazis. There are in existence in the world today dictatorships of various kinds. I am sure the United States should have learned a lesson from Cuba, the lesson being that when you have one bad master you do not really fear the possibility of another as much as you fear the one you have. If we are to really achieve peaceful coexistence we must get rid of some of these misconceptions in our thinking.
I do not believe Russia wants war. I started out by saying that the communists have been making great progress without war. I am sure they realize as clearly as we do that war will mean not gain but only destruction. Therefore, since they appear to have such confidence in their system, I honestly believe they would really like to achieve and maintain peace, although perhaps peace on their terms. We do not aid the cause of peace by striving with all our might and bending all our energies in an anti-communist drive. We have not been successful in anticommunist campaigns. There is only one course for us to follow and that is for us to be prodemocracy. The purer democracy is the stronger it will be and the safer we will be. Many of my colleagues have suggested that this is a highly idealistic approach. They say that is all very well but we are dealing with a very nasty fellow. All I can say is that this has always been said any time a danger to democracy has reared its head.


I am one of those who happen to believe that the purer we keep democracy the safer we are. The more above criticism we keep our own actions-the more Christianlike our actions-the less chance there will be of making enemies and certainly there will be less distrust of us. We have to have peaceful coexistence or no existence as was just said. We must begin by removing as much of the fear as we can. Part of the task before us is to remove distrust which can be removed if we are more devoted Christian democrats. I hope that our foreign policy may start to be more prodemocratic and less anti-communist, and I am sure we will have fewer communists.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, it is with a certain amount of trepidation that I rise to take part in this debate because it is my misfortune to follow in the debate such political giants and eloquent statesmen as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the hon. member for Essex East and the Leader of the Opposition.
Yesterday in his calm, cool and collected manner, the minister gave us a most graphic picture of present day world conditions. The hon. member for Essex East who followed, although in different words, made a no less sincere effort to warn Canadians and the people of the free world of the dangers we now face. The Leader of the Opposition whose knowledge of foreign affairs is beyond question delivered an outstanding address which greatly impressed the committee and will, I am sure, impress all Canadians. All hon. members who have participated in the debate have contributed a great deal in placing on the record the thinking of Canadians.
Before entering the chamber yesterday I read an article written by an eminent journalist and reporter who is read by most hon. members of this committee and whose opinion is highly valued. I wish to quote a portion of the article:
It may be that Canadian foreign policy debates fail to impress because few, if any, of the participants have anything of real importance to say. Canadian foreign policy is often a pale reflection of foreign policies devised elsewhere.
Upon reading that portion of the article I was led to expect that I would not be impressed by the debate but I have no hesitation in saying that I have been greatly impressed. Previously I was inclined to feel that probably our foreign policy was dictated by others and by circumstances beyond our control but after hearing the masterful addresses of those who have preceded me in the debate I have altered my thinking. This debate impressed me as I am sure it did all hon.

members of the committee. Undoubtedly it will impress the millions of Canadians who are carefully watching to ascertain what foreign policy Canada is following.
The author of this article attempted to guess what was going to happen. If he had regard for Canada's obligations as a full-fledged member of NATO, as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and as one of the bastions of the free world then certainly he would have known that our foreign policy could not be completely original because it must have regard for and be co-ordinated with the lines of the policies of our allies and associates. On the other hand it is by no means a pale reflection of policies devised elsewhere. What we have heard expressed in the debate is a dynamic, purely Canadian policy dictated by the difficult circumstances that presently exist.
There is another aspect of the debate which greatly impressed me as I am sure it did all Canadians. We saw a spectacle in this house which is a rarity, and which appears only on infrequent occasions. I refer to the fact that we have a bipartisan foreign policy. I hope I am using the right word. It was a spectacle which I had not had the privilege of seeing since I had the honour of coming to this house in 1957. It was a spectacle where the government and the official opposition, in spite of their political differences, closed ranks in time of crisis. All of those who spoke before me agreed with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we do live in a time of crisis. However, it is regrettable that we have not a tripartisan foreign policy, since there are still a few people who would scrap the policy we are Canada declare its complete neutrality, have following, who would scrap NATO and have Canada betray its allies, its friends. Oh, what a comfort it would be to those who threaten our freedom.
Neutrality is a very attractive word, Mr. Chairman. I have heard it outside this house. But history teaches us otherwise. Did neutrality pay off in the last war to countries such as Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway and others? Some people in Canada, intentionally or otherwise, misinterpret the objects and aims of NATO, why this organization was created and on what basis. Why was it necessary 10 or 12 years ago, and why is it necessary today. This country knows, and every member of the NATO organization knows, why this alliance was created. It was created purely for defensive purposes and it stands on those aims today. Let us recall history; let us go back, Mr. Chairman. It was created to stem the tide of communist dictatorship which inundated central Europe and threatened to
Supply-External Affairs complete the conquest of the whole of western Europe. If NATO had not come into existence it is almost a certainty that there would not be a free nation in Europe today in the sense that we understand freedom. Those behind the iron curtain understand freedom differently; they understand democracy differently, but I wager that there would not be a free nation in Europe today. And yet we have people who say "scrap NATO", or who ask Canada to get out of NATO. I know hon. members will agree with me; I know I am making a correct statement.
NATO is a defensive alliance. Does it threaten the red empire? Let us look at the facts. Neither NATO nor any one of its member nations has ever in the past 10 or 12 years since its inception displayed any imperialistic designs on each other or on the red empire behind the iron curtain. Neither NATO nor any one of the member nations of NATO has, in the words of Mr. Khrushchev, "threatened to bury" the communist ideology. However, we have heard from the mouth of the great comrade Khrushchev that he was going to bury us. He made that statement in the United States, but he included us as well. Oh, how he would like to break up the friendship that exists between our two great countries.
We have not made any plans to, and it is not our policy to bury the ideology which is foreign to us, which is unpalatable to us, which is disgusting to us and which we do not wish to accept. Each member of NATO pledged itself to come to the assistance of the other only if attacked, but not to attack first.
I think the Soviets are right when they say that Canadians are peace loving people. All the peoples of every free nation in NATO are peace loving and want peace. They are striving for it. NATO does not threaten the peace or security of the great red empire. There is no incident in history which shows that we threaten the red empire; it is not in our planning. Each member-this includes Canada- knows what threats communism poses to its very existence, to its way of life, to its democratic system of government, to its system of justice and freedom of religion and the press.
I cannot understand how the Soviet bosses believe that NATO is a threat. They warned Greece against allowing certain manoeuvres in the Mediterranean. They threatened to take certain repressive actions if Greece did not get out of the NATO alliance. But NATO does not build 15-foot walls to keep its people in even if they wish to go behind the iron curtain. Look at the thousands and thousands who have crossed the line at the risk of their lives and have abandoned all their worldly possessions to cross into West Berlin. Let us

Supply-External Affairs not forget the thousands and thousands of refugees who have found a home in Canada, who refuse to be repatriated, who refuse to go back. Is there not a reason for this? Have we any such situation in our NATO organization? Why, Mr. Chairman, the NATO organization has been so accommodating that some people think it has gone too far in trying to allay the fears of the communist empire. It has gone so far as to write off the peoples who are behind the iron curtain and who were once free. There is nothing in the policies of NATO to free or help these people to gain their freedom. A typical example, probably the best of all, is the Hungarian uprising in 1956 when not even a finger was raised in defence of these people who were crushed by Russian tanks. The same fate will await any other peoples who dare to rebel against the regime set up by Moscow.
In the opinion of many, NATO may rue the day that it did not adopt as one segment of its policy the freeing of these enslaved peoples. Mr. Khrushchev dares to talk about colonialism. We have become very complacent. We would be so happy to be left alone that we are not concerned about any enslaved nation. We go along with Mr. Khrushchev, with internal domestic policy of the Soviet union, and it is none of our business. We may rue the day that NATO did not threaten the dismemberment of the Soviet union and its great empire, but NATO is a stumbling block in the spread of that godless ideology and it is that stumbling block that hurts. It is not fear that we are going to attack them. We are a strictly defensive alliance. We would not condone or approve any overt action by any of our allies that would start a shooting war. We are a peace loving nation.
I know that colonialism is in the minds of the newly liberated countries as they have been called. Mr. Khrushchev is certainly fostering a spirit of hate, a spirit of revenge in those lands even against so-called benevolent oppressors such as the British empire. But how about his own empire? There is only one head of state so far who has dared to raise his voice on behalf of the enslaved peoples of Europe. That head of state is the head of a member nation of NATO, and he did so in New York on September 26, 1960. I refer to that great address by the Prime Minister of Canada to the United Nations. May I be permitted, Mr. Chairman, to quote a portion of his address. It was reported in the newspapers but I think it deserves to go into the permanent records of parliament.
Indeed in this assembly the membership is composed in a very considerable measure of the graduates of empires, mandates and trusteeships of the United Kingdom, the commonwealth and other nations. I pause to ask this question: How many

human beings have been liberated by the U.S.S.R.? Do we forget how one of the post-war colonies of the U.S.S.R. sought to liberate itself four years ago, and with what results?
It is almost five years ago now.
I say that because these facts of history in the commonwealth and other countries invite comparison with the domination over peoples and territories, sometimes gained under the guise of liberation, but always accompanied by the loss of political freedom. How are we to reconcile the tragedy of the Hungarian uprising in 1956 with Chairman Khrushchev's confident assertion of a few days ago in this assembly? Mr. Khrushchev said: "It has been and always will be our stand that the peoples of Africa, like those of other continents striving for their liberation from the colonial yoke, should establish orders in their countries of their own will and choice.'' That I accept, and I hope that those words mean a change of attitude for the future on the part of those he represents.
What of Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia? What of the freedom loving Ukrainians and many other eastern European peoples which I shall not name for fear of omitting some of them? Mr. Khrushchev went further and said: "Complete and final elimination of the colonial regime in all its forms and manifestations has been prompted by the entire course of world history in the last decades." There can be no double standard in international affairs. I ask the chairman of the council of ministers of the U.S.S.R. to give to those nations under his domination the right of free elections.
All the Prime Minister suggested was giving these people the right of free elections. What did he receive in reply? Desk beating with the boot of the dictator, and the Soviet press with the attitude of a mad dog raked the Prime Minister of Canada over the coals, criticized him and said that it was none of his business, that it was purely a matter of the domestic policy of the Soviet union.
What objection could anyone have to free elections in any one of these states? We are not concerned about what form of government Yugoslavia might choose. We would not be concerned about what form of government Poland, Roumania, Lithuania, Bulgaria and other such countries would establish within their own boundaries as long as it was done through free choice. We would like to know whether Czechoslovakians would vote in favour of the communist regime and to remain as a satellite or colony of Moscow. We would like to know the opinion of these peoples with respect to the domestic policy of this great empire, a domestic policy with which we have not tried to interfere and as to which Mr. Khrushchev says it is none of our business.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. In order to permit the house to proceed to consideration of public and private bills pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave for

the committee to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.


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


RAILWAY ACT
Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-39, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to move the second reading of Bill No. C-39, an act to amend the Railway Act, the explanatory note of which states:
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that representatives of the trucking industry shall have the right to make application to the board of transport commissioners for the disallowance of a competitive rate when they consider that such rate has subjected motor vehicle operators to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
From these explanatory notes that are contained in the bill one might come to the conclusion that this amendment was strictly in the interests of the trucking industry. However, that is not the main purpose of the bill, which is to provide protection for the public interest in regard to freight rates. I say that because the railways in 1957 started some substantial rate reductions by way of what are called truck competitive rates or incentive rates. In some instances, in the western incentive rates that were put into effect in 1957 by the railway, those reductions amounted to as much as 75 per cent of the rate that was then in effect. It is to be realized that it was the advent of truck competition that brought about those reductions. Of course, there should be no objection to the public benefiting from those reductions. However, I think we want to have the safeguard that the railway is not going to be allowed now to reduce the rates to an uneconomic level and therefore put out of business the very firms which brought about these freight rates reductions in the first instance. That is something that has happened very notably in one section of the trucking industry, and I am very conscious of this matter, coming as I do from the province of British Columbia.
The trucking industry started up in the business of hauling automobiles from the plants at Windsor and Oshawa out to Vancouver and they brought about substantial
Railway Act
reductions in the cost of bringing an automobile out to Vancouver and to other parts of British Columbia. Then the railways were allowed to enter into agreed charges which practically eliminated that section of the trucking industry. Some 50 firms started up in that business and, as I say, brought about substantial reductions in the cost of moving an automobile to Vancouver, and they were eliminated by means of the agreed charges. In other instances, other parts of the trucking industry are threatened by these incentive rates and truck competitive rates.
The act at the present time-and I refer to section 334 of the Railway Act-contains certain safeguards. It provides that the railways must charge compensatory rates and that they must not go beyond the cost to the railway to move those goods. However, in the various hearings that have taken place over the years it has been clearly established that, with the number of competitive and incentive rates that are now coming into effect-and I know that a number of years ago there were 30,000 of them-and in the establishing of those 30,000 rates, the railways had beeen questioned some three or four times by the board of transport commissioners as to whether or not those rates were compensatory. They were only asked for information on those three or four occasions. It did not appear to me or, I think, to most of those involved in the hearing, that this was causing any substantial hardship to the railways. However, the Canadian National Railways in particular have protested very strenuously against these restrictions, as they call them. In fact they asked the present royal commission on transportation to eliminate any such restrictions so that they would not be required to show that their rates would be compensatory and so that they could in effect charge any rates they wanted to charge.
In actual fact the railways already have full scope for setting rates to meet their competition and rightly so. I am sure that we would not want to put the railways in a position in which they could not meet their competition. But in view of the large subsidies that are being paid by the Canadian taxpayers to the railway, I feel that we want to have some safeguard in order to make sure that the railways are not engaging in unfair competition. That is why I suggest that this amendment is necessary.
On the face of it, if two industries are on equal terms of course free competition itself would ensure the lowest possible rate to the consumer and that is the ultimate result we want to attain. However, the conditions as between the trucking industry and the rail

Railway Act
industry are not equal by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the resources of the railway are far beyond those of the average trucking firm. Even though trucking firms have grown to be a great deal larger than they used to be, they certainly cannot compete with the financial resources of the railways. They could not afford to sustain a loss over a period of time as a railway could do. The railway could charge a low rate from point A to point B for a few months and eliminate truck competition or do as they have been doing over the past year or so, namely buying out trucking firms which are put in an untenable position and are unable to continue. The trucking industry is also faced with that kind of competition; it is faced not only with rail competition but with the competition of the truck lines that are now being acquired by the railroads. I have here a letter which I think went to most members of parliament. It is from a trucking operator in Winnipeg, namely Reimer Express Lines Limited. It is dated June 29, 1961, and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Browne:
Did you know that East-West Transport Ltd., a crown owned, financed, and subsidized truckline, is one of the biggest rate cutters in the business? They are charging rates without regard to operating costs. If this continues, they will succeed in putting taxpayers out of business with remarkable speed.
In view of the apparent losses East-West has had since the Canadian National Railways purchased it, I thought this would be of interest to you.
It is signed by D. S. Reimer, vice president and general manager. As to the part to which he refers there, namely the apparent losses of East-West Transport, this was confirmed in the committee on railways, air lines and shipping when there was produced last year by the hon. member for Port Arthur a document which indicated quite clearly that the trucking operations of the Canadian National for the most part had suffered a substantial loss. It was only the inclusion of one large firm which had made a substantial profit which was able to bring them into a position where they said they did not lose any money in their over-all trucking operations. However, the fact is that several truck lines owned and operated by the railway were engaging in competition with private enterprise and were operating at uneconomical rates.
In this country we have always stressed the benefits of private enterprise. I think we are getting into a dangerous situation. This matter is of concern, of course, to the general public because I am sure that no one in this country wants to see private business put out of existence and replaced by government operated businesses, especially under unfair conditions such as those. It is of course of great concern
[Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
to people in the management of trucking industries who have invested their money and to the private citizens in this country who have invested their money in the trucking business which brought about lower freight rates to the people of Canada. They feel they are being discriminated against in the manner in which they are being treated. Of course, the matter is also of great concern to the employees of the trucking industry, of which I might say there are some 90,000. I believe most members of parliament have received representations from some of the unions of the employees of the trucking industry in the last few days. I recall receiving some of them myself last year. In fact, I think I read into the record of Hansard some of the resolutions that had been passed by the various teamster unions across Canada at that time. I went on to point out that the railways and the trucking industry are not on equal terms when it comes to competition because in this fiscal year the railways will receive some $91 million in subsidies from the federal government. In addition to that, Canadian National Railways had a deficit of some $67 million, which is also paid by the Canadian taxpayer. That makes a total of $158 million being paid out of the federal treasury to the railways.
I feel sure that under those circumstances every hon. member of this house would want to ensure that this money is not being used to provide unfair competition with a private enterprise in this country, especially when we consider the fact that the freight rate reductions I have spoken of would never have been brought about without the advent of trucking competition.
I think if the railways are now able to establish that they can cut their rates by as much as 75 per cent we are entitled to ask what kind of rates they were charging before. If they can now cut their rates by 75 per cent and find them to be economical what was the justification for the kind of rates they were charging before? Why should they now be allowed to put out of business those firms which brought about reductions up to that amount?
In many instances there even seems to be some doubt as to the justification for these rates to meet the competition, although that is one of the terms of the Railway Act in section 334, as I have pointed out. That section states that the railways must establish that the competition exists, rates are compensatory and are not lower than necessary to meet the competition.
I have here an article published in the Financial Post of June 3, 1961. It makes a comparison between truck rates and railway

rates on certain new incentive rates which had been published by Canadian National Railways at that time. The article says:
Trucks only handle freight shipments up to about 45,000 pounds. Even at this truck-load limit, the new railway incentive rates are as much as 20 per cent cheaper.
But when certain commodities are heavy and not bulky and, say, 100,000 pounds can be loaded into a boxcar, the railways' new rate could be 50 per cent less than a trucker's "good" rate.
There would seem to be a reduction far below what is necessary to meet competition. Nobody is going to object to the fact that the public will benefit by lower freight rates being in force, provided this is done on a reasonable basis. However, I suggest that if the railways are cutting rates by anything from 50 per cent to 75 per cent, it needs a good deal of explanation to determine why they find it reasonable and economical to cut them to that level. What assurance will we have that if they force their competition out of business they will not immediately put the rates back up and we will find ourselves in the same position as before?
Throughout the years the argument has been put forward that it does not matter too much if a few trucking companies are forced out of business because it is easy for them to start up; there is not a great capital expenditure involved. It has been said that if one company goes out of business, another one will start and we will soon have the same protection. However, I submit that is not the case any longer, because to operate a transcontinental trucking business today does not involve the kind of trucking operations we had in Canada a number of years ago. A number of years ago a man could start up with one or two trucks at a minimum cost and was able to go into business. There are substantial licensing conditions at the present time. One must have a communications system across Canada, such as teletype, in order to control the operations over the vast distances these trucks must now travel. A truck operator must have depots and terminals across the country at which to service his vehicles and in which to store the goods. In addition, the cost of motor vehicles has increased very tremendously since the early days. The large trucks that run across Canada today cost $40,000 a unit.
Therefore one can see it is not so easy as it used to be to start up and get into the trucking business. Even if one is able to meet all the licensing requirements which are in force today, and all the other conditions, he must still raise a very substantial amount of capital. I submit that the argument which has been used in the past is not valid at the present time.
Railway Act
I believe that at the present time the board is limited in its powers to regulate the industry because of the fact that so many rates are being dealt with by the board. Even though they have the power, of their own volition, to investigate rates, there simply is not the time to investigate each one. It is only when a complaint comes before the board that they are really able to deal with that rate.
At the present time the trucking industry is not in a position to appeal to the board of transport commissioners. This was established quite clearly in 1957 in connection with the western incentive rates which, as I said, reduced rail rates by as much as 75 per cent. For the first time the trucking industry became seriously alarmed at the assault the railways were making upon them and appealed to the board of transport commissioners. Before the board went ahead to hear that particular case they decided the trucking industry was not a party under the Railway Act and therefore had no right of appeal to the board of transport commissioners.
The argument has been put forward in some quarters that the trucking industry is not regulated by the board of transport commissioners and therefore should not have the right of appeal. I suggest that is not a valid argument because most of the other people who already have the right of appeal to the board of transport commissioners do not come under that board either. Yet that argument has never been used against them.
The provincial governments, for instance, have the right of appeal to the board of transport commissioners, and a shipper has a right of appeal to the board. Shippers are not controlled by the federal government, and certainly the provincial governments are not controlled by the federal government. In fact if there is any argument at all in that direction it favours the trucking industry, because whether or not the federal government exercises control over the trucking industry, it is in fact the responsibility of the federal government to regulate that industry. This was decided by the privy council in 1955.
The federal government does not choose to exercise that jurisdiction as fully as it might by virtue of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. The federal government constituted the various provincial boards in Canada with federal powers for the purpose of controlling the trucking industry.
I submit that if this is the way the federal government chooses to regulate the trucking industry, that is not the fault of the industry and certainly should not be any bar to its being heard before the board of transport

Railway Act
commissioners. It seems ridiculous that this industry, which is the industry mainly affected by decisions of the board of transport commissioners, should have no access whatsoever to that board.
This bill is similar in nature to one passed by the house in the first half of the session. That bill dealt with agreed charges. At that time all parties unanimously agreed that the trucking industry should have the right of appeal in regard to agreed charges. I submit that the same considerations exist in regard to competitive rates. Because of the vast financial resources of the railways and, as I have pointed out, the subsidies being paid to them by the federal government-that is, by the Canadian taxpayer-I believe it would certainly be in the public interest that the trucking industry should have this right of appeal.
I can assure the house that my purpose in presenting the bill is to insure that the public will have the lowest possible freight rates.
I have no objection whatever to seeing that the railways lower their rates to the lowest possible economic level. In those fields where they are able to operate at lower rates than the trucking industry, then they should be able to have that business, provided they can operate economically at those rates. I think we want to ensure that we are not going to be paying money out of the federal treasury in the form of subsidies or paying annual deficits in order to have the money used to set rates at uneconomic levels.
By the same token, where the trucking industry is the most efficient operator and can operate at the lowest rate to provide its service for the public of this country, then it should be able to have that business and not be cut out of it by unfair competition. I am sure the house will agree with all these considerations. Certainly it is only a very minor consideration that is being asked in this bill. Before any change can or would be made by the board of transport commissioners, it would have to be clearly established that the railroads were doing something not contemplated by the present legislation. In other words, before the board would make any change in any rate or hamper the railways in any way, there would have to be a violation of the existing law.
Surely, it is not too much to ask that the trucking industry, which has done so much to bring about lower freight rates in Canada, should have the right of appeal. I know this is something which has always found favour in both the House of Commons and the other place when it has come to protecting the rights of people and industries in general. Hon. members have always felt these people should have the right of appeal. I am sure

the house will want to give consent to the passage of this measure in order to protect the public and insure the lowest possible freight rates in Canada as well as the most efficient transportation system we can have.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill because I believe it to be in the best interests of justice as applied to our transportation system. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) upon bringing this matter to the attention of the house at this time, as well as upon his able presentation. If there is one subject upon which the members of this house are agreed, it is the importance of cheap transportation. This amendment, if adopted, will give an important branch of the transportation industry recognition that it exists for the purpose of serving an ever increasing number of Canadian people. It should, therefore, no longer be looked upon as an unimportant adjunct to our older established methods of transportation, namely the railways and lake shipping.
The trucking industry, from a very small beginning in the twenties, has now attained a status of considerable proportions, with an investment in excess of $1 billion and carrying more than one hundred million tons of merchandise. The Canadian trucking associations of Canada in their submission to the government last June emphasized that the rapid growth of the country and the spectacular progress of technology during recent years had profoundly changed the structure of Canadian transportation services. A serious problem has been created of adjusting transportation policies to meet the new situation created by the public demand for a more efficient and up to date transportation service, such as having goods delivered to your door.
In the first volume of the report of the royal commission on transportation the transformation of the Canadian transportation set-up was summarized in the following words, and I quote from page 26 of that report:
Since the end of world war II, the transportation environment in Canada has been transformed from a monopolistic one, very much dominated by the railways, into a highly competitive one in which a number of different modes of transport are vying actively for the available traffic . .. the consequences of this evolutionary development in terms of growth in the systems' capacity, efficiency and conditions of service have been, as we have emphasized, of substantial benefit to the country as a whole.
I wish to submit, Mr. Speaker, that the four maritime provinces, through their transportation commissions, expressed similar sentiments, adding that competition between the different forms of transportation is highly desirable. The trucking industry, therefore,

should be considered with the other types of transportation media as the instruments of national policy. The proof of the importance of modern motor transport is found in the entrance of both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways into the trucking industry. They are now in it in a big way, having purchased two of the largest truck lines in Canada doing business from coast to coast.
All this bill provides is the right of appeal to the board against any discriminatory rates, and the right to be heard in open court. I am particularly keen on the passage of this bill because the lakehead cities of Fort William and Port Arthur are approximately 850 or 900 miles from Toronto and 420 miles from Winnipeg. As a result of the distance between the heavier centres of population, we have never received due consideration from the railways in so far as fair freight rates are concerned. I can give an example of this discrimination. The freight rate on canned goods shipped from Chatham, Ontario to Fort William is $1.57 per one hundred pounds. When a wholesaler in Fort William ships these canned goods to Geraldton or Marathon, there is a charge of $1.37 per one hundred pounds for a journey of approximately 200 miles. As I say, this came about as a result of the horizontal freight rate increases that occurred during the last ten years. It was this policy of horizontal rate increases which damaged our chances to compete with other parts of the country, and which worked to our considerable disadvantage in comparison with the eastern parts of the province of Ontario.
This unfair policy, which we hope the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation will remedy in due course, has had the effect of turning shippers to and from the lakehead to motor transport for some of their needs. It is because of these cogent reasons that northwestern Ontario has suffered more than its share from unbalanced freight rates which, directly or indirectly, everyone must pay. Higher freight costs, I submit, have a direct relationship with higher than average unemployment.
I think we should preserve the competitive spirit in Canadian transportation. The government should preserve competition as it battles cartels and combines. An independent trucking industry should be given an opportunity to compete and survive for the benefit of all Canadians. The passing of this bill will at least give the trucking industry a chance to speak and fight for itself, from which in the end no one would suffer but rather each would enjoy the fruit of his labour.
90205-6-514
Railway Act
(Translation):


Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is read for the second time, I should like to point out to hon. members some considerations which made me support this legislation. As did the hon. member who preceded me, I shall commend the mover of the bill, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) who, I think, is sincerely concerned in the trucking industry, as he, indeed, proved to be when a somewhat similar legislation was submitted-as he mentioned a few moments ago-i.e. when Bill C-33 was brought forward in the first half of this session and, as we may recall, was passed unanimously by the house.
I have no intention of repeating what other hon. members said before me about trucking, but, as they stressed, that industry is constantly gaining in importance in this country. It should therefore, to my mind, certainly have at least the opportunity of competing on equal terms with the National Railways or the Canadian Pacific Railway company.
I believe it has already been proved in various ways that the railway companies are competing unfairly with the truckers in Quebec and throughout Canada. I shall mainly deal with the matter with regard to the province of Quebec. Obviously, such competition sometimes puts the trucking industry in a somewhat precarious position. It is known that the National Railways are subsidized by the federal government, and that they use these amounts in a way prejudicial to the trucking industry, because the truckers have to face a heavier competition when the railways are resorting to what could be called unfair practices by lowering their rates below cost price.
We must not forget that truckers pay income tax, that they pay taxes and contribute their share to the federal treasury, and further that in the end that money is used to create difficulties for them.
Obviously others tell us that railways and railway employees also had to face competition from truckers especially in the last few years and since the first world war.
Now, this amendment proposed in Bill C-39 will enable each group, the trucking industry on the one hand and the railways on the other hand, amending as it does clause 334 of the Railway Act, to submit representations to the board of transport commissioners in order that their views may be to known.
I support the bill because it will permit free competition between the operators of the various means of transportation we have in this country.
I feel, as was pointed out by previous speakers, that we must protect the interests

Railway Act
of the general public in the whole country. Therefore, if some areas of the country have obtained rate reduction on account of the competition from truckers, I feel that it should be admitted that railway freight rates should not be set below cost and this in order that competition may be fair.
If the freight rates or the railway rates are below cost, they necessarily threaten the trucking companies already doing business in the country, and since the railways, and particularly the Canadian National Railways, have deficits and it is the government which pays those deficits, I feel that the situation is unfair for truckers.
Furthermore, I know that the trucking industry has already made representations to the federal government on that matter, as did the Quebec trucking industry which, last autumn, forwarded a brief to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) to set out its situation and even its opposition to any additional subsidy to the C.N.R.
All those questions are under consideration. Several have already been thoroughly dealt with by the government and others will be considered.
I therefore believe that it would be wise to pass this amendment so as to let the trucking industry put forward its views to the board of transport commissioners when they argue that the railways are competing with them in a discriminatory or dishonest way by abnormally cutting their transport rates.
For these reasons, I shall vote in favour of the bill.


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I will take but a few minutes to say that I wholeheartedly support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) under which the trucking industry will have a right of appeal to the board of transport commissioners regarding charges agreed upon by the Canadian National Railways or other railway companies and the shippers.
What I know of the trucking industry, I know from the submissions that were sent to us by the Quebec trucking association, but I believe the problem is the same in the nine other provinces.
I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I had the opportunity in the past to discuss that matter with him, and I know that he has a thorough knowledge of this serious problem which, I can safely say, threatens our country's trucking industry.	,

As was pointed out by a previous speaker, we adopted in this house, not very long ago, a bill guaranteeing some fundamental freedoms in this country. I feel that if a decision is taken by such a responsible public agency as the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, those who might fear encroachment of their rights should be entitled to appeal before those who have rendered a decision.
The Quebec trucking association, through the medium of Mr. Camille Archambault, has submitted to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer), several briefs of which copies were circulated among us. In my opinion, it is time the government should take action in this particular field.
I do not want to be a hypocrite and say that I will vote in favour of the bill, because I strongly suspect that the question will never come to a vote. My only purpose in taking part in this debate is to make it clear to the government that there is a serious problem in the trucking industry and that it rests with the government to introduce in this house during the present session or the next, a bill to remedy the situation that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway dealt with so efficiently.
The trucking industry employs thousands of Canadians, and revenues of taxes levied from Canadians should not contribute to the ruin of several companies engaged in this type of business in our country. If the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada issues orders or gives rulings which are or could be prejudicial to the trucking industry, it seems to me that under the bill of rights we have adopted, the representatives of that industry should have the right to air their grievances before the board.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay our proceedings, but I would urge the government to take this problem into consideration once more, as it has undoubtedly done in the past, and to take concrete action either before the end of the current session or at the beginning of the next one.
(Text):


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) on bringing forward Bill No. C-39, a companion piece to his Bill No. C-33, which this house passed unanimously before the summer recess. I trust*1 that the house will do the same with this bill, but I hope it will not meet the same

fate that seems to have overtaken Bill No. C-33 in the other place. It seems to be rather unfortunate that bills sponsored byprivate members of this house do not get very far in the other place. In spite of the unanimous support for Bill No. C-33-and the members of the opposition who spoke in favour of that bill have spoken in favour of Bill No. C-39-it still sits in committee in the other place and no one knows when it will be reported out of committee. This I think is the wrong way for the other place to treat legislation which has been passed by this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I should intervene and remind the hon. member that it is not in order to criticize the actions of the other place.


Ernest James Broome: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not criticize the actions of the other place. I will let them speak for themselves.
As I have said, the bill under discussion is a companion piece of Bill No. C-33. Bill No. C-33, which was referred to by the sponsor, gave the right to trucking associations under the Transport Act to appeal to the minister. This bill gives trucking associations the right to appeal to the board of transport commissioners. In the special committee on government owned railways, air lines and shipping, the president of the Canadian National more than once mentioned the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was an expert in this field of transportation so far as the trucking industry was concerned. I think that we who have listened not only to his explanation of and reason for this bill, but also to his explanation of his previous bill can well understand that he has done a great deal of research and study. I know myself that he attended hearings before the board of transport commissioners. He also attended hearings in the other place. This is not by way of criticism at all, but he did attend hearings in the other place when the previous bill was under study. The point which was made which impressed me tremendously was that the board of transport commissioners do hear briefs and representations from provincial governments. They will hear representations from individual shippers or from an organization of shippers but, under the present legislation, they will not hear briefs or representations from those people who are most affected, namely a competitive shipping medium.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway had mentioned the fact that those incentive rates have been as much as 75 per cent lower than previous agreed charges or previous statutory rates. It does appear to me that if there was that much profit in the carrying 90205-6-514i
Railway Act
of traffic-under the law the railways must not give an incentive rate or an agreed charge which is not compensatory; under the law the railways must make money on the rates they charge-if they could drop the rate 75 per cent, then we may ask how accurate is their costing, how accurate is their analysis of their own expenses. Perhaps they do not know what it costs to carry freight. As we were told in the special committee, a representative of the railway simply sits down with the manufacturer and agrees on a charge right across the board. This is fine. We are all for cheaper transportation in this country of tremendous distances, but we are not in favour of the elimination of competition because this will not bring cheap transportation. It will end in very expensive transportation charges.
There must be regulations. There must be regulation of the trucking industry in the same way as there is regulation of the railroads. It seems to me that the delegation of this responsibility to the individual public utility commissions of the ten provinces is not the proper way to regulate the trucking industry when you consider its importance in the over-all transportation scheme of this country. A change must be made, and it would be better if this change were made in the way of government legislation introduced to take care not only of the railways but of other forms of transportation as well. There should be a bill to amend the Railway Act or the Transport Act. It would be much better for the government to introduce this legislation and it would not bog down in the other place.
In regard to incentive rates, it seems to me there is a possibility that an argument might be made to bring in the bill of rights because the bill of rights refers to:
The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.
Certainly, a businessman operating a trucking business is operating his property, and if he has built up this business and then a government sponsored competitor goes to his customers and offers rates which are not compensatory but are offered with the idea of driving this man out of business, is it not a fact that he has been deprived of the enjoyment and the use of his property? This is the nub of the problem, whether the rates charged are compensatory. This is the point the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has made time after time. There is no guarantee that those incentive rates are compensatory. There can be no guarantee unless an investigation is made. As he pointed out, out of some 30,000 rates allowed over the last period of years not more than ten have been investigated.

Railway Act
Those were investigated only because complaints were made, but complaints cannot be made by the people who know best whether the rates are compensatory. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this bill will be of advantage to the railways themselves, because it is not doing the railway any service for the board of transport commissioners to agree to rates which will cause the railways to lose money, and in so doing also wreck a competitive business.
From our work on the special committee we know that over the last three years $5 million has been voted each year for the acquisition of truck lines by the Canadian National system. We do not know whether the prices paid were right. We do not know about the operations of these companies. We do not know how profitable they have been. We do know, mainly by reason of the work by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne), that they have not been as successful under railway operation as they were under private operation. This may well change in the years to come, but there must be control and regulation. It comes down to that.
Ever since confederation we have had control and regulation of transportation costs whether the transportation has been by railway or is now by truck, pipe line, air freight or what have you. In this particular field we are Balkanized into ten different nations, ten different provinces, each with its own regulatory body and with no body governing interprovincial trade. It does seem to me that the hon. member has done a service to the house and to the country by bringing this condition to the attention of the house.


Mr. J. S. Speakman (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to support strongly Bill No. C-39. I should like to read the provision because I think the operative words in the bill should be emphasized. They are:
If an association or other body representative of the motor vehicle operators of Canada or of a province thereof considers that a competitive rate has subjected the said operators to an undue, or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage, the said association or other body may apply to the board-
I emphasize those words. The bill simply seeks the right for these people to apply to the board. It does not bind the board in any way to give a favourable decision. It simply gives a part of our private enterprise system the right of appeal against a discriminatory practice.
I do not think anybody in this house and possibly no Canadian would deny that Canada still needs its railways. We need them so much that we will not deny their very great need at this time for financial assistance from the public purse. When the rail-

ways first came into existence in Canada they performed a great service. They knit what was then raw, unsettled land into a great nation, a nation which will become greater. But surely in 1961, over 70 years later, there is a need for a wider and more diversified transportation industry and less of a need for the monopoly which the railways have enjoyed for all these many years.
We need our trucking industry. We need it more each day. Certainly in the province of Alberta, other western provinces and in in our new northern areas which are opening up the need for the trucking industry is as great today as was the need for railways 70 or 75 years ago. Surely then we should not deny them the right simply to apply to the board with regard to unfair or discriminatory practices. All the bill seeks is the right to apply to a board created by the federal government for a fair hearing and possible correction of what might be an unfair practice.
We in the west look at what the trucking industry has done. It has brought perhaps the greatest period of prosperity to Canada and certainly to the province of Alberta since 1946 and 1947 that we have ever enjoyed. It has brought to us and helped to maintain and expand our oil industry. Without the trucking industry we would have no oil industry as we know it today. We might have another Turner valley but not an oil industry which stretches from the United States border up into the Arctic islands. This industry has brought to western Canada and Canada generally enrichment of our economy and surely we should not deny those who are active in the industry the right to apply to one of our boards if they are being unfairly or unjustly treated.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) mentioned that there are 90,000 Canadians employed in the trucking industry. So far as their right to employment is concerned, surely they are entitled to this protection, the right to apply to the board if they are being discriminated against. Surely in this country, which we like to think is one of the freest in the western world, the right of monopoly should not be upheld.
In his introduction of the bill the hon. member also mentioned a trucking company which was acquired by the crown-owned railway. I should like to remind the house and particularly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) that some time before the summer recess I asked the minister a question which has not yet been answered. It had to do with East-West Transport Limited lowering its rates and being the greatest offender in the industry in lowering rates to what is probably an uneconomic level in

an endeavour to force upon Canadian business and the Canadian people a monopoly in the transportation industry.
As I say, this bill simply seeks the right to apply to the board of transport commissioners for protection of an industry that has been built up from an infant to a very efficient operation which is becoming larger all the time. The trucking industry is not asking for a monopoly. They are simply asking for the right to appeal against monopoly. May I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house leader could give us as much of a preview as possible of the expectations of the government for next week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The preview, subject to change if circumstances so require and with adequate consultation and notification, is as follows: On Monday we will continue with
Business of the House
the estimates of the Department of External Affairs followed by the estimates of the Department of National Defence which might commence Monday and certainly would be carried on on Tuesday. On Wednesday the estimates of privy council, which are under the direction of the Prime Minister, would be before the house. It is not the intention to bring forward any legislative matters next week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it that the Prime Minister's estimates would be the first item of business on Wednesday and I assume that if they were finished we would go back to national defence or whatever other department was under consideration.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that will be the arrangement for next week, the estimates of external affairs, national defence and privy council and, if they are completed, the Department of Defence Production.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 11, 1961