1961-04-26

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West) presented the second report of the special committee on research, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal) moved:: That the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house Wednesday, April 19, 1961, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Hellyer: Since October 1957, has any person or persons been asked to leave Canada as a result of alleged espionage activities?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is not considered in the public interest to provide information about a matter of this kind.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total number of personnel employed in the public service including civil servants, full time, part time, classified, and prevailing rate employees, as of March 31, 1960, and March 31, 1961?
2.	How many competitions for employment were held in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961?
3.	How many applicants were there for these competitions?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secreiary of Slate):: Since the answer to this question is rather lengthy, over a page, I wonder whether it could be included in the records of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister asks leave for his answer to be printed without being read. Is it the pleasure of the house to concur?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
lEditor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
Persons Employed at End of Month
Departmental branches, services and corporations
Salaried employees	
Prevailing rate employees	
Ships' officers and crews	
Casual employees and others	
All employees, services and co Agency corporati Proprietary corpi Other agencies .
departmental branches,
[arch, 1960	January, 1961 (preliminary)
157,352	159,328
22,382	23,891
2,571	2,774
13,325	16,897
195,630	202,890
9,455	9,179
129,355	123,290
1,916	1,986
336,356	337,345
^Latest figures available.
Source: federal government employment reports, dominion bureau of statistics.

Starred Questions
A special tabulation obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics at September, 1960 showed that out of a total of 157,013 salaried employees, there were 131,953 employees under the Civil Service Act. The number of employees under the act is not available monthly.
There are no figures, at present, available showing the numbers of full-time or part-time employees in the public service.
2.	There were 5,323 open competitions and 233 interdepartmental competitions advertised by the civil service commission during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961.
3.	There were 183,848 applicants in open competitions and 5,917 in interdepartmental competitions.



BOUNDARY BAY AND PITT MEADOWS AIRPORT SITES

Mr. Taylor: 1.	Will the former Boundary Bay airport, now used by the defence department, be made available to the Department of Transport?
2.	If not, has the government any plans to proceed with the development of Pitt Meadows?
3.	If the Department of Transport intends to develop Pitt Meadows for light aircraft activities, would the department first allow representations to be made. as to alternate sites or, as an alternative, could a public hearing be granted before development proceeds at Pitt Meadows?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: The answer to part 1 is no.
As to part 2, the answer is yes.
Regarding part 3, the answer is that over a number of years my department has received and fully considered representations from a number of interested aviation industry groups and individuals for and against a number of sites in the Vancouver area which would accommodate light aircraft activities.
In virtually every case objections to development were raised by one interested group or another, and the department had to proceed accordingly on the basis of what could be done in the absence of any local unanimity as to what was desirable or feasible. If there are further representations to be made in this regard they could be sent at any time to me or to my department and they will receive full consideration, but I am not satisfied that there would be any advantage gained by holding a public hearing at this late date. Indeed, this would only serve to delay once more development which is already overdue,



UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT RECIPIENTS AND APPLICANTS

Mr. Deschatelets: 1.	What Is the actual number of unemployed drawing unemployment benefits?
2.	What is the latest figure showing the number of unemployed applicants at the national employment offices?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: The answer to this question is as follows:
1.	The number of active claims as of March 30, 1961, was 837,961.
2.	The number of persons registered for employment at local offices of the national employment service on March 30, 1961, the latest date for which data are available, was 864,016.



PENSION PAYMENTS FOR MARCH, 1961

Mr. Carter: 1.	Were cheques to recipients of pensions under the Pension Act made out at the new rates for the month ended March 31?
2.	If so, were they subsequently destroyed and replaced by new cheques at the old rate?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The answer to parts 1 and 2 is no, but the explanation is that the increase for the month of March was sent to the recipients by means of a supplemental cheque.

On the orders of the day:


Gordon Minto Churchill: I find it is necessary for me to make a correction in the answer I gave to question No. 270. I have just been informed that in anticipation of the passing of the legislation some cheques were made out at the new rate. Those cheques were destroyed and replaced by cheques at the old rate for the month of March. Supplementary cheques were subsequently issued to correct the increase which was allowed in March.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

Mr. McMillan: What was the net amount, excluding loans if any, in the unemployment insurance fund on March 31, 1961, with securities held (a) at par value (b) at the then or most recent market value?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: (a) $166,145,500; (b) $135,771,703.12.
In addition securities having a par value of $82,772,000 have been pledged to the Department of Finance to cover loans of $67 million.



C.N.R. WORK INSTRUCTIONS, MOUNTAIN REGION

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1960, have any instructions or suggestions been given to any Canadian National Railways employees, specifically engine crews, working on passenger trains numbers 195 and 196 between Jasper, Alberta, and Prince Rupert, B.C., to the effect that such employees would be required to work through more than one subdivision (e.g., Prince Rupert to Smithers):	and, if so,
when and by what means of communication were such instructions or suggestions given, when was the change to come into effect, who was the

recipient of such instructions or suggestions by name and occupation, and what has been the result thereof?
2.	In giving such instructions or suggestions, was any consideration given to the hazard involved in operating trains in a mountainous area, and, if so, what consideration?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Instructions or suggestions involving train operations are considered to be matters of internal management. As a matter of general information, no change has been made in the operation of passenger trains 195 and 196.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



C.N.R. TRAIN WRECKS, JASPER, PRINCE RUPERT

Mr, Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1959, have any train wrecks occurred along the Canadian National Railways between Jasper, Alberta, and Prince Rupert, B.C.?
2.	If so, when did each such wreck occur, did any injury or loss of life result, and what was the nature of each such injury and the number of lives lost; did any damage to equipment result, and what specific pieces of equipment were involved and dollar value of the damage?


Léon Balcer: Order for return, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



C.N.R. MOVEMENT OF DISPATCH FACILITIES, B.C.

Mr. Howard: In the process of moving the dispatch facilities of the Canadian National Railways from Smithers, B.C., to Prince George, B.C., will the assignments and rights to job entitlement of the present dispatch employees be protected, and, if so, in what way?


Léon Balcer: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: The seniority provisions of the working agreement between the company and the employees' organization, the order of railroad telegraphers, will govern and apply.



C.N.R. PENSION PLAN CHANGE

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Canadian National Railways consult with the Minister of Finance regarding the change in the pension plans from terminal to current funding in 1960?
2.	If so, in what way?
3.	If the change had not been made in 1960, and the terminal funding system used for that year, would the deficit of the C.N.R. have been $77,697,000 approximately, rather than the $67,497,000?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes,
2.	The Canadian National Railways consulted with the Minister of Finance indirectly through the Minister of Transport.
3.	This is unlikely, for if the charges had been made on the former basis in 1960 they
Starred Questions
undoubtedly would have been different from the actual charges in 1959 and, if so, the use of the former basis would not have led to a deficit of $77,697,000.



C.N.R. LIABILITY TO PENSION FUND TRUSTEE

Mr. Fisher: What are the plans or methods by which the Canadian National Railways is to, or may, meet in future years the outstanding liability to the trustee of pension funds of $325,000,000?


Léon Balcer: The management of Canadian National Railways advise that if at any time the assets of the pension trust fund were insufficient to meet current liabilities the company would pay to the fund such sums as would be required.



POST OFFICE SITE, RESERVE MINES, N.S.

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works ever considered acquiring a specific property on Sydney road in Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia, for the purpose of erecting a post office?
2.	If so, what is the lot number and size of property, who holds title to it, and for what purpose was it being used?
3.	Were negotiations for the acquisition of this property for this purpose ever entered into?
4.	If so, on what date were they begun and terminated, by whom, and with whom?
5.	What was the price asked and other terms of any proposed agreement of sale?
6.	Did the department become involved in any financial or legal commitment in regard to the purchase of this property?
7.	If so, in what particular, and to what extent?
8.	Was this transaction ever completed?
9.	If so, on what date, what were the terms of the agreement of sale, and what amount of money has been paid for its purchase?
10.	If not, were any penalties, financial or otherwise, imposed upon the department for withdrawing from these negotiations?
11.	If so, what were their nature?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer here and it is rather lengthy. There are eleven parts altogether, and I would ask that the answer be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



NON-DENOMINATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, QUE.  C.B.C. COVERAGE

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French network) made any news coverage during the meeting held on Saturday, April 8, 1961, at the University of Montreal for the opening of a campaign in favour of the establishment of a nondenominational public school system?
2.	If so, what has been the cost of such news coverage?
3.	Are Mr. Maurice Blain, P.N., Miss Judith Jasmin, Messrs. Jacques McKay, Pierre Leboeuf, Gilles Rochette, Jean-Marie Bedard, Jacques God-bout, Jacques Guay, Guillaume de Maillard, Marcel

Starred Questions
Rioux, and Gerard Pelletier members ot the staff, reporters or commentators of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
4.	If so, what are, in each case, their fees and the terms of their contracts?
5.	Has the C.B.C. interviewed any of the above
named persons following the meeting held on Saturday, April 8,	1961, at the University of
Montreal?
6.	If so, what are the names of such persons?
(Translation):


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the answer is rather lengthy and detailed, may I ask the assent of the house to have it printed in Hansard?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: What is the extent of the reply, if I may inquire?
(Translation):


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Less than a page, but it is divided into many small and detailed answers.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that the answer be printed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been requested that this answer be made an order for return. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



CENSUS COMMISSIONER, FORT WILLIAM

Mr. Badanai: 1.	Has a census commissioner been appointed for the electoral district of Fort William?
2.	If so, who made the appointment, and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?
3.	What are his qualifications and salary?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1.	The census commissioners appointed for the electoral district of Fort William are: District A, Mr. John Bayko, R.R. No. 2, Fort William, Ontario; district B, Mr. K. Lloyd Kirk, 935 Mountain avenue, Fort William, Ontario; district C, Mr. E. Gordon Carson, 1811 McGregor avenue, Fort William, Ontario; district D, Mr. John E. Young, 223 Heron street, Fort William, Ontario.
2.	The appointments were made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce following recommendations and interviews by the regional office representatives of the dominion bureau of statistics at Winnipeg.
3.	Each of these commissioners met the following qualifications: a good education with subsequent professional or business experience in a supervisory capacity-


Mr. Hellyer:: Good loyal Conservatives.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -intimate knowledge of the census district; proven executive and organizing ability; tact, good judgment and ability to deal with the public. The salary is $1,200.



NON-DENOMINATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, QUE.-NATIONAL FILM BOARD REPRESENTA- TION AT MEETING

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Are Messrs. Jacques Godbout, Scott Symons, and Jean LeMoyne employed by the national film board?
2.	If so, for how many years have they been so employed, and by whom were they recommended in each case?
3.	What are their duties and working conditions (salary and remuneration)?
4.	Did they represent the national film board at a meeting held at the University of Montreal for the opening of a campaign in favour of the establishment of a non-denominational public school system?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1.	Mr. Jacques Godbout and Mr. Jean LeMoyne are employed by the national film board.
2.	Mr. Godbout since July, 1958, and Mr. LeMoyne since July, 1959. The work of these writers is well known and the board did not receive any recommendations on their behalf.
3.	Mr. Godbout is a writer-director earning $7,170 per annum. Mr. LeMoyne is a writer earning $7,920 per annum.
4.	No.



SURPLUS MANPOWER AREAS


Mr. Pitman: 1.	How many municipalities have requested classification as surplus manpower areas?
2.	What are the names of the municipalities requesting this classification?
3.	How many municipalities have been accepted as surplus manpower areas?
4.	What are the names of these municipalities?


Richard Devere Thrasher: The answer is as follows:
1.	The Department of Labour has received applications from 28 areas or localities for designation as surplus manpower areas or localities.
2.	The names of the areas or localities requesting this classification are:
New Glasgow, Nova Scotia Trenton, Nova Scotia Amherst, Nova Scotia Springhill, Nova Scotia Louisbourg, Nova Scotia Yarmouth, Nova Scotia Guysborough county, Nova Scotia
St. Jerome, Quebec Jacques Cartier, Quebec Richmond, Quebec
Tracy, Quebec Pointe Claire, Quebec New Richmond, Quebec
Carberry, Manitoba
Port Elgin, New Brunswick
Sussex, New Brunswick Sackville, New Brunswick

Campbellton, New Brunswick Milltown, New Brunswick Moncton, New Brunswick Grand Falls, New Brunswick
County ol Saint John, New Brunswick
County of Westmorland, New Brunswick
Cornwall, Ontario Elliot Lake, Ontario Fort William, Ontario Windsor, Ontario
Drumheller, Alberta
3.	One area has been designated a surplus manpower area.
4.	The area designated is the area served by the national employment service office at Cornwall, Ontario.



SMALL BUSINESS APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS, PETERBOROUGH

Mr. Pitman: 1.	How many applications for loans to small business enterprises have been received in the constituency of Peterborough since the passing of Bill C-40, an act respecting loans to proprietors of small business enterprises for the improvement and modernization of equipment and premises?
2.	How many loans have been made under the above-mentioned legislation?
3.	What was the total amount of the loans made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: 1.	Information not available.
2.	334 as of March 31, 1961.
3.	$2,034,628.



C.B.C. FOOTBALL BROADCASTS

Mr. Badanai: 1.	Have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation solved their difficulties in regard to the rights to the Big Four football games this year?
2.	Will CFCJ-TV of Port Arthur and Fort William carry these games?
3.	If not, will the C.B.C. attempt to negotiate for the rights to telecast these games?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The rights to Big Four games have been purchased and are held by a Toronto television station.
2.	Not having the rights to Big Four games, the corporation has made other commitments for its networks and its affiliates, of which CFCJ-TV is one.
Orders for Returns
2.	If so, for what purpose is the government seeking to acquire this vessel?
3.	What is the result of the negotiations?


Léon Balcer: The answer to part 1 is no.
Parts 2 and 3 are consequently not applicable.



PUBLIC AFFAIRS INSTITUTE MEETING


Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Will the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation again sponsor, this year, the annual meeting of the Canadian institute on public affairs?
2.	If not, on what grounds is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation withdrawing its sponsorship?
(Translation):


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that question, here is the information I have received from the C.B.C.
1.	The C.B.C. does not sponsor the annual meeting of the Canadian institute of public affairs. It co-operates in broadcasting a certain number of the sessions and in paying the cost of such broadcasts.
2.	In view of the foregoing explanation, the question of the C.B.C. revoking its sponsorship does not arise. It has always reserved the right to determine the extent of its co-operation with the institute or with any other social action organization.
The C.I.P.A. is free to discuss as its theme the relationship between the church and the French Canadian community. On the other hand, the C.B.C. is bound to see that such a matter is discussed in a thoroughly objective manner in its broadcasts, and that the most representative voices of French Canada are given an opportunity to be heard. It has to consider not only the specific balance of the discussions but also the general orientation of the conference, which inevitably goes beyond the part that is broadcast. Under the circumstances, the corporation this year prefers not to co-operate with the institute.
(Text):



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
3.	The corporation has made three offers to purchase the rights but these have been refused and, further, the corporation has been advised that the rights are not for sale. It may be hoped that the door is not irrevocably closed.

Mr. Pickersgill: 1. Has the government been negotiating for the purchase of the car ferry City of Havana from the West Indian Fruit and Steamship Company?


OLD CUSTOMS BUILDING, WINNIPEG    PURCHASE AND SALE
Mr. Argue: 1.	Was the old customs building, formerly standing on the corner of McDermot avenue and Main street in Winnipeg, at any time the property of the federal government?
2.	If so, (a) to what department or agency of the government did it belong (b) during what years (c) for what purpose was it used since 1950?
3.	Was this property at any time sold to a private individual or company?
4.	If so, (a) on what date (b) to whom (c) what was the purchase price (d) why was it sold (e)

Orders for Returns
what .was the appraised value of this property on the date of the sale (f) by whom was it sold?
5.	Was this property ever bought by the federal government, or agency thereof, for the use of the Canadian wheat board?
6.	If so, (a) for what purpose (b) on what date (c) from whom (d) for what price (e) by whom was the money paid, and what was its source (f) what was the appraised value of the property on that date of purchase?


OLD CUSTOMS BUILDING, WINNIPEG   DEMOLITION
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the federal government, or any agency thereof, recently ordered the demolition of a property used by the Canadian wheat board at the corner of McDermot avenue and Main street in Winnipeg known as the old customs building?
2.	If so, (a) by whom was the demolition ordered (b) for what reason (c) on what date (d) what company or companies did the wrecking (e) on what date did this work begin, and when was it finished (f) what is the estimated cost, and how much has been paid?
3.	By what agency will it be paid?
4.	Was an open tender called for this work?
5.	If so, on what date, what were the terms it contained, and where was it advertised?
6.	If not, why was this policy not followed?
7.	Were any firms asked to bid on the contract for this demolition?
8.	If so, (a) what firms (b) on what date (c) what were the terms of the contract (d) on what date did bids close (e) what was the amount of the bid each company submitted?


C.N.R. TRAIN WRECKS, JASPER-PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1959, have any train wrecks occurred along the Canadian National Railways between Jasper, Alberta, and Prince Rupert, B.C.?
2.	If so, when did each such wreck occur, did any injury or loss of life result, and what was the nature of each injury and the number of lives lost; did any damage to equipment result, and what specific pieces of equipment were involved and dollar value of the damage?


POST OFFICE SITE, RESERVE MINES, N.S.
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works ever considered acquiring a specific property on Sydney road in Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia, for the purpose of erecting a post office?
2.	If so, what is the lot number and size of property, who holds title to it, and for what purpose was it being used?
3.	Were negotiations for the acquisition of this property for this purpose ever entered into?
4.	If so, on what date were they begun and terminated, by whom, and with whom?
5.	What was the price asked and other terms of any proposed agreement of sale?
6.	Did the department become involved in any financial or legal commitment in regard to the purchase of this property?
7.	H so, in what particular, and to what extent?
8.	Was this transaction ever completed?
9.	If so, on what date, what were the terms of the agreement of sale, and what amount of money has been paid for its purchase?
10.	If not, were any penalties, financial or otherwise, imposed upon the department for withdrawing from these negotiations?
11.	If so, what were their nature?


NON-DEN OMINATION AL PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, QUE.  C.B.C. COVERAGE
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French network) made any news coverage during the meeting held on Saturday, April 8, 1961, at the University of Montreal for the opening of a campaign in favour of the establishment of a non-denominational public school system?
2.	If so, what has been the cost of such news coverage?
3.	Are Mr. Maurice Blain, P.N., Miss Judith Jasmin, Messrs. Jacques McKay, Pierre Leboeuf, Gilles Rochette, Jean-Marie Bedard, Jacques God-bout, Jacques Guay, Guillaume de Maillard, Marcel Rioux, and Gerard Pelletier members of the staff, reporters or commentators of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
4.	If so, what are, in each case, their fees and the terms of their contracts?
5.	Has the C.B.C. interviewed any of the above
named persons following the meeting held on Saturday, April 8,	1961, at the University of
Montreal?
6.	If so, what are the names of such persons?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 109-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, tenders, and other documents exchanged between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and any company or person, since January 1, 1960, concerning mineral rights pertaining to east i lot 21, concession 3 in the township of Burford, county of Brant, Ontario.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could bring the house up to date on the efforts that are being made to avoid a railway strike at the expiration of the special legislation on May 15.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I said that meetings would be taking place between the presidents of the railroads and the representatives of the unions. Those meetings are taking place. While negotiations are going on I am naturally not in a position to say more than that the meetings are being proceeded with and that every effort is being made to arrive at an acceptable agreement.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could

bring the house up to date on what progress is being made in considering Bill No. 56 of the Saskatchewan legislature, whether a decision has been reached or when it might be expected.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question the other day and said the matter was receiving immediate attention by the cabinet and that there would not be any unnecessary delay. That answer still stands.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to table the documents which were referred to him in this matter and which were inquired about by the Leader of the Opposition the other day. The Prime Minister said he would table them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the undertaking was subject to some qualification, that it was not an absolute one. At the time I said I saw no reason why they should not be tabled. I shall inquire to see what the present position is.
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielte-L'Assompfion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. As a result of my request, does the minister intend to have bilingual notices or posters set up both inside and outside the Ottawa airport, in order to eliminate the present unilingual notices?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that all posters at the Ottawa airport have been bilingual for the last three weeks.
(Text):



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources as a provincial park commissioner and therefore interested in the welfare of all parks. Has the minister received a telegram from Professor Cowan, head of the department of zoology, University of British Columbia, expressing the serious concern of many people over possible damage to Banff national park through development for use for the Olympic games? Will the minister inform the house whether he considers this
Inquiries of the Ministry development possible without damaging the park, or has the minister any other comments to make with respect to this protest?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I received this morning from Professor Cowan the wire mentioned by the hon. member. As the hon. member knows, Banff has been selected by the Canadian winter Olympics committee as the most suitable site for the games in 1968. Canada's claim must now go before the international committee. Before Canada is selected-or perhaps I should be more positive and say when Canada is selected-for the winter games I assure the hon. member that the points raised by Professor Cowan will be kept in mind with regard to the necessary planning at Banff.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. This year April 30, the last day for filing income tax returns, falls on a Sunday. In view of the fact that most of the post offices in Canada are closed, and that if a return is sent in on Saturday evening it will not be stamped before May 1, does the minister intend to extend the period of grace until Monday?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first year in which April 30 has fallen on a Sunday. This happens, I believe, every six or seven years, depending on various factors. The Department of National Revenue has always made arrangements so that the public are not prejudiced because of this fortuitous event.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister know that the Canadian National Railways has decided to discontinue night passenger train service on the Chicoutimi-Quebec line as of April 30 next?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have read somewhere in the press that there were rumours to that effect. I understand my hon. friend does not approve
4016	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of such action. Therefore, his representations will be relayed to the management of the Canadian National Railways.
(Text):



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he would care to comment on a story in the Toronto Star headlined "Canada Offers to Act as U.S.-Cuba Referee", the first sentence of which reads:
Canada is quietly preparing to sound out Havana and Washington on a policy of peaceful coexistence.


Howard Charles Green: This is another of those speculative stories. I find it pays very poor dividends to answer stories of this kind.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I wish to address to the Minister of Public Works a question which I asked him the other day. Can the minister say whether or not any of the mortgages held by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have been sold, the prices obtained, and so on?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): I thank the hon. member for reminding me of that question. There have been none sold.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In respect to the National Housing Act mortgages now being offered for sale which carry the old 98 per cent insurance, is it the intention of the government to increase the guarantee on these old mortgages to 100 per cent or to offer them for sale at a greater discount than the more attractive 100 per cent guaranteed mortgages?


David James Walker: I wish to thank the hon. member for having asked this question, and to say in reply that there are many regulations and matters of detail which have yet to be worked out. An announcement will be made to the house dealing with them all, I hope, at the same time.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders or the day:
David James Walker: May I take this opportunity to correct an answer I gave yesterday to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I am reminded that it was only this morning that the correspondence was tabled, and I therefore correct my answer as reported at page 3966 of Hansard.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingaie):: Can the minister say whether the correspondence has now been tabled?


David James Walker: It has been tabled.


RED RIVER FLOOD CONTROL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I can ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he has yet secured the concurrence of the government of Manitoba to the tabling of the correspondence with respect to the Red river flooding.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am happy to assure the hon. member that I shall be able to satisfy his curiosity in this respect quite soon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. gentleman say whether any progress has recently been made in these negotiations?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Encouraging progress is being made.
(Translation):


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker,
1	should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Would the minister be good enough to secure from the C.B.C. and to table the text of the program "Les idees en marche" carried over channel
2	on Sunday afternoon, April 23 last, where the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle acted as moderator?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if such a text does exist, the C.B.C. will be asked to send it to us and it will be tabled.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would comment upon his statement that the subway loan for Toronto was refused because there was no enabling power for such a loan to be made, as set beside what was said by the Minister of Public Works-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's question has all the earmarks of introducing a debate rather than seeking information.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I phrase it in this way, then. In view of the indication by the Minister of Public Works that the reason for the refusal of the loan was that the government was afraid of being accused of hogging things for hogtown, could the Prime Minister say whether the government is considering legislation to allow a loan to be made to Toronto or Montreal or any other metropolitan district in respect of a subway?


John George Diefenbaker: The letter in question speaks for itself. It was pointed out in the letter that the request made by the city of Toronto for loan assistance in connection with the building of a subway could not be granted because the provision of such assistance did not come within the law as it now exists.
As far as the second portion of the question is concerned, if and when any decision is made to bring legislation before the house to alter or amend the statute as it now stands, the house will, of course, become aware of it in due time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the long-standing request of co-operative organizations for the introduction of legislation to provide for the federal incorporation of co-operatives, can the Prime Minister say whether such legislation will be introduced this session? Has the right hon. gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement of Mr. Ralph Staples, president of the co-operative union of Canada that the co-operatives are looking forward to such legislation being placed on the statute books within the next few months?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Again, the only answer I can give is that when the government has a change or amendment of policy to announce in this or in any other regard the house will be made aware of it in the proper course.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Prime Minister would care to comment on the statement attributed to the Minister of Agriculture in The Co-Operative Consumer as follows: Federal incorporation of co-ops is now being considered at the highest level of government.
Is this consideration being given?


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is not inconsistent with the answer I gave earlier.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister say whether the engineering report undertaken early last year in connection with the proposed seaport at Moosonee is complete and when it will be made available?


David James Walker: I shall be happy to accept that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



HONG KONG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I would like to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the hon. gentleman any report to make in connection with the visit or the impending visit of the Minister of Agriculture to Hong Kong?


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: I think that question would be more properly directed to the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Agriculture is now en route to Hong Kong. His purpose-and it is a purpose which he has followed with determination and success-is to secure sales for Canadian grain. I think that is as far as I can go.


Hazen Robert Argue: Could the Prime Minister say whether this visit is in connection with negotiations for sales amounting to 80 million bushels, referred to by the Winnipeg Free Press'!

External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: The estimates or the observations of the hon. gentleman, or even of the Free Press, will not cause me to add anything more to what I have said.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Howard Charles Green: 
George Clyde Nowlan: It is unfortunately printed between red covers.


Howard Charles Green: I hear a remark made by my colleague the Minister of National Revenue to the effect that the report is printed within covers of a bad colour, but I point out that they are really not red but a sort of salmon pink.
In any event, my officials, as well as myself, are hoping for some useful suggestions from the members taking part in this debate. It cannot be gainsaid that an informed Canadian public opinion on foreign affairs is vital to the future greatness of our nation. This is one aspect of the whole picture which worries me, namely whether or not Canadian members of parliament, and the Canadian people generally, are following international affairs with sufficient care to give whatever government happens to be in charge of the affairs of this country the backing required for Canada to play the part she can play in the world of today. Make no mistake, no country in April of 1961 has a greater opportunity to take a part and play a worthy role in world affairs than Canada.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: Let me put it this way. No country has a greater responsibility. Let us stress the feature of responsibility in world affairs rather than opportunity.
I go on, Mr. Speaker, to give the house a picture of the world situation as I see it today. In the first place

I think this is the most important factor-we have a great world organization actually functioning today, and I refer to the United Nations. Some people scoff at the United Nations, but when you go to New York and see the representatives of 99 nations meeting in that great world body, and when you realize the speed of communications and the fact that world opinion is quickly focused on any vital issue that comes up anywhere in the world, you cannot help feeling that in the United Nations we have the greatest world organization there has ever been. It makes mistakes. The amazing thing is that it does not make a great many more, because of necessity the transactions must be of such a complicated nature. It would repay members to watch events there and to consider that while the United Nations seems to arrive at the edge of the precipice every so often, and while it might appear that in a few days' time the whole organization would blow up, that day never comes.
Just within the last week there was a serious crisis over the financing of the United Nations effort in the Congo. For a few hours that situation looked very serious; in fact one key resolution failed to carry during the last night of the sitting. If things had rested there the result might have been that the United Nations would have been forced to recall its troops from the Congo. But good judgment prevailed; consideration of the subject was adjourned for an hour or so and delegates went out into the lounge. Perhaps they went into the bar, I do not know; I would not be there, but perhaps some were. In any event, the resolution was voted on again and carried.


Hazen Robert Argue: Something helped.


Howard Charles Green: We cannot do that in the House of Commons; our rules and procedures are not quite so flexible. I do point out that this organization has gone through crisis after crisis, and I believe it will continue to do so and it will continue to grow, because without the United Nations our civilization would probably revert to savagery.
Another feature of the world situation today is the large number of new nations emerging on the scene. You know, I think it is a good thing for Canadians to see some of the bright sides of the world picture and not be concentrating only on the scare headlines. Today we have self-government spreading in the
External Affairs
world at a rate which was never even imagined a few years ago. I was looking at a map of Africa this morning and counting up the sovereign states in that key continent. I think the number is 28. I may be out one or two because the maps are not always kept up to date, but a new nation is emerging at midnight tonight, namely Sierra Leone. It will not be very long until there are other new nations taking their place in the world from that continent of Africa.
These are some of the bright spots in the world picture.
There are, of course, some which are not so bright. One of those is that we are living in days of an uneasy coexistence, with the communist world on one side and the so-called western world on the other. I hasten to add that I do not believe any honest person can question the fact that the western grouping was formed as a defensive unit. It was not formed with the purpose of taking away anything from anybody, from the communist world or from anyone else; it was formed as a defensive grouping, and we should always keep that fact in mind.
In these two groups there are a comparatively small number of nations. The vast number of nations in the world today are in between. For example, practically all those nations on the continent of Africa are not committed to one side or the other. In fact one of their main purposes is to refuse to be committed either way. They want no part whatever of the cold war. They have too many problems of their own, building up their own nations, training the necessary leaders and all that sort of thing, to have any time for getting mixed up in the cold war; this is a fact which Canadians should remember.
Another dark spot in the world picture is that at the present time, the age in which we live, there is overwhelming destructive power. When you recall that the Soviet can hurl a missile with an atomic warhead 7,000 or 8,000 miles and land that missile within a mile of the target, and when you recall at the same time that there are now at sea Polaris submarines of the United States, each with many times the destructive power contained in all the bombs dropped in the second world war-when you realize these facts you understand that mankind today is in a position to destroy our whole civilization. Here again is another fact which Canadians in particular would do well not to forget, because we just happen to lie between the two great nuclear powers of the world, each of which has the capacity to destroy the other in a matter of hours; it does not need a very fertile imagination for a Canadian to realize

External Affairs
what would happen to his country if there should be a catastrophe of that kind.
What is Canada's role in this world? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there must be no escapism in Canada. As a people we have traditions of courage, of common sense and of religious faith. Our nation was not founded by people who were in the habit of wringing their hands, giving up and refusing to face facts no matter how unpleasant they might be.
This is not the character of the Canadian people. We must take our full part in world affairs and do it with a spirit of optimism. This is no day for a pessimist in world affairs. Anyone trying to deal with world problems today who is a pessimist is very likely to end up in a mental asylum. I feel that Canadians should face the world with optimism and also idealism, and this our people have been doing. Canadians from coast to coast look on world affairs from an idealistic point of view. How else can you explain the fact that there has been practically unanimous endorsation of the large programs of aid to the less fortunate peoples of the world?
Our people do not look at the world with envy. We envy no one his or her country. Canadians have had an unselfish approach, perhaps because we have so much land that we do not know what to do with it. If we had not had enough, we might have been just as greedy about taking over other people's land as some other countries have been; I do not suggest for a minute that we are any better fundamentally than any other people.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, in the world of today Canada must honour her commitments. We must stand by our allies. There are a great many Canadians gone before us who would be ashamed if they ever found that Canadians in 1961 were running out on their allies. This is not the Canadian character. When a nation fails to stand by its friends then it is not worthy of having friends, and none of us wants to put Canada in that position.
This is a day when Canada in world affairs can urge cool-headed action. It is so easy to become excited about some of these questions and start condemning some other nation, start saying things that will hurt the people of another nation, saying things which may have a far-reaching effect that is not for the good of Canada or of mankind. I suggest that we must always urge coolheaded action in dealing with world problems. We have a far wider influence in the world than most Canadians realize. I do not take any credit for that myself or on behalf of the government of which I am a member. I do not say that we are doing more than

previous governments did but Canada has a very wide influence in world affairs.
Today I propose to review briefly and sketchily some of the ways in which Canadian efforts are being directed in dealing with various world problems. Before proceeding to do so, I feel that I must pay a tribute to the men and women serving Canada in the Department of External Affairs. They number about 2,000 and I believe it would be impossible to find a more devoted group than these officers and members of our department. Canada now has diplomatic relations with some 63 other countries, 19 in the western hemisphere, 22 in Europe, 7 in Africa and 15 in Asia including the Middle East, Far East and Australasia. This does not mean that we have 63 embassies because in some cases an ambassador will be representing Canada in two or in one case in four different countries; there are 16 countries to which our ambassadors from another country are accredited. I do not believe that any nation in the world has a finer group of foreign service officers today. These men have been carefully selected and trained. Our senior foreign service officers have vast experience, and in my time as foreign minister I have not found representatives of any other country who were any better.
We have been helped a great deal also by the type of ambassador sent here by other countries. We have a large number of embassies in Ottawa staffed by distinguished citizens and through their work here Canada has made a large number of friends. All over the world you run into ambassadors who have served in Ottawa and who have left as friends of Canada. It is very important that we appreciate this work being done here and also that we learn from them because each and every one of them has a great deal to offer.
Canadian efforts in the world of today have been directed in various fields. Perhaps the most important has been the field of disarmament. When I mention disarmament I mean not only the attempt to reach agreement on the reduction of arms but also the effort to bring about a cessation in the development of more fearsome weapons. There are two sides to the picture, cutting down existing weapons and preventing the invention and development of weapons which are becoming steadily more destructive.
From the start Canada has participated in disarmament negotiations commencing as far back as 1946 or 1947. Our most recent efforts in the negotiating field, were as a member of the ten-nation disarmament committee which was set up by the foreign ministers of

the United Kingdom, the United States, France and the Soviet union at Geneva in the summer of 1959.
As hon. members know, these negotiations began in the spring of 1960, but in June they were broken off when the five eastern members walked out. In August, following that walkout, Canada and the United States succeeded in bringing about a meeting of the disarmament commission of the United Nations which is composed of all the member nations.
At that meeting we got through a unanimous resolution calling for a resumption of the disarmament negotiations at the earliest possible date. Nothing had been done when the general assembly met in September and Canada then introduced a disarmament resolution, co-sponsored by Sweden and Norway, which in essence called for a prompt resumption of negotiations for the selection of a neutral as chairman and for co-operation of the United Nations with the negotiators through the disarmament commission. For example, we had in mind that the disarmament commission should set up ad hoc committees to assist the negotiators and also to check the work that they were doing. Eventually, we were able to get a total of 18 co-sponsors for that resolution.
However, the atmosphere at the United Nations last fall was very tense and that, Mr. Speaker, is putting it in mild language. It really was worse than that. It was very difficult to have agreement reached on any question, let alone on the subject of disarmament. We were not able to gain our objective before the adjournment in December. Fortunately during the session which ended last Saturday morning, there was far less tension. I cannot say whether or not this was because there had been a change of administration in the United States or because everyone was tired of that quarrelsome attitude just as we in this house get tired of such an atmosphere after a few hours and decide it might be better to be less pugnacious. There is a good deal of the element of human nature in the deliberations of the United Nations, just as there is in those of the Canadian House of Commons.
Whatever the cause, there has been far less tension in the United Nations during these recent weeks.
Eventually, the United States and the Soviet union, with a good deal of assistance and a good deal of prompting from other nations-I am not being immodest when I say Canada took a prominent part in this prompting and in these negotiations-decided that they would get together and try to arrange for the resumption of disarmament negotiations at about the end of July of this 90205-6-254
External Affairs
year. After all, these two nations are the key nations in any disarmament negotiations. They brought in a joint resolution before the general assembly which was passed unanimously. They were unable to agree on the composition of the negotiating group. One side had suggested that there should be an impartial chairman and vice chairman. The other side wanted five uncommitted countries added to the five eastern and the five western countries. Agreement was not finally reached, but I believe that in these intervening weeks that question can be worked out.
One fact which was of great help was that at the prime ministers' conference in London in March there was a statement issued on disarmament which was published as an annex to the final communique. Here was a statement agreed to by all the commonwealth prime ministers on this question of disarmament. It contained the following very significant and very helpful paragraph:
The principal military powers should resume direct negotiations without delay in close contact with the United Nations, which is responsible for disarmament under the charter. Since peace is the concern of the whole world, other nations should also be associated with the disarmament negotiations, either directly or through some special machinery to be set up by the United Nations or by both means.
Canada is working now in preparation for the resumption of disarmament negotiations. As hon. members know Lieutenant General E. L. M. Burns is our adviser on this subject and he would be heading any Canadian delegation participating in disarmament talks. I believe there is good reason to expect real progress in the field of disarmament during the present year.
Hon. members will recall that Canada has taken a firm position on the question of nuclear tests. Time and again we have said we are against any further nuclear weapons tests. We continue to follow with the greatest attention the developments in the three-power negotiations which are taking place now in Geneva on this parallel question of finding a way to end further nuclear weapons tests. This conference is one which has never been broken up. It has been going on now for nearly three years, but has been adjourned from time to time. Agreement has been reached on many aspects of the problem but there has been no final agreement and yet, during the whole of that time, not one of those three participating nations has undertaken a nuclear test. There has been a voluntary moratorium during this intervening period. This moratorium has continued until today, in spite of the demands from people, for instance in the United States, that further tests are essential and that testing should be resumed.

External Affairs
and African nations. The addition of new members to this community continues. Sierra Leone will become a full-fledged member tomorrow and Tanganyika is to get its independence on December 28 of this year. Next year it is hoped the West Indies Federation will join the commonwealth family, and so the story unfolds. Various other countries will be coming into the commonwealth in the years that lie ahead.
Canada now has a very important part to play in the commonwealth. This has been one effect of the decision taken in London. We now have a closer working relationship with Asian and African members of the commonwealth than we had before, and we are in a preferred position to work with them in connection with problems arising not only within the commonwealth but in other parts of the world.
The Canadian government has placed great stress on the commonwealth scholarship plan. It was designed to enable 1,000 young graduates in various parts of the commonwealth to undertake a two-year course in another comonwealth nation. Canada is to provide for 250; our objective is 250 at all times studying here under this commonwealth plan. Because this is a two-year course we had only some 101 during the past year but there will be an additional number coming in the fall, and we think that at the end of the present fiscal year there will be in Canada about 230 such students from other parts of the commonwealth. I do not have the figure for the Canadians studying abroad under this scheme. It is not as large as the number coming here, but quite a significant number of young Canadians have benefited under the commonwealth scholarship plan.
In addition we have initiated a special commonwealth African aid program which is to cost Canada $10,500,000 spread over a period of three years. We have asked for a vote of $3,500,000 for this particular work during the present fiscal year. The aid will go to independent members of the commonwealth in Africa, and those who are approaching independence. Information on the needs of these countries is now being collected so that effective and useful programs can be carried out. We believe that assistance in education will be one of the greatest needs, and already requests have been received for a number of teachers in various fields.
In this connection there has been a very interesting development in that the province of Manitoba has decided to share in this work. In May of last year, Premier Roblin expressed a desire to co-operate with the federal government in providing teachers for underdeveloped commonwealth countries. We

welcomed his offer, and a project in Ceylon was suggested as a pilot scheme. Three instructors are required for an institute of technology in Ceylon and an arrangement has now been worked out with the province of Manitoba under which it will recruit three teachers and pay their regular salaries amounting to $30,000 and the federal government will provide transportation, overseas bonuses and living allowances, costing from $20,000 to $25,000 per year. This federal government share will be part of our regular Colombo plan technical assistance program. We believe this is a very helpful development and we will be interested in entering into similar schemes with any of the other provincial governments.
Another field is that of the French-speaking African states. At the United Nations most of these states became members last year. They are very much interested in Canada because we are a bilingual country. They feel they have a closer kinship with us than with countries where French is not one of the official languages. In this work the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), who was one of our delegates, has been particularly helpful, as well as the parliamentary observers from the province of Quebec. Their main task during this session has been to keep in touch with delegates from these Frenchspeaking African countries. I believe that as a result a friendship has been built up there which has been of great value to Canada, and we hope of great value to these African nations as well.
Earlier this week I announced a scholarship plan involving $300,000 per year to provide for training in several French-speaking universities in Canada and for sending teachers abroad to these French-speaking nations in Africa. Some of these countries have put out feelers with regard to the establishment of diplomatic missions in Ottawa. We are very interested in establishing one or two missions in certain of these French-speaking countries in Africa. The ambassador to France, Mr. Pierre Dupuy, visited all of these French-speaking African countries in November and December and brought back a most interesting report in which he pointed out that they need, primarily, help in education and in health matters. We believe this is a field in which Canada can render efficient service, and one in which we can gain a large number of new friends.
Then we have the NATO field. I had intended to go into this at some length but I think perhaps I had better not do that today. There will be greater opportunity in this regard in the committee.

There is to be a NATO ministerial meeting in Oslo from May 8 to May 10, and I expect to head the Canadian delegation to that meeting. It will not be dealing at length with defence matters because the defence ministers are not attending, but there will be consideration given to long range planning for NATO. For example, there will be questions having to do with consultation and ways in which consultation between members of the alliance can be improved. Canada has always been very much concerned about this particular aspect of NATO activities. It is not easy to have adequate consultation among the representatives of 15 nations, but down through the years there has been built up an understanding and friendship among the representatives, and in my opinion, the methods of consultation are steadily improving.
There are different approaches by different nations and, as a matter of fact, some members of the alliance think that we should adopt a uniform policy on all questions regardless of whether or not they have to do directly with the NATO areas. Canada has never gone that far, our opinion being that there should be consultation on all questions which affect the members of the alliance but that it is not essential that they should adopt a bloc policy. This is particularly true with regard to the United Nations. We believe it would be unwise for the NATO nations to act as a bloc in the United Nations because there are many issues which do not directly affect the NATO alliance as a whole, and on which the views of different members of NATO vary. We believe it would be unwise to attempt to put NATO in a strait-jacket in that way.
In Oslo we shall also discuss the international situation generally. There are many problems arising in all parts of the world which will be considered, and our general approach is that Canada should do everything possible to strengthen NATO. In this connection we attach considerable importance to the efforts which are being made in the context of long term planning to define the main problems and objectives of the alliance with a view to charting a guide line for the future. At the same time we believe that in preparing for the future years we should not minimize or under-rate NATO's accomplishments, and in particular, the essential contribution it has made and continues to make to the preservation of world peace and security.
As a going concern NATO's future viability will depend largely on its ability to adapt itself to a changing world; a world of emerging new nations and revitalized old ones. It has to face complex new challenges, political, economic, psychological, as well as military, which are continuing to develop.
External Affairs
One of the striking features of the world today is that the situations which pose a serious potential threat to world peace often arise in the peripheral areas of the globe, as for example, in the Congo and Laos.
Canada believes that to deal with such situations we must often rely on the activities of agency or peace-keeping machinery sponsored by or under the auspices of broadly-based organizations such as the United Nations. We consider that these peace-keeping activities are complementary to the efforts of the alliance to maintain world peace and security. Canada believes that the long term aims of the alliance can be furthered if all members are prepared to recognize the important role of those peace-keeping activities in the preservation of world peace and are willing to lend their full support.
During the debate there may be some discussion with regard to trade and economic matters and the role of NATO in that particular field. I believe that the objectives of the new organization for economic co-operation and development known as the O.E.C.D. are fully consistent with those embodied in article II of the North Atlantic treaty alliance. Indeed, the new organization reflects the continuing desire of NATO countries to develop closer and more intimate relations in the economic field and provides an opportunity to translate into concrete measures and achievement the aims of article II. NATO, however, continues to have a most important role to play in assessing the implications for the alliance of the economic developments and policies of the Sino-Soviet bloc and, through consultations, in developing the political will among NATO countries to find solutions for economic problems which threaten to weaken the alliance or which threaten to provide opportunities for the extension of communist influence. In the words of Mr. Spaak, NATO can and must serve as the "political conscience" of the Atlantic community of nations. We shall be doing our best to build up and promote activities of NATO in this field, although quite a large part of the field will be covered by this O.E.C.D.
With regard to NATO, I realize that my hon. friend from Assiniboia and his fellow members of the C.C.F. party are of the opinion that Canada should withdraw from this alliance. As he knows, the government does not agree with that suggestion. We feel it would be a great mistake for Canada to take a step of that kind. I merely point out to him that we have very worth-while support in the Canadian Labour Congress. I am just wondering how he is going to square his policy with the policy of the Canadian Labour Congress and of the so-called New party when it gets formed.

External Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You will be surprised.


Howard Charles Green: Representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress presented their brief to the government on February 2 of this year and on page 30, under the heading "Neutrality No Solution", we find the following:
While looking toward world disarmament, the congress does not believe that Canada can make a contribution in this direction by unilateral disarmament or by pursuing a policy of armed or disarmed neutrality.
The brief goes on:
For reasons geographic, economic and historical, Canada must work in concert with those nations which share her outlook and interests, while at all times preserving her own integrity and striving for a world in which blocs and alliances will be obsolete.
I would be very interested to hear the hon. member for Assiniboia or the hon. member for Kootenay West square these declarations of the Canadian Labour Congress with the statements of policy which have been made on behalf of the C.C.F. party on the question of whether or not Canada should give up her membership in the NATO organization.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not tied to the C.L.C., neither is this party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The British Columbia trade unions voted against our remaining in NATO.


Howard Charles Green: I really did not raise this subject to start an argument, but I see it got under somebody's skin.
Let me leave the old world and come back to the western hemisphere where we really belong. I should like to say a word or two about our relations with the United States and with the Latin American countries. Canada continues to be on a basis with the United States under which it is possible for us to consult on all problems of mutual interest and to do so in a most effective way. We have had the utmost co-operation from President Kennedy and from his secretary of state, Dean Rusk, and from Mr. Adlai Stevenson, the permanent representative of the United States at the United Nations. I am confident that it will be possible to continue working in this friendly effective way with the representatives of our great neighbour nation.
As hon. members know, we were successful in negotiating a treaty with the United States concerning the Columbia river. This was done after a great deal of time and effort had been expended. Now, of course, we are in a position where questions are being raised by the province of British Columbia which, of necessity, is involved in this whole transaction. This is not the place to go into that in any great detail; I merely point out these

facts, Mr. Speaker. A deputy minister of the government of British Columbia sat in as one of the four Canadian negotiators. There was a joint ministerial committee consisting of ministers of the federal government and of the provincial government of British Columbia, engineers and lawyers and all types of officials who were required for work of this kind. Every word of the treaty was gone over with a magnifying glass and everybody was agreed. Before the treaty was signed British Columbia was satisfied that it was a good treaty. There was no question of any doubts.
Since the signing of the treaty many different road blocks have been thrown in the way. When I was last at the coast two or three weeks ago I even heard that the federal government was now on the spot; that it must go ahead and do this because we signed a treaty. Well, we are under no obligation until the treaty is passed in parliament. Until it is duly ratified we are under no obligation to go further, and the people who will suffer if this great co-operative scheme does not go through will not be the federal government. The people who will pay the piper will be those citizens of British Columbia who will not get the cheap power they would have got under the scheme or the developments that would have taken place if the installations were constructed. This could be the greatest work-producing project that there has ever been in western Canada, and all I wish to do is to make it perfectly clear that the fault for the failure of the project to materialize will not rest here at Ottawa but will be with our brethren in the provincial government in Victoria.
I should like to say a word about Latin America. As hon. members know, we have been very anxious to build up our relationship with the 20 republics of Latin America and we have met with considerable success in this regard. We now have diplomatic relations with all but two of the Latin American countries. Of course, in some cases there is double accreditation. For example, we are establishing a new embassy in Costa Rica and the ambassador to that country will also represent Canada in Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama. As I have said, we have diplomatic relations with all but two of the Latin American countries and in one of those two we have a trade mission.
There have been serious problems in connection with Cuba. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada has continued to maintain normal diplomatic and commercial relations with Cuba through these recent troubled months. In doing so, Canada has acted in a manner consistent with common international practice. No country except the United States has placed a comprehensive ban on trade with

Cuba and Canada has not had the same grounds as the United States for taking such action.
While Canadian businessmen have remained free to carry on peaceful trade with Cuba, the Canadian government has used existing regulations to prevent the export of strategic goods to that country. This is in keeping with Canada's general policy of prohibiting the export of military material to areas of tension anywhere in the world. The Canadian government has also seen to it that the United States embargo should not be evaded by transshipment through Canada. It has permitted the export to Cuba of only such United States goods as might be exported directly from the United States to Cuba.
These policies remain in force. As the Prime Minister recently pointed out, Canada's practice over the years has been to carry on normal relations with countries of a different philosophy.
I am sure members would be interested to know that Canada's exports to Cuba in November of last year amounted to $1.4 million compared with $1.7 million in November of 1959 while in December of last year our exports were $2.4 million compared with $1.4 million in the same month the year before. In each of these months last year the United States sold more than twice as much to Cuba as Canada did in spite of all the restrictions the Americans have imposed. For the whole of the year 1960 our exports to Cuba amounted to $13 million whereas in 1959 they were $15.1 million or $2.1 million higher than in 1960.
I might add with regard to Cuba that the government is sincerely hopeful that a peaceful solution will soon be found for the conflicts troubling Cuba. I am sure hon. members will join me in looking forward to the day when an independent Cuba, free of all outside pressures, will choose to resume its traditionally close relations with the nations of this hemisphere.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Before the Secretary of State for External Affairs leaves this portion of his address, may I ask him whether he has anything to say about the new affirmation of the Monroe doctrine in view of the recent declaration by President Kennedy in this context?


Howard Charles Green: I thought the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was asking me a question about that statement yesterday and I gave an answer to the effect that I was quite sure that the statement made by President Kennedy was not intended to apply to Canada. The relationship between Canada and the United States is covered by our obligations under NATO and in my opinion
External Affairs
there is no question of this particular statement being made applicable to Canada.
I should like also to say a word about Chile. About a year ago, when the brave people of that country were suffering so terribly as a result of earthquakes, we had the opportunity to give them some help by supplying foodstuffs and air transportation, and in other ways. I think that these actions on our part have resulted in the building up of a very fine relationship between our two countries. Canada, of course, was doing only what any humane country would do. We were delighted to be able to help them. But they have shown great gratitude. Recently our ambassador to Chile had the opportunity to travel throughout the stricken area of southern Chile and there he was shown records of the distribution of Canadian flour to hundreds of needy persons. He found the most kindly feeling toward our country.
As another sequel to the airlift assistance we were able to give, the ambassador of Chile on April 20, on behalf of the Chilean air force, presented the Prime Minister with a plaque to commemorate the R.C.A.F.'s part in flying relief supplies to Chile. In the United Nations we found that Chile gave us help time and again. They were one of the first to co-sponsor our resolution on disarmament and we believe there has been a very fine friendship established between our two countries.
Hon. members may wonder what is the present position with regard to Canada joining the organization of American states. I have mentioned this question in many speeches during the last year. It has aroused a good deal of interest. Some branches of the Canadian institute of international affairs have undertaken to study the question and to let me know the results of their study. The policy of finding out from the Canadian people just what they think about this aspect of foreign policy is progressing very well. We are not yet in a position to make a decision as to whether or not Canada should join this organization. We took steps to send observers to the meeting of the organization of American states which was to have been held in Quito, Ecuador, next month. However, we received word today that the conference is to be postponed and I am not sure when it will be going ahead. It is gratifying to see in Canada the increasing interest in this question. I am wondering whether Canada is wise in adopting an isolationist policy with regard to the western hemisphere. However, that is part of the argument on one side.
I do suggest to hon. members that they give this whole question deep thought, and that they discuss it with their constituents. It

External Affairs
would be a big step in Canadian foreign policy if we were to join this western hemisphere organization. I think the decision should be taken only when it is fairly clear that the majority of the Canadian people are in favour of this being done.
The final field of activity toward which we are directing our attention is in the Pacific. Yesterday I announced that a call for a cease fire had been issued by the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. as co-chairmen of the Geneva conference of 1954. They had invited India, as chairman of the truce supervisory commission, to call the commission together in New Delhi. In addition, they called for a conference of 14 nations to be held in Geneva on May 12. If hon. members read these letters, they will observe that the first job of the commission, which is Canada's main concern, will be to discuss the question of the tasks and functions which should be allotted to the commission if there is a cease fire in Laos.
The commission is to hold these discussions in New Delhi, not in Laos, and then present an appropriate report to the co-chairmen, that is Russia and Great Britain, who will consider the commission's report and give the commission directions on going to Laos to carry out the work of controlling the cease fire. This is not a perfect scheme because, at the first, we are going to be working in New Delhi, a thousand miles or so away from Laos.
In addition, it is not clear just what the tasks of this commission will be if the cease fire should take place. We are hoping that there will be a cease fire promptly and that the commission can be sent into Laos promptly and can be sent in before the conference meets in Geneva on May 12. This is the intention, as explained by the United Kingdom, and I am hoping that things will work out in that way. Canada will do her full part. It is important that there should be peace in that part of Southeast Asia if for no other reason than that a war there might lead to war all over the world. We are in a position to make a contribution in the area, and we will be glad to do so.
Yesterday the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) made some noises which rather impressed me as indicating that he was going to have something to say about the commission in Laos having been deactivated in 1958. At that time the request was made by Prime Minister Souvanna Phouma, who is the key man in the picture today. He requested that the commission get out of Laos. The majority of the members, India and Canada, voted accordingly and the commission did get out of that country. The belief at the time was, of course, that a stable government had

been established and that there would be no further need for that commission. I was very pleased to find that both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. member for Essex East had approved of that course. I have the extract from Hansard right here to prove it if they dare to attack me on the subject this afternoon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What is this, intimidation?


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps this is a species of intimidation, but it is very helpful in the circumstances. This is an issue on which I am sure all members of the house are united, and I am hoping that Canada can make a worth-while contribution.
We are also in a very influential position across the Pacific by virtue of our participation in the Colombo plan. This has made us various friends in that area and Canada has an important voice in bringing about decisions across the Pacific which will be of general benefit to our nation as well as to the rest of the world.
I should like to say a final word about China. I feel quite sure that the hon. member for Assiniboia and his associates will be dealing with that subject in their remarks. I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Essex East will be very vocal about this particular question. During the Liberal convention last January a resolution was passed with regard to the entry of red China into the United Nations which advocated that Canada should no longer vote for a moratorium on the discussion of this question in the United Nations. This resolution, of course, did not go very far. While that particular procedure has been followed for some years, the introduction of the moratorium resolution has not prevented an effective debate on the real issue of the admission of red China. The step taken by the opposition in their convention does not go more than three or four inches ahead of the position which was adopted by the former government and which has been followed by the present government with regard to the discussion of the subject in the United Nations.
May I say, too, that the world does not stand still. Changes keep occurring everywhere, and certainly the question of red China is one of the most interesting and important questions now under consideration by the external affairs department. Everyone knows the policy we have adopted, and if and when there is a change in that policy it will be announced in the ordinary manner. One fact Canadians should remember is that there are a great many people living on Formosa who are native Formosans. No one is anxious to have them turned over to red

China. I think this would be a disastrous move to make, yet red China is not interested in recognition or entry into the United Nations unless her right to take over Formosa is accepted. This, of course, has been one of the very big obstacles in the way of taking steps to change the present situation. Eventually, the wishes of the people of Formosa will have to be an important factor. In considering this whole question I suggest that it would be wise for Canadians not to forget the important factor of Formosa in the whole picture.
I think I have never made such a long speech, Mr. Speaker, in my parliamentary career and I hope never to do it again. However, in conclusion may I say this. As hon. members know and as they will have found from this sketchy review of problems arising in all parts of the world, Canada is involved everywhere. In practically every part of the world Canada is involved in one way or another, to an extent and in such a manner that she can do something about every one of these problems. I suggest that this is a great challenge to the Canadian people. Whether we accept that challenge, whether we play our full part in world affairs-the part which is there to be played by Canada-will, of course, depend on the will of the Canadian people to participate, the idealism and optimism of the Canadian people and the sacrifices they are prepared to make.
I believe that Canada can render a service to mankind as a whole in the field of foreign affairs and, as the minister responsible for Canada's activities abroad, it will be my objective to do just that. I ask for the support of the members of the house, regardless of party, in bringing these facts to the attention of the Canadian people, thus helping to make it possible for the Canadian people to realize the challenge which faces them and to realize the opportunity for Canada to do something worth while in the world. If we make that attempt we shall be going a long way toward making our nation the type of nation we all think it should be.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is the first formal statement and the first one of any consequence in length that we have had from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) since this session began last fall. Likewise, this is the first opportunity this house has had of discussing problems of the greatest moment that affect this country and other nations and peoples throughout the world, in what one cannot help but feel is one of its most critical periods.
90205-6-255
External Affairs
The Secretary of State for External Affairs will not misunderstand me, I am sure, if I say at the outset that from his remarks today, I did not draw any appreciation of the extent of the deterioration or of the critical stage at which world affairs now seem to be. With much of what the minister has said there will, of course, be acceptance and concurrence. With some of the omissions, however, I think there will be regret in this house and throughout the country. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government as a whole I think should know that we in this party support the basic and fundamental policies which this government has carried out, generally speaking, in the United Nations and in NATO. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he spoke at the general assembly in September of 1957, said that the policy of his government would be to support the general line taken by the former government in respect of the three corner stones of our foreign policy, namely our participation as a commonwealth member, our relationship with the United States and our membership in the United Nations and, as he might have added, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. However, having said that we give this general support, particularly at this extremely critical time- and I doubt whether we have ever discussed international affairs at a more critical time outside a period of war-this does not mean that we are to be denied the right to express disagreement with methods employed to achieve objectives in the field of foreign policy. There have been certain methods and certain attitudes taken by the government with which we cannot fully concur, and about which we regret today there has not been a full explanation, as I shall seek to indicate.
I join with the minister in affirming, as has my leader on many occasions, our support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, not because it is intended in any way at any time to be used for aggressive purposes but because, in the complicated and dangerous situation of our world, it is the only way we have of providing through human instrumentality against the dangers that face us now as perhaps never before.
We support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and we join with the minister and with the government in affirming our belief that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should be strengthened both in respect of its military purposes as well as in the realization of those sections with which we have been so vitally concerned, particularly article II, an article designed to promote the economic interests and the unity of the NATO

External Affairs
nations. Indeed, it will not be necessary for me to say that we support NATO as a necessary instrument at this time because few men in the world have done more first of all to bring about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and then to improve it than has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). However. I do so today because of the attitude taken by those sitting to my immediate right.
I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that it is encouraging that the Canadian Labour Congress, that great organization of labour, should take the view that in this difficult situation in human affairs Canada, in her own interests as well as in the interests of those nations which share basically her ideological approach, can do no less than combine with them in their efforts for peaceful and defence purposes.
However, Mr. Speaker, I should think that today we should want to address ourselves to what seems to be, on all fronts, a deterioration that should at least be described as causing the greatest concern to every man and woman in the world who values freedom and wishes to see it preserved. Can there be any doubt that this deterioration has taken place? I am, of course, not blaming the government or any government for this situation. I am simply pointing to the fact, one which demonstrates the power of what might be described as psychological warfare which the Soviet union and the so-called Chinese People's Republic, either alone or together, have been able to promote in concert with certain other nations.
I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we must abandon a role of pessimism. We must be optimistic, knowing that ultimately our point of view, or at least the tenets of the western world still persist in the rich shadows of western civilization, and are bound in the long run to emerge triumphant. But at the same time, when I join with him in refusing to be pessimistic I refuse to be unrealistic. Therefore we cannot but address ourselves to the ferment and turmoil in Africa and the perpetual crises within the United Nations, which hardly bear out in my judgment the assessment of its role in the last few weeks and its achievements last fall, made by the minister.
In the face of the ever-present challenge of Asia, in the face of the starkness of virtually every statistic calculated on a world basis, I find no occasion for failing to note at this time the dangerous unfolding of events in so far as they affect people who value human freedom and western civilization and those principles which are pertinent to western civilization but which are shared by so many other people in the world, people such

as those in India, in other parts of the commonwealth, in Latin America, in the western world generally and in the United States; yes, and in Africa.
Then, when one thinks about the developments in Laos about which we heard an announcement yesterday, I find no justification for optimism with regard to that situation as I will later indicate. Certainly the events in the Caribbean, involving as they do the relationship of one country there with our closest neighbour, is not an occasion for satisfaction. I do, however, agree with the minister that the settlement in these recent hours in Algeria, restoring to France the integrity and the prestige which is hers, under the statesmanship and great leadership of General de Gaulle is a matter of deep satisfaction. But have we not in these last months moved from crisis to crisis, causing the western world and all men and women who love freedom to take serious note of events as they confront us?
The fact is that the free democracies now face a total challenge, from within by indifference to and the debasement of our values; from without by those communist forces which are bent on our destruction and which have at their disposal all the weapons of political, economic, ideological and military warfare. Moreover these national forces do not have to worry about the problem of unity with associated nations, a preoccupation which, as Mr. Macmillan pointed out in Boston the other day, faces the west. There can be no doubt we are facing an adversary which, whether we like it or not, is future-orientated, which has its goals clearly set out and which is working toward the attainment of those goals. Yet we in the west have perhaps given justification for the assertion which some astute observers have made that we may have lost our sense of the future, that we may be more concerned about adding to our material possessions than about refurbishing our spiritual ideals. It seems to me that we have not yet fully grasped the important fact that foreign affairs no longer exist separate from our daily lives. The events that are now going on in far away Laos, for instance, may affect each of us as individuals in spite of the agreement reached between the co-chairmen of the 1954 Geneva conference. Today the world looks small, and national borders, even iron curtains, appear insignificant from the vantage point of a man in space.
The total challenge to man calls for a total response. The role of political leadership in the west will be to bring home to the individuals in our democracies the realization that they are individually affected by this challenge. I strongly agree with the wise

words of one of the great economists of the English speaking world and one of the shrewd observers of international events, Barbara Ward, who in her recent book "India and the West" has written:
Men do not win battles either of weapons or of ideas by remaining perpetually on the defensive. To want no more than to stop communism probably ensures that ultimately communism cannot be stopped. Far more important than any steps taken to lessen the threat or limit the pretensions of communism are the positive aims, policies and visions which the west wishes to achieve itself.
That is our task, and until we do orient ourselves to our goals and become articulate in their appraisal and in their appreciation, we may find it increasingly difficult to meet the challenge that is before us. We certainly shall not resolve it by overoptimism, by failure to pinpoint the difficulties or failure to use our capacity either as a nation or as a group of nations to meet the problem and the challenge, of course by pacific means.
The minister spoke of the agreement on Laos. No one who knows this situation will fail to appreciate the present significance of that country; that little nation of old Indochina, in which it is situated is, indeed, a strategic area. Laos, along with Cambodia, Viet Nam, and North Viet Nam, may be equally the way, or the barrier, to the kind of penetration which would affect not only Burma and Thailand but that great Asian state, India, and other nations in the east. Developments in Laos have important consequences not only for them but for the peace of the world. This is so, because a decision as to the kind of world our children will inherit might well be determined by the millions of people in Asia and not exclusively by their more richly endowed brothers in other parts of the world, particularly in North America.
I believe this Laotian situation should be looked at realistically. The reactivation of the international supervisory commission was, of course, a wise decision to have taken, at long last. I want to say this: that the reactivation of the commission might well have taken place much earlier. It seems to me that Canada should have agreed to the request made months ago by India when she urged that this be done. Indeed, it was reported, although in fairness this was denied by the government, that the Indian government was presumed to have taken the view that Canada stood in the way of the reactivation of the commission. It is true the government has taken the position that the international supervisory commission could not be established in Laos unless the royal government agreed. I can say this, however, because I was in Laos in 1956 and talked to the then Prime Minister, Prince Souvanna Phouma, who 90205-6-255J
External Affairs
thought that the international supervisory commission should cease its operations in Laos. However, the Canadian government at that time, along with its two colleagues on the commission, took the view that there was yet work to be done.
While one can understand how difficult it is for the commission to operate in the face of the reluctance of the host government to having the commission in its territories, we should not forget how the commission came into being and under what circumstances. It came into being as a result of an imposed settlement by the conference that was held in Geneva in 1954 for the purpose of keeping the peace between two dissident groups, as is the case today in the situation that presents itself in Viet Nam and North Viet Nam. In any event it seems to me that when the prime minister of India, months ago, urged the reactivation of the commission, we might well have acceded to the request of the Indian government at that time. I suspect we took another view particularly because of the view taken by the United States. I simply want to say that if that is the case, as I suspect and believe it is, the United States with its far-flung responsibilities, in my judgment, seriously misinterpreted the situation in 1956. It has now agreed to the formation in Laos of a government of a complexion which it refused in 1956.
Meanwhile, there has been civil strife, and the communist forces supported by the Soviet union, by North Viet Nam, and by communist China, has acquired a supremacy over a much wider area than was the situation when there was a cease fire and when the commission was in operation in November, 1956. I trust that the commission now carrying on most of its operations in Delhi, as I understand from the minister, will be able to determine that a cease fire has in fact taken place so that there can be a conference.
I hope that I will not be accused of pessimism but I suggest that this is one more instance where the communist world has been able, by a process of attrition, to increase its sphere of influence and its sphere of control. That will be a matter of the greatest consequence to countries with whom we have so much in common, like India, whose integrity and security is so greatly dependent upon events in that part of the world, as we know from the aggression that took place in Tibet.
The minister is going to go to that conference and I think he has made a wise decision. He will be given the opportunity there of meeting personalities with whom we have no formal or official association in the United

External Affairs
Nations. He will be able to make his assessment of those personalities and, undoubtedly, there will be value derived from the opportunity which will be then presented, as indeed was the case when the Leader of the Opposition had a similar opportunity and carried out a responsibility in an equally important field in 1954 when he attended the important discussions on Korea in Geneva.
The situation in Laos is one incident of concern. I hope the proposed solution will work out and that there will be peace. I hope that Laos will not now become a stepping stone for further aggression on the part of those who want to extend their spheres of influence. I trust there will be no prejudice to those nations whose participation in these events is of great consequence, who want to avoid war and who want to preserve their freedom. Of course, I have in mind particularly, as I have already noted, India, whose leadership and influence, in my judgment, in that area, has been of the greatest value and consequence. If there are any achiev-ments of which the present Leader of the Opposition may well be proud-I know there are many, and I say this because of my close association with him over a long period in these matters-his view that Canada must ever understand the peculiar situation that confronted India at a time particularly when there was great misunderstanding of India's role, is one that will be appreciated and remembered.
We must not under any circumstance or at any time, it seems to me, lose the confidence of India and particularly of its prime minister. There have been occasions-there were last year at the general assembly of the United Nations, as well as in regard to this matter of Laos-when differences between India and Canada, were not, in my judgment, calculated to reach the constructive results which I think the situation demanded.
We have also the failure of the disarmament discussions, notwithstanding the optimism of the minister, and we are likely to see a recurrence of the difficulties in West and East Germany. We will move from these crises to other crises as the Leader of the Opposition said recently during a speech in Toronto, when he referred to the conclusions arrived at in the Moscow conference last November. The Leader of the Opposition quoted in that speech the resolution of the conference in Moscow. The portions he quoted read as follows:
"Peaceful co-existence among states does not mean-a rejection of the class war-on the contrary it implies an intensification of the struggle of the working class and of all communist parties for the triumph of socialist ideas".

The Leader of the Opposition added the following statement of his own when he said:
It was made clear that peace was not an end in itself. That end was the establishment of the communist system throughout the world.
There will be other situations which will test the statesmanship and capacity of the free nations including our country. I believe we have to state our goals, not because they are expedient but because they are right. The hon. minister has referred to foreign aid programs. I believe this is an area where we can demonstrate the true quality of the west. We should share our resources, to the extent that it is practical and desirable, with those nations, where literacy is low, where poverty is high, and where medical and health standards are inadequate, not because it is the political thing to do but because it is the right thing to do. Until we get ourselves into that frame of mind we will not have the vigour of soul that attends the dedication of those who, in my judgment, unwisely support the doctrine of dialetical materialism.


Mr. Stinson:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question before he leaves the subject of disarmament with which he has just been dealing? Would the hon. member tell the house what Canada should do in regard to disarmament which has not already been attempted?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be coming to disarmament. I believe that Canada should do more than she has done. In the last eight months, basically Canada suggested certain actions of a procedural kind. The Leader of the Opposition, and others have taken the position that Canada should put forward substantive proposals which would likely capture the support of certain nations. We have suggested that the Scandinavian nations, countries like Brazil and Mexico and certain countries in Asia would likely support such an initiative. By itself this would not resolve the problem, because it must be resolved mainly by the Soviet union and the United States, but it would have possibly a persuasive effect on the great powers. This is what I think we should do, but I am going to deal more specifically with disarmament in a moment.
We have to recognize that we are confronted with a dangerous situation in the Caribbean. Yesterday, I think, the minister wisely said that there was a stage in international negotiations when, in the public interest, a government should not have to disclose the nature of particular negotiations. In a democratic society, of course, the end result of diplomatic effort must be made known to the public and to the world. That

is clear. I assume that the answer given yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was that those situations which have occurred in the Caribbean of direct relation to our neighbour, have provoked elucidations of opinion and representation from the government of Canada to the United States; that we have made our position known as to what we regard as a desirable way of dealing with such situations. At this time I am not going to press the minister beyond this. I am assuming that we have made our position known and that we are prepared to deal with the next step, which may or may not arise. Having in mind the unity that must prevail between freedom-loving nations at this time and what we conceive to involve not only nations on the American continent traditionally covered by the so-called Monroe doctrine concept, but as well all nations of the NATO alliance and, for that matter all nations of the world who want to see peace preserved, we will not hesitate to make our position known.
The minister spent more time on Chile than he did on Cuba. While he may have his reasons for that, I formed the judgment that possibly we do not fully agree on the urgency which this particular situation creates or seems to create at this time. I would have expected the minister, particularly in the face of this situation, to tell us more of the government's attitude with regard to Canadian participation in the organization of American states. Whatever may have been the reasons before or during world war II for Canada not joining the Pan-American union, the situation today, as I see it, is altogether different. I am now expressing only my own point of view. In this instance, I have no right to speak for anyone except myself, but I would point out to the minister that in 1943, as a private member, he advocated our entering the PanAmerican union. Last summer he reaffirmed his personal support of the organization of American states, and his words will be found in Hansard of July 15, at page 6375, as follows:
It might be that the time had now come for Canada to join this western hemisphere organization. I think it would be a step forward.
I want to say to the minister I do not think that in these matters a government must always wait for the expressed opinion of the people. In foreign affairs a government must fearlessly assume a position of leadership. In the light of its experience, and particularly because of the present situation, if the government feels that Canada could serve a useful purpose in that organization, then I say the government should come forward with a policy and the house will either accept or
External Affairs
reject it. My own view would be that if the government came forward with that kind of proposal I would give it my support, because I believe the time may have come when we should be ready to sign the Bogota charter and deposit a Canadian instrument of ratification in the organization of American states offices in Washington.
It will be recalled that General Marshall, the secretary of state of the United States, at the end of the war adopted an attitude which did not prevail on the part of that country during the war, when he proposed that Canada could play a role in the organization of American states. In view of the developments that have taken place, and the fact that Soviet arms admittedly are in the possession of the Castro forces, and in view of other developments, without in any way wanting to interfere with the form of society or with the right of self-determination of any country, it seems to me that Canada might well give consideration as to whether or not she could play a useful role in this situation now.
It is true that in his first statement in this house the minister said that he did not want to play the role of honest broker. He modified that later; but it would have been interesting to receive from him, in the light of our friendly relations with the United States and our relations with Cuba some indication as to what Canada's role might be in this situation. In any event, this is a situation in which we as a North American power cannot fail to be interested. It is one with grave consequences. We might have expected from the minister today a more concise statement on the position of the government of Canada. For instance, we might have had some indication as to whether or not the government believes that the United States subscribes to the view stated by its president in 1956 when he said:
There can be no peace without law. And there can be no law if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends.
These are matters of the greatest moment, and we should have no hesitation in discussing them with friends, and particularly with friends; for the very essence of friendship is the ability, and the opportunity presented, to have a frank discussion.
The minister spoke of the United Nations. I think that one of the great areas of tension and concern today is the United Nations. This is not what I gathered from what the minister had to say. The fact is that the United Nations is now faced with its most critical situation largely as a result of the determined policy of the Soviet union last fall to remove from the present secretary

External Affairs
general the powers that are inherent in article 99 of the charter of the United Nations, and of their determination to drive him from that important office.
We subscribe fully to the view stated by the minister that the United Nations is essential for the preservation of world order. If we take the view that there can be no national intervention in the affairs of states, then, of course, we must argue that there has to be some world collective security organization to provide legitimate intervention, whenever intervention does take place we believe, as the minister has implied, that it should be through the United Nations.
But in order to make effective the intervention of the United Nations in the Congo or in the Gaza strip or in any other area of the world, the United Nations itself has got to be effective. We must recognize again that the United Nations depends primarily for its effectiveness not necessarily on the unanimity or unity of the great powers. Such unanimity never existed, notwithstanding the anticipations at Dumbarton Oaks and at San Francisco. The United Nations, however, without the basic acceptance of the great powers, cannot be the effective organization it was intended to be.
I believe, with the minister, that the United Nations is the focal point. I believe unlike the minister, as I gathered from what he said, that today the United Nations is the focal point for most of our tensions. It certainly is far from a perfect body. It is clumsy, it is slow and in some cases it is cantankerous. But we must constantly battle criticisms of the United Nations which appear to castigate the institution, when in reality the criticisms should be directed at the imperfections of the member states.
The minister has referred to the situation in the Congo. The difficulties there of the United Nations and the secretary general arose first of all, of course, from the vagueness of some of the resolutions of the security council, perhaps deliberately designed by those who did not want to see an objective United Nations policy pursued in the Congo, because it did not conform to their national interests. We might as well admit that the experience in the Congo portrays a weakness in the United Nations police force, as it is at present constituted when the nations retain authority over their troops. As Secretary Rusk said, it is an unsatisfactory situation. He observed recently that the experience in the Congo suggests that we must turn once more to the possibility of constituting a permanent United Nations force specifically trained and equipped and held in readiness for immediate use.
I suggest that one of the most effective things Canada could do in addition to putting

forward a substantive proposal in the field of disarmament would be to put forward, after careful preparatory work, a scheme for an effective United Nations force which must take its place in a disarmed world, if that should ever eventuate. Here is the kind of opportunity which Canada can pursue, and this may have been in the mind of the minister when he spoke of the great opportunity that a country like Canada has in the field of international affairs. Here there is a major role to be played by a country like Canada or other middle powers within the United Nations.
We certainly do not subscribe to Mr. Khrushchev's plans for reorganizing the United Nations. To substitute a committee of three to represent the western world, the communist world and the uncommitted nations is, of course, to destroy the United Nations and the office of the secretary general as it was conceived at San Francisco, or indeed, as it was contemplated when the covenant of the league of nations set up a similar office under that world body. But I believe we have got to recognize that the refusal of the Soviet union to place any confidence in the secretary general does destroy much of the effectiveness of that great public servant. I express a personal view that I doubt very much if we will see, certainly for some time to come, a westerner holding that office. That is not necessarily something to be criticized. If there is an honourable and competent Asian or African, and no doubt there is, such a person could fill that office with distinction and impartiality, but only provided he is able to carry out his functions as article 99 of the charter at present envisages.
I believe that the Soviet union wishes to destroy the United Nations as now constituted. It does not serve its purpose when it functions in the objective way in which certainly Mr. Hammarskjold and most nations, I believe, wish to see the United Nations approach its difficult assignment. This applies not only to western nations. It applies to nations from Asia and Africa as we know from the kind of leadership given by Mr. Nehru who questioned the suggestions made by Mr. Khrushchev, when he spoke so disparagingly of the person and of the office of the secretary general last fall.
But there have to be changes made in the United Nations and these changes have got to take place fairly quickly. The minister said nothing about such changes. If the United Nations is going to persist in its present form or in the reincarnation originally envisaged, certain reforms will have to be undertaken without waiting for full charter revision. The security council will have to be expanded as

will the economic and social council, to take into account the newer members from Asia and Africa particularly.


Howard Charles Green: We have been urging that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope the minister will continue because I think that is a very essential thing to do. When the minister is urging that, he might also perhaps realize that there are certain other changes in the United Nations that should take place. If it is going to become an effective body, a more liberal interpretation must be made of the charter. There must be expansion of existing machinery and the adding of new bodies in addition to those 1 have already mentioned.
We must give to the administrative body of the United Nations authority in areas not now under national sovereignty. I mention outer space as one of these. There must be greater use made of the international court of justice and the development of international law, perhaps by the creation of certain existing tribunals as ad hoc tribunals from which appeals might be pressed to the international court of justice.
We must, of course, adhere to the principle of universality of membership notwithstanding what the difficulties are, as we well knew in 1955. We must make the United Nations less dependent for its income than it is now. We must not have the shameful situation that confronted it last week, when seemingly it had to beg for money to carry on in the Congo operations that were in the interests of all people of the world as well as the people of that troubled country.
Then we must press, as Mr. Nehru said, for charter revision at the appropriate time, and he thought that the time certainly had not come when he spoke last fall. So that I think while we support the United Nations we must recognize the dangers that confront it.
I see that Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong has suggested recently in penetrating observations that this crisis of the United Nations is one to which some nations in the west have not fully addressed themselves. He is concerned about this particular situation. He envisages the possibility of the Soviet union establishing her own international forum, if she cannot get her own way at the United Nations, as presently constituted. Whether or not that eventuates, no one can tell but these are dangerous situations, not only in the various places we have mentioned, Laos, the Caribbean, Germany and so on, but right in the United Nations itself we have a crisis. We are not going to resolve that crisis by being evangelistic about what the United Nations has done, but by recognizing the challenge that is presented to us right in the
External Affairs
United Nations and making it an effective body. If there is no United Nations in the kind of world in which we live, with the kind of instruments of war which now persist I, for one, and I am sure this represents the opinion of every member of this house, cannot believe the peace of the world in this interdependent period can possibly be maintained only by a balance of power system.
Disarmament has been a worthy objective of the minister. Certainly he has found since his period of service as Secretary of State for External Affairs that the optimism which characterized his earlier speeches in this field has not been justified. He perhaps now recognizes that the facts of life are not as simple or as noble as they appeared, when he undertook the very heavy responsibility which he now discharges so honourably and so sincerely. The fact is that good wishes and sincerity are no substitute for wise policies in the kind of ruthless world in which we live today.
The Soviet union has affirmed its willingness, as of a few weeks ago, to reach an agreement in the matter of the cessation of nuclear tests. Last year the minister told us that there were great prospects for agreement in this area and that if we got agreement, we would have an opportunity for progress in the broader field of disarmament. My suggestion is that the events of today indicate that whatever justification there may have been for hope in that field is rapidly being dissipated. I hope this is not the case, but I know of no other interpretation to put on the words which Mr. Khrushchev addressed to Mr. Walter Lipp-mann as reported last week. It may be that the Soviet union is now determined to make the nuclear talks part of a package deal in connection with the whole question of disarmament. In any event, the fact is- this is no fault of Canada or, I believe, basically of most of the nations in the west-we have made no progress in this field. No progress was made when we were in office, and no progress is being made now. Procedural achievements and procedural initiatives are not real progress.
I believe that we must pursue this objective of disarmament. Even many of the experts, on whose judgment and experience we rely, now have abandoned the word "disarmament". They are now talking about arms control. I suggest to the minister that the job of the statesman is to keep the higher objective of disarmament, even though there may be a realization of how difficult that is going to be, particularly in the face of the fact that there is no known scientific method for the determination of the existence of undisclosed nuclear weapons. The minister says

External Affairs
that the policy of this government is to continue to advocate the cessation of nuclear tests with or without controls; that is the position he has reaffirmed today, although he did point out that the resolution put forward by Ireland, which Canada supported, provides as far as this country is concerned for a limited period in which Canada will withhold a decision as to the use of nuclear weapons in Canada.
There is a conflict, undoubtedly. I do not expect the minister to admit it between the pronouncements made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) and those made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to this matter. The minister is clear when he states that the policy of the government is that there should be no nuclear tests, underground or overground, with or without controls. However, that is not what one has a right to interpret as being the view of the Minister of National Defence. I can only hope that in this matter the minister will be able to establish his position vis-a-vis his colleagues and, in particular, in his discussions with the Minister of National Defence.
A few moments ago an hon. member asked me what further Canada could do. I have indicated, I believe, that we could have gone further. I believe we could go further now and put forward a specific plan which may or may not be accepted but which, in our name and supported by certain nations, might have a persuasive influence, even though it might not bring about full results. It is worth the try.
If general disarmament is to be attained, it is certainly not going to be achieved easily. We might as well recognize this now. All one has to do is to read what men like Kissinger and Kohn have to say, to realize what has developed in connection with modern nuclear weapons, to appreciate what a tremendous job mankind is going to have in the attempt to unscramble the nuclear paraphernalia that has been devised. We should give consideration to other plans that have to be devised if we are going to have disarmament.
We should give consideration, for example, to the kind of thing I mentioned in passing a few minutes ago. What type of international police force should be established to preserve international peace and security? What principles of international law should govern such forces? What internal security forces, in precise terms, would be required by the nations of the world if existing armaments were abolished? These are questions that we have to consider. The United Nations emergency force was understandably established without any opportunity for prepara-

tion on the part of the secretariat. However, as we know now from the Congo operations, the United Nations secretariat, as presently constituted, is not in a position to provide the kind of administrative services that make such a United Nations force fully effective.
This is the kind of constructive suggestion to which we might well give careful consideration and thereby make a definite contribution of our own. There are so many other areas one could traverse, but my time is nearly exhausted. I simply want to go back to where I began by saying that these problems, the United Nations, disarmament, the organization of American states, together with the turbulent situations that now exist in so many areas, point up the difficulties that attend mankind at this time. It is not easy, we all know, to see our way clear through this situation. A nation-or group of nations-that is reluctant to use force, that is reluctant to follow the concept of even evolutionary international law, encounters difficulty when it is confronted with irresponsible actions by nations bent on implanting in the minds of men their philosophy of life. This is a very difficult situation. This is what concerns us. Statesmanship of the highest order is required in all of the countries, and our country no less than others has a responsibility. We must pursue the ideals of a world under international law but we must do so realistically, realizing what are the pitfalls; we must do so realizing that obviously, in face of the November conference in Moscow, no agreement is going to be made that does not meet at this stage of international relations the particular policy objective of the Soviet union.
I admit, of course, that we cannot leap over a chasm with one bound. This procedure has been tried previously and the results have been fatal. However, I believe that the prime minister of the United Kingdom was right when he said in Boston that the nations of the west, without violating their right to individual opinion, must recognize that at this time it is essential that there be a strong measure of prudent unity among the western powers. If we have this unity; if we have a firm will to attack vigorously our agenda of economic development, not only in terms of our relations with the common market through
O.E.C.D. and the like but the economic development of other people in the world who are going to have a decision as to which of the great ideologies shall prevail; if we can strengthen the United Nations along the lines that are envisaged not as stated by me necessarily but as outlined by others who share

these views rather than yielding to the destructive purposes of those who want to use the United Nations only for their purposes and for the furtherance of their aims, we may find that the road may be easier. If we can apply as much time and money in studying for peace as we do in planning for war; if, to use C. P. Snow's phrase, we can regain our "appetite" for the future-and I would say our soul as well-then we shall be true to the values of our own way of life and contribute to a more peaceful world.
The minister has an extremely difficult assignment. We respect that difficulty. However, we urge him now to appreciate, as I am sure he does-although I feel that he did not give us evidence of this today-the urgency that attends us and to indicate in bold and clear terms something that represents the character and the wishes of our people along the lines spoken of by people like C. P. Snow, Barbara Ward and other strong protagonists of the western position. That is the kind of leadership we need at this time, not only here at home but throughout the west and throughout the world.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all listened with great interest to the minister's review of international affairs and the work of this department. We all recognize the problems he faces at the present time possibly to a greater degree than ever before. We have great respect for the minister and we appreciate the work being done by his officials around the world. Although called away for a few minutes, I also listened with interest to the very eloquent remarks of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) but I do not agree with all he said.
External Affairs
I have listened to a great many reviews of international affairs from our secretaries of state for external affairs. I noticed that today for the first time the minister referred to himself as a foreign minister. I understand that, according to British tradition, a foreign minister always wears a top hat on formal occasions. Possibly we shall see him doing that in the future. However, while I was listening to the minister I was thinking about the two wars. There are in this house members who marched to war in the first world war and in the second one. In the first world war our battle was to save the world for democracy and in the second world war it was to fight against nazi tyranny and to bring about a system of world peace. Between the first and second world wars the statemen of the world lost numerous opportunities to bring about and develop that peace in the world.
One reading the history of the world between the first and second world wars realizes how, just through the lack of imagination or the lack of wisdom on the part of a very few people, the tide was turned in the wrong direction. Since the second world war, at the conclusion of which we all had high hopes, some nations have made various mistakes. The minister said that we should give the government our backing. We give the government our backing. He said the government recognizes its opportunity but also its responsibility. We give this government our backing if it recognizes its opportunity and its responsibility in relation to that large group of nations outside this major struggle between the two great nations of the east and the west. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


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


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

Mr. Regier: 1.	How many protests have been received by the Minister of National Revenue's office and the C.B.C. as to interference from T.V. station CHEK, Victoria, to television reception in the lower mainland of British Columbia in each of the months since that station began operations until and including the month of February 1961?
2.	What steps have been taken, since these complaints began, to remedy or reduce the alleged interference?
3.	Does the C.B.C. consider that the major complaint of interference has now been resolved to the satisfaction of the people of the lower mainland of British Columbia?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister
of National Revenue):
1.	As far as can be ascertained, no letters of protest concerning reception interference by station CHEK-TV were received by either the Minister of National Revenue or the C.B.C. following the commencement of operations of that station. In August and early September of 1960, however, following the introduction of an omnidirectional signal of greater power from a relocated transmitter as authorized by the board of broadcast governors, some protests were received by the Minister of National Revenue and the C.B.C. from persons who objected to varying degrees of reception interference on channels allocated to American T.V. stations. None of

Question No. 185-Mr. Regier:
1.	What was the estimated loss to the Canadian government caused by looting from naval stores at each naval institution in Canada during the last year on record?
2.	How many prosecutions were launched in respect to such looting during the year in question?
3.	How many convictions were obtained?
4.	What are the existing arrangements for the protection of government property at naval institutions in Canada?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	Total amount of loss due to theft or suspected theft at naval establishments during 1960: $4,714.
Total amount of loss due to theft or suspected theft from ships during 1960: $2,367.
2.	Six.
3.	Six.
4.	The basic regulations governing the protection of naval property are set out in the Queen's regulations and orders for the Royal Canadian Navy.


SHIPPING TONNAGE, CONTRACTS AND SUBSIDIES
Mr. Regier: 1.	What was the total tonnage of shipping under Canadian registry at the end of each of the past ten years?
2.	What is the total value of government contracts given to Canadian shipyards within the past three years for each of the ports of Halifax, Vancouver, and Victoria?
3.	Does the government grant subsidies to Canadian shipyards, if so, what were the amounts of such subsidies to each of the three areas mentioned above in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961?
4.	What, If any. subsidies are contemplated for the present fiscal year to shipbuilding in each of these cities?
these persons protested about interference with Canadian stations. Eight letters were received by the Minister of National Revenue from such individuals up to February 1961. The C.B.C. has recorded two letters and eight telephone calls in September 1960 and four letters and seven telephone calls in October 1960.
2.	Such letters and telephone calls were referred to the Department of Transport and the B.B.G. A technical study was made by engineers of the former and CHEK-TV was found to be complying fully with the technical requirements of its licence. The B.B.C. conducted a study as well. Certain suggestions were made to listeners to install wave traps to reduce interference.
3.	Since the C.B.C. has no jurisdiction in the matter, it has no opinion to offer as to whether the complaints made have been resolved to the satisfaction of those concerned.
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):
1.	Year	Gross Tonnage
1950		 2,394,250
1951		 2,380,369
1952		 2,452,097
1953		 2,385,217
1954		 2,259,551
1955		 2,316,396
1956		 2,347,311
1957		   2,358,352
1958		 2,382,983
1959		 2,472,147
1960		 2,580,226
2.	Total for years 1958, 1959 and 1960 for shipyards reporting to the Canadian maritime commission:
Halifax	 $28,001,300
Vancouver	 17,066,000
Victoria	 20,153,600
3.	No.

Questions
4.	No subsidies are contemplated at the present time.


PATRICIA BAY AIRPORT, VICTORIA- IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Regier: 1.	What improvements are planned for the current fiscal year to Patricia Bay Airport, Victoria?
2.	What is the estimated cost of each of the improvements planned?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):
1 and 2. It is difficult to foretell with certainty the degree of completion in the current fiscal year, but the following improvements are planned:
Total
Estimated
Cost
Air terminal building, including power and control lines, sewer and water, road diversion, etc. $1,020,000
Total
Estimated
Cost
Aircraft parking and car parking areas, taxiways, runway extension, road, etc	 $ 1,333,000
Navigational aids (beacons, glide path, middle marker, high intensity approach and runway lighting, etc.)	 192,000


SMALL BUSINESS LOAN APPLICATIONS- FORT WILLIAM
Mr. Badanai: 1.	Has any application for loans to small businesses been received by chartered banks in the constituency of Fort William since the passing of legislation under Bill C-40?
2.	How many loans have been made, if any, and the amount of each?
3.	Were any applications turned down, and, if so, what were the reasons?
Answer by:	Hon. Donald M. Fleming
(Minister of Finance):
1, 2 and 3. Information not available.

Thursday, April 27, 1961



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West) presented the second report of the special committee on research, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.