1961-09-07

[Stage Direction]
ROGER DOHAMEt, F.R.S.C.
queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1961
: ; 3 T
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, September 7, 1961


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it will, I believe, assist hon. members in their discussions during the next few days if the house is informed at this time of certain decisions taken by the government. I shall deal with certain phases, and my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) will deal with one or more others. These statements are not intended to take the place of the more comprehensive statements of ministers on estimates, including the statement that I shall be prepared to make on emergency measures when the estimates dealing therewith are under consideration.
I think it is generally agreed that the international situation has deteriorated since we last met, and tension has increased. Much of this has arisen from the statements of Premier Khrushchev in respect of the intentions and attitudes of the Kremlin toward West Berlin and allied questions. The government, after consultation with allied governments in NATO, has come to the conclusion that certain measures should be taken to strengthen Canada's preparedness for defence both at home and overseas.
We have decided to increase the overseas and naval forces assigned to NATO as follows:
To bring R.C.N. ship complements up to the strength necessary for a prolonged emergency the present complement will be increased by 1,749 officers and men.
The fourth Canadian infantry brigade in Europe will be strengthened by 1,106 all ranks, and there will be made readily available in Canada 1,515 as reinforcements.
The R.C.A.F. No. 1 air division in Europe will be strengthened by a total of 250 officers and men.
To allow for the strengthening of the brigade and air division in Europe, and for further strengthening over and above the foregoing, an order in council has been passed increasing the present ceiling on personnel strength in Europe from 12,000 to 14,000.
The increases to NATO assigned forces will be accomplished by transferring fully trained personnel now in home establishments.
In addition, to improve the general military effectiveness of our forces at home, and particularly those earmarked for the strategic reserve and available for use in Europe, it is intended to increase the strength of army formations by 8,950 personnel, and air force units by 989.
These measures will require a total increase of approximately 15,000 members in the regular forces, and it is intended to proceed immediately with the recruitment of this personnel. To authorize this increase under the National Defence Act an order in council has been passed increasing the limit of the numbers in the regular forces from 120,000 to 135,000. I shall ask leave to table the orders in council in question at the conclusion of my statement.
In the interests of maintaining the present high efficiency of the brigade overseas it has been decided, as already announced, to defer until next year the return to Canada of the Black Watch battalion now with the brigade and its replacement by a battalion of the Black Watch from Canada.
The decisions I have outlined will not have the effect of forming new units or formations but will bring existing forces to a higher state of preparedness and will make more effective the armed forces' contribution to the civil defence emergency organization. It is hoped that these decisions will be regarded not as provocative but rather as a manifestation of Canada's intention to stand solidly with its NATO partners.
In reviewing our defences we have concluded that in the event of nuclear war there would be a need for a larger number of men trained in survival operations than we now have. As things are today, the militia has an effective strength of approximately 42,000 men. Should Canada be attacked, many more men would be needed for survival operations and for the support of regular army field forces.
Consequently the government has approved a plan to increase the number of men trained to take part in survival and rescue operations should the need arise. It has been decided to train up to 100,000 men on special
8054	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Defence Emergency Measures courses, each lasting six weeks. Approximately 25,000 will be trained on each course in existing military armouries across the country.
These courses will provide sufficient basic military training to maintain the discipline and response essential to the control and effective employment of such a force on operations, but emphasis throughout will be on the teaching of subjects essential for national survival. During the period of their course trainees will serve in the militia on a continuous call-out basis. They will receive normal pay, with subsistence allowance in lieu of rations, as given to a regular army recruit private of single status. Physical requirements will not be as stringent as those now in force for the regular army, and standards of enrolment will be modified to permit acceptance of applicants between the ages of 18 and 50 years, married or single.
The first course is scheduled to get under way in mid-November. When the courses are completed, Canada will have a sizeable reserve of trained manpower essential to carrying out many tasks required for survival should this country come under nuclear attack.
I want to emphasize particularly what I am about to say. I would not want these measures to be interpreted in any way as being taken in contemplation of an early outbreak of war. Rather, they are insurance which the government, realizing the possibilities, must take as prudent, safeguarding precautions. I now ask to table the two orders in council in question.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps it would make for a more orderly presentation if I were to make this further announcement. Recent decisions have been made in respect of accelerating the army's program in national survival. I should like to outline the various decisions that were taken and the action that has resulted from these decisions so far.
It was decided to initiate partial manning of emergency headquarters by military staffs in order to provide greater reliability in the army command structure. As a result a full time skeleton staff was in operation in Camp Petawawa from the 24th of August, thus providing an emergency army headquarters. In addition, emergency command and area headquarters were established in each province at the same time, and the army centres from which the warning would be issued to the public were moved out from major centres of population.
We have been planning to establish headquarters associated with each likely target city. Their establishment has been accelerated, and in the last two weeks the staffs and in-

terim sites have been selected and the senior officers will attend a two week training course later this month.
It was further agreed that additional stocks of food should be bought and that stocks of food, vehicles, blankets, clothing, medical and other such stores required to meet army needs should be dispersed to installations outside of target cities. We are now in process of making these purchases, and army commands have started to disperse their holdings.
It was decided to expedite the formation of the nuclear detonation and fall-out reporting system by redistributing certain radiation monitoring equipment on issue to army units for use in re-entry operations pending receipt from the various suppliers of the equipment which has been on order for some time. This action is going on and the system now has a limited capability. It was further decided that the Department of National Defence should speed up the survey of existing fall-out protection offered by its buildings. This is going ahead.
Department of National Defence officials have been in touch with the officials of the Department of Transport and of the C.B.C. with a view to ensuring that the emergency broadcast system is brought into being at the earliest opportunity. Steps have been taken to expedite the siren installation program that had already been approved and, in addition, an extension to this program has been authorized and is now being undertaken.
Orders for additional radiac and rescue equipment are now being placed to permit the reorganized re-entry units to be equipped as soon as possible. This reorganization involves almost tripling the rescue force, and includes an increase in the militia.
It was agreed that to enable the army works service to undertake the extra work involved in providing fall-out protection for the nuclear detonation and fall-out reporting system, the accelerated siren program and the survey of buildings, a civilian increase should be provided to the army works service. This has been approved, and arrangements are being made to take on the necessary engineers and technicians. In addition certain decentralization of authorities-G.O.C.'s and others 

has been arranged to expedite the whole program.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the house has heard two statements the importance of which I certainly do not depreciate, and based on
situations the seriousness of which it is not easy to exaggerate, statements on matters which are very much in all our minds today.

It would have been easier, and perhaps more effective, for the opposition to comment on the statements which we have just heard for the first time if they had been made by the Minister of National Defence in connection with the general statement on defence policy which presumably he will be making when the defence estimates are before the house in a few days' time. Because it is, of course, impossible to assess the value of the proposals which the government has now put before the house in relation to defence, and to comment on them in terms of the present serious situation or to justify the large sums of money which will be required to implement them, without knowing more about the objectives of defence policy and the means by which the government expects to reach those objectives. Therefore no considered statement would be expected from us at this time, I know.
Emphasis is being placed in these statements on the necessity for measures to improve the chances of national survival in time of catastrophy. I do not underestimate the importance of that subject. Perhaps it is not inappropriate, however, to point out that the only way we now have to ensure national survival is to prevent war, to abolish war as an instrument of national policy; because war now means general nuclear destruction.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, members of this group are fully conscious of the seriousness of the present world situation. I believe it is correct to say that all of us in this house have one purpose in our hearts, and that is the protection of our freedoms while at the same time maintaining peace.
Although we have one purpose we have, as democrats, the right to advance different proposals and methods. We are asked to comment on statements just read by the Prime Minister when we are absolutely in the dark so far as the government's proposals with respect to defence policy are concerned, to which the leader of the official opposition referred. We are asked to comment almost without knowledge of the policy and detailed objectives of the government in that respect.
On behalf of this group I can say that in principle, under present world conditions, we cannot agree that the present situation is best met by increasing our military might and our armaments. We urge the government to use moderation at this time. I have had the opportunity of talking to many Canadians of all parties, and am able to say that many of them are seriously concerned about what action the government intends to take in the near future.
National Defence Emergency Measures
We shall have more to say on that subject at the appropriate time. We urge the government to continue to press for the building up of the United Nations police force, placing less emphasis on our national forces. Let us make our contribution to collective security through an organization which comes under the control of the nations supporting the United Nations.
We readily support the proposals that are suggested for national survival to meet the frightening prospects of nuclear warfare. We are glad to know that additional numbers are to be trained to meet this threat because, in doing that, if the unfortunate should happen they will be a mission of mercy to save Canadian lives.
After we have had an opportunity to read carefully the Prime Minister's statement; after we have heard from the Minister of National Defence; after we, as it were, come out of the dark and are more into the light, we shall comment more fully and in greater detail on the statement just made by the Prime Minister.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell the house the estimated cost of the proposals announced earlier this afternoon by the Prime Minister and himself?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, for the balance of this fiscal year a rough estimate has been made. There will, of course, be detailed estimates made and submitted to the house. However, the rough estimate is that these various measures will result in expenditures in the neighbourhood of $35 million more than was provided in the book of estimates.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate what the annual cost will be after they are completely in effect?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should not like to give figures on that matter at this moment without going into it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Surely they have been determined.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says "Surely they have been determined". We have some estimates on them, but from memory I do not wish to give an answer which might not be absolutely correct.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister take the question as notice?

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



TEXTILES


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to give the house any information as to when the commission that has been set up to examine into unemployment insurance matters is likely to report.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no definite information about that. I know that the chairman and those associated with him are devoting themselves most assiduously to the problem before them. However, I shall endeavour within the next few days to ascertain their target date, and will then inform the house.



COLUMBIA RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister inform the house of any efforts the government has made since the adjournment to reach an agreement with the government of British Columbia with respect to the development of the Columbia river? Is he prepared to make a statement at this time as to the government's position in this stalemated situation?


Hon. E. D. Fulfon (Minister of Justice):: thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, which,
[Mr. Hellyer.l
however, reached me only just before I came into the house, and did not contain the postscript which he has just added.
May I deal with it as he asked it. He asked whether I could inform the house of any efforts made to reach an agreement with the government of British Columbia on the Columbia river problem. As my hon. friend knows, it has not always been easy for me to establish contact with the premier of British Columbia; therefore I am necessarily forced to rely upon the statements I read in the press of that gentleman's intentions. Naturally enough, as my hon. friend will appreciate, we are assessing the implications of the position taken by the premier and the government of British Columbia, as that position is modified from day to day by further statements that the premier issues. The position of the government of Canada is being considered and I expect will be announced very shortly without any possibility of misinterpretation.



REPORTED FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES RESPECTING FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a report from the Minister of Justice on the transcript of evidence in connection with the Jean Talon hospital inquiry, and more particularly in connection with Senator Courte-manche? Has the Prime Minister any comment to make on the transcript, if he has received it?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have received the transcript, and an examination has been made of the statements that were made by witnesses on both sides. Having made that examination, and having been informed that the royal commission will report on September 30 in regard to the matters that came before it, I would suggest that the report of the royal commission should be awaited.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. The minister may recall that in his budget speech of December 20, 1960, reference was made to the Customs Tariff and, in particular, to that part of it dealing with oil seeds and vegetable oil. The

minister also stated at that time that representations had been made to the government by growers of these oil seeds for a modification of the tariff.
Would the minister be in a position now to inform the house whether this matter has been referred to the tariff board for study and report?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member and the house that the tariff board has given notice of public hearings on this reference on January 15 next.



INQUIRY AS TO OPERATIONS OF SECURITIES PURCHASE FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister indicate the extent of the operations of the securities purchase fund, which was announced in the budget?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hon. members will be aware of the fact that in the budget speech on June 20 I announced that the government would establish a securities purchase fund with which we would be making purchases in the long end of the market with an initial amount of $100 million during the course of the next 12 months. That purchase fund has been in operation since that time. It is operated with a view to assisting in the management of the public debt.
In the budget speech I said that details would be announced later. I may say that monthly statements have been and will be issued in this regard. The first announcement was in fact made in our monthly financial statement for the month of July, and indicated purchases in that month of $11.8 million of outstanding securities.
I expect that purchases may vary considerably from month to month. In the recent past we have regarded our purchases and the modest measure of support that may flow to certain areas of the market at certain times in the light of differentials between interest rates in Canada and other countries, particularly the United States, and the influence of those differentials on international capital flows and the exchange rate. Any mechanical regularity of monthly purchases would, of course, be inappropriate, since the intention is to endeavour to impart some stability to the market. Purchases by the fund this year will not necessarily be limited to the figure of $100 million to which I made reference in the budget. If in a period of less than 12 months our purchases were to reach the figure 90205-6-509
Inquiries of the Ministry of $100 million, they would not necessarily cease for the remainder of the 12 month period.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of Finance relating to or arising from his answers to earlier questions. Can the minister report on the course of recent foreign exchange transactions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will not need to be told that the Canadian dollar, expressed in terms of the United States dollar, has shown quite an impressive stability in international exchange. Its value expressed in terms of the United States dollar has been between 96 cents and 97 cents for some time now. I think the house will be pleased to know that it has not been necessary for the government to make massive commitments of funds in the exchange fund. This is certainly a matter of satisfaction to the government, and I think it will be to the house as well.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might make a comment on an associated subject while I am on my feet. In the course of the meeting of the executive board of the international monetary fund some time ago several directors expressed the hope that Canada might in due course see its way to rejoin other countries within the general system of fixed exchange rates. The meeting to which I am referring is the one which occurred in mid-July. There was, however, no suggestion that we ought to choose parity with the United States dollar or any other particular rate of exchange.
Mr. Louis Rasminsky, the governor of the Bank of Canada, who represented Canada at that meeting of the executive board of the international monetary fund, in expressing the government's intention to remain in consultation with the fund took the opportunity to remind other directors of the special continuing features of the Canadian situation which had led Canada some 11 years ago to abandon the fixed rate system after successive attempts to adhere to it. I may say that at that meeting also Mr. Rasminsky set forth the economic situation of Canada and the position of the Canadian exchange rate in the light of the statements which I made in the budget speech on June 20.
The meeting, which was called at our request, provided Canada with a welcome opportunity to reassure other directors of the international monetary fund that no competitive depreciation of the Canadian dollar is to be anticipated.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Is the present discount, vis-a-vis the United States dollar, the equivalent of what the minister described in his budget speech as "a significant discount"? Those are the words he used when he described the aim of the government with respect to international exchange.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will do me the honour of reading that speech very carefully he will see that the expression "significant discount" was related to circumstances at a particular time, and circumstances may vary. But I think the hon. member is aware that I have expressed the view that thus far the results of the change in the external value of the Canadian dollar have been quite satisfactory in the view of the government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Significant.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Before doing so, if I might be permitted, I should like to express what I am sure is the view of the whole house that we are very glad to see the minister back in the house.
The question I wish to put to the hon. gentleman is, has he any statement to make on the fantastic story which has appeared in the press that a very substantial interest in the private television station in the city of Toronto is to be transferred to United States interests?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I appreciate the very
kindly reference which has been made by the hon. member. I would have preferred, however, to have him confine himself to the flattering reference without the embarrassing question. Having had a heart attack, I have been prevented by the doctors from reading fantastic stories, so I have not seen the one to which the hon. member refers. However, I shall give consideration to his statement and advise the house later.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he

can tell us whether the government is having any difficulty in finding directors for the Canadian National Railways, and also what the situation is so far as the status of the president and chairman is concerned.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, these nominations will be made very soon. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, there is no change in the status of the president.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, especially in view of the statement which has just been made. Is the minister of defence aware that gaps in the alert system which showed up during civil defence exercises at Peterborough last January, and which were reported immediately, have not been filled? If so, could he assure these officials that the situation will be rectified immediately?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. member is referring to the siren system in Peterborough. I believe this system was installed in 1957 on the basis of a noise level survey made at that time by the department of health and welfare, which then had the responsibility for the siren system. There were certain gaps shown in the system in the last exercise, Tocsin, which was held, and a new survey is being undertaken of the noise level. It is proposed to add additional sirens in order to cover any deficiency which may be found to exist.


Walter George Pitman: Will the Minister of National Defence make a comment on the press statement by army officials of the eastern Ontario command that the sirens being installed for civil defence are primarily aimed at alerting people outside of buildings and not those inside buildings?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have inquired into this matter, and I find that no such statement was issued. I think there is some confusion over the fact that part of a lecture which was given by army officers on survival methods, and on warnings, states that sirens are more effective in warning people outside of buildings than inside. This is only natural. If you were deep inside a bank vault you would not hear the siren at all. However, in the normal house you do hear it. It is quite evident that any siren is going to be more effective in warning people outside than in

warning those inside. However, sirens are not primarily aimed at those outside of buildings. They are aimed at the entire population. I think that is the only comment I can make.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the statement made recently by United States authorities to the effect that they intend to proceed with the Champlain-Richelieu cut-off without waiting for Canada, has the government decided upon a policy in this matter, and will it establish a board of engineers to survey the project and make a study of its economics?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must first survey the statement before I can give any answer. I have not seen any reference to this matter by the United States.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of his impending departure, will he indicate the nature of the discussions to be held at the forthcoming commonwealth conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Tomorrow my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I will be leaving to attend the annual meeting of the commonwealth economic consultative council. The meeting this year is to be held in Ghana. It is, I believe, the first time a meeting of commonwealth governments has ever been held on the continent of Africa, and will have some special significance on that account.
The agenda of the conference is not normally made public in advance, Mr. Speaker, but I think I may say that in the course of the meeting there will be an opportunity for reviewing economic developments and for considering economic and trade questions of interest to the commonwealth and indeed of aid matters within the commonwealth, perhaps with particular reference to the special commonwealth African aid program which was inaugurated a year ago at the last meeting of the commonwealth economic consultative council. While relationships between the United Kingdom and the common market no 90205-6-509J
Inquiries of the Ministry doubt will be discussed, it is not considered that this particular meeting will provide the appropriate occasion for a detailed discussion in view of the fact that negotiations between the United Kingdom and the community are shortly to begin.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, that following the commonwealth meeting at Accra I shall be attending the annual meetings of the governors of the international bank, the international monetary fund, the international development agency and the international finance corporation, which are to be held this year in Vienna.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question arising out of his answer. In view of the fact that he has just said that special consideration is not to be given at the Ghana meeting to the problems arising out of the United Kingdom application for admission to the European common market, could he inform the house whether there are commonwealth consultations going on in regard to this important matter, and how these consultations are being conducted?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will be recalled that on the last day of sitting of the house some of the ministers were engaged in a conference with Right Hon. Duncan Sandys, secretary of state for commonwealth relations in Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom. He came to discuss with Canadian ministers the question as to whether the United Kingdom government should open negotiations with the community with a view to entering into the community as a member. I think the communique that was issued at the close of the meeting has been widely circulated. In any event, if it has not been already tabled I shall be glad to see that it is placed on the table of the house.
The views of the Canadian government were communicated to Mr. Sandys at that meeting. The house is aware that subsequently the government of the United Kingdom announced its intention of opening negotiations with a view to entry into the community, and that application was received by Dr. Erhard on behalf of the community, and arrangements are being made for the opening of negotiations as to the terms upon which the United Kingdom may enter the community as a member.
There have been discussions in relation to continuing communications on this subject. Hon. members will appreciate that this subject has now entered a different phase from that in which it was at the time of the meeting to which I have referred. There will be opportunity for continuing communication on this subject. I believe it has also been made known publicly that a meeting of officials of
8060	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry commonwealth governments will be held in London later this month at which discussions will be held in relation to those commonwealth economic and other interests which the government of the United Kingdom has indicated it intends to seek to preserve in the course of its discussions with the community.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister is going to attend four or five conferences in a row, can he tell us whether he expects to be back in this house before Christmas? And with regard to the conference at Vienna, may I ask the minister who will be in charge of the delegation? Will it be the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the first question was prompted by the wish. However, if I come back before Christmas I hope the hon. gentleman will recognize me in the role of Santa Claus as usual. As to his second question, which was asked with his usual measure of innocence, I may say that there is no such question, and none such could arise. My colleague and I go to that conference, as we go to other conferences, in order to operate as a team.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: May I ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. He has indicated that he will be attending the conference of the international monetary fund at Vienna. Can the minister inform the house whether it is the intention of the Canadian delegation to sponsor or advance any specific ideas or representations with respect to the price of gold?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. gentleman is referring to a price for gold that might be set somehow under international auspices. He is aware, of course, that it is the price that the United States is prepared to set for gold that largely determines the world price today. There may be variations in various markets, but fundamentally the great determinant of the price of gold in the world is the price established by the United States, and the present price is established by the United States congress, not by executive action. Consequently no change of a material nature is likely to take place in the world price of gold unless it were marked by action in that behalf by the congress of the United States.
I am not aware of any action intended or proposed in the United States congress in that regard. There have been and may well be at this forthcoming annual meeting of governors, discussion related to the world


price of gold. In previous annual meetings there have been references to this subject from time to time, but in the last four years there has been no very direct discussion on the floor of the meeting in that regard. I may say to the hon. member that there have been discussions of a private nature in this regard, but fundamentally this is something which, for any material change, must await action on the part of the congress of the United States.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: If I may, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Having regard to the fact that there is on the order paper important fiscal legislation, and I am thinking particularly of Bill No. C-122, can the Prime Minister tell the house who will be acting minister of finance while the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce are away?


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan).

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


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Chairman, today we meet in the Canadian House of Commons at a time of deep crisis. As hon. members know, for some weeks tension has been increasing steadily over Berlin, and within the last week the premier of the Soviet union has announced a resumption of nuclear tests. In addition to that, he has stated that his country can develop a nuclear bomb with the power of 100 million tons of t.n.t., and that such a bomb could then be hurled by rocket to any target in the world.
It was very interesting to read the first reports of this shocking statement. No doubt hon. members have seen them. I refer in particular to one which is contained in the Ottawa Journal of September 2. It is a dispatch from Moscow reporting an interview Premier Khrushchev held with two members of the British Labour party. To them he is reported as having declared that he had decided to resume the testing of nuclear weapons in order to shock the western

powers into negotiations on Germany and disarmament. In amplifying that statement he apparently said that by taking a tough line he hoped to make the Atlantic alliance agree to merging the discussions at Geneva on a nuclear test ban treaty with negotiations for general and complete disarmament.
There is no doubt that world opinion has been profoundly shocked by the statement and also by the actions which followed so quickly on the heels of the statement. I refer to the conducting of four nuclear tests in the atmosphere, where of course the radiation and fall-out are of the maximum degree. The United States has now decided that in the face of these actions by the Soviet union it must undertake nuclear tests, although they are not of the same type and are reported as being such that they do not produce fall-out. They will be tests in the laboratory and tests underground.
In the meantime a very statesmanlike step was taken by President Kennedy and Prime Minister Macmillan of the United Kingdom when they appealed to the Soviet premier on September 3 in the following words:
The President of the United States of America and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom propose to Chairman Khrushchev that their three governments agree, effective immediately, not to conduct nuclear tests which take place in the atmosphere and produce radioactive fall-out. Their aim in this proposal is to protect mankind from the increasing hazards from atmospheric pollution and to contribute to the reduction of international tensions.
They urge Chairman Khrushchev to cable his immediate acceptance of this offer and his cessation of further atmospheric tests.
They further urge that their representatives at Geneva meet not later than September 9 to record this agreement and report it to the United Nations. They sincerely hope that the U.S.S.R. will accept this offer, which remains open for the period indicated.
They point out that with regard to atmospheric testing the United States and the United Kingdom are prepared to rely upon existing means of detection, which they believe to be adequate, and are not suggesting additional controls. But they reaffirm their serious desire to conclude a nuclear test ban treaty applicable to other forms of testing as well, and regret that the U.S.S.R. has blocked such an agreement.
As yet there has been no reply to that appeal, and I am sure I speak for all members of the house when I say that we still hope Premier Khrushchev will agree to the proposal which has been made.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the great tragedy of 1961 has been that Soviet leaders have not understood or have ignored the fact that President Kennedy and his top advisers have, from the start of their administration, genuinely desired to bring about a reduction in world tension. We know that for a fact because of our contacts with these United States leaders.
Supply-External Affairs
For Canadians it is so important at this time not to add fuel to the flames with the world hovering on the brink of a nuclear war. We must do our utmost to help to reduce tension, and the government has been doing that during the recent very serious weeks. We must not lose our heads but must show Canadian common sense. Common sense is one of the finest qualities in the Canadian character, and now is the time to remember this and to show that common sense in our talk and in our actions.
In addition, we must continue our idealistic approach to world affairs. Because the situation is serious is no excuse for Canadians to abandon the idealistic approach they have had down through their history. These attributes have been shown by Canadians for a long time. Such is our record, and this is what is expected of us now by all nations, including the nations in the communist camp. A few weeks ago in Geneva I had a brief talk with Mr. Gromyko, the foreign minister of the Soviet union. There was, of course, a certain amount of banter but finally he said "I know that Canada stands for peace". That is our reputation in world affairs, and it is a very good reputation to have.
Today I propose to deal with certain material factors in the present world situation. Ordinarily I would go on to cover various other subjects which probably are of equal importance, but I plan today to deal with the facts relative to the present serious situation and later during the discussion of the estimates I shall try to deal with these other subjects.
First of all let me deal with nuclear tests. The tremendous world interest in nuclear tests is because people are rightly afraid of the effects of radiation and fall-out. They remember what happened at Hiroshima and they know that the damage and destruction would be infinitely greater in a nuclear holocaust with the present hydrogen bombs. They are worried about the effect not only on themselves but on the generations to come.
For this reason, and also in the hope that an agreement to ban nuclear tests would be a long step toward a general disarmament agreement, the three nuclear powers, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet union, decided nearly three years ago to try to work out a nuclear test ban agreement. France did not participate in that conference and, I think unfortunately, in the intervening period set off certain nuclear blasts, although the other three countries until last week maintained a moratorium on any further testing.
This conference held its 339th meeting this week and it meets again on Saturday, September 9, in Geneva. Up to the end of last year

Supply-External Affairs there had been great progress made in these negotiations. Scientists of the three countries had met and reported on various ways of checking tests, and the delegates had agreed to many paragraphs of a test ban treaty. Incidentally, at the United Nations last year there were two resolutions passed dealing with the suspension of nuclear and thermonuclear tests. One of them contained this operative paragraph:
Urges the states concerned in these negotiations- The reference is to the negotiations at Geneva.
-to continue their present voluntary suspension of the testing of nuclear weapons.
That resolution was sponsored by Austria, India and Sweden and was adopted by a vote of 89 in favour, including Canada, none against and four abstentions. Another resolution, sponsored by India and 25 other countries, contained the following operative paragraph:
Urges the states concerned in the Geneva negotiations to continue their present voluntary suspension of the testing of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, and requests other states to refrain from undertaking such tests.
That resolution was adopted by a vote of 83 in favour, including Canada, none opposed and 11 abstentions.
This year for some reason or other-I really do not understand why-the delegate of the Soviet union to the conference in Geneva became intransigent. It was really impossible to make any further progress.
The United States and Great Britain submitted revised proposals meeting many of the objections which had been taken by the Soviet delegate, but these were not even adequately discussed by the Soviet representative. He was insistent on the troika principle for controlling the test ban under which principle there would be one representative of the U.S.S.R., one representative of the western side and one neutral, and was also insistent that the whole question of nuclear tests should be taken out of the conference and put into a general conference on disarmament. However, the conference still goes on. The western side have refused to take steps to break it off, and I believe have acted very wisely in so doing.
At the United Nations in 1959 Canada sponsored a resolution calling for more adequate reporting on radiation and for additional steps to warn the people of the world about the effects of radiation as well as further action along that line. The resolution was co-sponsored by ten other nations and was finally adopted by unanimous vote on November 21, 1959. We offered to conduct in Canada tests of samples of air, soil, water, 
food and bone collected in nations which did not have the scientific facilities for carrying out such tests. In the intervening period arrangements have been made with Burma, Malaya, Ghana and Pakistan for Canada to carry out such tests. We have had to build up staff in Canada to do this work. We have extended our facilities and everything has now been prepared with this end in view.
As a result of the resolution, increased attention has been given to radiation problems internationally. For example, 13 other states have offered their facilities in the same way Canada did. These include the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, France, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Israel, the Soviet union, Argentina and Italy in addition to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization. There has been a marked increase _ in the number of member countries supplying the United Nations with data on fall-out levels.
I think we can be proud of the results that have followed from the initiative taken in 1959.
In addition we have made it perfectly clear for a long time that the Canadian government is opposed to nuclear tests of any kind. That was done in order that there would be no misunderstanding and that every country would know exactly where we stood. We see no reason for Canada to change that policy.
In the present situation, with the Soviet union conducting these tests in the way it has been, there can be no doubt that the responsibility for this backward step must be placed at their door. The United States has said that it now proposes to carry out tests. I think in fairness every hon. member of the committee would agree with me that the United States could not sit by indefinitely while the Russians were proceeding with their tests; but naturally we regret that it has been deemed necessary for the United States to announce the resumption of tests at this time. Canada on this problem will endeavour to further an agreement banning tests. That may not be an objective easily reached, but this is the target at which we will be aiming.
Having dealt with nuclear testing, I turn now to the situation in Berlin and Germany. I am sure all hon. members of the committee and the Canadian people generally will join with me in supporting the clear-cut, analytical and statesmanlike speech made by the Prime Minister of Canada in Winnipeg on September 1. I see by the press that the Leader of the Opposition has said he agrees with the attitude adopted in that speech by our Prime Minister. It would be tantamount to gilding the lily for me to attempt today

to go over the same ground which was covered by the Prime Minister on that occasion. I merely point out that for many months there have been warnings by the Soviet union that there would be a peace treaty signed with East Germany and there have been various threats, not all confined to one side, incidentally.
Threats do not obtain very good results. Perhaps this is one of the ways in which the Leaders of the Soviet union misunderstand the people on the western side. The Soviet cannot obtain results by threatening the Canadians, the British, the people of the United States or other western nations. We have been threatened before, and have met those threats with the proper action. That is the reason we are in active business in the world today. We do not back down in the face of threats.
There is an election campaign under way in West Germany which tends to add to the confusion with respect to the situation in Berlin. Voting takes place on September 17, ten days from now. The leader of the main opposition party is the mayor of West Berlin. I suppose knowing elections as we do, we might have expected that there would be a great many statements made which might not have been made the day after the election.
I also draw attention to the flood of refugees from East Germany into West Germany. This is a very significant factor. It shows more clearly than a million words could do what the people in East Germany think of the regime in that country. Of course it has had a very damaging effect on the image of communism which is being portrayed to other nations of the world.
Let me say a word also about President Kennedy's stand on Berlin. A few weeks ago he made a speech, which probably all hon. members heard, in which he set out the position on which the western world would stand. I think it was wise to do that in order that there could be no misunderstandings, no miscalculations, as are supposed to have happened in the case of both the first and second world wars. He went further and said that the United States was willing and anxious to enter into negotiations about this whole question, and that too was very wise. Our own Prime Minister has said the same thing and has stressed the need for negotiations. At one stage or another all parties have said that there must be negotiations in an attempt to iron out this difficult problem.
Our policy today on Berlin and Germany is that an attempt must be made to settle it around the table. There are many channels and methods for exploring with the Soviet union possible grounds of agreement. Partly to this end the foreign ministers of the three
Supply-External Affairs major western powers and of West Germany will be meeting in Washington on September 14, one week from today, to discuss further the steps which may be taken to reach a satisfactory agreement with the Soviet union. Similarly, consultations will continue in the North Atlantic council-and there have been many consultations in that council during the last few weeks-about peaceful solutions to this dangerous problem in accordance with the United Nations charter.
Through these discussions with our allies and in negotiations with the Soviet union it is hoped that it will be possible to reach an honourable accommodation with the Soviet. Canada certainly will do everything in her power to help bring about negotiations, and will do her part to see that they are brought to a successful conclusion.
The third material factor with which I wish to deal briefly is the position of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Today I would think there are not very many Canadians who believe that NATO is superfluous, and that it does not have a very important part to play in the world situation. So often it is forgotten that this is a defensive alliance. It was not set up for purposes of aggression. We know that the countries of that alliance do not believe in aggression. It was set up to defend western Europe and the north Atlantic area. It is so important that that organization be kept strong.


The Deputy Chairman:: May I interrupt the minister. Under the rules, his time has expired. Would the committee give unanimous consent for the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, through you may I thank the members of the committee for giving me this extension.
In recent months discussions in the NATO council have greatly improved, and I am glad to be able to announce that on Monday next we shall have in Canada Mr. Dirk U. Stikker, the distinguished secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He will be here for a two day conference with Canadian ministers, and this will give us an opportunity to review the whole NATO situation. Mr. Stikker took on this difficult post just a few months ago; he has been making a great success of that work, and we shall welcome him very warmly when he pays his first visit to Canada.
I think Canada must state once again that she believes in the equality of membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There is always the danger of the bigger nations trying to set up a sort of executive or control body. A few months ago there was

Supply-External Affairs concern over a possible three nation executive, a three nation triumvirate directing NATO. Now, with the Berlin crisis, West Germany has been taking part in the various discussions on Berlin with the United States, the United Kingdom and France. I think we must take care to see that there is not a four power group assuming executive powers in the organization.
At the last meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty foreign ministers we were very pleased to find that there was practically unanimous opinion that there was no incompatibility in the member nations of NATO taking independent stands in the United Nations, particularly on peace keeping activities of the United Nations and on appeals to world opinion. Canada has never believed that membership in NATO should restrict her activities in the United Nations.
A fourth material factor today is the question of disarmament. As hon. members know, Canada was a member of the ten nation disarmament committee which was torpedoed by the five communist members in June of last year. Two months later, with the United States, we were able to bring the question before the disarmament commission of the United Nations and to obtain a unanimous resolution there that negotiations should be resumed. Subsequently we brought in a resolution at the United Nations general assembly last fall which was designed to help get negotiations under way again. That resolution was co-sponsored by 18 other nations.
During their meeting in London this spring the prime ministers of the commonwealth issued a very significant statement on the question of disarmament. This was particularly helpful because of the membership of the commonwealth. The prime ministers came from practically every continent and they had varying opinions. They did not agree on all things. But on this statement on disarmament they were unanimous and issued a communique in respect thereof. I think in the days ahead as work proceeds on disarmament this commonwealth resolution will be of great importance.
At the session of the United Nations which ran over into the spring of 1961, it was finally agreed that the problem of disarmament and all pending proposals relating to it, which included the Canadian resolution, would be stood over until the session of the general assembly in the fall of this year. In addition the United States and the Soviet union agreed that they would sit down and try to work out a negotiating group, as well as general principles for negotiations, on the question of disarmament.
Since the spring there have been discussions between the representatives of these two

great powers. Canada has throughout warmly approved this attempt to reach agreement on a suitable forum for resuming disarmament negotiations and a satisfactory set of directives to guide the negotiators. We have been kept closely in touch with all that has gone on at each of the meetings, and here again the United States has made a real attempt to devise a satisfactory basis. It has been flexible in its approach during these two nation discussions.
The talks, of course, have been confidential and it is not possible to reveal the substance of the matters discussed. While they have not achieved their goal, the differences between the two sides have been clarified. Yesterday the United States and the Soviet union, were meeting in New York on this question of disarmament.
The last few days, Mr. Chairman, have seen barely concealed threats which, as I have said, we must meet squarely. This situation, however, does not mean that we should downgrade our efforts to further the cause of disarmament. On the contrary far-reaching measures on disarmament are now more vital than ever if we are to avoid even sharper east-west conflicts in a world which daily sees the development of more frightening weapons. We must recognize clearly that until a realistic basis for negotiation is established, we will continue to run the most dangerous risk of all, the risk of nuclear war.
During the past months Canada has taken an active part in the drafting of a new western disarmament plan. Throughout this period the United States and the other countries which represented the west on the ten-nation committee have been in close consultation. The other members of the western alliance who were not on the committee have also had an opportunity to express their views on the new plan. The contents of this plan cannot be revealed at this time, but it does constitute a significant improvement over previous western proposals. We have been represented during these discussions by Lieutenant-General E. L. M. Burns who has played a very large part in the field of disarmament for a long time and who, I suggest, has no peer anywhere in the world in this particular field.
Many of our suggestions have been accepted in the working out of this new plan. A great deal of effort has been put into trying to meet the desires expressed at the commonwealth prime ministers conference to ensure the maximum amount of disarmament in the shortest possible time. Full consideration has already been given to the reasonable Soviet proposals.
This new western plan will be put forward for negotiation, and not on a "take it or

leave it" basis. The western powers are willing to take into account any further suggestions the Soviet union may have, provided they reflect a genuine willingness to arrive at a realistic and properly safeguarded disarmament program.
At the session of the general assembly which opens on September 19, Canada will work for the endorsement of this new western plan by the widest possible number of states and we will do our best to ensure that any negotiating body which may be agreed upon will have close relationship with the United Nations. We believe that the most important objective in the field of disarmament is to get negotiations started again just as quickly as possible.
Then, I should like to say a few words about the unaligned nations conference which met over the week end in Belgrade. There you had 25 neutral nations, some of whom were not very friendly towards the west if one can judge by their actions in recent years. The representatives of these nations came from various continents to try to work out some plan to help reduce tension in the world. I grant that a good deal of time was spent in attacking the question of colonialism and issues which affected particular nations. I believe that the press reports of the meetings of these unaligned countries have not done justice to the significance of their reaction to the questions of Berlin and the resumption of nuclear testing. The dispatch which came out during that conference after the Soviet announcement that nuclear tests would be resumed is contained in one of our newspapers under this heading: "Neutrals Rap A Testing; Urge Berlin Talks."
It is very important that that should have been the reaction in Belgrade. I think, for example, that the statements made by Prime Minister Nehru have been and will be very helpful in bringing about some solution of these terrible problems. I learned the hard way at the United Nations, when dealing with our resolution on disarmament last year, that there are a good many countries which will not stand up and be counted for fear of antagonizing the United States. There are a great many others who will not stand up and be counted for fear of antagonizing the Soviet union. As I say, these neutral countries do not like to take a stand if it can possibly be avoided, yet we have witnessed the sharp reaction of these 25 neutral nations to the resumption of testing by the Soviet union and also to the question of Berlin.
Another important factor in the present situation is the attitude of the new nations. We are living in an era in which there has been a greater expansion of freedom, a greater
Supply-External Affairs launching of new nations, than at any other time in history. From Asia and in Africa the young leaders of these new nations are coming over to New York, to the United Nations, and are taking their part in the deliberations. They are vitally interested in building up their own countries. They have no use whatever for the cold war because they are so busy and have so many problems of their own. They do not want to be bothered with the cold war. They know that if the cold war ever gets hot they will get little economic assistance from either the western world or the communist world. These new nations have an important part to play in the world today. I believe that their opinion as expressed in the United Nations in the next few weeks may have a good deal to do in bringing about a reduction of tension and in putting pressure behind the great powers for a settlement of these problems.
The new nations are all extremely sensitive on the question of colonialism. They have an emotional reaction when that question is under debate and this reaction is understandable. We would have had the same reaction perhaps a hundred years ago. The Soviet never loses an opportunity to try to play upon and to take advantage of that reaction. Last year they introduced a resolution attacking the so-called colonial powers, demanding that all colonies be freed before the end of 1961, and insisting on target dates being set for each country. I do not doubt that they will be back at that same performance in the next session of the general assembly.
However, this is one field in which the commonwealth does not need to take any advice or any criticism from the Soviet union. Last year our own Prime Minister spiked that attack in the United Nations by his great speech in the opening days of the session when he pointed out the situation in such countries as Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. I may say that one is amazed at the nerve of the Soviet representatives in coming to New York and talking about colonialism and the sins of the colonial powers. I marvel that they have the gall to take that position. However, certainly in this particular field the commonwealth in our own time in recent years-and I am thinking of 1961 and 1962-has been and is showing perhaps the greatest statesmanship that has ever been shown by a great power in this world. Tanganyika is being launched on December 9, and the West Indies Federation next year. Shortly after that probably Uganda and Kenya will be launched. These latter two may come in with Tanganyika to form a federation in eastern Africa. Other colonies under the British flag are to get independent government in the same way at the earliest possible date and just as quickly as trained leaders can be provided for those

Supply-External Affairs countries. We may have some extremely interesting discussions on this question of colonialism during the coming session of the United Nations.
Finally, may I say this. The special material factor in the world today is the United Nations and in particular the session which commences later this month. I have no doubt that nuclear tests and the question of Berlin will be discussed during that session as well as many other issues with which I shall deal later on in this debate on the estimates. We must never forget that the United Nations is the best place we have in which to focus world opinion. The big question in my mind is this. Have the Soviet union gone so far that they are now prepared to ignore world opinion? Hitherto they have been playing up to other nations and trying to get support from other nations all over the world just as the United States has been doing. In their statement announcing that they were going to have nuclear tests, they actually said this was a great movement to help peace and they appealed to the uncommitted nations on that basis. How they could justify that argument I do not know either. However, if they have decided to ignore world opinion, we are in for extremely serious trouble; there can be no mistake about that fact. Let us hope that the leaders of that great country will be sensitive to world opinion, and that they will not simply ignore it and decide to go their own way seeking world domination.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is more than ever vital that Canada support the United Nations. This is no time for belittling that world organization. Some people say, "Oh, look at the mess it has made in the Congo". May I say this. Without the United Nations in the Congo there would have been blood feuds there and tribal wars, with thousands and thousands of people slaughtered during the whole of last year. This situation probably would have spread to adjoining areas. The situation would have been disastrous and might well have brought on a world war. The United Nations moved in without any precedent to follow, without trained personnel to do the job. They moved in or recruited a United Nations force and today there is a government in the Congo. They are having many troubles. They do not function as efficiently as does the Canadian government, I admit. Of course, it would be difficult for any other government to do that. However, they have a government and I believe that the problems are going to be worked out as a result of the leadership and the action of the United Nations. I am sure we are all proud that Canada has played such a significant part in the Congo and that we are one of the three European and North Atlantic countries serving on the Congo committee.


The United Nations today is the main hope of mankind. If it grows and succeeds, there will be world order. If it fails, there will be world destruction. That is the choice. I would hope that all Canadians will rally behind the United Nations at this time as they have never done before, although our people have always been supporters of that body.
In conclusion, I repeat what I said at the beginning. This House of Commons is meeting in a time of deep crisis. In times such as these a nation shows its calibre. Canada has done so on more than one occasion. We remember Canada in the first war. We remember Canada in the second war, the June day 21 years ago, when France was falling and when our then minister of defence was killed in a terrible air crash. It looked as though the United Kingdom would be invaded. I do not believe that in my lifetime there has ever been a darker day than that particular Monday. But no Canadian member of parliament had a thought in his head that there was going to be any surrender, that we were not going to face that situation and were going to win through. I know that Canada will show her calibre and her mettle in these present trying times.
The road ahead will be hard. Perhaps we have had enough of the soft life anyway. But the road ahead is certainly going to be hard and there will be tension for a long, long time. We might just as well face that fact. From Canadians courage will be required, both physical and moral, and sacrifice; and I believe above all, a return to our deep abiding fundamental faiths. If we face this challenge we will win through and the result may very well be to make our nation one of the leading nations of the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) stated that this is a time of crisis. The committee may be interested in knowing that exactly 22 years ago today parliament met to authorize a declaration of war. The statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as to the critical situation, with the special knowledge that is his, is one which every hon. member of this house will examine with a sense of responsibility and concern. Nearly six months have elapsed since our last brief discussion on foreign affairs in this house. A measure of the urgency and seriousness of this situation is that we are debating external affairs on the first day back.
There have been a number of historically important international events during these months and, like the Secretary of State for External Affairs, while I propose to discuss mainly the immediate situation provoked by the recent decision of the Soviet union to

carry on certain tests of nuclear weapons and the situation in Berlin, I should like to mention one or two events the historic importance of which I think ought to be noted at this time.
First of all, Britain's declaration of her intention to open negotiations with the European common market has for her, for Europe and for Canada deep implications. One may well wonder, I think, whether the government, with its policy of reluctant acquiescence in Britain's policy, has a full appreciation of these implications. I believe much progress has been made in the organization of American states during these last few months. We were told by the Prime Minister some months ago that this house would be given the opportunity of expressing its view with regard to the desirability of Canadian membership in the organization of American states. I express once again my own strong personal view that the time has come when Canada must accept its responsibility in this organization.
I do not see how we can affirm our responsibility in matters of world consequence in Europe, Asia and Africa and ignore our responsibilities to our own sister American continents. I believe that the Associate Minister of National Defence perhaps shares this view and may be giving some indication of the future intentions and policy of the government in this regard, for I find that when in Uruguay as our unofficial observer at the recent important conference held in that country, he is reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of August 24 as having made a number of very important and I think, true statements about the economic and social situation in this fermenting section of the world.
Among other things the associate minister said:
The feature that struck me was that Latin America seems to be at the crossroads. Either they will advance and achieve prosperity and progress through democratic free enterprise, or some nations -unless they find a solution to their problems- quite easily will fall prey to communist theories and methods.
Then he said that Canada is regarded as an important link with the United States, and then continued:
Because of our size, they are confident we might understand their problems better.
But we can never ignore it. Our prestige there is enormous. They need money, but they need even more the scientific training to use their resources.
They need help in business and industrial methods, and also in cultural affairs. But you can't go to a proud country and say "Let us teach you something". Tact is the most important thing.
We all agree that tact is the most important thing. Certainly the press comments on the
Supply-External Affairs speech of the associate minister during his observer's visit to Uruguay in August will leave the government in a hopelessly contradictory position if they do not indicate whether or not there is to be a follow-up of its recognition of Canada's responsibility to those nations in Latin America in an area where we have now seen, in two very important and vital countries, some indication of the growing power of communist influence.
We have a responsibility in terms of our own security as well as a nation in an interdependent world. The statement of the Associate Minister of National Defence places us in the dangerous position of losing respect and our influence among the nations of Latin America, nations which have so cordially and insistently invited us to join their ranks, unless the government pays some official public attention, preferably in the house at this time, to the important statements made by the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Likewise, with regard to another matter, no review of these recent months can overlook the atrocities being perpetrated in Angola. We must not forget that this country is pregnant with possibilities for exploitation by the Soviet union, perhaps on a scale much greater than anything that has happened in any other country of Africa. I wonder, for instance, exactly what our position is. Prior to the adjournment the Secretary of State for External Affairs responded to certain questions of mine with regard to arms and Angola, and there are certain questions now on the order paper to which I suspect we may anticipate replies within a few days.
I have here a clipping from the excellent reporting service of the London Observer referring to an aeroplane with Canadian markings engaged in attacks on native villages. This is a report dated July 22. If the minister's attention has not been directed to it I will certainly pass it over to him. If that report is true, some of the replies that have been given with regard to Canadian arms and Angola seem to be inconsistent with the replies given me prior to adjournment.
There are other matters of great importance. During the discussion of the estimates, as the minister said, we will be afforded the opportunity of expressing our views on some of these questions. Like the minister, I wish to confine myself mainly to the questions of Berlin, nuclear tests and disarmament.
Undoubtedly the central issue before the world today is the crisis in Berlin. At this moment in time it is impossible to state, I believe, what is going to happen there or, indeed, what our policies are going to be. We are in the hiatus period of diplomacy during

Supply-External Affairs which study and consultation on the part of the government must inevitably be taking place.
The most alarming aspect of the Berlin crisis is the prospect of the western nations themselves losing their perspectives or our perspectives. We see constant evidence in the daily press and radio bulletins of skirmishes, for instance, between border guards in Berlin using tear gas and water hoses. There is much talk of crisis and a tendency to make ill-considered public statements. The crisis reaction is surely one that we must wish to avoid at all costs.
I wish to say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that I read with interest his speech to the Canadian Bar Association in Winnipeg the other day. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has already expressed himself in support of the general terms of that speech. In Canada we may have our differences in domestic policy; we may have our differences, and if they exist we should not hesitate to say so, in the field of foreign policy, but the Prime Minister and the government can be assured that the general lines of that speech were expressed in terms to which we give concurrence. That does not mean to say that an exposition of particular details may not elicit a reaction different from that which I have stated on the points which will be exposed, but as to the general direction given by the Prime Minister I think it is important that in this parliament we should let the Soviet union, or anyone else interested, know that there is a much wider measure of unity in our country than those who are ideologically opposed to us sometimes suggest. While the inevitable penalty in the free world is that there are differences of opinion, it would be a mistake for the Soviet union to conclude that on essential and basic points there was not the widest measure of agreement, an agreement that would express itself, I am sure, in support of the general terms of the statement which President Kennedy made when he spoke the other day to his people and to the world on the attitude taken by the United States with regard to this matter.
I suggest that our perspective must be that Berlin is only one aspect of a much larger and all-inclusive cold war. Once again the Soviet union has struck us at a weak point. The Soviet union's over-all cold war strategy is to feel us out, to move from one vulnerable position to the next-Korea, the Middle East, the islands off China, Africa-and the immediate issue is the thing that catches the headlines while the over-all battle is pushed aside. I have encountered some of our own fellow countrymen who quite honestly refuse to concede that the cold war today is just as


much an active battle as has ever been fought in the history of man. It is incumbent on us, particularly members of the government with their access more readily and more quickly to exchanges especially with friendly countries, not to become transfixed by panic over the immediate crisis but rather to keep our minds and our over-all strategy on the larger problem facing us.
It is ironic that the perspective on the cold war leads us back to Germany in April of 1945 where advancing units of the American and Russian armies met on the banks of the Elbe near the town of Torgau. This symbolic event has marked the supreme condition of contemporary history ever since. That division of Germany and Europe into Russian and American spheres of influence provided the genesis of the cold war. And so the cold war which began in Germany some 16 years ago out of the results of the second world war now reaches its greatest crisis in that same country.
Whatever the motives of Chairman Khrushchev are I do not know. Perhaps his major aim is a clear acknowledgment from the west of the communist power in the heart of Europe. Certainly he wants recognition of East Germany with full diplomatic status. It is suggested, he wants to make the west back down and retract its words about defending freedom. He wants one more pressure point in the over-all cold war. He wants to test public opinion in the west and to fly a kite because of the increasing sentiment in the west on the part of some who are more and more reluctant to risk a war. In other words, he is perhaps testing our courage. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, he wishes perhaps to stop the embarrassing flow of refugees from East Germany. Some three and a half million people have fled from East Germany since 1949. This represents almost 15 per cent of its population. Ironically enough, as the stream of refugees grew to larger numbers prior to August 13 the tension actually increased in that their numbers increased the embarrassment of the Soviet union. With the latter's tremendous weapon of propaganda they cannot afford to be greatly embarrassed in this manner and we should not be surprised that they are provoked to extreme measures to arrest or mitigate their embarrassment.
It may be that there is a power struggle going on in the Soviet union. It may be that Mr. Khrushchev has his problems at home. It may be that there are great influences behind him originating in the so-called People's Republic of China. Whatever may be the reason, the undoubted fact is that we are face to face with a serious situation, one that

calls for the greatest tact and care and display of responsible firmness, if we are going to avoid the cataclysmic consequences of the most terrible experience ever to confront mankind. That is the one thing we have to keep in mind, the consequences to mankind of a world that will be at least partially destroyed and whose civilization would be seriously affected by the consequences that would flow as the result of a nuclear conflict. We in the west must never forget the one, paramount, overriding factor in this day of psychological cold war; that is, that we must never have a nuclear war if that can possibly be avoided. We must think of the innocent men and women of the world who have nothing to do with the formulation of policy. We must think of those who are in no way responsible for this situation except by virtue of their being human beings. We must think of our young people and of the tests they are making of our capacity to resolve this problem. We must also think of the statements they make from time to time that we, an older generation, have made a mess which perhaps only they can correct.
All of this we must bear in mind. Yet at the same time, because of what inevitably confronts us, we cannot fail to recognize that there is a great cleavage between a world that enjoys freedom and a world based upon totalitarian power that denies freedom. This is the terrible dilemma into which we have been placed. Our moral heritage forbids us from starting a nuclear war, yet the side in this historical struggle between tyranny and freedom which first enunciates the abandonment of nuclear war as a basis for diplomatic policy must lose the struggle. This is a central axiom, because if one side
eliminates the possibility of nuclear war______
and this is the dilemma as I see it-it would be sufficient for the adversary simply to menace severely enough with the threat of nuclear destruction so as to force a negotiated capitulation. We must be prepared, I agree, to go to the limit on issues within the cold war. We must be prepared to do the ultimate concerning Berlin in order to prevent a war over Berlin.
I do not know what President Kennedy told Premier Khrushchev of the Soviet union in Vienna but when the president was making that important journey to visit Khrushchev I did think that he may have sought to establish in the mind of Khrushchev the ultimate intentions of the United States so that there could be no suggestion in history later on, if there is going to be any history, that the Soviet union was not properly warned by its main adversary; and so that no one could say in this period that Russia had been ill-
Supply-External Affairs advised, as some historians suggest Hitler had been ill-advised, as to the course the United Kingdom proposed to take in regard to the events that led to the second world war.
The Prime Minister spoke of negotiation in his speech as did President Kennedy in his. I recall the statement made by the Prime Minister in this house before adjournment to the effect that while there could not be negotiations on certain matters and no compromise on essentials, there was an area for compromise and negotiation. I cannot help thinking that while that is undoubtedly the correct position to take, Chancellor Adenauer had views at the time which suggested that compromise was out of the question. Negotiations so far, and understandably because of their very nature, have been fuzzy and not fully defined, partially I readily admit at once because, as the Prime Minister said, to reveal negotiations would freeze our diplomacy, and partially because we are unclear sometimes and perhaps at the moment as to what is actually negotiable.
But let us clear up one fundamental point; that negotiation assumes an attitude on both sides at least genuinely to want to seek the possibility of a solution. If one side has no intention of seeking a solution but is only sitting back waiting for opportunities to make [propaganda assaults and to play among the divisions of the western nations, then there is manifestly no certainty of the effectiveness of that kind of negotiation.
I believe personally there is much evidence to suggest that the Soviet union has now no intention of seeking final solutions so we must never allow ourselves, as I see it, to be duped by prospects of grand conferences to resolve all our problems. We have as a precedent the ill fated summit meeting of May I960. I do not mean by this that we should refuse to have conferences. I do not mean that the President of the United States should have necessarily refused to meet Premier Khrushchev. That is not what I am saying. I am pointing out that we now must surely have behind us sufficient evidence to realize there is no solution to the vital problems of our time merely by conference. But we must always assume that there are grounds for negotiation.
What is negotiable, then? First of all let us clearly state what is not negotiable. Not negotiable, I believe, is the freedom of one single free individual in West Berlin. Not negotiable is one square yard of free men's land in West Berlin. In the field of diplomatic negotiations I support the policies of the government as generally stated. I believe this government in turn, particularly on the basis of the statement made by the Prime Minister,
8070	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs will support our alliance. We will not allow the Soviet union any opportunity of exploiting splits in our ranks because, as I see it, on fundamentals there is no split.
The question of Berlin does not arise in its present context for the first time. We will remember that in November 1958 Premier Khrushchev said that the time had come when there should be a withdrawal from Berlin and that there should be created in that city a demilitarized free zone. We recall too the announcement of Premier Khrushchev at that time that there would be a treaty signed by the Soviet union with East Germany. He called for recognition of East Germany by all nations and particularly the four occupying powers.
Canada has an interest in this matter, although we do not sit in the front seat at the bargaining table, which is not our opposition. Nevertheless we have as vital an interest in this question of Berlin and its consequences as has the United States, Great Britain, France or the Soviet union (a) as a nation among the nations of the world and (b) because of our own legal commitment in regard to situations that could eventuate in modern day Germany.
It must not be forgotten in this context that on October 2, 1954, at London, the western powers of NATO which had met to lay plans for the termination of the occupation of the Federal Republic of Germany and for its incorporation as a state in NATO issued the following declaration, one which will be familiar to the Leader of the Opposition. That declaration is in these terms:
The security and welfare of Berlin and the maintenance of the position of the three powers there are regarded by the three powers as essential elements to the peace of the free world in the present international situation. Accordingly, they will maintain armed forces within the territory of Berlin as long as their responsibilities require it. They therefore re-aflirm that they will treat any attack against Berlin from any quarter as an attack upon their forces and themselves.
On October 23, 1954 Canada and the other NATO members associated themselves with this declaration. Therefore, I say the Canadians, as well as the people of the United States and others, have a stake in the problem of Germany and Berlin. In addition, we have an obligation which arises out of article 6 of the North Atlantic treaty, and which states that an armed attack on the occupation forces in Europe of any party to the treaty constitutes an attack against all parties.
Therefore, we have a vital interest in what happens there, apart altogether from the fact that we are a nation of human beings existing in this very turbulent period of world history.

In 1959, the Canadian government was confronted with the situation that had been created by the ultimatum given by Chairman Khrushchev in November, 1958. There was a NATO conference in 1959, at which time Canada was represented by the then minister of national defence, General Pearkes. I believe that at that time General Pearkes made a very useful contribution to the solution of that problem. He was commended on his view by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in the house some weeks later. We do not know whether at the present time the government has sought to relate to the present situation some of the proposals made at that time by its spokesman in Washington. At any rate, I have seen no public reference to them. I think it might be worthwhile now to recall what were some of the positions taken and proposals made by Canada at that time with regard to a situation which in principle is exactly what we are now confronted with although unaccompanied then by the intensity that characterizes the present situation.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I must
inform the hon. member that his time has expired. Does the committee give unanimous consent for him to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the
committee. The Canadian representative suggested methods by which the United Nations might provide the framework for any agreements in Berlin. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in commenting on the current situation have sought to emphasize the desirability of a potential role for the United Nations in this situation. First of all it is proposed that the basic role of the United Nations might be to verify that all parties were abiding by the terms of the agreement.


John George Diefenbaker: Whom is the hon. member quoting?


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are my interpretations of the position taken by General Pearkes on behalf of Canada at Washington in 1959.


John George Diefenbaker: General Pearkes' representative?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, by himself. These are the statements he himself made at the council. It was argued that the essential part of any such agreement would be a Soviet pledge binding itself and its associates to permit full freedom of access to West Berlin and the acceptance of a United Nations presence on the lines of communication.

Then, General Pearkes also pointed out that it should be understood that any United Nations responsibility for West Berlin would be complementary to the present rights and obligations of the four occupying powers. These views stated by General Pearkes correspond in some particulars with proposals made on February 12, 1959, by Senator Mansfield. I do not propose to go into Senator Mansfield's proposals. One or two may not be acceptable, but I believe that some of them deserve the careful study of those whose immediate responsibility it is, as members of a government, to find some solution to this difficult situation.
What I have said is all I have to say now about Germany and Berlin. Along with the government, I recognize the seriousness of this situation. I recognize the understandable irritation that all free people of the world must have with the constant succession of events which seem to indicate the success of Soviet union diplomacy. It is no wonder that one hears it being said constantly, when are we going to stop this continuous advancement of the Soviet union. That is understandable when we have to face into this situation. The Soviet union cannot be allowed to go on endlessly interfering with other countries and other people in their determination to see that their philosophy becomes the dominant philosophy and the dominant form of human society.
While this is so, at the same time we have to think of the consequences of actions which would provoke a world nuclear war. It is the balance between that situation and the present one that presents us with the serious problem which confronts us at the moment. The Secretary of State for External Affairs characterized the announcement-it was not by the Soviet union but by the United States itself-of an explosion of a nuclear bomb by the Soviet union as a most tragic situation coming, as it did, before a formal break-up of the Geneva test talks, certainly after some 300 meetings, thus giving the lie to the Soviet union, in the attempt to try to get an agreement on a matter which if successful might have led to the possibilities of a comprehensive agreement on disarmament in conventional and nuclear weapons. It may be that the announcement to commence testing by the Soviet union is intimately related to the Berlin crisis. It may be part of the Soviet union's over-all scheme to create a crisis atmosphere among western public opinion that would force our governments into a move which would bargain away rights and make concessions. I do not believe the Soviet union has been successful in this. Certainly it has aroused even some of the most neutral among the neutral nations.
Supply-External Affairs
The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the statements of Mr. Nehru and President Nasser, and of course there are statements of other leaders indicating their grave concern with that decision of the Soviet union. But we ourselves cannot escape a responsibility in these matters. The declared position of the Canadian government today as on other occasions during the past twelve months is that we are in favour of a ban on nuclear weapon tests with or without controls. That position of the Canadian government was reiterated today, but I would point out that it is not the position of the government of the United States. Undoubtedly the government of the United States has done everything within its power to arrive at an agreement, but they are in favour of a test with controls above and under the ground.
We are all agreed with regard to the criticism of and the indictment that has been levelled against the Soviet union for the initiative it took in exploding a nuclear bomb in Asia. It is now suggested that possibly another will be exploded in the Arctic. But I should like to know what step the Canadian government has taken to indicate, in the ways that are open, through diplomatic techniques and other methods, our deep displeasure first of all with the Soviet union. That, of course, was done by the Prime Minister in his speech. If I recall correctly-I may be wrong in this- the Prime Minister said that no other form of opposition or complaint had been registered. He may conclude it would be useless. In any event, I hope that at the United Nations we will take our place and indicate to the Soviet union its responsibility not only for the failure of the test talks but for the further regression of progress in the matter of disarmament. But have we intimated to the United States our regret that they found it necessary to carry on tests, even though there is provision for an absence of radioactive consequences because the tests are to take place in the laboratory and underground?
Our position, as stated today, is that we are against tests. While the minister did not say whether or not we are against tests with or without control, we are against tests. I presume the minister was stating the situation as he believes it to be and as he understands government policy. However, if I read correctly the speeches made by the Minister of National Defence, I find a different emphasis. It could be that this emphasis is misunderstood. I have read particularly the speech made by the minister in Toronto the other day. I find it difficult to reconcile the statements made by both ministers with regard to this matter. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said he understood the attitude of the United States is being forced

Supply-External Affairs into carrying on these tests as the result of the initiative taken by the Soviet union. I find in that statement a contradiction of what is said to be government policy with regard to a test ban in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs believes.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs did not carry on with the corollary to this problem of banning all tests. No indication was given of the position of the Canadian government with regard to nuclear weapons in Canada. Our position as stated by the Leader of the Opposition is clear. At the present time we do not believe this country should accept nuclear weapons in Canada. What the situation in the future will be will have to be determined by events. It is not because we do not want to see our forces in Canada equipped in the most efficient manner, but because we realize the danger of the diffusion of nuclear weapons. When we think of the situation that now confronts us in Berlin, and assume that that situation passes over without the holocaust that could ensue, our minds should be directed to what could happen if there were more than four powers in possession and control of nuclear weapons.
I note in passing that the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to nuclear weapons in Canada is to be read with the statement he made on August 5, 1960, which can be found on page 7607 of Hansard of that date. He said:
If, for instance, the United States needs, and if it can satisfy us that the need is justified, certain facilities on Canadian soil, and if we cannot or do not desire for reasons which seem good to us to ourselves provide these facilities and the services that go with them, then I do not think we should refuse to make the necessary political agreement with our neighbour, as has been done in the United Kingdom. But they should be in clear terms which will always recognize our own sovereign right of ultimate control.
If such an agreement were to extend to the use of air bases in Canada, as is the case in the United Kingdom, although the agreement there is under reconsideration at the present time, I suggest that any such agreement for the use of Canadian bases, and I think this is important, should only be on the condition that we have complete information about every United States flight from every such Canadian base, and that we have a veto over every such flight off that base if we consider it necessary on policy grounds.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned NATO. We must recognize that the weaknesses of the United Nations in terms of its powers of sanction have created a necessity for the freedom loving nations to be bound together in a defensive alliance. Canada had much to do with the establishment of that alliance. This alliance is not perfect, and certainly it does not satisfy us in so far as

the pursuit of economic objectives is concerned. We might well contemplate, however, what would have been the situation in the world, in the light of present events, if there were no NATO. I strongly support the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the maximum amount of unity we must have in NATO. I support him with regard to the proposed constitutional arrangement of executive power by four or three of the nations. There must be equality of authority in NATO. I fully subscribe to that view as expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I think we ought to make it clear in the interests of the peace of the world and of the interests of our own security, that we recognize NATO as an essential defensive alliance against agression. There is no condition, and there must be no condition as we see it in this party, to our membership in NATO. Strong political opinion on a very high level in this country was expressed during the course of the summer months as to the kind of condition which should be imposed on NATO if Canadian membership in that organization is to continue. I noticed that a political group that met in this city after the Social Credit party had its annual convention said, inter alia:
The New Party believes that the extension of nuclear weapons to any further states and alliances threatens disaster to the world. It therefore opposes Canada's troops being supplied with such weapons at home or abroad. At present, except for those nations which have independently developed atomic capacities, neither NATO itself nor its members individually possess or control nuclear warheads. Should they do so, Canada must make it clear that it cannot remain in the alliance.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I take issue with that statement. This statement would be an invitation to the Soviet union to recognize the possibility of NATO becoming disorganized and seriously disunited. There can be no condition attached to the alliance in the face of the present situation that confronts us. I make this statement because I believe, while we must do everything we can to avoid war- I have indicated I believe this strongly and I hope sincerely-we must recognize that perhaps the most effective way of avoiding it is by displaying a measure of common strength, a measure of common strength that has been forced upon us by the aggressive intentions and initiatives taken by the Soviet union.
I should like to summarize my views as to what should be our attitudes with regard to the current situation. First, there should be complete realization of the totality of the Soviet challenge and the retention of power perspective; second, absolute firmness in our

declarations of principle and support of freedom; third, to exhibit a mature attitude that is not deliberately provocative and so create tensions which work amongst themselves to produce crises; fourth, the necessity of absolute realism in the terrifying psychology of the cold war. The United Nations must be given an opportunity of increasing service. Its present relative weakness is demonstrated by the secondary position it is taking in these great events that are confronting us. It is playing no direct role in some of the events, particularly those in Germany. We look for an opportunity whereby the United Nations will be given a chance to play a significant role, perhaps as a means of guaranteeing the right of access to West Berlin. I would hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be prepared to anticipate and meet the kind of attack on the United Nations made last year by Chairman Khrushchev. Such an attack, if it succeeded, would destroy the United Nations as it was envisioned at San Francisco in 1946. It is possible that the Soviet union intends to destroy the United Nations because that body has not served its purposes. One might as well argue that certain nations opposed to the Soviet union might take a similar position if they find that the United Nations does not serve their immediate purposes. What we must do is to see to it that we do not lose the opportunity that has been built up of creating a vast reservoir of knowledge and experience in the existing United Nations. The Soviet union wants to destroy the United Nations as it now is. That is its policy. As was stated by Hamilton Fish Armstrong in a recent number of Foreign Affairs, in a brilliant and valuable contribution, we ourselves no matter what the sacrifice must be prepared to see that the United Nations is carried on.
I have spoken longer perhaps than I should have or intended. Undoubtedly in what I have said I have reflected the difficulty we all have in our desire to avoid nuclear war. It is only by a display of strength, responsibly asserted, that we will in the present scene avoid a nuclear conflict. I am sure that is now the case. War will not serve the cause of the Soviet union. It will not add to the might of the United States. It would simply destroy the effectiveness and richness of man himself and his institutions. This we must avoid. However, we are not going to avoid war by refusing to face up to our responsibilities. We must use the instruments, the only instruments, which we as finite beings know, to provide an effective guarantee against war. We shall not be respected by the Soviet union by being weak.
Supply-External Affairs
Because of the present armed position of the Soviet union we must be in a position to negotiate from strength. In my judgment only such a position will guarantee what so many people in the world, with the best of intentions, have in mind when they say that we must be prepared to resort to any device in order to avoid the possibility of conflict. Of course we must resort to any device. However, let us do it in a manner that protects the fundamental character of our society, the fundamental principles that govern, in the attempt to safeguard human dignity and preserve peace.
Canada has a responsibility in this matter. We do not sit in the front row at the bargaining table. However, whenever publicly or privately these important discussions are taking place, this government has the responsibility of making sure that the position of Canada is fully known, and that we exert on the Soviet union and others the kind of pressure of public opinion which undoubtedly in the final analysis may prove to be one of the effective means of persuading those responsible for this situation that nothing is to be gained by conflict.
It is in this spirit and with this great concern over this problem that I ask the government to exert its best efforts to bring forward all the sources available to it, and that it consult with every available body in our country. The Leader of the Opposition is perhaps not going to like what I am about to say but I feel that in a situation like this, Canada's role could be an extremely important one. I noticed yesterday that the Prime Minister had a talk with the Leader of the Opposition. There is no man in our country who has greater experience in these matters than has the Leader of the Opposition. The urgency of this situation is such that I make a suggestion and this I do without collaboration, and perhaps in doing so I run the risk of occasioning his displeasure. If the situation is as serious as has been suggested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by the Prime Minister in Winnipeg, this is no time for irresponsible party division. This is a moment in which to take advantage of every available bit of advice that can be given. With his background and his experience, I know of no one who can give more valuable advice in these matters than can the Leader of the Opposition. In this spirit I hope it will be possible for us to contribute to an era of peace and not one of continuing turbulence.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As usual, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the whole committee listened with

Supply-External Affairs interest to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure it is quite correct to say that he always has the good will and the best wishes of the house in all he tries to undertake in his extremely important office. We in Canada are rather fortunate in the members who have held this office. The previous secretary of state for external affairs was concerned in something that we all hope will develop into a reality in every sense of the word in the days to come and that was when he proposed the emergency force in the Middle East. We in this group hope that force grows into a world police force in the very near future instead of the regional and other pacts that exist at the present time.
The minister said that Canada's role was to do all it could to lessen world tensions. Indeed if I heard him correctly, he made some reference to a remark made by one of the Soviet delegates in a recent conference he attended and which indicated they recognize the fact that Canadians are peaceful people and that our policies are based on our desire for peace. I did not catch the exact words.
Before proceeding I also wish to express our appreciation of the excellent work done by the senior and other officials of the minister's staff. The more one meets representatives of other nations and has an opportunity to talk to them, the more he realizes that we are fortunate in having as our representatives sincere persons working under very ticklish conditions at the present time.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs usually visits his home constituency for a bit of a summer holiday. As a matter of fact his mother is a constituent of mine and he visited there as usual this summer. I always look in the newspapers the next day to read what he had to say. It is reported rather more fully in the Nelson daily News than it would be, say, in the Globe and Mail because he is welcomed as the home town boy who has made good. We recognize that fact.
I read with great interest the speech the minister made in Kaslo on August 13 as reported in the Nelson daily News of August 14. It was a very good speech on the whole, but I must make some reservations. The minister had this to say, in part:
"There is a great opportunity for our nation. Canada can make a great contribution to mankind as a whole. It all comes back to the individual. In the final analysis every nation can only be as strong as the people in that nation. Whether it be in the Kootenays, at Vancouver, or in the maritimes, the Canadian people, 18 million strong, have an opportunity to serve mankind. It rests with every individual Canadian."
What I like about those comments is that the minister recognizes the value of the in-

dividual and the importance of public opinion in the country. He also recognizes the importance of Canadians as individuals as well as governments accepting responsibility in these serious times.
The minister had something to say about nuclear tests. He mentioned that France was the first nation to disappoint the hopes of other nations in the world by insisting on some mole-eyed nuclear tests, as I understand it.
The Soviet union has undertaken nuclear tests in recent weeks. I can say that the members of this group were dismayed at this decision on the part of the Soviet union, particularly after the years of effort by numerous sincere people representing various countries at the many meetings which have been held. We trust this is only a passing phase and is sort of an ebullient exhibition and irritation that can be modified, and a policy that can be changed as the result of continued negotiations and discussions.
We were very pleased to hear the minister place his faith in continued negotiations regardless of the frustrations rather than in belligerent statements and policies. We were also disappointed-as I think were the hon. members of the official opposition-with the United States decision to commence underground tests in the meantime, as I think was stated in the newspapers, prior to the deadline set by President Kennedy with respect to a reply from Mr. Khrushchev. We think this was an unfortunate mistake and, like the hon. member for Essex East who has just resumed his seat, we should like to hear what the government is doing to indicate, I think it is safe to say, general Canadian disappointment and displeasure at the announcement of the United States to proceed with underground nuclear tests. We think the United States would have been in a much stronger position if they had refrained from this action at the present time.
We believe we have to be pretty cool and objective. That is one thing I like about the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as I did about the previous secretary of state for external affairs. We have been very fortunate in that respect. We have had level-headed, moderate-minded people who do not blow off steam in any critical situation. This is very necessary in the world today. We believe we must take a very cool and objective approach to these questions.
The minister mentioned the opinions of people and the responsibility of individuals. I like to find out what people are thinking. I had the opportunity to travel around the Kootenays during the recess. This was somewhat limited by my prior attendance at a

recent convention to which the hon. member for Essex East referred and to which I shall refer later.
On one occasion I had the opportunity to address a picnic which over 600 people attended. These people were members of the C.C.F. party and some of them were former members of both the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties. They seemed to enjoy themselves and seemed to be moving in a progressive direction. I had the opportunity to talk with many of these people and find out what was their approach. I can say that people's attention is directed to what this government does under these circumstances and to what we all do in this House of Commons.
I was very pleased to note their interest. I noticed it came from quarters and from persons who in the past were rather given to taking things for granted. To indicate the attitude of the people I met-and I spoke to dozens and dozens-I can say there is a general feeling in the country that to consider war over the Berlin issue would be tragic and most unfortunate. That is not only the opinion of the people; it is the opinion of a good section of the press of this country.
To indicate this I wish to read from a few editorials. I read first from the Vancouver Sun of August 19. The editorial is headed "Myths" and states:
It is time to expose the myths that surround the Berlin question, myths that could plunge the world into a final war.
Prime Minister Diefenbaker might have taken on the unpleasant task of exposing them this week. Instead he devoted his oratorical skill to declaring that the Berlin crisis is forging allied strength and NATO unity to the toughness and temper of Damascus steel.
This in itself is perilously close to myth. Unity alone does not constitute strength. Chickens huddle together when a hawk passes overhead. As for NATO's strength, it is obviously lacking in Berlin. Our position is dangerously exposed. Strategically, the city is practically indefensible.
There has been too much talk of unity and strength in recent weeks, too little critical appraisal of the western position on the German question. There have been practically no imaginative or constructive moves by western diplomats.
The central myth, on which others feed and grow, is that the reunification of Germany is a foundation stone of western policy. This myth should be clearly labelled "Made in west Germany".
We agree with that statement. The editorial continues.
To our knowledge, no western leader since Anthony Eden has suggested realistic terms for this reunification.
A unified Germany would be powerful and prowestern. Russia knows this and fears it, and with reason. She was one nation which suffered most from the savagery of German invasion.
For that matter, is there a unanimous western desire for a reunified Germany? Do nations of west Europe which have suffered German invasion twice in this century wholeheartedly hope for a new and mightier Germany to rise in Europe's centre?
Supply-External Affairs
Western diplomacy can only advance from realism. And the cold truth is that the boundary of the Russian empire will be fixed at the centre of old Germany for the foreseeable future. (Barring an agreement for mutual disengagement of the two main antagonists,-
Which we hope will take place in the not too distant future:
-leaving a single but neutralized Germany at Europe's centre).
It is no less realistic that we should recognize the fiction of an independent east German state than that we should recognize the Hungarian, Polish and other governments of territories now held by the Russian empire. We may not recognize the east German regime's right to control their regions. But there is ample precedent for recognizing the Pankow clique as the de facto government.
Sometime, soon we hope, some western leader will recall Washington and Bonn from the dream which they now seem to share of extending the boundary of the western camp to the Polish border.
Recent statements of German statesmen have Indicated this is a final objective of some of the persons in power in West Germany. The editorial continues:
Why not a Canadian voice?
Andrei Gromyko, when he was Russian ambassador to the U.N., once remarked that the Canadian delegation frequently said what other people were only thinking.
Perhaps this is the time for Canadian diplomacy to again adopt this role.
We agree with the concluding paragraph of that editorial. We believe there is an opportunity for the Canadian government to take a stronger position than it has in the past in this connection. I wish to make a very brief reference to Maclean's magazine. These editorials reflect a very widespread opinion amongst Canadians, as I can tell from conversations. This editorial is to be found in Maclean's magazine of August 26, 1961. It is entitled "Berlin. The Crisis that Propaganda Built" and states:
Canadians don't normally think of themselves as subject to propaganda. That happens to the Russians and the Chinese, the Arabs under Nasser or the Germans under Hitler, not to citizens of a democracy served by a free press. Yet the fact is that we are, right now, targets of a propaganda campaign for which it's hard to find a precedent in peacetime. Its object is to make us beiieve in a crisis over Berlin.
For weeks the reports of United States news services have been alterting us to the imminence of a showdown. The western powers are said to be wanting Khrushchev to "keep hands off West Berlin". In the face of "threats" by Khrushchev the west is "standing firm", set to "defend" West Berlin with nuclear weapons if need be.
The editorial continues in a similar vein. I am not going to take the time of the house to read it all. It is quite critical of, shall I say, the almost hysterical approach to this question which one sees if one reads the United States press and which has been reflected to some extent in the Canadian press. If you read the press of the United Kingdom

Supply-External Affairs and the press of western Europe you see an entirely different approach to this situation.
We are not underestimating the seriousness of the situation but we do think there has been an attempt to put the thing in the wrong perspective as far as United States citizens are concerned. We think that again the Canadian government can play a very important role here. It has done some good things in the past and in recent days. It has taken very sound action on certain matters when we were not in entire agreement with our friends to the south but which actions have been welcomed by other governments in the commonwealth and other governments in the world generally.
I should like to read now from an editorial written by the publicity director of the Progressive Conservative association of Kootenay West. The minister knows this gentleman quite well indeed. I usually differ with him quite violently on many things. I wish to read the editorial because in walking down the main street of Trail I was amazed to meet people who disagree with this gentleman on most things but who had read this editorial and who said to me, "Here is one thing he said that was right". I suppose I spoke to a hundred people when I was in Trail who made the same comment about this editorial. I am reading it simply to indicate the state of mind of many Canadians under these circumstances. This is what the publicity director of the Progressive Conservative association of Kootenay West had to say, and surely the minister will accept this:
Let's watch the Germans. It is astonishing with what willingness these West Germans are prepared to place our necks on the block in order that their own comfortable and prosperous way of life may proceed undisturbed.
The nerve of these people is something to behold. Twenty years ago, they were perpetrating upon humankind atrocities the like of which had never been seen before. Anything the Russians may have done has been kid stuff by comparison.
These indignant Germans plunged the world into two major wars which have brought democracy as we understand it to the brink of extinction. Now they have the gall to liken President Kennedy, in his reluctance to engage in an all-out shooting war over Berlin, to Chamberlain. They even sent Kennedy a symbolic Chamberlain umbrella. The fact that Chamberlain, in his apparent weakness, gained for the allies a couple of invaluable years in which to organize some sort of defence against Germany seems to escape them entirely.
In any event, we are quite capable of assessing the significance of current events in Berlin and East Germany without any assistance from the West Germans. As far as we are concerned the West Germans should be invited to button up and right quickly. If we are going to fight the Russians, it will be over something of considerably more consequence to the world than what happens to the West Germans.
As a matter of fact, there does not appear to us to be any particular issue shaping up in Berlin. Khrushchev has already undertaken that our access

to West Berlin is not to be blocked, that our "lawful rights" to be in Berlin at all are to be safeguarded.
It would be a tragedy if we were now to fall for the guff being peddled by a group of West German malcontents and conspirators who, by virtue of an altogether undeserved measure of allied Christian charity, have prospered so well since 1945.
Probably we should pull out of Germany altogether and leave the Germans to sort out their own reunification problems. If we did, they would probably start shooting one another the day after. That, however, would be better than sacrificing Canadian lives in a fruitless struggle with the Russians over one miserable Teuton city.
As I say, I differ with the writer on many things but I recognize that we have certain responsibilities. I have read this editorial in order to indicate what a prominent Conservative in my own constituency is thinking and to point out that many people have said to me, "I differ with that man on most things but on this matter he was correct". I do so to indicate a frame of mind which must be recognized. Then we have the view expressed by the chairman of the B.C. power commission, Dr. Keenleyside, who was a deputy minister under the Liberal administration at the same time as the Leader of the Opposition was under-secretary of state for external affairs. I read the following from the Nelson daily News of August 28, last:
Dr. Keenleyside, who formerly headed the Canadian committee for control of radiation hazards, said, "risking war over the issue of West Berlin is the final evidence of the bankruptcy of our diplomatic policy."
He added that the west must agree to the permanent division of Germany and grant full recognition to East Germany in a compromise agreement with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. It was obvious that Russia would never agree to German unification when that could mean Germany would be in NATO and armed with nuclear weapons.
"If the U.S. goes into hysterics over a semicommunist Cuba why should we expect the Russians to agree to the build-up of an infinitely worse threat from a united enemy?"
Dr. Keenleyside said the west was in "an impossible situation" in Berlin and would have to abandon it sooner or later.
That is Dr. Keenleyside, chairman of the B.C. power commission. Although I do not have them here, the Hon. James Sinclair, a member of the former Liberal cabinet, has also made some very strong statements very much after the fashion of Dr. Keenleyside. In fact, he has indicated that in his opinion it would be complete foolishness for the western world to embark upon a war over the situation that exists in West Berlin. I have mentioned these press items and my conversations with various people to indicate that people are taking an interest in the situation. They are supporting the government in all it can do to prevent anything so tragic and unfortunate as war over an issue which these people are not prepared to admit is a sound one.

The nuclear bomb has made war a monstrous absurdity. Yet some leaders of the west are talking and acting as if the Berlin crisis may have to be settled in the last resort by war. If the Berlin crisis is settled by war, it will certainly be settled for all time, for there will not be a Berliner left alive over whom another crisis could develop. Nor, for that matter, will there be very many Canadians still living to pass on to the blighted generations to come the story of man's supreme folly.
Over 16 years have passed since we helped to end one of the most vicious tyrannies the world has ever known. Let us never forget that Nazi Germany started the second world war and brought total defeat upon itself. We have friends in Germany today, good friends, men who fought the Nazi tyranny with the means at their disposal quite as wholeheartedly as we did under the circumstances that existed at that time. Yet the fact remains and must remain that in our opinion we have no cause in logic, friendship or honour, to go to war now in a futile and suicidal attempt to end the unhappy division of Germany and Berlin.
We have small reason to respect East Germany's communist regime, that shard satellite, more remarkable by its refugees, to whom the minister made reference, than anything else. Yet this regime exists and the more NATO seeks to perpetuate the unnatural state of affairs created in Germany by the second world war the less chance is there of the East German state evolving to a more democratic form of government.
Mr. Khrushchev has stated that unless the western powers agree to an over-all German peace treaty the U.S.S.R. will sign a separate peace treaty with the East German state by the end of this year. At that time Russian supervision over western access to West Berlin will pass to the East German government. Mr. Khrushchev goes on to stress in his statement that the communists have no intention of interfering with western rights in West Berlin or access thereto. Yet over this a tremendous crisis has sprung up. The Americans order a partial mobilization and vote $3 billion for what is still called defence even when there is no real defence in the thermonuclear age. Dr. Adenauer talks as if his nation had been on the side of freedom for generations. Just this week, September 5, General de Gaulle speaks of war over Berlin as if victory there could be bought as easily as at Bizerte.
In the opinion of this group Canada should immediately take the lead in pressing the western powers to conclude a peace treaty with both Germanys. Such a treaty must include ironclad safeguards for the freedom
Supply-External Affairs of West Berliners. Such a treaty would necessarily accept the present division of Germany and Berlin and would imply recognition of the East German state.
In this connection we do not underestimate the difficulties. We urge the government to give consideration to promoting the idea of bringing Berlin under the jurisdiction and control of the United Nations as one method of neutralizing this danger spot in western Europe. It is and will continue to be an area of danger.
If the situation continues to exist and the western nations are to face from time to time the danger of war arising from the situation, suggestions have been made that we should even offer to rebuild West Berlin in another portion of the German state. The millions that would cost would be trifling compared with the cost of war and the dangers that would continue to exist unless the United Nations can overcome the situation or make satisfactory treaty arrangements with both German states.
At the same time we urge the government to continue to work for disengagement in western Europe. This is the danger spot. Without doubt this is where the power is concentrated between east and west. We urge the government to give consideration to these proposals.
I wish now to say a word about NATO. With evident relish the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was kind enough to place on the record in part the policy of the New Democratic party. We thank him for his interest and recognition of the fact that the policies and resolutions adopted by the New Democratic party are of concern to the party of which he is so distinguished a member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of interest, not of concern.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, of interest. I wish to be exact in this respect. I shall read into the record the policy adopted in this respect by the New Democratic party convention. It was arrived at in a democratic manner. There were expressions of opinion and this was the final result:
NATO has played its part in the maintenance of west European security. However, it has concentrated on a military role and has failed to adapt its policies to the growing importance of the economic and social front in the present world struggle. The New party believes that we should seek a reappraisal and change of NATO's policies and objectives.
The New party believes that the extension of nuclear weapons to any further states and alliances threatens disaster to the world.
I think perhaps hon. members of the official opposition would agree with that portion of the resolution. I continue:
8078	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs It therefore opposes Canada's troops being supplied with such weapons at home or abroad. At present, except for those nations which have independently developed atomic capacity, neither NATO itself nor its members individually possess or control nuclear warheads. Should they do so, Canada must make it clear that it cannot remain in the alliance. To relieve tensions, Canada should press for a demilitarized zone in central Europe and for the simultaneous disbandment of the Warsaw and NATO pacts.
I think there would be very little disagreement on that point. It is something for which we should stride more assiduously than we have in the past.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Chairman, would my hon. friend permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Surely.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the hon. gentleman tell the committee if a vote was taken on this proposal and, if so, what was the division?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well, it was a matter of great interest but I was not able to opine the count on either side.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Seven hundred to 800, I think.


An hon. Member:: There were not that many people there.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Essex East is better informed than members of the group who were present at the convention.


Mr. Drysdale:: That would not be difficult.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: For the information of the
committee there were approximately 1800 delegates present. I have never seen so many people remain seated and attentive as that group during the course of five very warm, humid and trying Ottawa days.


An hon. Member:: They were trying, all right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Ours is a democratic movement. Every opportunity was provided for discussion. There was no division as to purpose or principle. Differences of opinion were expressed as to timing, interpretation, details and so on but these were all resolved at the convention.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Such as in resolutions from the floor.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Which group do you belong to?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A whisper from my left inquired as to what group I belong to. I was elected as a member of parliament representing the C.C.F. party. I am a C.C.F. member of parliament but at the same time a member

of the national council of the New Democratic party. Does that explain the situation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has there been any change in your views?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You see, we have nothing to hide. We do not have to do these things in hotel rooms. We conduct our affairs in the open. We are like the British Labour party. We have wide differences of opinion but it is amazing how we can close ranks when we have to face a common enemy.


An hon. Member:: Where is the British Labour party now?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We strongly oppose nuclear weapons of any type in Canada. In that respect the official opposition and members of this group are in agreement.
I was interested in the minister's reference to the commonwealth. I have a great affection for the commonwealth and great respect for the part it can play in the days ahead. I know that the minister shares my view in that respect. The commonwealth is increasing in membership as a result of more and more native states obtaining self-governing status and increasing in influence. We believe that Canada should play a stronger role in the commonwealth. Canada should do something along the line of what is being done by Mr. Nehru who, according to the press, is in Moscow, appealing to Premier Khrushchev with respect to the present dangerous world situation.
We believe Canada should take a stronger lead within the commonwealth and should promote peaceful policies at the present time. We should take a stronger and more independent stand but one that is co-operative in the sense that even if we disagree with our friends to the south, or others, we have the same purpose, the protection of freedom and the maintenance of peace.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I appreciate this courtesy. I am practically finished. I trust there will be an opportunity for another hon. member of our group to deal with the matters with which I may not have time to deal. I deeply appreciate the rapt attention which the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) is according my remarks. He has taken a seat close to me in order to listen to my remarks and I consider that a compliment.
We agree with the minister that the United Nations is the hope of mankind. We support the government in everything it undertakes to strengthen the influence, prestige and work

of the United Nations. There are those who detract but, as the minister said, imagine what might have happened in the Middle East or the Congo if there had been no United Nations. Those were difficult situations. It is easy to criticize when you have had no experience with situations of that type. I am of the opinion, as I am sure are all the members of this group, that if we did not have the United Nations we would have had the storm of war long before this. The United Nations has played a very effective role. We urge the government to continue to do everything it can to strengthen it and also to build up support for the principle of a United Nations police force so that gradually we shall be released from these regional pacts. In the United Nations we can have a police force to which we contribute for collective security whenever necessary.
I conclude at this point, Mr. Chairman. As I said before, I trust another member of our group will have a chance to deal with some matters that I have not had the opportunity to discuss.


Mr. Sevigny:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take advantage of this debate to report to the house some of the observations which I made during my recent trip to South America.
It was my privilege to represent Canada as an observer at the special meeting of the inter-American economic and social council at ministerial level which opened at the resort of Punta del Este in the republic of Uruguay, on August 5.
This meeting grouped together delegates of the countries of South America, Central and North America and observers from almost all the nations of the world. This conference was probably the most important event of its kind which has taken place in the history of Latin America and what was decided there may well be the turning point in the sociological, political and economical life of all Latin American countries. At long last, the Latin American countries have realized that they must unite in spirit if they wish to be strong. They appreciate that they must direct their cultural tendencies in the proper channels if they wish to survive. They face the fact of the necessity of increasing their respective productive facilities and their trade relationships if they wish to prosper. The leaders of these countries are particularly aware of the fact that some countries are faced with the choice either of moving forward through the application of the proven methods of democracy which will mean a better way of life and a better standard of living for all citizens or yet face the inevitable upsurge of communism in their midst with all its dire circumstances.
We arrived at Punta del Este on the first day of the conference and we were surprised
Supply-External Affairs to find the considerable unrest which animated the 1,500 or so delegates who were crowding all available accommodation in this beautiful resort. We did not know, of course, and we learned much to our amazement, that many political, cultural and business leaders were worried by the influence exercised on the thinking of a great many people by the Cuban actions of the last year and by the Cuban propaganda. There are many who were truly worried that the arguments which were expected to be put forth by the leader of the Cuban delegation might promote certain tendencies which could be disastrous to the necessary unity which is sought by the sound thinking people in the southern hemisphere.
It is most difficult for us in Canada to appreciate that a small island like Cuba, populated by 4 million people, more or less could exercise such an influence on a continent populated by more than 150 million people. But it must be remembered, in order to appreciate the situation, that there are in Central and South America many small nations which have had to live for decades through a series of disastrous revolutions, people who know the horror of famine, of extreme poverty and of economic chaos and confusion.
The people who have nothing are ready as always to throw themselves at the mercy of the first person who offers what may look like benefits or an improved situation. Many have been impressed by the Castro propaganda which claims the success of the revolution and which bluntly declares in the most deceitful fashion that Castroism has brought the golden age to the Cuban island. There are some who feel that what supposedly can be accomplished in Cuba can also be accomplished elsewhere under the merits of the Castro regime. Since the Castro propaganda is based almost entirely on a violent anti-United States campaign, it is rather obvious that if such a doctrine became successful, it could, to a certain extent, isolate Latin America from the North America which we know. It was, therefore, with anticipation and a certain apprehension that the delegates greeted Mr. Clarence Dillon, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, when he rose to make his initial address in the early stages of the conference. It was with much joy and relief that all heard the most generous offer of aid which was made to Latin America by the United States statesman. Even the most optimistic governments were stunned by the magnitude of the aid offered and greatly pleased by the attention which the United States government is giving to the Latin American area.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?

Supply-External Affairs The Deputy Chairman: Before I leave the chair, may I remind members of the committee that we resume our sittings at 7.30 p.m. this evening and not 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I had just mentioned that the members, delegates and observers who were at the conference at Punta del Este were stunned by the magnitude of the aid which was offered to Latin America by the United States. I should like to place before the committee a list of the main points of this aid which has been offered. They are as follows:
(a)	an undertaking to commit aid on a long term basis by which it is hoped $20 billion of outside capital, public and private, can be injected into Latin American economies over a ten-year period. The target is to achieve an increase in real income of 2.5 per cent per person per year. The United States delegation was effective in giving other representatives the impression that an all-out effort would be made.
(b)	recognition that aid must be supplemented by practical measures to raise the export earnings of recipient countries, including a lowering of United States trade barriers to the products of Latin America and a sympathetic approach to commodity agreements and measures for stabilization of prices of basic commodities. In particular, the United States undertook to participate in a workable coffee agreement to be negotiated in September.
(c)	offer of a crash program for emergency aid to make an immediate impact in the areas where the social and political situation is most dangerous. Claims on this program must be presented within 60 days and the funds to be allocated are estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $300 million. This is a reflection of the argument clearly brought out in the conference that revolutionary turmoil threatens chiefly the smaller Latin American nations. The objective is to maintain political stability in these areas while long term projects get under way.
(d)	concrete demonstrations of the acceptance of planning, a concept to which the United States delegation at the San Diego ECLA conference had earlier given official blessing. This implies more or less an acceptance of the strong possibility that national and multinational economic planning in Latin

America often may not act to the advantage of existing United States commercial interests in this area.
The conference then endorsed the principle of co-ordination of national development plans and approved the appointment of a panel of planning experts to carry out this role and to assist in the formulation of national plans, in the acquisition of necessary financing from the inter-American development bank, the United States government and other sources. The planning group, although normally independent for administrative purposes is to come under the secretary general of the organization for American states. This arrangement seems likely to enhance the prestige and importance of the organization.
It was indeed fortunate that the United States could speak and make its offer of aid before the Cuban delegation could make its own declaration. As expected, the speech of the leader of the Cuban delegation, Mr. Ernesto Che Guevara, was a violent attack on the so-called American imperialism and almost an appeal to all Latin Americans to rebel against the power of their strong northern neighbour. Mr. Guevara cut quite a personable figure at the conference. He was dressed in the well-known Cuban battle-dress suit, had the familiar well trimmed beard, was surrounded by the most horrible looking and presumably armed bodyguards, and put on quite a well rehearsed theatrical performance.
Mr. Guevara is very young. He is only 31. He is quite obviously an intelligent man and has acquired most of his training by intuition. But he has a natural talent for the stage and a definite talent for eloquence. His performance would have been worthy of an Oscar if Oscars were given for such performances. It was dramatic and the audience of 1,000 clearly enjoyed the show that our friend Guevara put on. But the hollowness of his arguments and the obvious efforts which were made to break up the unity of the conference met with the indifference which that speech deserved. It became apparent that all delegates were strongly united behind the position adopted by Mr. Dillon and the United States delegation.
It seems that Mr. Guevara, after he had finished his speech, fully realized that he could not carry on with his initial stand and, as a result, the Cuban delegation became much more co-operative as the conference progressed. It advanced proposals and amendments which made sense and which, at one point, were in fact unanimously accepted. Many delegates, towards the end of the conference, even had the impression that Cuba was willing to conciliate and find a basis

for a better understanding with its neighbours. The conference was definitely a success.
What is most gratifying is that during our stay in Punta del Este, we met the representatives of most of the Latin American countries and I am pleased to report that Canada enjoys a position of great prestige in Latin America. There was no exception and the political and business leaders whom we met all expressed their admiration of our country and their wish to establish a closer cultural and economic relationship with our nation.
At a luncheon which was offered to the delegates of the various nations by President Haedo of the republic of Uruguay, Canada occupied the place of honour and it was indeed gratifying to realize that Canada and Canadians are held in such high esteem in South and Central America. It was remarked frequently by many Latin Americans that there is an affinity between Canada and their respective countries. The Argentinians in particular observed that although we are geographically located at opposite ends of the Americas we nevertheless resemble each other from the point of view of size, population, the quality of our industry, the nature of our agricultural products and many other features; and the wish was expressed everywhere for a closer relationship which should prove mutually profitable. This, of course, made us very proud to be Canadians and to realize that the love which we have for our country is shared by so many others in foreign lands.
The conference lasted for ten days and ended on a note of optimism and determination to improve the fate of one and all in Latin America. There is no doubt that the moves that were initiated should prove extremely beneficial to the general and better interests of all American countries. Immediate effects resulting from the crash aid program should be felt soon and if the resolutions adopted are followed to the letter, it is quite reasonable to state that the future looks bright for Latin America. At this point, it is important to emphasize the great differences that exist between the economic structures of North America and those of Central and South America. The methods which have permitted the United States and our own country to grow and prosper during the last twenty five years are almost unknown in many sectors of Latin America or are still in their incipient stages in most countries. For example, banking such as we know it, trading and business practices which are in current use in this country and which have been so successful are unknown or not utilized in many sectors of the southern hemisphere. The use of credit which is the basis of our economic strength is unknown in most of the 90205-6-510
Supply-External Affairs Latin American countries. Few people in Latin America can, as an indication, buy a home, an automobile or the other commodities of our every day life and be granted the privilege of paying over a short or a long term basis. Money can be borrowed only at the most fantastic rates and investments in many countries are considered insecure because of a raging inflation and of the ever present risk of political revolutions.
The degree of illiteracy is tremendous. It is estimated that in Brazil alone, a country of 70 million people, at least 50 per cent of the population or 35 million people are completely without education of any kind. The degree of poverty as a net result in some areas is almost beyond description and I can say without exaggeration that in order to improve the standard of living of these enormous masses, almost all remains to be done. Latin America needs enormous sums of money; and although the sum of $20 billion offered by United States as aid during the next ten years may appear fantastic at the outset, it is still relatively insufficient to meet the needs of Latin America during the next decade. But what Latin America needs far more than money is the technological methods and the scientific training which have been applied with such success in our northern hemisphere. Latin America does not need money as much as the knowledge of what to do with the money that it will receive. In the name of sovereignty or autonomy, some countries may be reluctant to accept the advice of foreigners or of those North Americans who will try to teach them the proper use of the financial means which will be offered. This could very well be disastrous since this money, if not properly utilized, could well be spent in futile ventures or even fall into the hands of a very few who, as it has too often been the custom, will invest it in foreign lands where the risk of a revolution is small and where the rate on investments can be more secure. Those interested in the future of Latin America should immediately use every effort to convince all Latin American countries of the need to accept the help of those who wish to train Latin Americans in the ways of modern technology and industrial and business practices which have proven so successful. An endeavour in this direction is essential if immediate and long term success is desired. A failure in this attempt will almost inevitably result in the rebellion of the people against the hopelessness of their fate and destiny and the advent of communism. What threatens Latin America is the worst form of communism, the revolution of the people who have not against the people who have; the destruction of all that is good; the rebellion of the poor

Supply-External Affairs who blindly will destroy all that stands in their way; the chaos, confusion and bloodshed which accompany revolutions and for us the danger of having next to our shores the presence of millions of people who will distrust and hate. All this has been realized by the delegates and observers who were present at the Punta del Este conference and, in the opinion of many, the hour is quite late. For these reasons and many others, it is quite obvious that the citizens of the free world who enjoy the benefits of prosperity and freedom must try to help these southern neighbours who need a helping hand more than ever before in their long history. This help should be given not only in a spirit of charity but also with the firm conviction that our democratic way of life is right, that it must expand, thus offering a defence against the onslaught of communist propaganda which may reach within this country of ours.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, during our recent trip to South America, it was our privilege to visit the beautiful countries of Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil.
I should like to report briefly on what we have seen during our trip.
Uruguay is a small country of about 5 million people which is rightly considered in South America as a model of democratic life. The republic of Uruguay has a stable government; the democratic principles in which we believe and which are the basis of our existence are exactly those that are honoured in that country. As a result, the country's economy is sound. The value of its currency is fairly stable and inflation is practically unknown there.
The capital city of Uruguay, Montevideo, with a population of over 1 million, enjoys progress, prosperity and a way of life that angurs well for the future.
South of Uruguay, is the republic of Argentina, one of the most beautiful and richest countries in the world. Its soil is fertile and its natural resources plentiful. Undoubtedly, under a sound administration, it will once again occupy the predominant cultural and economic position it once held in our world.
Argentina still exercises a great influence in Latin America and elsewhere but the fact remains that that magnificent and wonderful country was practically ruined under Peron and the nefarious administration which was characteristic of his regime. Today, the majority of Argentines support President Frondesi, a remarkable man who has fully succeeded by his wisdom and inspired leadership in restoring order and prosperity in his country.
[Mr. Sevigny.l
Meeting President Frondisi, we got the impression that here was a man who could restore Argentina's fortune and give back to this extraordinary country the prosperity it unfortunately lost under the administration of Juan Peron and his associates.
Undoubtedly numerous problems are still facing the Frondesi administration, and the worst may well be the inordinate inflation prevailing there and which it will be difficult to control. We were given the opportunity to see what happens to a country where inflation exists and especially how harmful it is to the white collar class and to those with fixed salaries when prices are spiralling and goods getting scarce.
What we have seen in Argentina shows how advisable it is to try and prevent inflation and to protect Canada from that scourge.
Brazil is a vast country with a population, as I said earlier, of over 70 million people. Its population increases each year for, they say its birth rate is 3 per cent a year, which is the highest in the world.
That country has tremendous resources and since vast territories are still unexplored, one can presume that the wealth of that land of promise is even greater than one can conceive.
We had the privilege of visiting the city of Brasilia, a true example of what human imagination can create. That city is indeed a tribute to those who have faith in the concept of modern architecture and civil engineering. Five years ago, Brasilia was a barren plateau scorched by a burning sun. More than $750 million were spent for the construction of that capital city, and that is said to be only a beginning.
More than 100,000 people live in that city. Everywhere, one sees modem streets and ultramodern buildings. If one fault can be found with Brasilia, it may be that it is too modern and that its architecture is somewhat futurist.
Brasilia was selected for both sentimental and practical reasons: sentimental, because that city is located at the very mouths of South America's two great waterways, the Parana, running into Argentina, and the well-known Amazon; practical, in the sense that it was considered wise to erect that city in the very centre of the country, in order to have new industries and numerous villages developed around it.
Rio de Janeiro is still perhaps the finest city in the world, from a panoramic standpoint. There is also in that city an atmosphere of dynamic and progressive activity. Brazilians wish to forge ahead, to progress and to raise their standard of living.

During our stay there, the main topic of conversation revolved around the activities of ex-president Janio Quadros. He seemed to enjoy extraordinary personal popularity. We could feel, however, that sound thinking people were concerned about his leftist leanings, and it is certain that when he decided to award his country's highest decoration to Mr. Guevara, the Cuban minister of economic affairs, his action was resented by a great many people, and the result was to hasten his resignation.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, I have only a few more sentences to finish my speech.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give unanimous consent to allowing the associate minister to finish?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, what amazed me during the talks I had with Brazilian statesmen was their desire to co-operate with the western powers.
Communism has certainly no hold on Brazil and we have there allies who want to cooperate with us and to prevent, if possible, the birth of subversive movements in that country where huge illiterate populations are living, which, if they were to be subjected to communist influence, could easily cause a social and economic revolution.
(Text):
On our way back to Canada we stopped in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and we had the great privilege of meeting the governor of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Senor Luis Munoz Marin, who is considered, and rightly so, in many circles as one of the great democratic leaders of our times. The governor gave us a wonderful reception and at a dinner which he gave in honour of the Canadian delegation we had the privilege of meeting the members of his cabinet and many other Puerto Rican leaders in the fields of finance and industry.
When Luis Munoz Marin was elected governor of Puerto Rico in 1949 there was very little activity in the island. The degree of illiteracy was very high. Poverty and its allies, that is misery and even crime, were everywhere. The economy was in a precarious condition. Through sound economic management, imaginative and progressive theories, Luis Munoz Marin completely changed the course of events. By offering special advantages to industries interested in the wonderful climate of the island, its vast labour pool and many other advantages, Luis Munoz Marin 90205-6-510J
Supply-External Affairs has in the short space of 12 years attracted over 700 new industries to the island of Puerto Rico. These new industries represent an investment of well over half a billion dollars. These new industries have meant work and employment for the people of Puerto Rico and also an ever-increasing level of well-being.
Schools have been built everywhere and as a result illiteracy has almost completely disappeared from the island. A slum clearance program has been carried out and is being continued, and all over the island can be seen low-cost housing developments where today live in comfort people who for generations had resided in the most abject slums. Magnificent hotels have been built and millions of tourists consider Puerto Rico as the ideal vacation land.
All this has been accomplished through peaceful methods without revolutions and crippling strikes. The government of Puerto Rico observes to the letter the rules of democratic government in which we believe and always strives to co-operate with those who wish to help them instead of resisting progress. What is happening in Puerto Rico through the application of democratic methods which we understand and in which we believe can also happen elsewhere in Latin America, and it is to be hoped that the example of Puerto Rico will serve as a model to other countries in Central and South America.
At this point it may be useful to establish a parallel between what has happened in Puerto Rico and what has happened and is still happening in Cuba. Both islands have the same climate, the same rich soil, the same products, and are populated by people of the same origin. In the one island, Puerto Rico, thanks to the better ways of democracy we see prosperity, expansion, a happy people, a booming industry, millions of tourists and, to sum up, a very bright future. In the other, Cuba, because of revolution, corruption in government and the desire by its present leaders to move to the left we see a chaotic economy, the rule of force and strength, despair and fear, empty hotels, a ruined tourist industry and the distrust of almost everyone in the immediate future of the island.
May I summarize by saying that after visiting Latin America I realize more than ever that, although here in North America we may have shortcomings and we accept the fact that a great deal remains to be done if we wish to move forward toward our great destiny, we nevertheless have managed to achieve success through the application of our methods of government and our search

Supply-External Affairs for an ever better and improved standard of living. We have achieved all this through peaceful methods and we have established as the basis of our mode of life the principle of freedom-freedom from fear and freedom from want. We have fought for this freedom and we shall undoubtedly fight again if it becomes necessary to protect it. But in order to protect this freedom we must share what we have with others who need our help and guidance. Our fate will be a better one if the fate of our neighbours in Latin America is also a better one. The people in Latin America believe in us. Let us be worthy of their trust and it may be that in the unity of the Americas in freedom, prosperity and well-ordained progress may rest the answer which we seek to the peace of the world.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, I was very much interested to hear the Associate Minister of National Defence speak on South America and as a result I decided that I would say a few words because Latin America has a special place in my heart. I was only a year old when my parents took me to Brazil. My father owned a coffee plantation there but unfortunately when I was about six years of age a younger brother of mine died of malaria. My mother became panicky, with the result that we packed our bags and went back to Italy, the country where I was born. Instead of selling coffee now in Brazil and probably doing business with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because of the death of my little brother I was destined eventually to come to Canada to sell automobiles.
The story of Latin America today has to be told in the moods of her people as well as in statistics. One cannot generalize about Latin America any more than he can about Asia, Africa or Europe. It is true, however, that the people of Latin America do have certain things in common including ancestry, language and a colonial history, but probably the most important common characteristics are a fierce pride, impatient youth and a craving to break out of the condition of underdeveloped peoples living in underdeveloped lands.
I should like to deal very briefly with certain points relevant to the underdeveloped nature of Latin America as a geographical area. The potential resources of this area are enormous and thus far only the surface has been scratched. The main problem is lack of capital despite the fact that outside private investments and loans have been considerable.
The mineral resources of Latin America constitute her greatest wealth. Oil is abundant especially in the north of South America

and in the Caribbean. In the south the resources have not been effectively tapped because of lack of capital and technical know-how. Peru and Chile are rich in copper, Chile in nitrates, Brazil and Venezuela in iron, manganese, coal, gold and uranium.
In agriculture Latin America's production per capita lags behind the rapid growth of population but the soil is rich and can grow sufficient food if farmers are taught how to get higher yields by the use of modern machinery and techniques and if storage and transportation facilities are installed to spread equitably the products of agriculture. One of the greatest dangers is the one-crop economy pattern which is so typical in Brazil with coffee, and I know something about that because my father was in the coffee business there. The same thing also applies to other Latin American nations with respect to other crops. Such practices place the nations concerned at the mercy of world price fluctuations. The economic problems of the area are largely a result of the inadequate use of resources for reasons that range from lack of capital through low productivity, dependence on world prices and poor administration to the selfish shortsightedness of governments and business.
Internally the situation is generally one of inflation and skyrocketing costs of living which sap the strength and development capacity of most of the nations of the area. Consequently there are problems of balance of payments which generally are unfavourable, although Latin America's trade with Canada alone amounting to approximately half a billion dollars last year underlines the region's commercial importance.
I should like to deal at greater length with some of the basic political problems of Latin America. The United States secretary of state recently told the council of the organization of American states that an ideology foreign to the western hemisphere has little chance of taking root in Latin America. An article in the April 1960 issue of Foreign Affairs, written by Professor Frank Tan-nenbaum of Columbia University, gives reason to question not only the American secretary of state's optimism but also the rosy impression left by Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs in his speech of February 10 this year when he said that all 20 republics of Latin America are "imbued with the love of freedom and all are very responsible members of the United Nations". That reference may be found at page 936 of Hansard of that date. Professor Tannenbaum

does not even discuss the danger of communism in Latin America, but the situation he describes sounds very familiar to those of us who have watched the pattern of communist revolution in other parts of the world.
According to the Foreign Affairs article to which I referred, Latin America has not developed genuine liberal democracies. The only form of political authority which typifies government in Latin America is personal authority. The only way this personal political authority can be transferred is through violence or death. In any stable democracy there must be freedom of association to organize political parties as alternatives to the party controlling the government. In Cuba, however, and this is typical of Latin America generally, what seemed to be political parties on the surface were not parties at all in our sense of the word. They were merely groups of office seekers in search of a leader who would authorize their misuse of public funds for private ends. Sometimes the forms of democracy have been observed, but only the forms. The real pattern of Latin American history for the last 150 years has been dictatorship, rebellion and again dictatorship. There seems to be little hope of change in this pattern.
Professor Tannenbaum does not draw the clear implications of his study but they are there to be considered by all who have responsibility for the planning of western policy. Mr. Khrushchev has shown that he understands the term peaceful co-existence in an active rather than a passive sense. In the case of Latin America it is entirely likely that Mr. Khrushchev is considering the possibility of shortening the time when communism will, in his words, inevitably triumph. So far it is true that there has been little communist penetration in the region, but if Professor Tannenbaum is correct South America may well be the next continent on the Kremlin's list. The situation he describes is exactly the type of situation in which communism thrives.
For most of the people of Latin America the political choice is not between dictatorship and democracy but is between a dictatorship which looks as if it were endeavouring to give them enough to eat and one which does not give that appearance. If the west wishes to keep Latin America out of the soviet camp it should adopt policies which in the long run will make possible a third choice, namely a system of politics under which peaceful changes of government can take place.
In his speech of February 10 to which I have already referred, the Secretary of State
Supply-External Affairs for External Affairs advocated increased trade with Latin America, expansion of cultural relations, the possibility of official visits, and the strengthening of diplomatic relations, but not a word was said about helping the ordinary people of the Latin American republics who are in many cases left or even kept in poverty, ignorance and ill health in homelands which are rapidly becoming overpopulated because no one cares enough to make the considerable effort necessary to lift them from the feudal past to an industrial future.
As the minister said, Latin America is indeed an area in which a great deal more can be done than has been done in the past. I hope that when the hon. gentleman spoke about extending cultural relations he had in mind something that would be of direct benefit to the people as opposed to governments. For example, if we engaged in an exchange of primary, secondary and even university teachers, considerable benefits might well flow to the people of Latin America over a period of years. Similarly there might be an extension of activity in the field of student exchanges to include, with the assistance of scholarships, the children of the less well-to-do in Latin America.
In closing I wish to quote from an article in the March 1, 1958 issue of Saturday Night:
In a world that tends to see the fight for freedom often in terms of the struggle between the soviets and their chained peoples, the repeated violence in the Latin American republics, as regimes come and go, testifies at least as much to the vitality there of liberty as an ideal as it does to the inability, as yet, of the Latins to find their own answers to political stability.
We might be able to help the peoples of Latin America find some of their own answers to the problems of politics if we concerned ourselves with the basic importance of helping to establish for them a sound foundation of education. It might be said that Canada can do little here. I reply that in education even more than in economics a multiple effect is achieved. After all, Christ taught only 12 disciples but it was not long, as history shows, before the Roman world was Christian.
If we help teach the ways of liberal democracy not only to the people of Latin America but to the Africans and Asians, we may well be doing something for which governments are not noted, namely having due regard for the long term interests of the nation and indeed our entire civilization. I earnestly believe we should consider joining the organization of American states which is holding an empty chair for Canada to occupy.


Mr. Stinson:: Mr. Chairman, following as I do the Associate Minister of National Defence
8086	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply

External Affairs and the hon. member for Fort William, I wish to congratulate those two hon. gentlemen on the very helpful and informative speeches they have just made which I am sure will increase the knowledge of hon. members of Latin American affairs. I think traditionally Canadians have looked east and west rather than south, and when they have looked south, many times they have not looked further south than the United States of America. I hope other hon. members will have opportunities to travel in South America and that there will be other occasions for members of the House of Commons to build up relationships and friendships among themselves and people in that continent who are in positions of responsibility.
The first thing I wish to say tonight, Mr. Chairman, is to urge the government to do everything it can to stop further nuclear testing. I must say that tonight my mind is a long way from here and from South America; rather it is in that area of the world where four bombs have been dropped recently and from which area at this very time radioactive dust is drifting to other parts of the world. No matter where that dust settles it can do nothing but harm. I urge the government to do everything it can to stop those tests above the ground, under the ground, or in the laboratory.
The press secretary to the President of the United States of America, apparently speaking for the administration, said that new United States tests were necessary because, as he put it, important advances can be made by further scientific developments. Since the United States already has a stockpile of atomic weapons which it said last week was wholly adequate for the defence of the free world, I cannot see that further testing will do anything but speed up the tempo of the arms race.
There may be many factors in this most complex problem which are unknown to me, Mr. Chairman. I heard the Leader of the Opposition on television the other night. He made his comments in this regard. He said that there might be things of which he had no personal knowledge and therefore, as I recollect his remarks, he did not want to make a dogmatic statement; but I say that the most important thing for this parliament to consider tonight is the steps that our government can take to put an end to those explosions at the earliest possible moment.
I wish to take part in this debate for three other reasons. The first is that I wish to express my appreciation of the services and leadership which have been given recently

by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. All of us know of the intense interest which the present Prime Minister has shown in international affairs throughout his public career. He attended the founding conference of the United Nations, and at every session of parliament since that time he has put forward constructive proposals for preventing war and for creating conditions which would help to give the better life to people in other countries who are oppressed or who are suffering because of being without proper food, adequate housing, clothing or educational opportunities.
I thought I had heard the Prime Minister of Canada in his finest hour on September 26, 1960, when he spoke at the United Nations. He made a speech in the United Nations assembly which was unanimously accepted as a brilliant answer to the false accusations of Mr. Khrushchev which had been made the week before. But on September 1, 1961, he made a statement before the Canadian Bar Association which I think the world greatly needed and which surpassed all previous speeches he has made on international affairs. I am sure this speech will have an effect on the course of events.
Some of our critics say that Canada should take the lead among the middle powers. I say that with that speech in Winnipeg the Prime Minister will give the lead to the great powers. On behalf of the citizens of York Centre I wish to express my gratitude to him.
Since parliament last debated foreign affairs the Secretary of State for External Affairs has spoken for Canada on many international problems. These days some persons are so appalled by the immensity of these problems that they think only of the gloomy side of things and talk in generalities. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is not one of those. He has won for himself at NATO, at the United Nations and at Geneva the reputation of being an optimist, but an optimist who believes that optimism can only be sustained if you work hard day by day to find solutions to the problems at hand. This has been the policy followed by our country on disarmament.
Canada must continue to advocate means of bringing about negotiations in the face of the most discouraging conditions. We must attempt again and again to devise means of bringing about negotiations and if the means that are proposed fail we must try again. If members of this parliament advocated any other policy or sought to disparage-and this has been done from time to time-the conscientious efforts made by our foreign minister in this regard how could they explain themselves to their constituents or to their children

who see over one third of the national tax revenues devoted to maintaining and equipping armed forces?
I wonder whether any hon. member has had the experience, as I have had recently, of trying to explain to a 13 year old child how it has come to pass that in 1961, having the benefit of all the wisdom and inventive genius of the great minds of 20 centuries, the leaders of the world today are snarling at each other, threatening war and talking about dropping a bomb which would destroy millions of people. All I can say is that when you try to explain this you realize how bad things have become and how important it is that Canada continue to press for disarmament.
The second reason I have for speaking in this debate is that I believe I have an obligation to my constituents to say in parliament what I think about world affairs. In saying this, Mr. Chairman, I am fully conscious of how little I know. The week before last I was in Europe and had conversations there with some Canadian foreign service officers and other people who have some knowledge of European affairs. When one considers what is happening in Berlin and knows that our leaders have the advice of experienced and trained experts one has reason to wonder whether anything one can say can be of any help at all. I think members of parliament have a duty to try to assist the experts. We have better facilities and opportunities for becoming and keeping informed about those problems than most of our constituents have. No matter how complex some of the problems appear we must try to understand them and make suggestions. The right to make suggestions in parliament is a right which is given to very few Canadians. I hope hon. members will forgive me for stating the obvious. I am very much aware of the privilege which is mine in being here and having the right to say what I think about these things. I recall hearing the hon. member for Greenwood speak years ago on this subject, and I have not forgotten what he said. What an excellent example is set by that hon. gentleman for those of us who have arrived here fairly recently.
The third reason I wish to speak tonight, Mr. Chairman, is to make some proposals. The other day I read a statement attributed to Senator J. William Fulbright, who is chairman of the United States Senate committee on foreign relations. He said this:
I, for one, am not at all certain that the principles and values of western civilization represent the common aspirations of all peoples.
I was surprised to read this because, like the Washington correspondent for Maclean's
Supply-External Affairs magazine who used this quotation, I have a deep admiration and respect for Mr. Fulbright and generally agree with the speeches he has made which I have seen in print. Hon. members may be glad to know that I do not propose tonight to give a discourse on the principles and values of western civilization. It does seem to me, however, that if properly defined they do represent the common aspirations of all peoples. What are they? I think the principles are derived from Judaism and Christianity; that there is a God who loves all people and if people understand love and practice honesty and charity they can aspire to a satisfying life. I know that these things are not fully understood by many people in Canada or elsewhere, but I think there is a force which is pressing all of us to live by this principle and a deep-seated desire in all of us to do so.
I think that the values are derived from the ancient civilizations of Greece, Rome and western Europe. What are they? The first, of course, is freedom which I think is the right to think and act without arbitrary control or direction by the government. I think that the other values are companion values to political freedom, which have gradually come into common acceptance with the passage of time. Does freedom not represent the common aspiration of all peoples? Again, we are dealing with something which is not understood by many people struggling each day in Latin America or southeast Asia, as well as many other parts of the world, to get enough to eat and drink. Many of these people are unable to read and cannot be expected to know the meaning of freedom. I think it is one of the innate desires of all human beings. I think, therefore, on this count also Senator Fulbright may be wrong.
It is fashionable in some quarters these days, Mr. Chairman, to say that western countries, especially the United States, in trying to impose their standards and methods have done more harm than good. Books like "The Ugly American" and "A Nation of Sheep" are given a big play. If you do not agree with these books, you are considered a reactionary. Leaving aside the massive economic assistance which has been given by the United States to the newly emerging nations I say, with few exceptions, that government has a good record in its attempt to establish conditions which would give people political freedom.
I think also, as does the Prime Minister of Canada, that the time has come for precise declarations on the part of the non-communist countries of their principles and aims. This must be done and done soon to overcome the phony image of western ideals and the

Supply-External Affairs western way of life which is being presented in communist countries and by communist agents in the less developed areas. It will take perhaps a little time to do this, Mr. Chairman, and a lot of conferring with other governments.
But there is one thing Canada can do alone. I propose that the government call, for the year 1962 or 1963, a conference on understanding. Each member of the United Nations should be asked to nominate 50 student delegates to this conference. I suggest that it be held at one of the great Canadian universities and that the Canadian conference of universities be asked to look after the administrative arrangements. I calculate the cost of such a conference as $15 million, which is less than 1 per cent of what this country is now spending yearly on national defence.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I know there will be cynics and others throughout this country who will say that this will be nothing but an interesting gathering of students and academics who may enrich their lives to some extent by coming to this country and attending seminars, having conversations and touring about. However, I say it is terribly important that at the earliest opportunity we bring together as many students as possible, especially from those areas of the world in which there are limited educational opportunities, to meet with political and academic leaders in this country. With proper planning this conference could make a significant contribution to understanding. I believe that a wide range of subjects could be discussed. I do not believe it would be difficult to attract a voluntary corps of Canadian university professors and others, and as much would be gained by informal meetings with these people and students from abroad as from the formal sessions. This country has the resources to undertake such a project, and I hope it will attract the imagination and interest of other members in this parliament and the support of the government.
The next proposal I should like to make, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be pleased to hear, requires no money at all from the government. It is a request I should like to make of the businessmen of this country. Hon. members will have read recently in the newspapers about the landing in India, Ceylon and Sarawak of the first contingent of Canadian overseas volunteers, known in Quebec as "Vol-ontaires Canadiens Outre-Mer". Under sponsorship of this private association, 15 young Canadians representing most parts of Canada have undertaken a year's voluntary service in these areas. They receive a small subsistence allowance from the host government.

Where there is a Canadian representative, a contingency fund is administered to meet unusual conditions and, on instructions from the government, the Canadian high commissioners are keeping a watchful eye on the volunteers. I think Canadians can be proud of the fact that these young people are now in the field and have taken up their duties before any members of the Kennedy peace corps have left the United States.
I would not want hon. members to think, however, that the Canadian overseas volunteers have been in competition with the peace corps. The Canadian overseas volunteers are not in competition with anybody. They are not out there seeking honour and glory. Their purpose is to serve in a humble way in industry, agriculture, public administration, commerce or medicine under the direction of the host government, and to promote international understanding and brotherhood by informing themselves and other Canadians of the history, culture, traditions, political and economic life of the people among whom they are working. Two weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, I stood on a dock in London and watched these 15 young Canadian students standing beside the rail of a ship leaving for their areas of voluntary service. It was a moving experience and I am sure that if businessmen who may read this speech can imagine that experience, they will rally to the cause and send in their contributions.
These people, leaving aside opportunities to enhance their financial position and going out into an environment quite alien to that to which they are accustomed and working under conditions which are strange and extraordinary, were prepared to do one year at least of sacrificial service. If we, sitting back here in the relatively easy conditions of the home front, fail to give these young men and women and their successors a reasonable amount of financial support, I say that we have missed a great opportunity to serve the world through them and to serve our own country. Canadian overseas volunteers originated with a suggestion made by Dr. Donald K. Faris, a Canadian of great experience in Asia and now working with UNICEF in India. The chief academic advisers have been Dr. Nathan Keyfitz who is a former director of the Colombo plan bureau and Professor Yves Martin of Laval University. As I have said, a first year's pilot program is now well under way. Its success will depend on the work of the volunteers themselves, but they would not have got out there had it not been for the efforts of Mr. and Mrs. Keith Spicer, whose rare qualities have been brought to bear on

every phase of this project. I wish to acknowledge also the work of M. Michel Cot6 and his student associates at Laval.
The Canadian overseas volunteers undertaking has been commended by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I now call on Canadian businessmen for financial support. It is an investment in young Canada, a modest contribution to people in other countries and a way of promoting good will and international understanding.
On September 19 the next regular meeting of the United Nations assembly will get under way. At the last assembly Prime Minister Diefenbaker said this:
Let us not leave this place without some hope for mankind. Let us instead say to the peoples that death's pale flag shall not again be raised in war, and that fear shall be lifted from the hearts and souls of men.
A year has passed since that speech was made and now there is greater reason for fear than there was last September. There is not really very much to be cheerful about these days; and so I say this: Let us not leave this parliament without doing something in the international community to raise the hopes of Canadians.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, as this parliament resumes sitting, it does so in an extremely serious state of mind, perhaps more serious than for many years. We are indeed closer to war tonight than we have been at any time since 1945. The statements of the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have given us some indication of the reality of this situation.
The Berlin crisis I think has indeed destroyed one myth. I refer to the belief that we could fight limited wars over matters of vital concern to the great powers. It was some years ago that Mr. Dulles carried through the brink of war strategy in the United States, the strategy of the deterrent. Then the United States changed to a belief that wars could be fought with conventional weapons, that no one would be inhuman enough to bring into action the ultimate in weaponry. However, we now realize that the brink of war diplomacy works both ways, and that we can both blackmail each other with super bombs and with the horrors of our weapons. We have realized with nuclear testing that the threat of nuclear war and the Berlin issue are tied very tightly into one bundle. Tonight as we sit here we realize that one fatal mistake could destroy us that we are indeed but one phone call and one finger away from annihilation. I shudder, Mr. Chairman, when I hear of the extent of the preparedness of the strategic air command, on 24 hour alert, with 90205-6-511
Supply-External Affairs bombers always in the air and with the possibility of initiating an attack within seconds. I think the tension of this situation is almost unbelievable and perhaps beyond what human capacity can continue to accept. Indeed, one man has suggested it is statistically certain that if these conditions continue bombs will drop and perhaps sooner than we would care to think.
So we stand tonight on the brink, almost totally inured to the statistics contained in the latest book on nuclear war, namely that the United States has the explosive equivalent of 10 tons of t.n.t. for every man. woman and child on the surface of this earth, sufficient indeed to destroy ten times the number of its people. Perhaps one area in which Canada could make some contribution is in continuing to bring before the nations of this world the horror and the atrocity which a nuclear war would create. I think it is time that we took a second look at nuclear war and thought of winning a war or surviving one. Certainly we want to do everything we can to survive and we congratulate this government upon the suggestions they made this afternoon which will come to pass. But let us not make any mistake about the matter; millions will die.
One cannot read the story of the Berlin issue since 1945 without coming away indeed impressed with its complexity. In a sense, it is a matter of our own sins coming upon us. All of us remember in 1945, as the allied armies marched through Germany, there was a suggestion that we should carry through and capture Berlin. Then as a result of change in strategy-and I do not think we need to bother to assign the blame for this change in strategy-it was decided we would not take Berlin. By that mistake, through failure to realize that the strategy at the end of the last war would decide the problems of the post-war period, we have brought many difficulties upon ourselves. However, we cannot rectify our problems in clouds of radioactive dust.
I think there are two things that could bring war, namely the one I suggested, that fatal mistake, and second emotional oversimplification. I think it is important that we should not misuse history. When we talk of Munich in regard to the Berlin issue we are confusing the issue. Certainly when we talk of Poland, we are doing nothing to foster an understanding of this situation. Would that the issues were so clear as the blatant militarism which brought about the invasion of Poland, even though that indeed would bring upon us the holocaust we desire to avoid. Here we have a situation which has no real precedent in history. We have a divided city, one half cut off by 100 miles

Supply-External Affairs of territory from the political entity which is its rightful state. The worst thing we can do is to try to reduce this complexity to an emotional catch phrase such as to rescue the west Berliners from Russian tyranny or, on the other hand, guard the socialist people's state from western imperialism. The worst thing also that we can do is to inject into this political situation the heart-rending problems of the east German refugees. I know all of us are concerned; indeed perhaps some of us are even heartbroken about the situation of these people. However, we have no right to expect that West Berlin can be continued as a means of subverting the east German government. If it becomes a matter of helping to oppress people by our foreign policy we are going to be in serious difficulties indeed, as this will mean real war.
We have much to answer for in Angola, in South Africa and French North Africa. The only way we can help these people on the other side of the iron curtain is by a long and continuous process of working toward peace and convincing the U.S.S.R. that the heavy hand is less and less necessary. That alone is the final answer.
Therefore Canada's role must be to bring the powers together. We must negotiate and it must be done quickly. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs was very wise when he said that one of the things that has certainly confused the problem in West Berlin is the fact that an election is going on and you have each of the politicians of West Berlin and west Germany seeking to sell their electorate a bill of goods that they indeed are going to protect Germany's interests and unite their peoples. Even Mr. Khrushchev suggested that things will be much better after September 17, as our own Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested. But we must bring them together to negotiate before the area of negotiation disappears. We must bring both sides closer and closer together. The area of negotiation is becoming less and less. The national pride of each one is being bound up within certain terms and certain items of any negotiated peace treaty and it may come to the point where every concession becomes appeasement, where every agreement becomes seeming treachery. Again, we must bring the powers together to negotiate. We must do so because this period of crisis and tension puts power into the hands of the very group we should fear most.
We tend to think of Russia as a monolithic state very much like Nazi Germany. The two do not compare. Mr. Khrushchev is not Hitler. He does not have the power. The Russian people are not the German people

with the historical background of the German people nor are the doctrines of communism those of nazism. They bear little relationship when you come down to actual analysis. There is cut and thrust to their politics and a constant striving for power. We encourage the military elite of Russia to ascendancy, when we pose as intransigent.
I think perhaps the greatest disaster of the U-2 incident was that we placed the men we should fear most in control of the Russian state. We must come down to essentials.
What has Mr. Khrushchev actually said; what has he promised? It is very easy to say we cannot trust what Mr. Khrushchev says. But if we come to that point, really what we are saying is that there is no answer but pushing the button. Mr. Khrushchev, in his answer to President Kennedy's speech, said:
Following from the international law which cannot be disregarded, X should like to repeat once more that by concluding a peace treaty with the German democratic republic we do not intend to infringe upon any lawful interests of the western powers. Barring of access to West Berlin, blockade of West Berlin, is entirely out of the question.
That is the statement of Mr. Khrushchev himself. Are we going to war because we will not recognize a state which exists? Mr. Trygve Lie, the former secretary general of the United Nations, suggested once that the Korean war was brought on by our refusal to recognize red China. Are we going to war to perpetuate a myth that we are determined to create a united Germany? Are we going to war to bolster the national pride of either the United States, which is coming out of the fiasco of Cuba, or because of the injured pride of the U.S.S.R. which is somewhat reluctant to accept the fact that refugees are leaving the socialist heaven of East Germany? Are we going to war to maintain a status quo which we ourselves do not accept, in terms of West Berlin and a recognition of East Germany? I think these are the essentials which we as Canadians must bring before the nations of the world by negotiation.
As I drove down here this morning I was impressed, as was the hon. member for York South, by the very fact that in spite of all the technological advances and the magic which we can now perform with the human mind we cannot seem to solve these human relationships. I could not help feeling, perhaps emotionally, as I drove past groups of children who stood on the side of the highway waiting for the school bus to come, what a tragedy it was that we as members of parliament were driving down here to discuss war and the possibility of war.
Once again we must negotiate. We must find the area of fear, of blind, unreasoning

terror on both sides. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that NATO was set up as a defensive organization-and it was. We agree with that and we agree that it has played a real part. But surely he would admit that the line between defensive and offensive really does not exist.
When Mr. Khrushchev or any Russian citizen hears Mr. Adenauer speak of a free and united Germany, when he sees German troops and remembers the effects of two world wars; when he sees I.R.B.M. bases being erected, can he possibly regard this as defensive? On the other hand when we see the resumption of nuclear tests we cannot see this as defensive at all and we cannot see how it can be regarded as a method of keeping the peace. We must seek out the areas of fear. We must find a neutral zone in Europe. We must separate the powers in this one area which can bring conflict.
Canada has every right to play the role of mediator; to take more and more action. Why? Not just because she is a middle power, but because she alone is geographically in the middle. We need time. We need time desperately. Canada's role can be that of cooling the tempers. It is amazing to look back over the last 10 years and see problems which were at the time insoluble. We can look back at the situation in the Middle East. I can remember reading articles that this was an insoluble problem; Egypt was determined by its foreign policy to annihilate the Israeli state and would accept nothing else. The Israelis were a nation with modern western weapons and were determined to expand, and there could be nothing but war which would eventually lead us into total war.
Because of a Canadian solution; because Canada took the initiative at one point we have not achieved a long term solution, because we cannot find any long term solutions, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he says the tension will rise and fall like a barometer. But we can at least seek time.
I can remember Cyprus. We remember the atrocities committed day after day on British soldiers who were killed by Greeks and Turks. Last week we found Archbishop Makarios standing forth in the role of a man of moderation. We forget that these solutions stopped war and that these solutions at one point would have been branded as appeasement by one side or the other.
When the Korean war took place, at one point the United Nations decided they would unite Korea, and anything else at that time was going to be regarded as appeasement. We determined that we would not have war by allowing the use of certain weaponry or the bombing north of the Yalu river and some of 90205-6-51 li
Supply-External Affairs the military plans of those who were in that theatre of war. We have achieved a solution; we have not had general war. This is not a time for standing on the sidelines and cheering. I was concerned when I heard the Prime Minister's first statement regarding the use of Berlin as strengthening NATO. I was much heartened by his second statement in his Winnipeg speech. I am waiting to be enthused by a dynamic, unprecedented crusade to achieve peace.
We have not only those on the other side to fear. I become concerned when I hear statements by-I will not call them warmongers, because they are men who honestly believe they are serving the west and democracy in the best way. But when a man says that we may have to strike first, as General Thomas Power of the United States strategic air command has said, or "I submit you will not deter a war unless you have the capability to start a war", I become concerned about our side too. In this crusade we may have to step on a few American toes but we will be their best ally-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: What about Russian toes?


Walter George Pitman: And even Russian toes too-if we save both of them from the irrational minority within their own nation. There should be a crusade to convince Mr. Khrushchev that his fears are groundless. I think our own Secretary of State for External Affairs has done a great deal in this particular area. We must show that we are ready for the alternative to military competition which is economic competition. Of course, the suspicion of at least part of the communist world is that we do not want that kind of competition, that we are not ready for it. I believe it will require sacrifice, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested, but it will be the sacrifice of giving more and more aid, a greater percentage of our gross national product, of giving more opportunities for education, in other words of raising the level of the two thirds of the people of the world who go to bed hungry every night to the point where communism is not in the least attractive.
This will require courage, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested. It will be the courage to believe in the good intentions of our seeming opponents, not necessarily the courage or rather the foolhardiness which leads us into high temperature incineration, waving a flag and screaming slogans. This other kind of courage may be even greater. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested, it will require a faith that will move mountains, maybe even a faith and a good will which may in the end move even the Soviet tyranny in the

Supply-External Affairs direction of the west. Time is on our side and time is what Canada must fight for. The Russia of Khrushchev is not the Russia of Stalin. It has moved in our direction and we must continue to encourage that move.
There are other issues to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his department must give great consideration even though they are overshadowed by the present threat of Berlin. There is the recognition of communist China and bringing this issue before the United Nations. We in this corner believe that this must come, that there must perhaps be two Chinas. Otherwise we can have no real disarmament and, indeed, as the hon. member for Essex East suggested, it may well be that pressure is being exerted from the Far East. It would be well for us to attempt to relieve that pressure. It may mean that we must criticize our allies when necessary.
I was greatly interested in the remarks made about South America. This indeed is a problem on our own doorstep and one with which we must come to grips very soon.
I too believe we must have faith and the place where that faith can best be placed is in the United Nations. We must build up and support the United Nations as Canada and the Prime Minister have done by supporting the secretary general to the last ditch. We must build up the strength of the United Nations by making it in fact a police force. There indeed is where our faith can best be put.


Mr. While:: Mr. Chairman, I think the house has listened with a great deal of interest today to the speeches made by various members on external affairs and can be proud of the considered judgment they have displayed in this field. I cannot apply that comment to the last speech to which we have listened. If comfort is going to be taken from that speech it will be in Moscow and not in Ottawa. I would ask the Canadian people to read, mark and learn the aims and ideas of the New party if this is an indication of their left wing thinking. I seriously commend to the Canadian people sober second thought with regard to the speech to which we have just listened.
All history is written for our learning and yet we fail to take a proper interest and learn the lessons from it that we should. How soon we forget the lessons of history and how little we heed them. Today we heard of neutralism and of 25 nations meeting in Belgrade that have not committed themselves either to the west or to the east. It came as a great shock to those 25 nations when the three-year nuclear test ban was broken. They were horrified. How soon we forget Hungary, Tibet and other places in the world. How soon we forget the promises that were made

two or three times in our lifetime only to be broken when the time was propitious. Eventually all nations must choose. There will be no neutralism if a war should come, which God forbid.
Nehru's neutralism received a rude shock when Tibet was attacked, a peace loving neighbour that had never transgressed against any of the other Asian peoples. All they desired to do was to live in peace with their neighbours but that did not prevent them from being overrun. We should not forget that. I was glad, as I am sure were the house and the people of Canada to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs announce, as we have all known before, that Canada stands for peace, and also his references to the strenuous efforts that have been made by Canada and Canada's representatives to maintain peace in a troubled world.
Events of the past few days have only served to emphasize the conditions that have existed since the end of the war in 1945. An armed and jittery world jumps from one crisis to another. I ask hon. members, has Canada, has the western world created any of these crises? The answer is no. Let hon. members turn their thoughts for a moment to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Korea, Laos, Malaya and Tibet. Berlin, of course, has always been a source of annoyance since the close of the war.
Let us not forget or fail to understand the march of events. Two world wars indicated that the United States of America tried to evade entanglement in those conflicts up to the eleventh hour. Why? Because they were a peaceful nation. They did not want to be involved in war. That has been their history. I say this because they are a peace loving people. They are our neighbours and we probably know them better than any other nation. The last resort, as far as they are concerned, is war. I hope the whole world will realize this. Consequently they and the western allies are being pushed on all fronts as never before.
Berlin at the moment-and I emphasize those words "at the moment"-is the powder keg. We well remember that the western world has always had its quislings, traitors and collaborators. We still have them with us. Let us not forget those who in the past days would sell their country to an enemy.
Last week there appeared in the London Free Press and I assume in other Canadian newspapers the words of a Canadian who said that Berlin was not worth the life of one Canadian. I say that is not the issue involved. If we were to sacrifice Berlin, would that guarantee peace in the world? I say it would only guarantee another crisis and then another crisis would follow as inevitably

as night follows day. If surrendering West Berlin would solve the world's problems and Russia's demands would cease, possibly we could agree; but surrender does not carry that guaranty.
Earlier today reference was made to the mass migration of people from East Berlin to West Berlin. This is a revelation to the world if it will but heed. It is to be noted that there is no great rush on the part of people from West Berlin in seeking entry into East Berlin. This points out how valuable freedom is in the eyes of many people. They are prepared to leave their homes and sacrifice all they own to seek freedom under a western regime. If the east has so much to offer, why is there no trek from west to east?
Through the inspiring statement made today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and through the excellent speech made in Winnipeg last week by our Prime Minister Canada's position, its role and the course it should follow have been made abundantly clear. I advise all hon. members to read and re-read that speech in which the Prime Minister outlined the course we should follow. Canada has an important date with destiny if we can interpret to the east and the west the true nature of the problems facing us. Canada can be of tremendous service to the world in its search for peace. We are without territorial ambitions, without prejudices and we understand both our American neighbours and the people of the United Kingdom.
In addition we are a member of that loosely knit community of nations known as the commonwealth. The commonwealth is pledged to aid in every possible way the search for peaceful solutions. Today we hear much loose talk about colonialism, but within the commonwealth more nations have achieved freedom than through any other individual means. I do not refer to an enforced colonialism such as we see in Latvia, in other Baltic states and elsewhere. Having achieved freedom these new nations have decided of their own free will to remain within the commonwealth. I again ask all Canadians: does appeasement pay? We can go back in history and we find that history answers: "No." I again ask: Would surrender in Berlin eliminate world crisis? Again history replies that it would not; in fact, as I mentioned before the changes of increasing the incidence of crises would be greater.
May I remind the committee that all NATO nations are pledged under the United Nations charter to settle international disputes peacefully, with security and justice. NATO is not an offensive organization but is designed purely for defence. Last fall the United Nations was under fire from the Soviet
Supply-External Affairs bloc. It was challenged as it has never been challenged before. I believe this gave to the free world some indication of the ruthlessness of the cold war in which we are engaged.
It is interesting to note that during the founding convention of the New Democratic party held recently a motion was moved that would have had the effect of urging Canada to withdraw from NATO. This motion did not pass, but I point out to the committee that those elements are still within that party and constitute its vociferous, radical, left wing supporters. I ask whose friends they are and who is encouraged when they advocate such a move. Surely not the west.
I wish to deal briefly with NATO and NORAD, one an organization for the defence of Europe and the other for the defence of North America. As I mentioned, the challenge to the leadership of the United Nations was never so evident as it was last fall. Destroy the United Nations and what has the world to depend on for peaceful solutions of world problems? In spite of its obvious value the United Nations has been made a sounding board for political propaganda. The unprecedented attack on the organization last fall is an indication of the desire of the Soviet bloc to destroy the organization.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has worked unceasingly for disarmament at Geneva, at the United Nations and on every conceivable occasion. How can we continue to negotiate in good faith when solemn agreements are reduced to mere scraps of paper? In spite of this the minister reiterated today Canada's desire to negotiate in a calm, dispassionate spirit with a view to finding constructive solutions to our problems.
In 1945 the United Nations charter was signed by 55 nations. As was mentioned earlier, our Prime Minister was present at that meeting in San Francisco. Today there are 100 members of this organization. If the institution is to survive and serve mankind of necessity changes will have to be made.
NATO was bom as a result of the Czechoslovakian coup of 1948 and arose from the fear that Russia could and would march across Europe. One of the objectives of NATO has not yet been realized, the social, political and economic understanding among NATO nations.
Ever since the portfolio of the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been held by the present minister he has stated and restated Canada's policy that we are against nuclear testing, with no strings attached.
After three years of agreement Russia suddenly commences nuclear tests. Why, I ask. To create an atmosphere of fear. Fear is probably the greatest phychological weapon

Supply-External Affairs in the hands of the Soviets and the timing on their part has been excellent. If we cannot continue to agree on nuclear tests how are we to agree on disarmament? The Prime Minister led the way in suggesting to Canada and to the world to avoid hysteria, to be calm, to endeavour to understand the grave implications, the threats aimed at Berlin and at Germany, to be reasonable but to be firm. Would retreat improve our position? Experience and history answer no. It would only serve to show the world that our pledged word to protect the rights, which the United States, the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. gave in 1945 and reiterated after the cessation of the blockade of Berlin in May, 1949, meant nothing; that these guarantees were of no avail and that we were not prepared to back them up. The Canadian people should consider our solemn pledges and the disastrous results of repudiation.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech concerning South America. The winds of change are blowing. The world envies the progress of Canada, the Americas and the west. Strangely, however, some governments somehow fail to realize that through freedom of the individual, through democracy, through the ability of the individual to enjoy the fruits of his labour, Canada and the Americas have achieved this high standard of living in fewer than three centuries. I think this is fundamental. The individual should be free and when he is free he has an opportunity to enjoy the fruits of his labour without molestation from governments.
I now wish to say a word or two about foreign aid and some other aspects of external affairs. With respect to external aid, Canadians generally approve our foreign aid policies. However, I am of the opinion that a greater number of Canadians are now questioning the effectiveness of our foreign aid policies. Canadians are generous. They approach external aid as a Christian problem but they are also beginning to ask, what have we to show for our external aid dollar? They do not believe in a Colombo plan that extends into perpetuity, I have believed in and advocated increased aid for education. How can this best be accomplished? I am of the opinion that technical education can best be carried out in the recipient countries, but that the other types of education are probably given to better advantage when the student of the recipient country is brought to Canada. I am being rather general in this, but I am of the opinion that that is the most effective method and I am hopeful that an increase may be possible in student exchange in this field of extending education to foreign lands. To those hon. members who are particularly interested

in this phase of external affairs I would recommend the report of the external affairs committee where this problem was gone into in detail.
How can the rank and file of the citizens of new nations in Africa and elsewhere achieve a higher standard of living? Dams and other tangible things are spectacular but do they reach the needy people of those countries?
As I said earlier, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech concerning South America. I am a realist and I ask how can 18 million people increase appreciably the living standards of the teeming millions living in abject poverty in other countries of the world? Unless the governments of those particular countries are prepared to co-operate and help-I know our government is-unless they are prepared to make it possible for those people to enjoy the fruits of their labour, then anything we may do may be, I fear, in vain.
Prior to this century slavery guaranteed to a few a high living standard and a subliving standard and hard labour to the others. Democracy is the opposite of this, and freedom is the answer to those problems.
I am going to add a further word about the commonwealth. I view with a certain amount of alarm and misgiving recent developments within the commonwealth. Without condoning the actions of any one country within the commonwealth, may I say the stage is being set for interference in the internal affairs of a sister nation on the part of commonwealth countries. This could wreck the commonwealth. Nothing would please the Soviets better. The commonwealth, as I mentioned earlier, is the greatest single force for peace in the world. Let us endeavour to maintain and strengthen this commonwealth and commonwealth understanding. Let wisdom and understanding prevail. The dilemma or problem of today is freedom on an orderly basis.
I have mentioned just in passing the organization of the American states. I want to compliment the minister who in his wisdom decided to be cautious and to await events. A few short months have shown the wisdom of that policy. Cuba and the Dominican Republic are in turmoil. South America is feeling the winds of change. I was interested in hearing the minister point out the vast untouched resources in South America that are there awaiting capital and labour to work out the salvation of the people. That is all our people had when they came to this country three, four or five generations ago. They had nothing else but hard labour, diligence, saving and perseverance. This is what built up the high standard of living of this country and it can do it for other

countries if the governments of those countries make it possible for the people to do so. However, when the vast majority of those people are not able to enjoy a fair share of those resources through their labour, the stage is set for communism. Governments should be aware of this fact and so arrange their internal affairs that the people of those countries can participate in and enjoy some of the resources that are on their doorsteps.


Mr. Maiheson:: Mr. Chairman, at the commencement of his remarks I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs twice referred to the fact that we are meeting under circumstances of grave crisis. Crisis is a time of both calamity and opportunity. I think that this situation is very dangerous, and the situation with which we are faced in Berlin is precisely that. It is fraught with calamity and also with very great opportunity. Besides having courage, faith and sacrifice, these imperishable virtues, we need also imagination. We would hope that Canada may have a part in the creation of a solution of a situation that is dangerous and threatening to the world.
Dr. John MacMurray, speaking at Queen's University, said this:
Freedom is our nature. But our nature lies always beyond us and has to be intended and achieved. The obstacle lies in our fear and the craving for security which expresses it. So at every crisis we are faced with a free choice between freedom and security. If we choose security, and make that our aim, we lose freedom, and find in the end that security eludes us. If we choose freedom, then we are debarred from aiming at security; for that would mean imposing our bondage upon others. If we choose freedom we may find the security we do not seek,-
I think perhaps that is helpful to us at this time. Our only safe course is the course of freedom, freedom for those people whom we have pledged ourselves to support. We can consider no other course.
Some of the members, and I remember particularly the hon. member for Kootenay West, referred earlier today to some conversations he had had with constituents this summer. My own experience was somewhat similar to his. I found there were numbers of people, men I respected and curiously enough people who were Conservative in their political point of view, who took the view that Berlin was not worth the candle. Why should we be interested in a tiny place on the map 110 miles behind the iron curtain, north of Czechoslovakia and very close to the Polish border? I was interested to note that the people who expressed these views happened to be veterans either of world war I or world war II, and in most instances world war I. It occurred to me that perhaps hatreds
Supply-External Affairs of years gone by and the experiences gained in war had to some extent coloured and influenced thinking on this matter.
I have heard other suggestions. I heard a suggestion from the engineer of an important industry in the town in which I live. He suggested that a bold approach might be made through a nation such as ourselves to have Berlin established as a subsidiary headquarters of the United Nations. I heard a number of competitors in the closed Canadian chess competition this past week say no, Berlin is vitally important. We know middle Europe and we know the reaction of many people behind the iron curtain to any abandonment of the present position in Berlin. All these factors influence us at this time. We cannot fail to remember the various steps of appeasement that were taken prior to world war II aimed at security, which did not achieve security at all but brought us into total war. Surely, with these matters in mind we must take the position that there can be no other course for us but to support fully the position to defend Berlin against any attack.
On the other hand, let us be fair and reasonable and have perhaps a more open mind than has been displayed at all times by our great friends and relatives to the south of the line. I am reading now from an article by Dr. Louis Fischer entitled, "The Soviet-American Antagonism". This article was written in July, 1959.
In the last ten years a million east Germans have escaped into West Berlin. During 1958 alone 240,000 east Germans fled into West Berlin. We know the figures because when they come into West Berlin they report for relief and for transportation to west Germany, and they are counted. Of the 1958 fugitives, 200 were university professors; 3,100 were school teachers; and 1,200 were physicians, dentists and veterinarians. It is reported that east Germany has been recruiting Czech and Polish physicians for their hospitals. The exodus from east Germany via West Berlin is continuing at the rate of 20,000 a month.
This river of human talent is not only a serious drain on east Germany with its 17 million inhabitants, it is the worst kind of propaganda mark for communism everywhere in the world. It disrupts the stability of the east German regime. The freedom to escape is a freedom; and a totalitarian regime cannot tolerate such a freedom.
That is why Khrushchev wishes to close the escape hatch; to sew up this rent in the iron curtain.
This man who has been a recognized student of this situation, who lectured in New York, tells us that the situation from the Russian point of view has become exceedingly serious. We ought to recognize this. Doubtless in the past two years the situation has become even more aggravating from their standpoint.
A little farther on this article says another thing that we might consider of interest. Again, I point out that the author is speaking of the situation two years ago. He says:

Supply-External Affairs The west is not going to withdraw from West Berlin. Some are frightened by this prospect. But it is well not to panic. Stalin tried to take West Berlin in 1948; and when he was stopped by the western airlift, he did nothing. The Chinese communists have tried to take Quemoy and Matsu, to which I think they are entitled; but when they met opposition, they stopped. Khrushchev, in February 1958, created a Turkish-Syrian crisis in his experimental laboratory; but when nobody flinched, he did nothing. At the time of the Suez crisis, Moscow threatened to fire missiles at Great Britain. Go back to the time of that threat, the actual date and circumstances; I think it was a bluff. In any case, when the Americans actually landed in Lebanon, there was no Soviet countermove.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that if we stand firm it may be that there will not be a war. In any event, stand firm we must. On the other hand, we have to realize that this is a serious problem, a problem which has been irritating a great power, the Soviet union. It is a situation which surely has been irritating some Germans, while it has been a matter of great satisfaction to many others. Perhaps Canada is the kind of country that can give to the consideration of this subject some greater flexibility than is possible for a major power like the United States. This penetration, so close to Poland, runs north of Czechoslovakia and could be a tremendous opportunity. Surely, the only answer to getting out of this dreadful situation of cold war is a penetration of a character that is not going to disrupt and cause trouble but is eventually going to work out in some happier relation. It seems to me that our non-nuclear troops have to be there and take whatever position we have to take at this time in order to see it through. Then this thing, God willing, will work itself out.
In this situation we have to be capable of self criticism. I am not satisfied we always have been in the past few years. Governor Stevenson spoke of self criticism as being the most important matter for a democracy. He called it the secret weapon of democracy. There has not been enough self criticism of ourselves and when I say that I mean, of course, ourselves and our neighbours.
There are certain facts that we should remember here. In the long history of affairs between Russia and Canada, with the exception of the Bering sea dispute of a number of years ago I think there has not been anything in the nature of armed conflict between our countries. This nation of Russia came into being by revolution in 1917, the year of my birth. It is a very young nation. Hon. members will recall all the irritations they have suffered, including attack by western powers, non-recognition, etc. We of course do not agree with their philosophy and we must oppose them on many counts. However, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs

this question. In these negotiations that take place, can we dare to forget the fact that Russia, in world war II sustained losses in casualties equal to the total population of Canada, that they fear Germany today and that there are realistic reasons why our attitude should be wise and considered? If a man as able as the one who spoke to me, and who is held in high regard in the Conservative party in my riding says to me, "No; these Germans are people who presented problems to the world in the past and we must watch them", then having him in mind, one who served in the Canadian forces in two wars, as did all the principal speakers in this debate, I would say that we must have some earnest sympathy with the Russian position and we must tread carefully and work with them to see whether there is not some possibility of reducing this situation to more favourable terms.
We must remember that this great nation we love-and I refer to the United States- was actually the author of the bomb, the nation that for its own purposes and in its own wisdom, dropped the bomb and destroyed two great Japanese cities. This is the nation which sent the U-2 flights over Russia not so very long ago and which under a dedicated and idealistic young president invaded Cuba. We are their best friends, and we are their best friends if we are honest friends and if we are prepared to assume slightly independent views.
It seems to me passing strange that we have an administration that was swept into power in this country very substantially through taking the position that there were certain respects in which Canada was adversely affected by the United States in economics and business, but when it comes to this important area of international affairs, they take the view "Wherever you go, we will go too and we will do exactly what you do". We are not serving the best interests of our best friends the Americans by taking a subservient role of such a character. I think this is a moment demanding truth. I think that rudeness between Canada and Russia, whether by speeches in the United Nations or anywhere else, does not serve any useful purpose at all. I think we must pause and consider that with all its recent scientific and technical achievement Russia has not received one kind word of congratulation or praise from our side. There has not been one case that I know of in Canada where any courtesy or kindness has been shown to Russia or any Russian dignitary. We almost look the other way if a Soviet personage passes through our country. We recognize that these are people that may destroy us. But the only way in which to defeat this dereadful situation that

is building up, with strontium 90, this radiation hazard that may affect future generations even if war does not come, is by penetration, by some measure of understanding, by being as good neighbours as possible. We have heard so many speeches delivered in Canada that they have almost become cliches about our role as the golden link between Britain and the United States and at other times between the United Kingdom and France. This has been the role that we like to talk about as being the destiny of Canada. Is it not possible that our great destiny may be to become a hinge between the neighbour to the north and the neighbour to the south. I think this is not impossible if we think widely and broadly in terms of the future. I do not like to hear remarks passed critically, as they have been at various times-I am not referring to tonight but at other times-of Prime Minister Nehru. I would feel that in the field of international relations when Canada pulls far away from India we are going to be in trouble. I agree with the proposition that perhaps there cannot be serious interference by one commonwealth state in the affairs of another.
There was reference tonight to Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus. I remember a conversation I had some years ago with the then secretary of state. At that time I was quite exercised about the Cyprus dispute and was asking questions of this man of importance in world affairs. I asked him about Cyprus and why we did not take a stronger position with respect to Cyprus. I well recall the answer he gave me at that time. He said, "Yes I can understand your feeling about Makarios but I believe the only way you can win these people is by understanding them, by giving a bit. By yielding here and there. If Britain yields at the right time with regard to Makarios I think that one day Cyprus will be part of the commonwealth. Going back to what was said by the hon. member who preceded me, I think the fact is that at the sad moment when South Africa was read out of the commonwealth the new nation of Cyprus under Makarios came back in. With goodwill, understanding and patience all things are possible. We must be flexible. We must realize that hatred of other people is not going to add anything at all. There is another point I wish to make. A few years ago in Kingston there was an opportunity to hear a man by the name of Rudolph Pechel, a distinguished editor and publisher in Germany. He was one of the freedom fighters. He pointed out that it was extremely difficult for the Germans to get any kind of support in resistance to the Nazi tyranny from any source at all. He said that people did not want to believe that there was a resistance movement in Germany. He concluded his remarks
Supply-External Affairs in the Charles Dunning trust lectures, by saying that we should keep this matter in mind when we consider the youth of eastern Europe. Surely this is one of the factors why Berlin is significant, because of our link with these people who need hope. May I briefly refer to something that has been said by our good friend Alastair Buchan. He speaks with authority of this critical moment when military instruments, while still a reality of political conflict, have taken on a life of their own and have become a separate source of tension and danger. This, of course, is well handled by the article of Kenneth McNaughton in "Canada Must Get Out of the Arms Race". We earnestly congratulate and support our distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs for his leadership and tenacity and his assurance that we will continue in this position. I hope our resistance to atomic weapons becomes inflexible. Surely the only way in which to resist this nuclear force is with moral force and with gallant troops who are prepared to take their stand with conventional weapons alone and to meet the challenge wherever it comes as free men, symbols of a large United Nations family. May I conclude with these words of Alastair Buchan, the distinguished son of a beloved governor general of Canada. He said this:
. -we are on the edge of a fundamental change in the world balance of power as it has existed in the last 15 years, and that the axis of world tension is about to shift from "East-West" to "South-East-North-West," or even to "North-South". If so, there is no time to be lost, given the inevitable time lag in the adjustment of governments and policies to reality, in seeking to identify the areas of common interest with the Soviet union. It would be one of the major tragedies of world history if two powers the size of Russia and the United States were to remain locked in a position of implacable hostility because of their inability to overcome the barriers raised by competing military technologies after the political basis of that hostility had been transmuted into something approaching a common cause against new dangers.
Surely our only possibility of hope in Canada is that we will come through this crisis; that men will experiment with their new toys and will mature and learn to love one another. Our position must be one of dignity, courage, flexibility and understanding. It should not be that of the honest broker, because we are not that important. Perhaps one course in external affairs would be to take a man like "Rocket" Richard and give him a few thousand dollars to take his friends on a tour of Russia.
After all Russia, this common enemy, is the country we admired a few years ago. It is the country of Tolstoi, Chekhov, Dostoyevsky, the country of music and art. We must remember that nothing is impossible. Just 21 years ago we had another enemy,
8098	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs and before that again we have had other enemies. We now face a crisis, a calamity and an opportunity. We may emerge, with our respected Secretary of State for External Affairs playing a creative part in the solution of the horrible and fearful problem which faces the world today.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk about a trip I made last year. As a member of a Canadian delegation, I went to Tokyo for the 49th conference of the international interparliamentary union.
After the conference, my wife and I, accompanied by the hon. Senator and Mrs. Dessureault, went to Taipeh for a visit to Formosa. It was the first time that a Canadian member of parliament visited Formosa.
We were given a hearty welcome. During the few days we stayed in Formosa, we were able to visit this beautiful island. We found that a total and complete freedom prevails there, unlike the situation in red China where persecution exists and where many missionaries, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as from other denominations, have given their lives, having been killed, shot or imprisoned.
In Formosa, we met Generalissimo and Madame Chiang Kai-shek. We were greatly impressed by everything we saw but what struck me most during that trip in the Orient were the land reforms which were instituted both in Japan and in Formosa without any persecution or bloodshed. Those land reforms bear a marked contrast with the ones which were carried out in red China where communes were organized by means of persecution.
Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in my own name and my observations are in no way binding upon the government, but I must admit that I was surprised to notice that Canada has no embassy in Formosa while free China has had an embassy here, in Ottawa, for many years.
There is some talk these days about Canada's recognition of red China. Some members have mentioned it. As for myself-this, again, merely reflects my own opinion-I would not be in favour of Canadian recognition of communist China, as we believe in opposite principles. We are associated with friendly countries, we fight for peace and freedom. That is why I feel we would be discouraging other nations, especially those of southeast Asia, if this country were to recognize red China.
I was quite surprised to see those 12 million Formosans make every sacrifice and


labour for peace in order to reconquer their mother country at present under the yoke of a dictatorial government.
I think it would be unfortunate if this country should recognize communist China. We must prefer the Washington leadership to that of Havana. Besides, if we recognized red China, our relations with the United States would become rather shaky.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few minutes to state some of my reasons for opposing the recognition of red China and its admission to the United Nations.
1.	There is not one provision of the United Nations charter that has not been violated by red China.
2.	That country has not yet made peace in Korea with the United Nations forces. It is impossible for the United Nations to accept a government with which, under international law, it is still at war.
3.	Red China is supporting in all southeast Asia the case of North Viet Nam. Attacks on Viet Nam were made by that country as well as raids in India beyond its border.
4.	Red China is charged before the United Nations with committing genocide in Tibet.
I think it is impossible to accept within an international organization dedicated to the promotion of peace among nations by means of negotiations and not war, a country whose chief states that the only power is the power of the gun.
Because of historical circumstances, the Russian empire with its Soviet colonies is a member of the United Nations and already their foundations are being shaken by propositions which would bind that organization hand and foot.
When Mr. Boland, chairman of the general assembly, broke his hammer calling him to order, Mr. Khrushchev stated himself that it was a symbol of the weathering of the United Nations.
If with the presence of the U.S.S.R. at the United Nations deliberations are already pointless, it is not desirable to admit a country like red China. If red China were admitted to the United Nations, I believe it would mean the end of that organization. I am in favour of an international organization that renders tremendous service to all nations, especially through its subsidiary organizations such as UNESCO, FAO and WHO.
I cannot see how we can admit red China to the United Nations, for it would be a terrific blow to free China, which has always respected the charter of the United Nations and which is constantly threatened by red

China. By admitting communist China, the U.N.O. would bring about its own destruction. It would mean the prelude to a first class funeral for the United Nations organization which would have been the first to depart from the spirit as well as the letter of its charter.
Hon. Senator Dessureault and myself have immensely enjoyed our visit to Japan and free China. We were in a position to realize the importance of Formosa to the countries of southeast Asia. In my opinion, the defence of Formosa is not only vital to the survival of free peoples, but also necessary to check communism in southeast Asia. If, by any chance, Formosa were not supported, I think we would lose much and that all countries in southeast Asia would fall prey to communism.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make those few personal remarks as a token of gratitude to the government of free China that welcomed us so kindly.
(Text):


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention originally to intervene in a debate of such importance and I do so with considerable temerity. I do so not as a statesman, not as one who is learned in the field of foreign policy but as an individual Canadian who has gained most of her information through the public press, through pronouncements made by this administration and by those of other countries and from news stories. In the intervening period of adjournment I attempted to ascertain from the people with whom I came in contact both in my riding and elsewhere the feeling of the Canadian people with respect to the crisis in Berlin, which was really little more than a small cloud on our horizon when we left this green chamber in July and which has grown horrifyingly to such proportions and to such an evil colour.
I cannot say that during the weeks of adjournment I have been able to find unanimity even among my own people, much less among the many other people throughout the country to whom I have spoken. Therefore I do not attempt to speak for all Canadians, for all of the people of my riding or indeed, Mr. Chairman, even for a majority of them.
There is no question that this debate into which we are launched on the first day of our return has within it the seeds of the most critical discussion that has taken place not only during this session but in this parliament and perhaps in any other parliament. Rather than the debate ending with too few people intervening, I would hope that most members of the house would attempt to search their
Supply-External Affairs consciences and to give the government what it deserves, their best view with respect to their opinions and the people's opinions. I do not approach this matter in a partisan way. Survival or failure to survive is not a question of party politics. Indeed, in many ways it is not even a matter of nationalism or internationalism. Perhaps those who serve in this parliament and in other parliaments or congresses of the world have now to deal with the most important problem of all.
May I humbly associate myself with the remarks of many of those who have already spoken and particularly with those of the hon. member for Leeds. For us in Canada who have never felt bombs rain on our heads, who have never seen children without heads or arms lying in the streets, who have never seen our public monuments and our homes lying in rubble around us, for us in Canada, some of whom have worn a uniform but the majority of whom have learned about these things through news reels, films and from the press, it is easy to be rigid. It is easy for us to say that some place we will draw the line and stand and fight. I would think that many Canadians of my generation who once wore their country's uniform are prepared once again as Canadians, regardless of ethnic background, regardless of the part of the country from which they stem, to don the uniform of the Queen if their country calls them; but with what cold horror they would do so. I do not think they would do so this time with the feeling that there would be something of peace that could be won.
I recall when the first atomic bombs appeared on the scenes toward the end of the last war and first came into our common lexicon. Many people ignored them and said that in the last war the horror of gas was not used and mankind would never stoop to use atomic warfare. Yet here we are today four years from the time when we began to see what we could do with nuclear power for peaceful uses, four years this month from the time when the U.S.S.R. put its first sputnik into space. We have come the full cycle in a few short years in this country and the world, to the point where what we are actually discussing is whether those who sit in this chamber and those they represent will be here a year from now.
There are those who say with respect to the question of survival that there will always be some who will survive and they can start again. The essence of this debate with respect to Berlin must come down to this. Do we risk our future, the future of everyone in the world, the uncommitted nations, the committed nations, those millions of people in the world who do not even know that there is a Berlin much less that
8100	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs there is a crisis over it? Must we decide now which it will be? In my very humble opinion, Mr. Chairman, I think not.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a brief statement and I must confess that to begin with it was disquieting to me, because the things for which he said Canada stood were things with which I think there would be no quarrel. He said that Canada stood for peace, for doing away with nuclear weapons, for banning tests, for supporting the United Nations and for supporting our treaties, including NATO. I would think that no country and no individual in a country could in fact disagree with those statements. So I was dissatisfied, as I think many in the country might be dissatisfied, to think that here was no leadership, here was no banner unfurled, here was nothing decisive.
In the past few weeks Canadians have become more and more apprehensive. What will be done? Most of us who are in parliament have had telephone calls and letters and are approached on the streets. Will there be war? What is it all about? How did it come to pass? Where are we going? There is an old Scottish air, "I know where I am going". I think most individuals like to feel that they know where they are going and all individuals like to feel that their government knows where it is going and where it is leading its people.
So at first blush at least I think the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs today may have been received coolly and with disappointment in the country. But even in the few short hours since then it may have been borne in upon Canadians, and will be if all members participate in this debate, that it is not so simple to say, "Here is what we stand for; this we negotiate and this we will not."
Earlier today the hon. member for Essex East did say that in our view some things with respect to Berlin are not negotiable, and when I say "our view" I mean a Canadian view and perhaps a western view. We will never be false to ourselves or other free men around the world. I do not think anyone now in Canada would choose that its leaders should be false to that principle. It is not enough to go into a grocery store and to have someone who is worried about the future of mankind say, "I will not defend that German city, I will not defend Germany, I fought once to destroy Germany". There are echoes in this country from people who said, "I will not fight to defend Britain." It may be that another time we will have those who will say, "I will not fight to defend France, I will not fight to defend the United States."


Luckily or not, we do not have to answer that question any more because there is no longer any question of fighting to defend Germans, or a tiny city or even part of a city that happens to lie inside East Germany. What we are asked to stand up and be counted for is where we stand in the matter of freedom.
Freedom is a word that is much maligned. It perhaps means different things in the mouths of various men and women. Mr. Khrushchev in his speeches says that he stands for peace and freedom, and I suppose he does.
The greatest and most critical danger that we now face is something which the orientals call a possibility of loss of face. It is possible that the two protagonists, the United States and Russia, will adopt a rigidity of position in which one or the other must, willy-nilly, cause a war. It does not matter whether the war commences with nuclear weapons or whether it arises from someone on one side of the border using a hose and someone on the other side using a gas or smoke bomb. I think everyone is conscious of the fact that it does not matter how the conflict commences. The United States once felt that it was better to bring an end to the holocaust of world war II by using a nuclear weapon and it appears likely that in the event of another conflict one of the two parties would feel justified in doing the same thing. Whether war begins with sticks and stones or even with mere insults it will lead inevitably to a war that will destroy all humankind. We must not let this happen.
Prime Minister Nehru speaking at a recent meeting referred to the uncommitted nations. He said only what all men know, that Canada is kidding itself if it says it can alter present circumstances, if it takes the position that it can push the parties apart and make them decide the way it wishes them to. Mr. Nehru cannot do it on behalf of India nor can our Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of Canada.
Perhaps the greatest thing we can do is this. We can search our consciences to determine where we stand and, knowing this, be firm. Then as a nation, through our administration and its Secretary of State for External Affairs, we must do everything and anything to keep open the door to negotiations. It may be that we ourselves cannot effectively contribute to negotiations. It may be that we ourselves cannot offer guidance that will lead to the successful settlement of the problems under negotiation. Perhaps at this stage our only position is to keep fluid the situation, keep open the door, keep the parties meeting at all costs.

We know that at one time Japan and the United States were meeting, yet war broke out. It appears from the events of the past week which saw the resumption by the U.S.S.R. of nuclear testing that the moral indignation of the world may not really be enough to forestall the end for all of us, but while the two nations are negotiating the chances are relatively slender that the end will come. Therefore, perhaps the policy enunciated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon was the wisest kind of policy in that the hon. gentleman did not take a rigid position except in terms of that for which Canada stands. He did not say what Canada is against. The minister was careful, discrete and cautious. Mr. Chairman, I am not careful, discrete and cautious. I am a different type of person. It was for this reason that I chose to listen to the debate this afternoon and did not intervene.
I have listened to and spoken with the people of Canada whose understanding of the facts confronting us is perhaps imperfect but whose emotion and feelings will have to lead them to follow their leaders in this administration or another or hold back. The people with whom I have spoken feel that perhaps the best Canada can do is not to permit the boat to be rocked, not to permit the door to be closed.
Perhaps we thought in Canada a few years ago that, with our increased status in the past 20 years or so as a large industrial nation, one recognized internationally, we enjoyed and could maintain a position in which everyone would listen to us. We have told ourselves over and over again that this was the case. Our leaders in the universities, in politics and in other fields have assured us that we are not a colonial power and never were and therefore we are the rightful people to lead the uncommitted and non-colonial free nations.
I heard one hon. gentleman refer this evening to Canada's destiny. He spoke of manifold destiny and of viewing the future with alarm. These are imported terms and really mean nothing. No nation has a destiny that is preordained. The nation has what the guts and blood of its people cause it to have. At every course there is a turning for nations as there is for individuals. Sometimes, as a great poet once said, they also serve who stand and wait. Perhaps what is necessary for Canada now, Mr. Chairman, is to stand waiting as a nation holding open the door. Perhaps at this time we should not call for a definite flaming policy to follow. Per-
Business of the House haps part of our maturity lies in the recognition that we are largely a Christian nation which believes it has right on its side and in not seeking to impose our will on others. Perhaps we should only ask those we have befriended in the past in war and peace and those we are prepared to befriend in future, whether they lie to the north, south, east or west, to join hands and continue talking in an effort to seek constructive settlement.
It may be that the people of Canada will find their destiny, in this hour at least, not in shooting or in standing toe to the line and daring others to cross it, or in rattling sabres, or in increasing military might, or in deciding to prepare ourselves for a great war, or in hiding our people in holes in the ground, or in deciding to use a bomb, but in deciding that the whole moral and spiritual force of this country must be brought to bear in an effort to keep open all avenues of negotiation. Perhaps all we can do is to assist in having the protagonists in this gigantic struggle continue negotiations. We must do all that we can to prevent the increase of tension that can lead to inevitable destruction.
The thoughts I have endeavoured to express may be viewed by some as muddled thinking. There are those who call on the government to give us not just a policy but a detailed plan of action involving means by which we can impose our policy on the world. There are others who take the position of saying, let us become neutral; let the big boys decide this one; we will survive or perish with them. Let us be this link of which the hon. member for Leeds spoke, this linchpin, I think Mackenzie King called it, at a time when Britain and the United States were engaged in an equally critical struggle. Let us be the linchpin between the two forces and let us pray God, Mr. Chairman, that nothing breaks asunder that linchpin.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you will call it 10.30 o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Churchill:: We will continue tomorrow with the discussion of the estimates of external affairs.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO 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. Martin (Essex East): What are the reasons that Canada abstained from voting on a Nigerian resolution calling on South Africa to withdraw from the ILO, as reported
in the press June 23?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary
of State for External Affairs):
The Nigerian government delegation to the ILO conference submitted a draft resolution condemning the policy of apartheid in South Africa and proposing that the governing body advise South Africa to withdraw from the ILO.
Canada has made clear its disapproval of apartheid and its hope that this policy may be modified. It is not likely that such a modification can be brought about by actions calculated to force South Africa out of international bodies, thereby further isolating it from the international community and from changing ideas and world conditions. Thus in the United Nations general assembly Canada opposed the imposition of economic and other sanctions against South Africa, but supported a resolution which emphasized, in a moderate and responsible way, the widespread international concern over apartheid. Similar considerations would seem to apply to the Nigerian proposal in the ILO.
In the resolutions committee and in the plenary session of the international labour conference, Canada supported that part of the resolution condemning apartheid but abstained on the resolution as a whole, which called for South Africa's withdrawal from the international labour organization.
In addition to Canada's general position on this matter, there are other important considerations having a particular bearing on the situation as it arose in the international labour conference. First, there is no provision in the ILO constitution by which a member state can be forced to resign. Second, the Nigerian resolution might well serve as a precedent for similar resolutions seeking the withdrawal from the ILO of other countries whose political and economic policies are considered objectionable by some members. Third, South Africa has ratified a number of ILO conventions, but as a non-member country is not subject to the disciplines and responsibilities inherent in ILO membership, its withdrawal might not be in the best interests of the South African workers.


CANADIAN PROTESTS AND ASSISTANCE
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Is the government prepared to express publicly and forcefully the horror of the Canadian people at the brutal measures of repression being practiced by the Portuguese authorities in Angola?
2.	Has the Canadian government given any assurance to the Portuguese government that Canada stands ready to assist in creative programs for the welfare of the people of Angola?
3.	Is the Canadian government prepared to aid the tens of thousands of Angolan refugees who have been forced to flee to the Congo?
4.	Is the Canadian government assisting in United Nations efforts to aid these refugees?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary
of State for External Affairs):
1.	The government, through its support of general assembly resolution A/RES/1603(XV) of April 22, 1961, has expressed its concern about the situation in Angola.
2.	The Canadian government is awaiting the report of the United Nations sub-committee on Angola and in the light of that report will consider what further action might usefully be taken.
3.	No international appeal has been launched for the Angolan refugees to which the Canadian government has been asked to contribute.
4.	Angolan refugees in the Congo are receiving assistance from international organizations such as UNICEF and the league of Red Cross societies. The Canadian government makes an annual contribution to UNICEF as well as other United Nations organizations in the Congo, and contributes indirectly to the league of Red Cross societies.


CANADIAN MILITARY AID TO PORTUGAL
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Will the government assure the house that there will be no sale or transfer of Canadian arms or other military equipment to Portugal while present Portuguese policies persist?
2.	Is the government fully satisfied that none of the military assistance provided by Canada to Portugal has been of even indirect assistance to Portugal in her military operations in Angola?
3.	If not, what steps are being taken to ensure that Canadian military assistance already supplied to Portugal is not directly or indirectly to support Portuguese military operations in Angola?
4.	Is the government fully satisfied that none of the Portuguese airmen trained in Canada under Canadian mutual aid have been sent to Angola?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary
of Slate for External Affairs):
1. Canadian policy in respect of the supply of mutual aid to its NATO allies, including Portugal, was stated by the Prime Minister on June 22 in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Essex East, and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on June 28 in reply to starred question No. 431.

No shipments of Canadian mutual aid equipment have been sent to Portugal since November, 1960. There have been no commercial sales of munitions to Portugal in the last two years. As far as future mutual aid shipments or commercial sales are concerned, these will be determined in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time such requests are received.
2 and 3. The Canadian government cannot, of course, maintain physical control over disposal of mutual air equipment once title has passed to the recipient country. If, however, it became known to the Canadian government that mutual aid equipment was being used by a receiving country in such a way as to contravene the understanding mentioned in the Prime Minister's reply of June 22, the government would have to review its position regarding the supplying of mutual aid to that country.
4. No information is available.


CAPE BRETON
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	How many men were laid off on May 30, I960, in the Cape Breton Highlands national park from each of districts 7A. 7B, 15 and 8 respectively of Victoria county, and how many of the men laid off from each district were married?
2.	Why were ten single men employed in districts 7A, 7B, and 15 and none in district 8 as recorded in the answer to question No. 252 at page 6686 of Hansard?
Answer by: Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of
Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	None.
2.	We are most anxious that there should be maximum employment opportunities in the area. To this end and to spread the available work among as many as possible in the local labour force, we have adopted the practice of changing the work crews from time to time. When the last rotation was made there were, I am advised, a number of single men living in districts 7A, 7B and 15 of Victoria county, some with dependents, that were in need of work. I am advised this was not the case in district 8.
Questions


HALLS HARBOUR, N.S.  FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 287
Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Have any funds been provided through any vote of the Department of Public Works for expenditures at the public harbour at Halls Harbour, Kings county, Nova Scotia, for any of the last four fiscal years?
2.	If so, what amount of such funds has been spent, and in what year?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	1957-58, repairs to west breakwater $2,059.87. 1958-59, repairs to west breakwater $864.44. 1959-60, repairs to west breakwater $617.17.
In the present fiscal year, funds were authorized for driving test piles and undertaking repairs. To date, approximately $24 has been expended in this regard.


ELEVATOR OPERATORS, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Lessard: What are the names of the elevator operators hired between July 1, 1957, and July I, 1961, who are still being employed as such at the present time in the parliament buildings, including the buildings known as the east and the west blocks?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
Elevator operators are not hired specifically for the parliament buildings but may be moved about between government buildings in Ottawa as required. The following were engaged as elevator operators between July 1, 1957, and July 1, 1961, and are now working in the parliament buildings including the east and west blocks:
Name	Date Appointed
P. Lafleur	 24-2-58
G. Jacques	 2-5-58
J. Blanchfield	 8-8-58
J. L. N. P. Carrier	 16-10-58
W. Thompson	 27-10-58
G.	Quinney	 9-2-59
J. Greene	 4-5-59
J. Dewitt	 29-12-59
H.	Perron	 4-3-60
E. Carron	 17-3-60

Friday, September 8, 1961