1961-04-27

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I have now received a report from the Canadian delegation to the economic policy committee of the O.E.E.C. which met in Paris on April 18 and 19. I should like to inform the house of several important developments which took place at these meetings.
Hon. members will be interested to know that the economic policy committee, composed of senior officials from all the member countries, is expected to become one of the principal organs of the new O.E.C.D. designed to promote closer international cooperation and consultation over the whole field of economic policy both national and international. Because this was the first meeting of the economic policy committee since ratification of the O.E.C.D. convention by Canada and the United States, considerable attention was devoted to plans for the future work of the organization for promoting closer economic collaboration among the member countries. The work of this committee is of particular significance to Canada because its membership now embraces all the principal countries of western Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States, which together account for a very high proportion of Canada's total foreign trade.
In addition to making plans for its future work, the economic policy committee on this occasion reviewed the current economic situation and future prospects of member countries particularly as they affected the trade and financial relationships among them.
With a view to extending and intensifying the work of the O.E.C.D. the committee decided to establish two working groups to study and consult upon problems of economic policy where such action seemed particularly timely and likely to produce the most valuable results. The first group will deal with problems of economic growth. The second group will deal with the balance of payments and the monetary, fiscal and other related policies. Canada will be represented on both
working groups. The economic policy committee expects to receive reports from these two groups within the next few months with a view to making proposals for action to the ministerial council of the O.E.C.D. later in the year.
I should like now to table the terms of reference for the two working groups established by the economic policy committee.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members will have learned with satisfaction that some encouraging progress is being made in the work of the economic policy group in laying the foundation for the transformation of the O.E.E.C. into the organization for European co-operation and development which could be one of the most important agencies in the development of Atlantic economic co-operation. We can only hope that the encouraging progress that has been begun in the work of the economic policy committee will be continued in the meetings of the subcommittees and the meetings of the full committee to which the minister referred.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, from the standpoint of Canada I think it is a good thing that the O.E.C.D. has set up these two committees and has this work now under way. From the standpoint of our country I think both committees can be of importance, the one having to do with growth, of which we do not have too much at this time, and the other having to do with the balance of payments, which is a difficult problem for Canada even now and in the case of Europe is of very great importance. I think for Canada this is a matter of urgency, and we hope that the O.E.C.D. in the future will bring about freer trade within the Atlantic area and will make it possible for Canada to resume adequate growth within our nation.



AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT WITH BRAS D'OR COAL COMPANY LIMITED

Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize certain amendments to the agreement made under the Coal Production Assistance Act with the Bras d'Or Coal Company Limited for

Inquiries of the Ministry the purpose of postponing the commencement of repayment of the loan made to the company thereunder to the 31st day of December, 1962.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act to extend for not more than twelve months the period during which the revised rates under the said act shall be applicable and to increase the authorized expenditure under the act by an additional $20 million.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would comment on the statement made yesterday by the governor of the Bank of Canada to the effect that any improvement expected to take place in the economic situation will not be adequate to make a "serious dent in the level of unemployment allowing for seasonal fluctuations."


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows it is improper for anyone to make observations on evidence given in a committee of the house or of the other place.



PROPOSED JOINT CANADA-U.S. ORGANIZATION TO SOLVE UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour or, in his absence, to his assistant. A press report from Washington today indicates that Canada and the United States have decided to create a joint organization to find a solution to the problem of unemployment. Is the assistant to the labour minister in a position to comment on this report and advise the house whether the government has appointed persons to that board from the regions affected by unemployment?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the one I asked the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour. I ask the parliamentary secretary to take notice of my previous question in order that the minister may comment on this matter in a few days.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to do that.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex Easf):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. Will the minister tell the house whether it is the intention of the government to move to refer the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the standing committee on banking and commerce, or to any other committee of this house?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, following the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I really can see no advantage to parliament or to the public in that course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the Minister of Finance not realize that as he himself has said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Does the Minister of Finance not realize that, as he himself has pointed out in the house, since the governor of the Bank of Canada is responsible to parliament-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It seems
evident that the hon. member wishes to convey information more than to ask for it.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time you have acted in this capacity I will accede.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Peter Francis Martin: But may I ask the
Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Cheap, cheap.


Peter Francis Martin: Hon. gentlemen opposite can make all the catcalls they want but they cannot prevent us-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a supplementary question I hope he will put it now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I have, but I have not been able to put it because of government members' interruptions in the chamber. Will the Minister of Finance, in accordance with the rights and obligations of this parliament, in the name of the government move to have the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada sent to the banking and commerce committee so this house may study that report?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is repeating a question which has already been put.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -may I say that this question has not been put.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unless I am mistaken, the Minister of Finance has already indicated he does not consider this suggestion to be in the public interest.


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the governor of the bank, will the Prime Minister say whether or not he regards the governor as a prophet of gloom and doom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in order that there shall be no doubt on the matter may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he considers it not to be in the public interest to refer the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the banking and commerce committee of this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time this question has been asked in the house this afternoon. I repeat the answer I gave to the question when it was asked the first time by the hon. member for Essex East, and I simply add to that answer the observation that I think will be generally shared by all hon. members of the house and the public, namely that hon. members opposite, in either examination or cross-examination of the governor of the bank, could not do half as good a job as the senators did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What a disgraceful statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give notice from my place that on Tuesday next I intend to move that
ftiisiuijft am jo sauyribui
the latest annual report of the Bank of Canada be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I draw to the attention of the hon. member for Essex East citation 186 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, which states:
Oral notices for future proceedings do not exist in the Canadian House of Commons.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge with gratitude the view you have just expressed, but I would point out that Your Honour failed to read all of the citation, as I would have expected in the circumstances. The citation goes on to indicate:
An exception must be made in respect of certain routine proceedings dealing with the observance of proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority-
And so on. I would think nothing is more important than the maintenance of the authority of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to tell supporters of the government what you told members of the opposition a few moments ago, namely that interventions would not be allowed which preclude an hon. member from making a statement which in his judgment he feels he should make to the house. Because of the interruptions may I repeat the citation:
An exception must be made in respect of certain routine proceedings dealing with the observance of proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority-
And so on.
I rest my case on the phrase "the maintenance of its authority". What is the authority? Under the Bank of Canada Act, as the Minister of Finance has so frequently reminded us, monetary policy is the responsibility directly of the governor of the Bank of Canada. Of course under our system of government that does not mean that the government escapes responsibility, but under the Bank of Canada Act the governor of the Bank of Canada is responsible for the formulation of monetary policy. In the discharge of that function he is responsible to this authority, the House of Commons. Under this rule I am permitted to give oral notice in respect of something that involves not only the authority but the obligation of this house in respect of this matter, particularly when one notes that the governor of the Bank of Canada is responsible directly to this house.
Because this is so, I feel that this notice is in order, and that we are in order in discussing the motion itself and in asking that the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada

Inquiries of the Ministry be placed before a committee of this house, to which the governor of the Bank of Canada is by statute responsible. I think the situation is clear, and since to date the government through the Minister of Finance has refused to accept the responsibility which he prefers to hand over to another chamber of this parliament-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is dealing with something other than the point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the hon. member for Essex East just insists on making himself more and more absurd the further he goes in this matter. He has read a portion of the citation, Mr. Speaker, and then has beclouded the whole issue with a mass of verbiage. Let me read the citation in full for the instruction of the hon. member. Citation 186 reads as follows:
(1)	There are only two ways In which a question can be withdrawn from the order paper: first, by a written notice, by the member putting the question, to the Clerk of the house, and, secondly, by the member, in his place in the house, informing the Speaker that he desires the question to be dropped.
(2)	Oral notices for future proceedings do not exist in the Canadian House of Commons. It is useless for a member to say: "Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will move a certain question tomorrow." This would not give him any precedence on the next day and he would not thereby acquire the right to speak on matters not standing on the order paper. An exception must be made in respect of certain routine proceedings dealing with the observance of proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority, the conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the correctness of its records or any other similar matter brought up by the Prime Minister and settled without the passage of any resolution. A minister may also announce from his seat that he will later make an official statement on some important matter but he does so as a courtesy to the members. These indications of the government's intentions are not the kind of notices required under standing order 41 which must be printed in the Votes and Proceedings.
The authority of the house is not an issue here. This does not arise out of any statement or matter brought up by the Prime Minister. It does not relate to the conduct of any officer of the house or the management of the business of the house, or the correctness of the records of the house, or any other similar matter, brought up by the Prime Minister and settled without the passage of any resolution.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East has been in the house a long time and some of us who have some regard for him do not like to see him making himself look so utterly absurd as he is insisting on doing today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, this matter could be settled in five seconds if the minister would merely agree to have this report submitted to the appropriate committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the matter could have been settled before it started if hon. members opposite would acquaint themselves with the rules of the house and obey them.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on the point of order, particularly about the many precedents there are with respect to the very procedure which the hon. member for Essex East has adopted on this occasion. There is no difference in principle, as I am sure Your Honour will agree, between getting up and putting, as is done practically every day on the orders of the day, a question to a minister and asking him to take it as notice, and doing what my hon. friend from Essex East has done today. All he has done is to say that with respect to a matter that would not appear on the order paper at all, namely the reference of a document to a committee, that as a matter of routine proceedings he intends on a future occasion to take that action. Of course hon. members who are chairmen of committees are constantly making similar motions with respect to concurrence in reports of committees, and they get up at this stage of the proceedings and give notice that they intend to do that on a future occasion.
Of course we all recognize that if the hon. member for Essex East was trying to place something on the order paper which would give him precedence over some other hon. member, that would be an improper thing to do, because there is a precedence laid down in the regular standing orders of the house. But in routine proceedings there is no precedence. Whichever hon. members catches your eye first, be it the Prime Minister, the chairman of a committee, the whip seeking to change the membership of a committee, this is accepted by the Chair in the order in which it happens. All the hon. member for Essex East was doing was seeking to give the house advance warning of what he proposes to do in order that the house might exercise its jurisdiction and supervision over a body with respect to which the Minister of Finance disclaims any responsibility, and proclaims there is a parliamentary responsibility.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the comments of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate have clarified the point. As he says, if the notice given by the hon. member for Essex East is not intended to have this question stand on the order paper, there is no

problem except that this would not be the proper occasion to give such a warning. It might be a matter of debate, but certainly not a matter to be put on orders of the day because it was not in the form of a question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before you make a final ruling, may I respectfully suggest that in view of the fact that Mr. Speaker is not in Ottawa at the present time-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -you might want to delay your final ruling in a matter of this great importance until Your Honour has had an opportunity to discuss it with the chief presiding officer of the house, the Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think that is necessary because the question seems very clear and, as I said, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has removed any doubt I might have had.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be allowed to ask the Minister of Finance if he does not agree that the dignity of this house is degraded when an officer of parliament is permitted to testify before a committee of the other place and is denied the right to testify before a committee of this house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom the hon. member refers when he speaks of an officer of parliament. The governor of the Bank of Canada is not an officer of parliament. He is an officer of the Bank of Canada by definition under the Bank of Canada Act.



SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I noted the reply of the Minister of Public Works last week in connection with this matter. Is the Minister of Public Works able to assure the house that an opportunity will be given for discussing his proposal to establish a secondary mortgage market by a debate this session?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, could I accept that question as notice?



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Defence Production care to comment on a report in this morning's press to the effect that the United
Inquiries of the Ministry States air force has turned down the possibility of buying the Canadian made CL-44 cargo aircraft? I wonder if the minister could say whether Canada has put before the United States government any alternative proposals for defence contracts to be let within our own country?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: In reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia, I may say I read the article that appeared in the Gazette this morning. The United States government are free to make any comments they wish on the qualities of the CL-44. I wish to state that Canada has put forward to the United States government other proposals so as to help aircraft production in Canada. Discussions have taken place with United States authorities over the past several months as to the possibilities of arrangements in the field of defence production in connection with this industry, but they have not yet reached the stage where I could usefully make a statement.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question along the lines of the one the minister has just answered and in the light of the report which appeared in the Montreal Gazette this morning, wherein it is stated that the proposed contract would enable Canadair to produce the Starfighter in exchange for the purchase of the United States long range interceptor. Is the minister in a position to make any comment on that aspect of the report?


Mr. O'Hurley:: I have no comment to make. There was an article in the Gazette this morning to the effect that Lockheed was offering part of a contract to Canadair. This is utterly false. If Canada has any negotiations to make they will be made directly with the United States government, not with Lockheed.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: May I ask a
question of the Minister of National Defence. Did the United States secretary of defence and the minister hold informal discussions on the possibility of acquiring the CL-44 plane, which prompted a statement from the United States air force that the Canadian aircraft is much inferior to United States planes?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. member is referring to a report in the newspaper relating to evidence given before a United States congressional committee. I do not believe I should comment on a newspaper report of that evidence.

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF FEDERAL MARKETING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, of which I have given him notice. Can the minister advise the house of the progress which is being made toward bringing into effect the recommendation of the royal commission on food price spreads for a federal fish marketing act which would enable provincial governments to pass legislation and thus regularize the negotiating of prices to fishermen?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The recommendation referred to in the question by the hon. member has been under study for some time. However, no decision has been made so far, nor are there any plans at present to introduce a federal fish marketing act during the current session of parliament.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether this particular recommendation is going to be given the same treatment as the Clark report.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, it would be purely coincidental if that were the case.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the report that the great lakes commission is seeking the aid of the United States state department in negotiating with Canada regarding additional diversion of water into the great lakes, can the minister indicate to the house the Canadian government's position on the proposed water diversion into the great lakes from the Hudson bay watershed?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the article in question. The Canadian government has received no approach from the United States on proposals of the type described. Various proposals for diversions of water from the Hudson bay watershed to offset diversions at Chicago have been considered in the past and are regarded as impracticable from an economic point of view. Canadian opposition to any further diversion at Chicago is well known.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will explain to the house why the government of Canada is not prepared to make a loan of $50 million to the city of Montreal for the construction of a subway while, according to a report in La Presse last night, the government of France has approved in principle such a loan to the city for the same purpose?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what the government of France did, of course, is not of immediate concern to hon. members in this house. In so far as the earlier part of the question is concerned may I say this. The reason given to those making a similar application on the part of the city of Toronto was given to the mayor of the city of Montreal.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it not possible for the government, should it decide to approve of these two loans, to put an item in the estimates rather than to deal with the matter by way of legislation, as the Prime Minister has suggested?


John George Diefenbaker: I should not like to take lessons in parliamentary propriety from hon. gentlemen opposite.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister in a position to reply to the question I put to him yesterday concerning the engineering report in connection with the proposed seaport at Moosonee?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Nipissing, and in reply to say that the information gathered as the result of basic surveys carried out in 1960 by the federal government will be assembled in about one month's time. One key section at the mouth of the Moose river must still be surveyed, which will determine the location of the main channel where the river meets James bay. This work is now planned to be carried out early this summer, and will last approximately one month.
The results of our technical study covering all basic surveys carried out in 1960 and 1961 will then be assembled and made available

to the government of Ontario. I cannot say at this time whether or not it will be published, but I should emphasize that this will be technical information only, and not a report on the feasibility of the seaport. The feasibility of the seaport from an engineering standpoint can be assessed later.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. As the minister is absent, perhaps my question could be drawn to his attention. This is almost the five months' anniversary of an order of this house pertaining to a question of mine about the travelling expenses of members of the cabinet. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would look into this matter and see why there has been this delay in complying with the order.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I will pass on this information to the Secretary of State.
(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. According to this morning's papers, the Canadian government telephone book has been printed in English only. Does the minister intend to have a French version of that directory printed, in accordance with the promises made by the Minister of Transport?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to read the report referred to by the hon. member. However, I shall read it and answer his question tomorrow.
(Text):



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether his department has recently transferred its advertising account to a new advertising agency.


An hon. Member:: Order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware, several agencies are handling the advertising account of the department. Those agencies have not been changed recently.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister aware that a story to this effect appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press today?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You will have to correct that tomorrow.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now that the census commissioners have been appointed, can the minister say whether any instructions have been given to these census commissioners to give priority, when appointing census takers, to unemployed persons provided they have the necessary qualifications?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that those making the appointments take this matter very much into consideration, because it is well known how anxious this government is to provide employment for everybody who is unemployed and who can by our action become employed.
As I have outlined to the house, this is a very important task. People with particular skill and ability are required to carry out this very exacting operation. I think the choices are being made on that basis, and the census will be carried out very well as a consequence.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fine words of the minister I wonder whether he could consider the proposition and specifically suggest to the census commissioners that priority be given to the unemployed provided they have the necessary qualifications.


George Harris Hees: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that is taken very much into consideration at all times when these selections are being made.
(Translation):



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (SI. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of
4048	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Transport? According to a report published in the newspaper Le Clairon, Quebec provincial authorities-


Mr. Tremblay:: Le Clairon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Azellus Denis: -Quebec provincial authorities are only waiting for a decision from the federal government to begin work on the viaduct east of the city of St. Hyacinthe. Is it the intention of the minister to communicate with the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot in order to speed up the matter, even if it meant for the latter a temporary interruption in his congratulatory letters to parents of new born babies in his riding?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, of course I have not read Le Clairon, but I want to say to my hon. friend that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot has often had talks with me on the problem that was just raised. I am not in a position to say today exactly when the work will start, but I shall be glad to accept the question as notice and answer later.


Mr. Theogene  Hicard@St. Hyacinthe-Bagot: A supplementary question, in order to help the hon. member for St. Denis and) to dispel his ignorance. Could the minister tell us that tenders have been called and that the request-
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
(Translation):


Mr. Ricard:: -and that the request- (Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I ask hon. members not to start protesting when the question is being asked.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -and that the call for tenders appeared in the same newspaper? The editor of this newspaper is as ignorant as the hon. member for St. Denis.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have any further comments to make. (Text):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question. In view of the fact that the unemployment insurance fund, according to the report for the end of March, is at the lowest point in history, can the minister say what steps


the government is going to take to replenish the fund so that in the face of the great unemployment problem that persists at the present time, unemployed workers will not be denied their rights under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member well knows that no unemployed worker has been denied his rights under the Unemployment Insurance Act, or will be. In reference to the proposed legislative action, the hon. member is equally well aware of what was announced in the speech from the throne and will be brought before the house in due course.
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Postmaster General. According to press reports, some mail bags were stolen recently at the Dorval airport. Can the minister inform the house whether this is the first in the series of postal thefts for the current fiscal year?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I shall take this question as a notice, Mr. Speaker, and answer it tomorrow.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, precisely a moment ago you asked the house to let the hon. member who had the floor go on with his remarks. Well, since the beginning of this sitting, the hon. member for Roberval and a few others have kept talking louder than the hon. member who was putting a question. I hope the rule applies indiscriminately to all concerned.


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arfha-baska):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to endorse the remarks just made by the hon. member for Hull, and shall even quote some of the words spoken by the hon. members to my immediate left. On a question put by the hon. member for Laurier, the hon. member for Roberval said that he was a fat-head; I do not know what that means.


Mr. Fortin:: Sit down, if you do not know what it means.


Samuel Boulanger: At the time a question was asked by the member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate, the member for Roberval replied that he was a floor-cloth. And when a question was put by-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. I perfectly understand the point of order raised by the member for Hull, but the one raised by the member for Drummond-Arthabaska is of a different nature.
I wish to say at once to the hon. member for Hull that I thank him for calling the attention of the Chair to the application of the rules of the house. However, I either do not want to undertake to find out just who has been responsible for the interruptions. I know there have been interruptions on both sides, but I can say that the rules apply equally to all.
As for the point of order raised by the member for Drummond-Arthabaska, if I heard him correctly his reference was to statements made in the back benches and not heard nor meant to be heard by the reporters or by the house. I think it would be a dangerous precedent to record all remarks made in such a way that they can be heard only by members close at hand, but not by the whole house.
I assume that the member for Drummond-Arthabaska realizes the problems that might arise from the acceptance of a point of order such as he is raising.
If he insists, I shall make a ruling, but I would point out to him the drawbacks that might ensue.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege, as I think that some of the remarks of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska were directed against me.
He referred to conversations he allegedly heard, and attributed to me statements I have not made.
If indeed the expressions he heard, or claims to have heard, arose spontaneously in his mind, I can ascribe them only to some occupational distortion and habitual bad company.
I am very sorry, indeed, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to deny the facts alleged by the member for Drummond-Arthabaska.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege raised by the member for Roberval, I might add a further sentence that he uttered and that was heard by others.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order.
Of course, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska may comment on the statements just made by the hon. member for Roberval, Who rose on a point of privilege, but I would point out to him that, from the way he started his remarks, he apparently pro-
External Affairs
poses to discuss the point of order, on which incidentally I have stated my views.
If the hon. member for Roberval denies the statement ascribed to him by the member for Drummond-Arthabaska, the usual course to follow would be for the member for Drummond-Arthabaska to accept the statement made.
However, it is open to him to make remarks justifying his own action in the circumstances.


Samuel Boulanger: The purpose of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, is to indicate that on this side of the house we cannot enjoy the necessary quiet to hear the speeches that are made, particularly when Liberal members are asking questions.


Mr. Foriin:: It is because you are on the wrong side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have already stated my views on the point of order.
As to the remark just made by the hon. member, may I assure him that it is the Speaker's wish that every member, on either side of the house, be allowed to enjoy his right to speak in full freedom.
(Text):


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Green:
That items numbered 76 to 110 inclusive, and item numbered 481, as listed in the main estimates 1961-62, relating to the Department of External Affairs, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, last etening in the three minutes at my disposal I made reference to the good work of the minister and his officials and to the failure of world leaders to seize opportunities to promote world peace between world wars I and II and since.
Our unanimous support of democratic principles and parliamentary institutions, our common objective which is the promotion of world peace, are, I know, taken for granted, and on that basis we all participate in this debate. While we may differ as to the pathway to peace and as to the meaning of current events, we all seek a single objective and welcome this opportunity to present our views with conviction as members of a free parliament.
The members of this group believe that the present circumstances present an opportunity and a particular challenge to Canada to

External Affairs
utilize its pool of good will that exists throughout the world in taking a friendly but strong, independent and constructive approach to the tangled skein of world problems. In that connection, on behalf of this group 1 should like to urge the Prime Minister to speak with the same clear voice and to represent the views of the people of Canada on these world questions as he did at the recent prime ministers' conference.
In the struggle between the democratic and totalitarian forms of government Canada cannot remain neutral. We must always stand squarely on the side of freedom and with the genuine forces of freedom. However, let me point out that the nature of this struggle is constantly changing. Revolutionary developments in weapons have underlined the danger and absurdity of relying on military strength as the chief method of settling international disputes, even though in some cases it is considered to be the only method. It is increasingly evident that the traditional policy of accumulating arms diverts us from channels of action through which purely effective policies can be pursued. These developments require new departures in Canada's contribution to the emerging world community.
The C.C.F. party believes that Canada's foreign and defence policies must be reappraised and reshaped if we are to play an effective part in the world's search for peace, and particularly in view of the blunders that have been committed by the United States in recent years in the field of foreign policy. It is because of these blunders and errors, this lack of judgment in United States foreign policy, that we emphasize the need for Canada not to remain silent on these occasions, but to speak with a stronger and clearer voice.
These blunders are causing concern to many Canadians and to people throughout the world. As a matter of fact, from correspondence I have received from a wide section of the community, people who support all parties in the house, and from organizations and from meetings I have attended I gather that this criticism is growing, and there is a greater and greater demand that Canada should utilize the pool of good will toward us that exists throughout the world and speak more firmly and clearly on some of these questions.
In our opinion, Mr. Speaker, the United States government, despite its announced concern for the rights of the people and its contention that it has not forgotten its revolutionary birth, has consistently supported reactionary and right wing governments throughout the world, and no one can deny

that. I am paraphrasing conversations I have had and correspondence and resolutions I have received.
At the beginning the United States government was of the opinion that President Sukarno of Indonesia did not have the support of his people. Events have proven that the United States government was in error, and only a few days ago President Sukarno of Indonesia conferred with the President of the United States. I am mentioning a few of these blunders and errors in judgment which have had serious consequences in the world in recent years.
Let me also say that the government of the United States supported Syngman Rhee with massive financial and military contributions. Events proved that he was one of the nastiest fascists going until he was driven from office by a popular uprising, over which United States policy had no control, with apparently little forewarning.
The same story can be told with respect to Turkey, where liberal thinkers and students were murdered by the reactionary government of Menderes which was supported by the United States. In Laos the United States government proved again that they could not leave well enough alone and, no doubt acting under Dulles' precept that neutralism was immoral, started subverting the 1954 Geneva agreement with a view to installing a right wing government in Laos. This plot backfired when the communists inevitably gave support to their own people and a civil war ensued.
Britain has now had to come to the rescue of the United States government to arrange a cease fire, as has happened before. Undoubtedly any government that will be set up in the future in Laos will be more pro-communist than the one which existed a year ago, until United States government intervention led to the installation of a right wing government. Only today there is word from the United Nations that the President of the United States is calling into conference the leaders of both houses to deal with further difficulties that have developed because of this blunder in United States policy in recent days.
In South Viet Nam things are no better, Mr. Speaker. Some people make much of the fact that President Diem is a professed Christian. He is a funny sort of Christian from my point of view. I have talked to quite a few representatives from Southeast Asia, and I believe he is a vulgar fascist who rigs elections as well as, or better than, any communist. According to the news from this area in recent days his days of rule are numbered in Viet Nam because he does not

represent the legitimate wishes of a people seeking freedom and a democratic form of government.
Then in Saudi Arabia the monstrous Ibn Saud rules with mediaeval splendour amongst his slaves and harem, fully supported by a United States government which places the profits of the big oil companies far, far ahead of the rights of man in that area.
Then there was the unfortunate U-2 flight which occurred after the meeting of President Eisenhower with Mr. Khrushchev and which further increased world tension, suspicion, and Mr. Khrushchev's difficulties with China. On Tuesday last I spent a very interesting hour or two with a very important individual, a highly respected gentleman with great knowledge, great understanding and experience. I refer to Right Hon. Philip Noel-Baker. He was telling me about developments in these areas and of his conviction that Mr. Khrushchev wants to develop a policy of co-operation with western governments, a system to curtail armaments and to ease tension. He is opposed by the government of China in this respect, and this unfortunate U-2 flight undermined his influence with some of his own people and made particularly difficult his discussions at this crucial time with representatives of the government of mainland China.
Finally, the latest and most flagrant example of blundering has been the support by the United States government of the counter-revolutionary invasion in Cuba. Canadian opinion in this respect is well reflected in our press today. I should like to quote a few of the headlines:
Kennedy Endorses Efforts of Invaders-Globe and Mail, April 19, 1961.
The Cuban Tragedy-Globe and Mail. April 21, 1961.
Kennedy Claims TJ.S. Right to Intervention in Cuba-Gazette, April 21, 1961.
U.N. Aghast at Kennedy's Blundering in Cuba- Globe and Mail, April 21, 1961.
Kennedy Doctrine Applies to Canada-U.S. Sets Itself Judge of Action to be Taken if Red Threat Rises-Globe and Mail, April 22, 1961.
U.S. Top Brass Backed Rebels' Plans-Gazette, April 22, 1961.
Global Scales Tipping Against U.S.-Globe and Mail, April 27, 1961.
Arab Suspicions of U.S. Intensified-Globe and Mail, April 27, 1961.
The minister, when he was speaking, said we must stand by our friends. On behalf of this group-I am speaking for the C.C.F. group this afternoon, and I have their unanimous support and endorsation-let me say that the C.C.F. wants to be friendly with everybody, but our principle should be to stand by what is right first. Speaking on behalf of this group I should like to deal briefly with some aspects of international affairs, and other C.C.F. speakers, if they
External Affairs
have the opportunity, will further develop the theme I advance in the limited time at my disposal.
We believe that because of United States blundering in foreign policy in so many areas, the thing for Canada to do is to take a friendly-you can have differences amongst friends-constructive approach to world problems and not to remain silent when those things concern Canadians and threaten world peace, and in so doing give leadership. A large number of nations have a great deal of respect for Canada. This is evident to anyone who travels in Europe or Asia. Canada is highly respected throughout the world. Canada is in a position to use influence to give leadership, and particularly moral suasion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to disarmament and nuclear tests I should like to say, first of all, that we are glad to give the minister full credit for all his ceaseless, untiring efforts to promote disarmament and the cessation of nuclear tests. I am sure of this, that if it were left to our Secretary of State for External Affairs it would not be long before we would have some sort of agreement. His efforts in this respect have earned the appreciation and gratitude of all Canadians. I hear that stated on all sides, and I have no hesitation in repeating it. Canadians who are mightily concerned about world peace, not forgetting that courageous little group known as the Voice of Women, which I am glad to note has had the blessing of the Prime Minister, have expressed this point of view with regard to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In our opinion Canada should continue to support and demand an immediate ban on nuclear tests, both to avoid the hazards of fall-out and as a first step toward nuclear disarmament. We should propose a treaty to establish a non-nuclear club of nations pledged not to manufacture, store, or permit nuclear weapons on their soil, or to use such weapons at any time. In the nuclear age effective disarmament has become a condition of survival. Canada must play a much more dynamic role in the promotion of universal disarmament. To assist in this task a special branch should be established in the Department of External Affairs, adequately staffed by nuclear scientists and other experts for continuous study of the problems involved. We recognize that these problems are involved and complicated.
The minister has frequently said that war is international suicide, and we agree with him wholeheartedly. However, some United States generals do not agree with us, you know, and have suggested that such a statement is an exaggeration of the facts. In their

External Affairs
opinion, in the event of a nuclear war, casualties in the United States would not exceed between 30 million and 50 million.
A few days ago I had a most interesting conversation, as I said before, with Right Hon. Philip Noel-Baker, whose integrity and veracity is unquestioned. We discussed the growing burden of armaments on all mankind. I think all persons will pay tribute to the great work this gentleman has done throughout the years as a member of parliament of Great Britain, for many years a member of the Labour cabinet, as a Nobel prize winner, as a member of various important international committees, and as a member of the Society of Friends.
This is a burden that is increasing from day to day. Total world defence expenditures in 1960 came to $110 billion. Those are all that can really be assessed. In 1914 there were 4 million men under arms, whereas in 1960 there were 16 million men under arms. We are not sure if that figure is accurate; it may be an underestimate. The expenditure on military research in the United States in 1960 came to $8.4 billion. The expenditure on military research in Canada for this year is nearly $45 million. Military research; what does it means? It means research into improving the weapons of war, the weapons of destruction. Military research has helped to bring the arms race to the point of frenzy; indeed, it is the arms race in its most dangerous form.
Therefore we urge every effort to reach an agreement that will provide adequate inspection and include all important states, and that will also prohibit all forms of military research and development with the testing of new weapons and training in their use. If only military research were ended and the world scientists with their present funds and equipment diverted to peaceful projects, there is no limit to the benefits which they might bring to mankind and which mankind throughout the whole world is earnestly seeking.
I now have a few words to say about NORAD and NATO. Yesterday the minister quoted from the memorandum of the Canadian Labour Congress to the government of Canada this year with what I took to be a certain degree of relish. However, let me say this. While there may appear to be some varying opinions as to the application of our socialist principles to international affairs, let me inform the minister they simply arise from minor differences in the assessment of the present situation and as to certain facts. I am sure that he and many others will be surprised with the unity of principles, policy and purpose that will be demonstrated by

the progressive democratic political forces in Canada in the very near days ahead.


Mr. Pugh:: Well read.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary said "Well read". I am using extensive notes on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, because I have a great deal to say in a short period. The hon. member knows that it is not my habit to read my speeches. However, I want to be as exact as possible. This is an extremely important subject, and I want to convey our views as fully as possible in the time permitted.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to say a word or two with respect to NORAD. The revolution in weapons technology makes two facts obvious to reasonable men. The first is that annihilation is now a physical possibility. The second is that there is no direct defence against nuclear missiles. Therefore in our opinion policy must be based on these realities. Canada should cease wasteful expenditure on obsolete weapons. NORAD was intended to meet the threat of manned bombers. In the age of missiles, it is obsolete. Therefore in our opinion the NORAD agreements should be terminated.
Canada must make a general and searching reappraisal of its defence role. We should institute a major reduction in defence expenditures as a first step toward peace and to release funds urgently needed for economic aid abroad and social progress at home. Just think of these facts, Mr. Speaker. The direct costs of NORAD in 1961-62-that is this fiscal year-will be $182,127,000. The direct costs of NATO in this fiscal year 1961-62 will be $455,545,000. They have been going up increasingly since the establishment of NATO. Just compare those figures with that of nearly 700,000 unemployed. We in the C.C.F. unhesitatingly say that we believe these large sums can be more fruitfully spent in providing employment at home and assistance to underdeveloped nations abroad.
I now wish to say a few words with respect to NATO. NATO has played its part in the maintenance of western 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. We believe that the extension of nuclear weapons to any further states and organizations threatens disaster to the world. We therefore oppose Canadian troops being supplied with such weapons at home or abroad.
My time is limited, Mr. Speaker. The leader of this group has placed on the record the C.C.F. position with respect to NATO. It
can

be found in Hansard for March 28, 1961, at pages 3443-3444. As I said, my time is too limited to permit recapitulation of this policy and the reasons for it. Suffice it for me to say at this time that this policy was adopted at the C.C.F. national convention held in Regina in 1960, and is supported by the British Columbia federation of labour, the Vancouver labour council, nearly all unions in British Columbia whether they are in the labour congress or outside it, and by dozens and dozens of local unions across Canada that have written to our office expressing their support.
I now want to say a few words with respect to Cuba. Without a doubt many Canadians are disturbed with recent events in Cuba and the policy of the United States government. This concern is reflected in editorials in numerous Canadian newspapers. To illustrate this concern I quote from three of them. First, the Vancouver Province, which normally supports the Progressive Conservatives, in April, 1961 had this to say. I quote only briefly because of lack of time. The editorial is headed "A Continent of Cubas" and reads in part as follows:
A most disturbing aspect of the Cuban crisis is its further development of a pattern already apparent in most South American nations.
The Castro revolution was neither a freak of chance nor a malignant communist plot. It was the logical outcome of the conditions that created it.
And again:
The misery of the masses and the corruption of the government (are) surely producing a revolution.
As in Cuba, the communists are confidently standing by ready to aid, assist and guide the revolutions when they come. And undoubtedly to assist in triggering them when the time is ripe.
But the revolutions are not made in Russia. They are home grown.
And unless the western world can find some effective and speedy method of achieving peaceful and friendly revolutions there, we are likely to find a continent of Cubas on our doorstep.
Next I quote from the Toronto Daily Star, which normally supports the Liberals, our friends to the left. The date of the editorial is April 22, 1961. It was sent to me directly by one of the editors of the Toronto Daily Star, hoping that I would use it. We welcome this support.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It arrived this morning.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It arrived three or four days ago in my case. The hon. member no doubt received the ordinary general run issue. The editorial is dated April 22, 1961, is headed '[DOT]Does Latin America Want Liberty?" and reads in part as follows:
President Kennedy has asserted the right of the United States to intervene anywhere in this hemisphere to block communist penetration, with or without the consent of the country directly involved.
External Affairs
This arrogant doctrine mocks the independence of the western hemisphere states, including Canada. It is of course, aimed particularly at the Latin American nations, and It is proclaimed In the sacred name of liberty ...
Cuba before Castro was a green pasture for American sugar and oil corporations, a jackpot for American racketeers behind Havana's gambling dens and brothels, and a sunny playground for American tourists. But it was a mean country for most Cubans.
Then it goes on to say this:
There ought to be a lesson in this for Mr. Kennedy and his countrymen and indeed for all the richer nations. The revolutionary trends in Latin America and other hungry areas will not be stopped by crying "freedom", by threatening or using force, or by adopting the communists' dirty tactics, as Mr. Kennedy now seems to favour.
Then I come to the Globe and Mail of today, April 27. The editorial is headed "Global Scales Tipping Against U.S." and it reads in part as follows:
Slowly, but with a grim and constant sureness, the global scales are tipping against the United States. Even the cautious Japanese have come out with blunt condemnations of President John F. Kennedy's Cuban policy.
Then from the Globe and Mail again under the heading "Arab Suspicions of U.S. Intensified", we find the following:
Cairo-Viewed from Cairo, one of the greatest and certainly most articulate of neutralist capitals, this April is proving a black month for the west.
I could quote from other editorials all across Canada and in Great Britain but time will not permit my doing so. Serious concern is also being expressed in Great Britain, and British Labour party members are suggesting that an inquiry into all aspects of the counterrevolutionary attack on Cuba should be undertaken by the United Nations. Canadians are very concerned. We strongly urge the government first to protest to the United States against its policies with respect to the recent counter-revolutionary attack on Cuba; second, to express complete disagreement with President Kennedy's interpretation of the Monroe doctrine as permitting direct intervention by the United States in the affairs of another state; third, to urge the use of the facilities of the United Nations and the co-operation of the organization of American states to assist in the development of a stable Cuban economy and the promotion of democratic and free, parliamentary institutions in that country.
I was very glad to receive a press report on a resolution adopted by the general assembly on April 24 which deals with a complaint by the revolutionary government of Cuba. I have only time to say that in the resolution the following is mentioned:
The representatives are deeply concerned over the situation disclosed therein, which is disturbing world public opinion and the continuation of which could endanger world peace.
90205-0-256

External Affairs
The final sentence is:
The general assembly exhorts all member states to take such peaceful action as is open to them to remove existing tension.
In this field, again, we urge Canada to use its good offices and good will in the peaceful ways suggested to bring this situation to a satisfactory conclusion.
The minister mentioned the Columbia treaty. I have not time to deal with that now; therefore I will have to deal with the minister's comments under an appropriate item of the estimates of his department.
Before concluding I want to say a word or two about the commonwealth. The stand condemning racism taken recently by the commonwealth increases opportunities for enlarging the role of this unique association of peoples. We have no hesitation in saying that the members of this group are great supporters of the commonwealth and of the greater role it could play in the days ahead in working for world peace. The multiracial and geographically dispersed character of the commonwealth fits it ideally for the role of increasing co-operation among divergent parts of the world, thus reducing the dangerous effects of the cold war.
Therefore we say that Canada should support ever more effective consultation among the members of the commonwealth, both within and without the United Nations, and In so doing provide a strong and united moral force which could be very effective, we believe, in promoting the efforts toward world peace.
The minister mentioned that the United Nations is the world's most important organization. We agi-ee with him. The minister said that without the United Nations civilization would soon revert to savagery. We agree with those words also. It is because of this appreciation of the United Nations throughout the years that this group has emphasized the need for Canada to focus its civilian and military efforts on the general assembly and the agencies of the United Nations.
The United Nations represents the hope of progress toward a durable peace for all as the only existing, nearly universal, instrument of international conciliation. The C.C.F. again pledges its full support to every measure designed to enhance the prestige, authority and jurisdiction of the United Nations and all its agencies. Canada is obligated under the United Nations charter-
-to make available ... armed forces, assistance and facilities ... for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
In our opinion it is time for us, in concert with other middle and smaller powers, to insist that the general assembly find ways to create a permanent international police force.
[Mr. Herridge.l
Canada should immediately create a well-equipped mobile force at the call of the United Nations.
The United Nations agencies, in our opinion, should form the major channel for providing international economic aid. This is important both to strengthen the world organization and because it would avoid placing recipient nations under an obligation to a single power. Some nations do not like being obliged to another nation. The immensely increased aid program which the C.C.F. proposes should therefore be directed accordingly.
Canada should base its votes in the United Nations on the merits of the issues rather than, as it has done on occasion in the past, particularly in some years, on bloc alignments.
It is obvious that the United Nations cannot be truly effective so long as a major world power is denied membership. We believe Canada should recognize the People's Republic of China and support its admission to the United Nations. Recognition does not involve approval of China's system of government. We have said that repeatedly. However, a non-recognition which seeks to isolate China adds to world tensions, makes the settlement of major international issues, such as disarmament, difficult if not impossible, and is totally lacking in a sense of reality. We should not shirk the difficulties when we have to do something like this. We have to start to blaze the trail in this direction.
The C.C.F. welcomes the addition of many new nations to the councils of the United Nations and warmly congratulates their peoples on their freedom from foreign rule. By economic aid, appropriate trade policies and increasingly closer relations within and without the United Nations, Canada should support their independence, integrity, sovereign rights and growth.
We realize the great difficulties which face any person in the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has our sympathy and our support, and we wish him well in all he undertakes for the welfare of the people of Canada and all he endeavours to accomplish in order to bring about a goal that looks somewhat distant at the present time, but a goal we must continue striving for, that of universal world peace.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we urge the Canadian government to accept its full responsibility; to accept the unique challenge offered today-and it is unique because of our position and our moral force in the world -to give leadership to all those nations that hold Canada with affection, in great respect

and high regard, and who seek some guidance from us, to march with us along the road to peace.


Mr. F. C. Stinson (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in following the eloquent hon. member for Kootenay West I should first like to say that the good wishes he expressed on behalf of his group to the distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs are shared, I think, by all hon. members of the House of Commons.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke yesterday I was impressed by the fact that in many different fields the minister himself has made a very important and useful contribution. He has been an excellent spokesman for Canada, an inspiring leader at the United Nations, where I have had the privilege of observing him at work, and an initiator of policy. This afternoon I hope to persuade him and the hon. members of the house that this is a good time for Canada to make economic aid to the less rapidly developing countries the major initiative of Canadian foreign policy.
I know that determining Canadian foreign policy, political, economic and military, is an extremely complex matter. Certainly there are few things more difficult than deciding how our country should play its part as a member of the western defence alliance. Since our very survival is bound up with this question, our very best efforts must be devoted to building up the right kind of deterrent forces to prevent war. Many responsible persons believe that the arms race increases, rather than decreases, the chances of war breaking out. Then we all know that making weapons is a terrible waste of resources.
At the United Nations General Assembly last fall the Prime Minister of New Zealand said that 11 per cent of the productive capacities of the world are being used to produce armaments. For these and other reasons I think it was right for Canada to make disarmament one of its main objects at the recent session of the United Nations general assembly.
Many proposals were put forward, but none of them will have any effect unless the major powers are prepared to sit down and negotiate. Much as I would like to be optimistic about the possibilities of serious negotiations in the near future, I must say that the facts of life do not support optimism in this regard. I do not think there is going to be any serious negotiation on disarmament for some little time. Certainly nobody can take any satisfaction from the fact that it has been agreed that the subject of disarmament will be discussed in the early stages of the sixteenth assembly, because in that period millions of dollars will 90205-6-256i
External Affairs
be spent in all parts of the world producing things which have no purpose other than to destroy people and resources.
I recommend that economic aid to less developed countries should be Canada's major initiative in the 1960's for the following reasons. We are not one of the main military powers and because of this, in world politics, our role must be one of an ally, an intermediary, and from time to time a spokesman for Canada and other middle powers. This has been said very often.
Canada does not have the reputation anywhere of wanting the territory of other countries for military bases or for any other purpose. I do not think there is very much anti-Canadian feeling in the areas where our aid projects have been carried out. In the uncommitted countries I am informed there is a tendency for people to look at aid from the United States or the Soviet union as having a political objective.
The next reason is that we should do what we can, and I think there is great potential in Canada in this purpose, to stamp out some of the causes of war, and I refer to the unrest and dissatisfaction that grow among people who are hungry, ill-housed and illiterate. To this I would join the reason that we should help these people on humanitarian grounds.
In January of this year I was in Hong Kong, and I think most hon. members would come close to weeping if they saw the condition of thousands of refugees in that city. In that splendid book "To Plough with Hope", Donald Faris tells us something about the distribution of food in the world. He points out that about 60 per cent of the world's population is living on a near-starvation diet. That is less than 2,200 calories per person per day. These people, if placed side by side two feet apart, would circle the world 25 times. To get an idea of the size of this population I would suggest the following: to pass them in an automobile, if they were standing two feet apart in this manner, would take three and a half years driving 10 hours a day at the rate of 50 miles per hour.
Another argument is that raising living standards in the less developed parts of the world will provide greater markets for Canadian goods. This point, among others in this connection, has been made in the House of Commons on another occasion by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). Instead of fighting to get a larger piece of the existing trade pie, why not do something to increase the size of the pie?
While the phrase may sound somewhat empty, I think an expansion of Canada's economic aid program would give us a chance to strike a blow for freedom and for free institutions. Let us do something to show

External Affairs
direction and administrative control of local private or governmental agencies.
The aims of the project are to provide inexpensive service to these countries and, equally as important as the first objective, to give these young Canadians the advantages of learning something of the culture and the conditions of life of people in the countries in which they will serve. Under the direction of Professor Nathan Keyfitz a course of in-truction was given to some 35 volunteers this spring and 10 young men and women have been chosen for the first year's project, which will be service in India, Ceylon and Sarawak. At Laval University the affiliated association, "Volontaires Canadiens Outre-mer," is now engaged in setting up a course of study and calling for volunteers. The financing of this operation is through voluntary contributions, and no federal assistance is being requested.
One hesitates, Mr. Speaker, to use dramatic language when discussing these matters but sometimes it has some value. I think, for instance, of President Kennedy's recent statement that if we in the west cannot help the many who are poor we shall never be able to save the few who are rich. What are really needed are not clarion calls but rather sacrifice and hard work. There is much to be done by government and by individuals. I should like to read the last four lines of Barbara Ward's book, "India and the West", and when I do this I will be through. When considering the matter of foreign economic aid I think we should keep in mind these lines:
It is our fortune at this point of crisis to have all the physical resources that are needed to create a new world of opportunity. It is our tragedy that we may lack the vision and the will.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with the request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), that members take part in the debate on the activities of his department-when he referred to the members who were present at the meeting of the commonwealth parliamentary association, of other NATO associations and the international parliamentary association union- I felt I should make my own contribution by telling the house my personal impressions of my visit to the United Nations in the fall of 1959, where I was present as an observer.
I should like first of all to extend congratulations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as did the Conservative members.
I must indeed express my gratitude to the secretary of state for the kindness and courtesy he showed us during our visit to

New York. Thanks to the minister, our stay was as pleasant as it was useful. I thank him sincerely.
Before dealing with external affairs proper, I should like to say a few words about the knowledge of languages of external affairs officials, both in Ottawa and abroad. For this purpose, I refer to the brief published by the "Conseil de la vie frangaise en Ame-rique" on the Canadian Department of External Affairs. On page 10 there is a reference to the number of departmental employees in Ottawa. According to this document, out of a total of 217 employees, 174 are English-speaking Canadians, of whom 7.5 per cent are bilingual, while there are 43 French Canadians, all of them bilingual.
I could quote other figures with regard to our representatives in other countries, but I shall merely ask the house to let me put on the official record some 15 lines of text. (Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Has
the hon. member permission of the house to have 15 lines of text included in Hansard without reading them into the record?
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, since it is
only a matter of 15 lines, perhaps the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) might wish to read them?


Samuel Boulanger: It would be better to have them printed in Hansard, since they contain a lot of figures.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Perhaps the hon. member would give the source first.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I referred to the source of my information in my opening remarks, but I would not mind repeating it. I am referring to the brief on the Department of External Affairs of Canada submitted by the "Conseil de la vie frangaise en Ame-rique" under the leadership of its president, Mr. Paul Gouin. This appears on page 10.
I am making these remarks to show the meagre part which is that of the French language in that department, a part which is definitely unsatisfactory from the national as well as the international point of view, since Canada is a bilingual country.
During my six weeks at the United Nations, I can boast of having been the only representative of this house who could converse in both our official languages.
I think it would be in the interest of Canada's prestige if at least half of the members who go to New York each year to represent our country could at least converse in the two official languages. That is

the suggestion I make to the minister of external affairs and I ask him to give it its full attention.


Mr. Robert Lafreniere (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska? Does he not remember that I was at the United Nations in the fall of 1959 when he was there, and that I also can speak French and English?


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I can see that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency did not listen to my remarks, because I clearly said "during the six weeks I attended the proceedings", and, if I remember correctly, the hon. member arrived in New York one or two days before I left.
Mr. Speaker, that six-week period I was able to realize all the good the United Nations has accomplished in the 15 years it has existed.
I was also able to realize the splendid work that the countries which have inherited from Providence a higher civilization, a prosperous economy and an almost unlimited wealth have done in their efforts to promote peace.
I also saw the great spirit of understanding and fraternity of most of the delegates, and particularly those from western countries and Latin America. That spirit was reflected in a special way during the proceedings of the general assembly in 1959, under the distinguished chairmanship of Mr. Victor Be-launde from Peru. At the end of the session Mr. Belaunde said the assembly had been an assembly of peace. I feel it is proper to remind the house that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) did great honour to our country when he occupied that chair.
On the other hand, I was able to realize the difficulties encountered by the United Nations in the solution of the problems of underdeveloped countries suffering from hunger. While the problems have not all been solved, the results obtained so far are gigantic.
It must in fact be remembered that, in 1945, most African countries were either under colonial rule or under a protectorate or mandate not much different from colonial rule. The rush toward sovereignty in 1960 and 1961 is certainly epoch-making.
The movement of emancipation which is sweeping Asia and Africa cannot be reversed and, for the good of mankind we should give it our full support. Then, too, it is noteworthy that the emancipation which has taken place
External Affairs
in Africa has taken place peacefully, contrary to what was happening before the establishment of the United Nations.
There is a point I wish particularly to bring to my colleagues' attention. It has to do with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, known as the FAO. This organization was set up with the hope, expressed in the Atlantic charter, that a state of peace would be established which would ensure to all countries freedom from want. Today, chiefs of state, social workers, and economists are rightly concerned with the problems the world will have to face if no help is given to starving populations. This situation was described in the autumn of 1959 during a conversation on T.V. between the prime minister of England and the president of the United States. The prime minister of England was speaking about countries with underdeveloped economies, and Mr. Eisenhower, then president of the United States, had this to say:
In a way, I believe that the problem of the underdeveloped countries is more flexible and important for western civilization than that of the differences and quarrels between Soviet Russia and the western world. Today, 1,700 million human beings lack adequate food, shelter, and health services. Those people will not remain silent forever. They become aware of their fate and they compare it with ours. Unless we help them, they will eventually blow up. I think that the chief co-operative task facing the so-called civilized world, including the Soviets, and which the whole world should undertake together, is to see that the legitimate aspirations of those peoples are fulfilled. It is a problem in which everyone of us should take an interest, to see what he can do and how he can share in it.
And Mr. Macmillan went on:
I think, as you do, that it is not fair that we and our fellow citizens should enjoy all those things we have, houses, hospitals, education, etc. while those people are reduced to poverty and misery . ..
That is the most crucial problem that the world must face at this time. Already someone has described this situation as a real panic. In fact, while the rich nations, with a population of 400 million, whose annual income amounts to approximately $1,000 per person, and is as high as $2,000 in the United States, one billion people in Asia, Africa and Latin America, without mentioning communist China, must be satisfied with an annual income of $60, which hardly increases and is even growing less in some countries.
One has only to read the press reports and United Nations publications to realize the state of destitution existing in the world.

External Affairs
In the matter of food, it is recognized that the minimum number of calories needed by people in temperate countries is 2,700, but this figure may go as high as 4,500 according to the nature of the work performed. However, in underdeveloped countries, the ration is generally between 2,700 and 3,300 calories. In other words, 50 per cent of the the average consumption is 1,570 to 2,300 calories. In other words, 50 per cent of the population of the world is getting less than the bare minimum of calories to survive.
In the matter of health, world-wide disease control programs have been set up under the UN, with wonderful results. However, much remains to be done before adequate medical and hospital care is provided.
Whereas in the United States there is one doctor for every 800 people or so, and one hospital bed for every 101 people, and in Canada there is one doctor for every 950 people and one bed for every 77 people, in underdeveloped countries, there is only one doctor for 20,000, 40,000 and even 70,000 people, and one bed for 1,000, 2,000 and up to 3,000 people. If you add to that the fact that the ratio of illiterate people over 10 years of age varies from 40 to 90 per cent, you realize in what position mankind finds itself in facing the most fearsome economic problem, with its social, political and racial implications.
While the situation is of course serious, according to some humanists, what is worse is the indifference and perhaps also the ignorance of some people with respect to world politics. Canada carries its share of responsibility in that respect.
The immediate surpluses now owned by the "have" countries would only be a drop of water in an ocean of poverty, if we decided to give them away.
It must be recognized that commendable efforts have been made by the United States and Canada to find a means of meeting the basic needs of the "have not" countries.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggested, at a meeting of the NATO countries in 1957, that an international food bank be set up.
In early November 1959, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) made certain suggestions to the F.A.O. in Rome, but apparently met with little success.
Today, however, now that the government has decided to dispose of agricultural surpluses and restrict agricultural production, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agri-

culture seem less interested in pushing this food bank idea.
Canada would find itself in a ridiculous position today if we were called upon to supply products other than grain.
We did have pork surpluses. We were told a short time ago that we had 35 million pounds of surplus pork, but those reserves have been sold, and we no longer have a pork surplus. Perhaps we still have a surplus of butter and milk powder. With Canada's present agricultural policy, it can be said that we have practically no surpluses left to give away or distribute to starving countries.
And what will we be able to supply, a few months hence, in view of the defeatist policies now being followed by the present Minister of Agriculture in regard to price supports? We will be lucky if production can be maintained at a level adequate to meet our own needs and fill the orders from our remaining export markets.
It is true to say, and I quote from an editorial published in Terre de Chez Nous for May 6, 1959, that:
Every time agricultural surpluses reach a level substantially higher than the commercial marketing opportunities, we are given a great show. In the forefront are groups whose true intentions are camouflaged under high-sounding phrases. Government authorities quickly lose their heads and adopt measures that are often half-baked.
What an about-face since the statements made by the Prime Minister in 1957, when speaking in Saskatoon, as reported in the Western Producer for September 10, 1959.
(Text) :
To those who think that in agriculture we have arrived at a point where we need no longer expand I say to you this: I learned one lesson at the commonwealth conference in London.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is leaving the field of external affairs and is proceeding to a discussion of domestic agricultural production policy. Perhaps he could explain how it is related to the debate currently before the house.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I want to show this house that agriculture is related to external affairs because we must contribute food to underdeveloped countries. Besides, if we were forced to provide food to those people today, we would be late.

The Prime Minister said this at the Saskatoon conference:
(Text):
We must expand our agricultural development.
With one quarter of the world's population going to bed hungry at night, methods must be found to enable the distribution of our surpluses to the end that happiness will come to the people of the world.
Together we must preserve the peace of the world and hold ourselves through agriculture as a bulwark against communism.
(Translation):
The Prime Minister could just as well have said, as the chairman of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated recently in Toronto:
At the present time, it should rather be said that there is not a surplus actually, but a cumulative unbalance between food production and world marketing methods.
Mr. Speaker, if the prestige acquired by Canada during the difficult war years of 1939-45, during the Korean war and the Suez crisis is to be preserved, the present government must devote its intelligence and all its power to the development of a food distribution plan to feed the 35 million babies who are born each year and doomed to die of starvation.
The chairman of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made a suggestion with which I quite agree, that is to create a committee of the best experts in this country to study and analyse the discussions held in Rome by the world organization for food and agriculture, and make recommendations to be submitted at the next meeting.
I endorse that proposal urging authorities to think it over seriously and to take positive action as soon as possible.
The assistance provided by the distribution of food to underdeveloped countries would surely be quite helpful, but they will also have to be provided with financial means to equip and educate themselves so that they can progressively develop their agricultural production and become self-sufficient.
Canadians in general have made great financial sacrifices to help those starving countries by their participation to the Colombo plan and other assistance organizations. Others have sacrified their youth, their intelligence, and perhaps social benefits that would have accrued to them from a profession in our country, to devote themselves to the evangelization and education of those peoples who are entitled to share the spiritual and temporal wealth of this world. I refer to our Catholic and Protestant missionaries, those 90205-6-257
External Affairs
ambassadors of civilization and peace who are dispersed in all countries of the world and for whom we have had too little sympathy, gratitude and encouragement.
Who has not heard about the tremendous work they have done in certain countries of Africa and Latin America where the communists use all their energy and spend enormous sums of money to sell their evil ideology.
The situation is serious and urgent; no effort should be spared if we are to preserve peace and upset communist influence in the world.
To back up my remarks, I will read what Mr. Sen, the director general of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization said on January 22, 1959, in Rome:
Vast regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America accounting for more than half the world's population are starving. Their food is inadequate both in quality and in quantity to insure their health, growth and physical strength. This is the most serious human problem of this century.
Our future is at stake. What will be the world situation 25 years from now, if we do not act now?
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order. The hon. member had asked during his speech for permission to have printed in Hansard some 15 lines from the department's report. I do not think the house properly disposed of the matter at that time. Does the hon. member still make the request?
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Samuel Boulanger: With pleasure.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member referred a moment ago to the situation of bilingualism in the Department of External Affairs. Could he tell the house what he thinks of the attitude of his leader when he was secretary of state for external affairs and used to delay the publication of French releases by his department?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not so.


Samuel Boulanger: This is an unfounded statement of the kind the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm usually makes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not an unfounded statement; I found that information in he Devoir of 1957.

External Affairs


Samuel Boulanger: I asked the house at that time the authorization to have some 15 lines printed in Hansard.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Could I ask the hon. member, further, if this was a report, or a section of a report which dealt with figures or statistics, or was it simply a factual statement?
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Those are statistics. (Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Has
the hon. member permission of the house to have the 15 lines of this report printed in Hansard as part of his speech?


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


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I object.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) now says he objects. I think the hon. member, who is fair-minded, will recall that he sat here a few minutes ago and finally agreed to it at the time.


An hon. Member:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member was sitting next to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) at the time. While I think there can be no objection to you, Mr. Speaker, asking for the consent of the house, as you are now doing, I think there is no doubt that at the time there was full concurrence on the part of the house.
There was some doubt on the part of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, but he later agreed. It is true that he now expresses his disagreement, but I suggest to him that, having earlier taken the position that I say to him he did take, it is not now open to him to take a contrary position.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have not even come close to agreeing. And I stand by my decision.
(Text):


Alexis Pierre Caron: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, when we were under the impression that consent had been obtained and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) had not said he was opposed to it, the reporters received the pamphlet and they have gone with it. Therefore it would be impossible for the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) to read it; it has gone up to the reporters' room.


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, would it not be just as well to give the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska the privilege of reading it, so as to dispose of the whole matter?


An hon. Member:: It has gone to Hansard. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, when I was discussing figures, I mentioned some of them and asked the house to authorize the printing of 15 lines or so of that text in Hansard. There was no objection then-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I objected.


Samuel Boulanger: -since the publication was fetched and I no longer have it so I cannot read it.


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the house to the fact that, when the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm objected, he was not in his seat. Therefore, according to standing orders, he could not have been recognized by Mr. Speaker, because an hon. member should then be in his seat. He did not make that objection in his seat, since he was in front. Therefore, according to standing orders, he could not be recognized by the Chair.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am pleased to hear the hon. member contradict his colleagues but-
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order. The Chair did recognize the remark of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) at that time objecting to the printing of these figures.
I put the question to the house again. Does the house give its unanimous consent to the request of the hon. member that these figures, which I understand are statistical and cover about 15 lines, be printed in Hansard as part of the hon. member's speech?


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


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I object.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to, follows:]
(Translation):
Schedule II
Language Qualification of External Affairs employees in Ottawa:
Bilingual Trilingual Total number: . 217 56 (25.7%)	10 (4.6%)
English
Canadians:	.. 174	13 ( 7.5%)	2 (1.1%)
French
Canadians:	..	43 43 (100 %) 8 (18.6%)

Language Qualifications of Canadian Representatives abroad:
Total number: English	. 387	92 (23.8%)	25	(6.9%)Canadians: .	. 325	30 ( 10%)	3	(1.0%)French	Canadians: ..	. 62	62 ( 100%)	22	(30%)Heads of Missions abroad:	Total number: . English	44	19 ( 43%)	Canadians: ..	30	5 ( 17%)	French	Canadians: . .	14	14 (100%)


Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Speaker, anyone with any sense of responsibility must recognize that expressing ideas on relations between countries in the world has become a delicate and even dangerous matter, because of the great international tensions which are constantly increasing. However, the position of a Canadian in this respect, is less risky, as Canada is in no way considered as a militarily aggressive country.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we are proud to note the rate at which Canadian influence within the United Nations is increasing. The prestige of this country in that world organization is taking colossal proportions, considering that Canadian history is only four centuries old and that we scarcely have a population of 18 million. Relatively speaking, Canada compares favourably with many countries in the world.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, our strength is not based on physical or military power; it is rather a moral strength based on Christian and democratic values.
In the eyes of other nations, Canada will remain on the same level as the greatest world powers to the extent that she continues to set an example of complete respect for spiritual values while protecting human dignity to the fullest extent.
In external affairs the mission of Canada as of all other commonwealth countries and the other western- nations, is to maintain those Christian principles, as a vigorous and living reality in their practical application for they are the glory of our civilization and the best guarantee against a renewal of that gory experience we have known in the last two world wars, of millions of human beings destroying one another.
And speaking of Christian principles, on behalf of those Canadians I represent here, in
90205-6-257i
External Affairs
this House of Commons, I want to deplore the regrettable attitude of the Liberal party whose leader stated that he would rather live in a communist world than die.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Habel:: Duplessism at its best.


Robert B. Lafrenière: Such an attitude is extremely prejudicial, and one for which the Liberal party and its leader should be very sorry.
Such policy, Mr. Speaker, is fully rejected both by Canadians in the province of Quebec, which I represent more particularly in this house, and by all Christian Canadians in every one of our provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read out the statement he made the next day.


Robert B. Lafrenière: Obviously, if we understand-
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) on a point of order.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a point of order.
(Text):
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is -not a point of order. I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to ask a question.
(Translation):


Robert B. Lafrenière: I shall let the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont ask his question when I have done with my remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read out the statement our leader made the next day.


Robert B. Lafrenière: Of course, we realize that every individual has the natural and deeply human wish to see his life on earth last as long as possible. But, for the sake of future generations, would it not be more important if the ultimate goal of our life were the safeguarding, under every circumstance, of that invaluable treasure which we inherited from our two mother countries, i.e. a sound democracy with a Christian civilization, even if it cost us a few years of our lives?
I do not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we should strive to bring other powers to give up their ideologies so that we may substitute our own. That would be utopian. But our role

External Affairs
consists in providing peaceful community life while respecting the freedom all nations and individuals have of living according to their own convictions.
I cannot help endorsing here, and with pride, the only acceptable policy for a country like ours, a policy which has been most eloquently described by the representative of the people of Canada. Our newspapers have reported in laudatory terms the views of the people of Canada on the firm, clear and definite approach shown by the right hon. Prime Minister at the United Nations last September. A practical lesson in international policy, on the subject of colonialism, was served, with all the trimmings, to the Russian prime minister. For the glory of both France and the commonwealth, I should like to repeat here that part of the speech made by the Prime Minister of Canada:
Since the last war, seventeen colonies and dependent territories, totalling more than 40 million people, have been led by France to complete freedom. In the same period, fourteen colonies and dependent territories, totalling half a billion men, have achieved complete independence within the commonwealth. All told, it means that 600 million men, in more than 30 countries most of which are now represented in the United Nations, have achieved their freedom with the approval, encouragement and help of the United Kingdom, the commonwealth and France. Few countries can apeak here of colonialism with as much authority as we can, because our country was once a colony of France and of the United Kingdom. Our country was the first one which, about a century ago, achieved its development by constitutional means and managed to pass from colonial status to independence, without having to break family ties.
Descendants of France and of commonwealth countries, as well as all Canadians, are indeed grateful to the Prime Minister for having described so forcefully and clearly the humanitarian policy applied by our two mother countries throughout the years. Those words had to be said and repeated here in this house.
As a representative of French-speaking Canadians, this impels me to underline the significance for Canada of the African countries' admission to the United Nations. Everyone knows that, in most of those African countries (including several former French colonies) a good percentage of the population speaks French. That is why, in a recent speech, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) expressed the following ideas:
Canada is one of the only middle powers in the western world in a position to understand the problems of both the former British colonies and the former French colonies in Africa. This is why the efforts always exercised by French Canadians to
[Mr. Lafreniere.l
promote French thought throughout Canada take on a new importance that had been overlooked up to now.
This is where the active co-operation of the French Canadian becomes essential, not only for the Canadian cause, but especially for the cause of western civilization: that he may offer his services when a knowledge of French is necessary. Therefore, it is essential to the protection of our values that French Canadians take a positive stand in the assistance to be given to African countries. No one else is in a position to perform this duty which is, I say it again, altogether fundamental.
Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent opportunity for the government to consider increasing as much as possible the French representation at home and abroad, not only in the administration, but also in the government. It is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that the status of French speaking Canadians is not that of a minority in this country. They are partners on a fully equal basis.
According to international law, a minority has no real rights, but privileges. The right of having its own culture and language is acknowledged but, as a rule, its political rights are always limited. Such is not the case in Canada, because French is recognized as an official language. Since our country is of a bilingual and bi-cultural nature, other countries must be made aware of it, and this can only be done through the Department of External Affairs.
I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) is concerned about this problem, but he cannot instantly remedy the guilty negligence of the former administration on this point.
I now wish, Mr. Speaker, to express a few thoughts on the problem which seems most important to me and the most serious particularly at this time with regard to the relations between east and west, I mean assistance to underdeveloped countries.
Nowadays, Mr. Speaker, thanks to transport facilities, to the speed of information, the peoples of the world are closer to one another. Members of the great human family now live under the same roof, and we could even extend the analogy as far as to say that, when necessary, they eat at the same table. But as in this twentieth century we still have to deplore the fact that two thirds of the human beings on earth are living in hunger and poverty, here is the question that must be asked: How much longer will members of the same family tolerate that some live in wealth and luxury, having the best of foods to satisfy their appetite, when others are collapsing under the burden of misery and hunger?

That is why, Mr. Speaker, the executive director of the United Nations special funds, Mr. Paul Koffman, in the course of a recent session of the Economic and Social Council, made this impressive statement:
When the history of this twentieth century is written the outstanding event to be recorded will not be the first or second world war, nor the conquest of space, but the fact that one and three quarter billion human beings whose ancestors had accepted hunger, poverty and disease, decided to tolerate these no longer.
Such is, Mr. Speaker, the nature of the problem now threatening the world, and much of the responsibility falls on the western countries. Their task is to put forward, quickly and efficiently, a program of educational, technical and economic assistance.
I must say however in all fairness that the countries concerned, and in particular those which are members of NATO, are well aware of the seriousness and the urgency of the problem. With some colleagues, I had the opportunity, in June 1959, of representing Canada at the tenth anniversary Convention of NATO in London. My official function was that of economic rapporteur of subcommittee D-3 to which the 15 NATO members presented a brief on the common economic problems of the west.
I read those briefs and made a summary of them, from which you will allow me, sir, to quote a few lines, in order to indicate how well those nations understand the necessity of taking action. I quote:
Inaction might give rise to a peril much greater than the unpleasant prospect of being engulfed in a world where the ruling majority, impelled by envy and long pent-up resentment, might be in a position, by reason of its population and its vast territories, to exert on the west deadly economic if not military pressures. That danger is also that of a world where a triumphant communism would extend its roots in all directions. Furthermore, it would be foolhardy to underestimate the extent to which the communist system appeals to underdeveloped countries, although individual freedoms are sacrificed without mercy under it.
Such is, Mr. Speaker, the thought of the NATO countries, an organization of which Canada must remain an active member, the statements of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) to the contrary notwithstanding.
But, besides the economic aid program, we must lay emphasis on the educational program within those underdeveloped countries. Financial help and relief in the form of various products are only of a transistory nature. What counts is to give those people the necessary technical knowledge and training that
will enable them to take an active part in their development and to work themselves towards their industrial and commercial expansion.
Furthermore, any help extended to underdeveloped countries must not be considered by them or by us as outright charity inspired by sympathy and pity; that help, must be considered, as it is incidentally, as an invitation to an exchange of friendly services which eventually and effectively will be materially and morally profitable to both parties.
Indeed, besides performing that humanitarian deed absolutely necessary for the recovery of underdeveloped countries, the western countries, including Canada, will be opening up important future markets for the export of their products.
It is therefore a huge task and, in the light of a normal population increase throughout the world, we can expect that this world population will have increased twofold within forty years or so, but the stakes are worthwhile, since it means preventing war and safeguarding peace throughout the world by sheer efforts.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs, his parliamentary secretary and his closest associates for the perseverance, tenacity and confidence they show on all occasions, as regards the possibility of disarmament.
I rejoiced recently when the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) announced the award in my constituency of a $4 million contract for the production of 18 million cartridges for the Valcartier armoury. Thanks to that contract, 400 employees were able to keep their jobs which they might otherwise have lost. But, how happier would I be if I learned that those cartridges, instead of being used for war purposes were to be used for partridge shooting. Mr. Speaker, it would be too bad for the partridges! In any case, let us hope that those large amounts will one day be used to promote education and peace.
In any case, difficult though it may seem, disarmament still appears as a possibility.
One of the staunchest advocates of disarmament is probably our delegate to the United Nations, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who represents what Christian nations respect most, namely human dignity in all that the word implies. We can only wish him all the courage required under the circumstances, and express the hope that human intelligence, with the

External Affairs
aid of Providence, will succeed in creating systems favourable to peaceful coexistence of nations on this earth.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, seldom has this house engaged in a debate on external affairs at a time of greater world tension and anxiety than at this very moment. Some differences of opinion have been expressed in this debate already, particularly by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), with regard to certain aspects of the government's policy and with regard to certain policies being followed by some of the major powers in the world. I want to tell the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) that as he goes from nation to nation and as he speaks in the councils of the world our thoughts are with him, our best wishes are with him, and although we may disagree at times with particular policies, nevertheless with him we voice our opinions on the basis of what we believe to be in the best interests of our nation, in the best interests of freedom and in the best interests of peace in the world.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has earned for himself an excellent reputation in this country and in other parts of the world as a firm advocate of disarmament, and as a staunch supporter of a continuing ban on nuclear testing. We wish him well in all of these endeavours.
Spokesmen of the C.C.F.-New party group in the house have expressed full opposition to NATO, a position different from that taken by the Liberals. In recent months we have said that we have been disturbed that NATO has continued to be almost exclusively a military organization; that we feel more and more people are coming to the conclusion that Canada's best role in the preservation of peace and freedom is in more positive avenues than those offered by the NATO organization.
Over the years we in the C.C.F. movement, and our predecessors before us, have always been very firm and loyal supporters and admirers of the United Nations organization, and that faith remains. We wish to see everything possible done now and in the future to strengthen the United Nations organization and its machinery, since we feel that in this strengthening lies the best hope for peace in the world. We are admirers of the work, the contributions and efforts of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, and we view with alarm any and all efforts to downgrade his position, to divide his authority or to take other steps that would lessen the effective work of the United Nations. We are pleased that at this time the aftermath of the Cuban fiasco, to which so much thought is being given,
(Mr. Lafreniere.]
apparently has not prevented positive action, as far as we can tell, to bring peace to Laos, and we are pleased that Canada once again will be playing a constructive and positive role in this regard.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere) with great interest and I certainly endorse what he said about the particular role that Canada can play because of the bilingual and bicultural nature of this country in assisting the development of the emergent French communities, particularly in Africa. I might say that for some considerable time I have been an advocate of Canada taking action similar to that announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) the other day. As far as I have been able to ascertain, and I am quite willing to be corrected, I was the first member of the house to spell out a program somewhat of the type that the government has followed. This was not an original idea with me. It was put forward in some of the French language newspapers of the country, but I felt it was an excellent idea worthy of endorsation and I was pleased to do so on March 4, 1960, in a speech delivered at Sir George Williams University, Montreal.
I took part in discussions of this question in the house following the proposal being made and when it was discussed as recently as July 14, 1960, the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed interest but felt at that time that great difficulties presented themselves. I am pleased that some policy has been evolved and has been announced in the house. I am pleased that it has been given, as I was certain it would be, unanimous approval by members of all parties. I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that as the policy develops of assisting the French-speaking nations of Africa by suppling French-speaking teachers from this country and providing scholarships for training people from those countries at our universities, we shall be pleased to support at any time whatever further extension of this kind of program is practicable and will be of a helpful nature to these emergent nations.
The matter that I would imagine is on the minds of most hon. members more than any other is the recent unhappy experience in Cuba. I believe it is incumbent on members of the house to speak out frankly in this regard, to place their views on Hansard and make them known to the government. In due course the government will consider those views and I would hope that the expressions of opinion by members of the house may be helpful in the future in a constructive way.

Fidel Castro of Cuba came to power, I would think, with the best wishes of most people in the South American nations and with a great deal of good will on the part of many nations of the world in the hope that his government would improve economic standards of the people of Cuba. As a Canadian and a member of this house I was disturbed at a very early stage in his regime by the excesses in which I felt his administration was indulging. I was disturbed at the blood bath in that country in the early days of his regime. The first question I asked in the house after the opening of the session in 1959 was whether or not Canada had considered these atrocities and was prepared to send an appropriate note in this connection. I am not putting this forward to try to raise the issue as it was presented at that time. I merely put it forward to point out that the excesses of that administration have been abhorred by members of this group and we have felt that Canada should make its wishes known that this kind of thing should not be continued.
However, we have always taken the attitude that the type of government evolved in any given nation is really in the main the prerogative of the people of that nation and that there should be a minimum of outside influence and interference. We think that Fidel Castro and his regime came to power because of the abject poverty of the nation, because of exploitation and widespread disease, because of extensive illiteracy and the natural desire of the Cuban people for education, health, food and a rising standard of living.
We were opposed and we are opposed to action by the Soviet union, the United States or anyone else that would interfere with Cuba and the type of government that may be in office at any given time. We were opposed to the action that was taken by President Kennedy, as revealed in what has been written by well known and respected reporters, in promoting and assisting in almost every way the attack on Cuba by counterrevolutionary forces. We think that is a mistake in itself but we also think it is a mistake in its wider ramifications. We think that this kind of inappropriate action, far from being a deterrent to communism, merely plays into the hands of the communists, and that if President Kennedy should be determined to hand the nations of Latin America into the arms of the communists this is the way to go about it.
We suggest that Canada has an important role to play in speaking out at this time in this connection and saying in no uncertain terms to the United States administration what I and this group believe to be the
External Affairs
opinion of Canadians, namely, that this kind of risk, this kind of intervention, should not be proceeded with and is in fact a danger to the peace of the world.
Newsmen have been reporting on the aftermath of this intervention. One reporter, Frederick Nossal, says that the global scales are tipping against the United States. United States prestige in Japan is going down. Another reporter says that the Cuban affair worries the British; certainly, that is what we read in the British newspapers. Another headline in the Globe and Mail says, "Washington attitude alarms Great Britain".
The Globe and Mail, in an editorial on April 21, 1961, points out what, in their opinion, are the far-reaching results of this adventure. The editorial says, in part:
The results of this adventure seem likely to be far-reaching and unfortunate:
1.	The Castro regime, far from being overthrown, has been strengthened ...
2.	If Dr. Castro was not wholly in the communist camp before, these events may well put him there. Faced with an avowedly hostile United States, from which further attacks may come, he is likely to grasp all the more firmly the hand of friendship extended by the Soviet union.
3.	U.S. prestige has been badly damaged in Latin America .. .
4.	Most serious of all, the United States has damaged its moral position in the world as a peaceful, law-abiding nation, by seemingly resorting to undercover methods of warfare normally associated with the communist bloc.
This is an editorial from a respected Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail. Other reports have been forthcoming that are, I think, alarming and on which 1 think hon. members should speak out. I think it is our duty to speak out on this question. I certainly speak out, not in any sense of animosity to the United States, nor in any sense of being anti-American, but in the hope that if enough members of parliament speak out on this question statesmen in the United States might stop, look, listen and think about these representations coming from the parliament of Canada before they proceed with another adventure of this kind.
President Kennedy came to office with the almost unanimous goodwill of the people of the world. I have never known a statesman from a country outside our own who has had more widespread admiration here and in whom Canadians had more hope and faith than the present President of the United States. I am sorry to say that faith has been shaken and that goodwill that was his, accompanied as it was by much good will in other nations, has been withering away and falling off in the days since this misadventure. The past disturbs us, but the future prospects disturb us more.
I have in my hand a Globe and Mail article which quotes James Reston of the New York

External Affairs
Times service. The heading is "No Scapegoats". The subheading reads:
Kennedy shaken by Intelligence failure but takes full responsibility.
This sounds like a courageous thing to do, and I expect it is. However, I believe there are greater implications in this situation. The article says in part:
He took the decision to continue the training of the Cuban refugees with arms provided by the government, and for releasing the ships and gasoline to launch the attack at this time.
He did so against the advice of secretary of state Dean Rusk and under secretary of state Chester Bowles.
We read that one of the main reasons why President Kennedy has taken this attitude of full responsibility is that he does not wish to get into a partisan debate with the Republican party as to who was to blame for the original plans having gone wrong since they were formulated by the former administration. What disturbs me is the fact that this may be an indication that bi-partisan foreign policy in the United States, with the general agreement of the two major parties and their spokesmen, will once again lead to undertaking this kind of adventure, but having learned from this one will the next time undertake to overrun and overthrow the government of Cuba by using United States forces and by so doing will endanger the peace of the world. I think that would be a mistaken policy on the part of the United States government and I would hope that is not what is going to take place.
Mr. George Bain writes from Washington as follows:
The debate in the United States on Cuba policy has almost entirely ceased to entertain the question of whether that policy should be directed toward dislodging Premier Fidel Castro, and now concentrates only on how and when.
I hope there is a reconsideration in the councils of the United States. I would hope that there would be a change of policy. I hope that Canada will speak out in this regard.
The hon. member for Kootenay West raised this question on April 21, 1961 and at that time the Secretary of State for External Affairs, undoubtedly very worried and with his nerves taut, said something in reply that rather shocked me. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not the hon. member wants us to declare war on the United States.
I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the tradition of this country, will make the strongest possible representations to the United States, in whatever way he believes best, to the effect that a misadventure of this kind should not be repeated. I believe, as I have said earlier,

that we all have a responsibility in this house. I think the official opposition has a very important responsibility. Yesterday the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) spoke but he did not contribute very much on this particular question not because, as I realize, he has not a very great knowledge in this field, but because he decided to say little about this subject. He said, as reported at page 4033 of Hansard for April 26, 1961:
At this time I am not going to press the minister beyond this. I am assuming that we have made our position known and that we are prepared to deal with the next step, which may or may not arise.
Then he said, in the same vein, that he hoped we, meaning Canada, would not hesitate to make our position known. I hope the Liberal party will make its position known in this house. The leader of the official opposition, I understand, is scheduled to speak in this debate. In view of the great experience he has had in the field of international affairs, the great reputation that has been his and the great achievements that have been his in helping to further the peace of the world, 1 would hope that he would address himself to this subject. I am certain that his words will be held in respect, not only in Canada but in the other nations of the world. I think that if enough of us speak out in strong terms to the United States as I hope the Canadian government has already done, we may well, along with other like-minded democrats in the world, so influence the United States that she will forgo any further adventures of this kind.
As I said earlier, this does not mean that we do not criticize-as we do-the excesses in Cuba. We value human life. When human life is exterminated, we should speak up. We value the processes of freedom and parliamentary democracy. We value our traditions. We sincerely feel that, for the peace and freedom of the world, when actions are taken which in our judgment are wrong, even though they be taken by our friends, we should make our own views abundantly clear. This we are doing.
I should now like to turn to a more positive statement of our external affairs position. We are continuing to spend very large sums of money for defence. Over the years we have taken the attitude that these defence expenditures or some of them could be better used if channelled in certain other ways. We feel that Canada's best role today is to have a strong conventional force available to the United Nations for use by the United Nations whenever our force is needed for United Nations police work. We view with great interest, as do all Canadians, the first cosmonaut and his achievements. I am an

optimist, along with the minister, as far as world affairs are concerned even though I have been pointing out some of the dangers. I think the competition between the Soviet union and the west is more likely in the years ahead to take place in the economic field, the scientific field, and in the field of conquering outer space. We are a small nation with a small population. We are wealthy in terms of our population but not in absolute terms. I should like the government to give some consideration to the question of whether or not we might be playing a small part-I know we are now playing a tiny part-shall we say, or a greater part in research, in association with other nations, particularly commonwealth nations, in the field of conquering outer space and delving into its scientific mysteries. I think this would be a more positive way in which to use some of the money that is now being spent on defence.
We have always been strong advocates of economic aid and economic assistance. Canada is doing a little bit but I am not too proud of the relatively small amount we are doing as compared with what we are doing in other fields. I have in my hand a statement given to me by the officials of the minister's department. It shows for economic aid an amount of under $60 million for the fiscal year 1959-60, just over $64 million for 1960-61, with estimates so far of roughly $62 million for 1961-62. There are other details-


Howard Charles Green: If I may interrupt the hon. member for a minute, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that other items for aid will be coming in. I think the figures for 1960-61 include all the supplementary items.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to make the point that we are doing less now than we were doing a year ago or two years ago. I am merely pointing out these figures in order to show that, in relation to a present gross national product of over $30 billion, and expenditures on military establishments and defence expenditures of some $1.6 billion, this small expenditure is not good enough. I think we should do more. If the government could announce that this expenditure was being doubled or tripled or increased even more than that-for years we have said it should be 1 per cent of the gross national product and we have been given some support in recent days by a prominent spokesman for the Liberal party- or would move in this direction, I think it would be given the unanimous support of the members of this house and the general support of the Canadian nation.
I have made my own position clear. I have spoken on behalf of our group in the House
External Affairs
of Commons. I do this with a full realization that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is an old friend and an old colleague in this house over many years. Although he may have felt that I have been critical of his policy or the policy of other nations, I assure him that it has been done with the best of good will, with admiration for the person of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and in the fervent hope that, by working together and speaking out boldly, we may have some influence on the course of events in the world to the end that peace and freedom may be better secured.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure indeed to take part in this debate, but I must confess that I had not expected to be taking part in it for perhaps another few moments. Therefore, if hon. members will just bear with me for about half a minute until I secure my brief notes, I shall proceed.
The first subject with which I should like to deal is that of the United Nations. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) in his remarks dealt with this particular subject at some considerable length. However, there are one or two additional items with which I should like to deal at this time. The first concerns world refugee year. The particular aspect of it of immediate interest to us was the movement to Canada of the third group of tubercular refugees that came here under this special program. As hon. members perhaps know, two groups of some 100 families came to Canada under this special program of world refugee year and just recently a third group have come to this country. Hon. members may recall that as one of our contributions to world refugee year, the government brought to this country two groups of tubercular refugees from refugee camps in Europe. The government paid transportation costs and maintenance costs for one year or until such time as the family became established. By January of this year only 51 refugees were still receiving treatment in sanitariums. So successful were those refugees in adjusting themselves to the Canadian environment and in becoming established in our communities that the government decided to extend the program and to admit a third group. In March of this year the third group composed of 272 persons, of whom 114 were tubercular, arrived in Canada. The total number of tubercular refugees, with their families, admitted to Canada in the three groups now stands at 826. The success of this program has been attributable in no small measure to the cooperation of the provincial governments

External Affairs
which have been responsible for the medical care and treatment of the refugees.
I feel sure that hon. members of this house and others in Canada will be very pleased with Canada's contribution to helping those people in the world who, through no fault of their own-other than that they disagreed, politically or economically, with the countries from which they came; for no other reason than that-because of the contraction of this unfortunate illness were left to a life of despair in refugee camps. We and certain other governments have done our best to provide homes and rehabilitation for them.
Another subject with which I should like to deal very briefly is the single convention on narcotic drugs. I think this is a subject of interest to quite a large number of hon. members. In this regard a conference to adopt a single convention on narcotic drugs was held at United Nations headquarters, New York, from January 21 until March 31 last.
More than 70 countries participated and our delegation played an important part in the negotiations which led to the adoption of a single convention on narcotic drugs. Canada signed the convention on March 31 last. To a very considerable extent the single convention is a consolidation of the existing multilateral treaties and protocols on narcotic drugs.
The convention, while recognizing the necessity of controlling existing sources of supplies, also takes into account the growing importance of synthetic narcotics brought about by continuing research in chemistry and pharmacology.
The adoption of the single convention will simplify and improve the procedures for the control of narcotic drugs and increase the effectiveness of the international organizations involved in combating the illicit drug trade.
It is, I think, heartening to reflect that the community of nations, despite their ideological differences, has been able to reach such substantial agreement in the field of narcotics control, where international co-operation is really very essential.
There are two items which have been referred to by various hon. members this afternoon, including the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson) and the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), I believe.
One is the subject of the so-called world food bank. As hon. members may recall, a resolution with regard to this matter was proposed by Canada last fall at the first part of the fifteenth general assembly of the United Nations. The subject was dealt with in the second committee, which deals with economic and social matters.

After a considerable amount of discussion and consultation with other delegations the resolution was brought forward and unanimously accepted in the second committee. This resolution requested, in essence, the food and agriculture organization, which was meeting in Home at the time, to investigate ways and means of providing emergency food supplies to countries which had suffered a disaster such as an earthquake, as happened in Chile a year ago, drought, or some other disaster. It would also assist countries where civil war or some other man-made unpleasantness had resulted.
This matter was referred to the food and agriculture organization for the purpose of working out a detailed plan which is to be submitted to the meeting of the economic and social council which is sitting in New York.
Incidentally, that particular body was properly constituted only last week, because there had been some difficulty in electing the eighteenth member. However, I should like to deal with this particular aspect of the economic and social problem a little later in my remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who is the chairman of the Canadian delegation at this meeting of the economic and social council?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am not quite sure I understand the hon. member's question. I wonder whether the hon. member for Essex East would repeat his question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was wondering who was representing Canada as the chief delegate at the meeting of the economic and social council.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I have some difficulty understanding the question of the hon. member for Essex East, because at the moment Canada is not a member of the economic and social council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right; excuse me.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In any event, the suggestions drawn up by the food and agriculture organization will be presented at the present meeting of the economic and social council; which in turn will present recommendations to the sixteenth general assembly next fall.
If I correctly understood the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, I believe his remarks were to the effect that the Canadian government, after launching this particular effort last fall, has become less enthusiastic about it and we are dropping it. I merely make these remarks for his enlightenment.
The next item with which I should like to deal is the subject of the so-called experts

bank, which was also a Canadian initiative last fall. This subject was also referred to, of course, by the hon. member for York Centre.
For some time, under the project known as OPEX the United Nations, through its secretariat, has been able to secure the services of specialists in various governmental fields to assist countries under specific conditions. Until last fall one particular aspect of this problem had been rather neglected. I refer, again, to the question of an emergency and a situation such as occurred in Chile a year ago, an earthquake; civil war or other man-made or natural disaster. Because of these disasters public services in these countries might very often be very seriously disrupted. I refer to public services such as health, transportation, public administration and the like.
We felt that some effort should be made to provide specialists who could be called upon in an emergency and would not take six or eight months to recruit. To obtain properly qualified people to perform jobs in these fields may take some time. It requires some time to persuade people to leave good jobs in Canada and accept a perilous and uncertain job in some country far afield.
We felt that member countries of the United Nations should set up rosters of expert personnel from the civil service in the fields of public administration, transportation, health and the like, who could be called upon if a disaster occurred in some part of the world. These lists should be supplied to the secretariat. Then if a disaster occurred in country A, the government of country A could call on experts from Canada or whatever country they chose to come and assist in the emergency.
If this roster of experts were set up, it would not take weeks to provide experts. They could be provided through the United Nations, on request, almost instantly. This would greatly facilitate the rehabilitation of countries after a disaster had taken place.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, one of the sad things about the United Nations, as far as reporting on it is concerned, is that one cannot tell all, so to speak, because a number of the many important negotiations taking place there are private or of a confidential nature. I would like, however, to make a few observations at this time regarding the
External Affairs
general characteristics of the fifteenth general assembly of the United Nations which just completed its work last Saturday.
As all hon. members will realize, the assembly started its work last September, and after a recess commencing shortly before Christmas and lasting until March 7, it resumed its work, which was completed, as I have mentioned, last Saturday.
The first half of the session saw the attendance of a great many world personalities. I do not think I need say more in this regard. In general terms the atmosphere during that portion of the session was very acrimonious. The cold war was in full swing and as a result it was very difficult for any country to accomplish very much.
During the second half of the session the atmosphere was quite different. There was a more conciliatory attitude and a number of things in fact were accomplished. During my remarks before six o'clock I mentioned the two initiatives that Canada launched during the fall session, and despite the acrimonious atmosphere the resolutions concerning the food bank and the experts bank were unanimously passed by the general assembly.
Last fall the Soviet union and associated countries launched a two-pronged attack in the United Nations. This was not new but was in fact a resumption of something that had been going on for a number of years. On this occasion there was more emphasis placed on it than before. The attack took two forms. It was, first, an attack on the secretary general both personally and upon his office. Second, the Soviet countries attempted to become the champions of the newly freed or liberated colonial peoples of Africa or of Asia. I am sure hon. members followed this subject in the newspapers and I do not wish to take up the time of the house by going into this subject in detail.
The attacks by the members of the Soviet group were very virulent indeed. The suggestion was made that the office of the secretary general should be replaced by a triumverate-three under secretaries. This obviously has the disadvantage of providing, in effect, a Soviet veto in regard to all the work of the secretariat. This proposition was based on the 1-1-1 formula, as it is sometimes called. It was proposed that one secretary general should be from the west, one from the Soviet group, and one from the neutral countries. Of course, any one of the three could exercise a veto in regard to the work done in the assembly. Since the secretariat is often charged with the responsibility of carrying out the resolutions passed by the general assembly, this would provide an effective veto over anything passed by the assembly.

External Affairs
There have been a number of explanations given in regard to this proposal. The most generally accepted one, heard in the United Nations and elsewhere, is that the United Nations has had the effect of blunting Soviet ambitions for ultimate world control. Since the United Nations has done this the Soviet union decided to try to either control the United Nations to suit its own purposes or render it ineffectual. There was some support at the outset for these two approaches made by the Soviet group but ultimately, I think it is quite safe to say, they both failed.
The attacks upon the secretary general were maintained in all the committees and persisted throughout. However, a little more than a week ago a resolution was before the general assembly concerning the Congo operation containing a paragraph referring to the work of the secretary general. The Soviet group requested a separate vote in respect of this particular paragraph with the intention of removing it from the resolution. I do not recall the exact vote, but from memory I would suggest that 83 countries voted in favour of retaining the paragraph and 11 voted against it, with the remaining number abstaining for one reason or another. The result of this vote was in effect a great vote of confidence in the secretary general personally, and I think we can take great encouragement from this. There was, of course, in general terms, this undercurrent throughout the last session of the general assembly, but the secretary general despite that undercurrent, and the almost unbelievable attacks both personally and against his office, not only survived but came out stronger than before.
There have been a great many changes in the United Nations within the last year. Those members who attended the United Nations session some years ago would notice now even greater changes. The first time I had the opportunity of attending at the United Nations was in 1955 and I can say that it is today quite a different organization from what it was then. In that year I had the pleasure of being a parliamentary observer working under the vice-chairman, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who was very helpful indeed at that time. I will always cherish with a great deal of pleasure my memory of that assistance.
Since that time the United Nations has expanded greatly. Indeed, 17 new countries became members last year. Membership in the United Nations now totals 99 member countries. Fourteen of these new countries are French-speaking African countries. I might say in this regard that because of Canada's cultural heritage a bond of friendship was established with these countries. We did our best to develop that friendship

and I feel safe in saying that we now have very close and friendly relationships with those African members.
I would particularly like to mention those individuals who contributed in this regard. One is a member of our delegation, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), who did a great deal of outstanding work in developing close relationships between this country and the new French-African countries. Indeed, one or two other members were very helpful in this regard. These numbers were parliamentary observers. One is the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Parizeau), and the other is the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Loiselle), who did a great deal of work in helping us in this regard.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out earlier in a previous announcement-and I think it is perhaps worth while mentioning in this context-the Canadian government has decided on a program of assisting in the education of students from those French-African territories to the amount of $300,000 a year. This has been much appreciated in those areas and is probably the best kind of work which we can do at the present time to help the people in those countries.
Another different aspect of the United Nations this year is the changing of the so-called blocs in the United Nations. We often hear people speak of the Latin American bloc, the Asian-African bloc, and so on. Some of those blocs have shown considerable evidence that they are changing in character or are dividing into groups. Because of the large number of new African countries, there is a tendency to find an African group rather than an Asian-African group. This is an interesting trend to those who are familiar with the United Nations, and I think it is perhaps worthy of note.
Another very important thing, of course, is the change in the voting strength in the United Nations. A few years ago the western European group, the Latin American group and some of the commonwealth countries made up the majority of the voting strength in the United Nations. Now, with the Asian and African countries, 45 out of the 99 votes belong to the Asian and African countries. This has greatly affected the tactical situation in the United Nations from everybody's point of view. Again, it is something that has happened in the last assembly which has changed the whole picture of the United Nations.
These may be self-evident things, but I think it is worth while reminding people of them because they are factors in this whole changing, and very rapidly changing, picture of the United Nations. At one time it was

said that if the Asian-African countries and the Soviet group all got together they would have what is known as "blocking third" in the plenary meetings of the assembly, where a two thirds votes is necessary. But this whole situation has changed because the countries of Africa and Asia have themselves almost half of the votes of the assembly. This has a great effect on the way resolutions are worded and the way they are presented in order to meet these fundamental changes in the character and make-up of the United Nations. These changes have altered Canada's own role at the United Nations.
In the late 1940's and middle 1950's it was often said that Canada formed a sort of link between the Soviet group countries and the western countries. Judging from my own experience in the United Nations, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we still do that from time to time but perhaps one of the new roles that Canada has in this context is that we now tend to form, as well, a link between some of the western countries and the countries in Asia and Africa. We also act as a stabilizing influence with our own groups. In this regard I also think of countries such as Norway with which Canada often works at the United Nations, and other smaller countries such as New Zealand and Ireland. I could mention many others. In addition to the link that I mentioned previously, I think the role of these countries is also that of extending or acting as a link between the Asian and African countries and the countries of western Europe and North America. I think this is a very important thing. Again, it is a fairly self-evident matter, but I think it is worth bringing to your attention, sir. Perhaps it is only a shift in emphasis but it is indeed a shift.
Another thing that is worth mentioning is the general preoccupation of countries, particularly in Africa, with the desire to catch up, particularly economically, with the other countries of the world. It is my impression that those countries are not especially interested in particular economic and political theories. It seems to me this attitude is one in which the position is taken that while economic and political theories are very fine for those who have the luxury to afford them, these countries have to adjust to the particular economic and political systems that they have to suit their own stage of development, and they are more interested in catching up economically and providing the necessities of life for their people than they are in the other matters.
Sometimes a number of those newer countries in various parts of the world have perhaps behaved in a manner which some
External Affairs
of us might consider to be irresponsible according to our standards. Although the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) seemed to feel rather depressed about the outlook in the United Nations, my own feeling is that while some of these newer countries in a new situation are expressing themselves perhaps for the first time in the world organization, and while some of their activities might seem less than desirable, I think in two or three years, this matter will certainly adjust itself. I do not think there are any grounds for pessimism in that regard whatsoever.
One interesting observation is the fact that many of the new African states have totally different views. They do not all think alike. A good example, of course, is the Congo operation and the approach to what should be done in that particular area. Most of the African countries have quite different methods of approach to this problem. There is one thing they all have in common, and that is the common desire to have the cold war kept out of Africa, and the African countries left alone to develop the continent themselves. As a matter of fact, I think most hon. members will agree that that will be very commendable indeed.
This last observation also brings up another trend which might be of interest. There is evidence of a possible trend developing in the United Nations away from the original idea of universality. I refer to the new trend of regional emphasis. By that I mean that one heard constantly in speeches on the Congo that the Congo situation was an African problem and should be left largely to the Africans themselves. Dr. Nkrumah, the president of Ghana, in his last speech in the assembly and in his remarks to the advisory committee, suggested that this was an African problem and should be left to the Africans to solve. The recent Cuban crisis was another example. It was emphasized that the situation in Cuba was a matter for the organization of American states to look after. Whether these trends are going to develop and continue to develop I do not know, but they are worthy of notice, because it is a slightly different concept of the United Nations, slightly different from that one formerly had of that body, because the trend is toward having certain areas or regions of the world look after their own problems. This may be an inevitable development, I do not know. It remains to be seen. Again I mention this because it is something that has perhaps appeared at this particular session to a greater degree than before.
As the hon. member for Essex East pointed out, there are a number of problems at the

External Affairs
United Nations, and one of them is the question of financing. This has been a very serious problem indeed at this session. One of the big problems at the United Nations for the past two or three years has been how to finance these various peace-keeping operations, first of all UNEF in the Middle East or Near East, whichever way you wish to classify it, and then, of course, the Congo operation. The countries in the Soviet group will not contribute anything toward these peace-keeping operations and, unfortunately, there are also some other countries which behave in the same way for reasons best known to themselves. Some of these countries claim they cannot afford to pay, which may well be the case, of course, and we can understand this particularly in the case of the newly developing countries.
However, the fact that these operations have been authorized by the general assembly presents a very interesting problem. On the one hand, you have the general assembly passing resolutions demanding that certain things be done in the Near East or, most recently, of course, in the Congo. On the other hand, you have, as we witnessed last Saturday night, a situation where the assembly will not vote the money to carry out the instructions it has passed. It is a very odd sort of position and, as I have already mentioned, the reason is the fact that a number of countries feel that for these peace-keeping operations the regular scale of assessments should not be carried out but rather some new scale of assessment should be devised.
There were long discussions and many negotiations over this matter during the last session of the assembly, and eventually a resolution was put forward by Pakistan, Ghana and others temporarily to tide over the United Nations financially until next fall. In conjunction with this, of course, Canada promoted a resolution which would appoint a group of countries to examine thoroughly the question of assessments as far as specialized peacekeeping operations are concerned.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house by going into the details of this matter. I should like to say that after a great deal of difficulty Saturday evening and after several votes the resolution sponsored by Pakistan, Ghana and others was finally passed which permitted the United Nations to carry on its Congo activities until the fall. I might say that I do not think it was generally realized how close this operation came to failing completely. On the first vote on this subject, which was taken around eleven o'clock last Saturday evening, the financing resolution was defeated. This would have meant that the secretary general would have had no funds whatsoever to carry on the Congo operation

and, indeed, there was some question whether the United Nations itself could have carried on because of the various borrowing operations that had gone on.
For some reason or other this did not seem to be appreciated by a number of member states and it took a very considerable amount of work on the part of the Canadian delegation and other associated delegations to change enough people's minds so that by about five or six o'clock in the morning the interim financing resolution was passed. After that the Canadian resolution successfully passed as well. It is a very real problem. I agree with the hon. member for Essex East when he says it is a very serious problem and some arrangement is going to have to be made at the next session of the general assembly. Otherwise I do not know what the result will ultimately be.
The hon. member for Essex East mentioned another subject having to do with the expansion of the security council and the expansion of the economic and social council. He pointed out, as I recall, that since the United Nations had grown so greatly in membership these councils should be expanded and that this would be a worthy field of endeavour in which to have Canada take part. I quite agree with the hon. member. Indeed, this was one of Canada's projects at the United Nations last fall. Unfortunately it was not very successful because the Soviet union blocked any enlargement of either of these councils and insisted that the question of China should be settled before any charter revision should take place. As a result, a number of the newer countries in Asia and Africa which feel they are not represented have put great pressure on countries in western Europe and, indeed, in the commonwealth, eastern Europe and Latin America as well, to give up one or more of the seats they hold on the security council or the economic and social council in favour of some of the newer nations of the world. It is a sort of share the wealth proposition.
This is highly unsatisfactory because all it does is perpetuate injustice. If some of the newer groupings in the United Nations are able to force some of the other groups to give up some of their seats, this may temporarily effect some sort of arrangement but it is not a very satisfactory solution. The only real solution to the problem is the expansion of both councils and this, of course, cannot be done until the Soviet union permits it under present arrangements in the United Nations.
Another thing in this regard that has happened as a result of this situation is that until the very end of the last assembly the

economic and social council was not constituted because India and Belgium were the two candidates for seats and neither one would agree to withdraw. They each had 45 votes and a two thirds vote was impossible under the circumstances. This happened a year ago in the security council elections as between Turkey and Poland, and hon. members may recall that Canada took a rather active part in settling that difficulty. But some permanent arrangement must be made with respect to these councils so that every year at the United Nations we do not have the same acrimonious argument as to what country is going to fill what position on which council, and I would agree with the hon. member for Essex East that that is something that should be worked out. However, unfortunately it is not in our hands.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, and I was wondering whether I might, by leave of the house, continue for five or ten minutes as there is another matter with which I should like to deal.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the parliamentary secretary leave to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank hon. members and I appreciate very much their courtesy. The last matter I should like to deal with concerns the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East with respect to the United Nations police force, and I wish to refer to page 4034 of Hansard for yesterday where the hon. member for Essex East is recorded as having said:
We might as well admit that the experience in the Congo portrays a weakness in the United Nations police force as it is at present constituted when the nations retain authority over their troops.
I think the distinguished hon. member for Essex East perhaps had something else in mind when he made that statement. As the hon. member well knows, when countries turn over troops to the United Nations command they do not have effective operating control over those troops. It is true they do have control to the extent that if country A contributes so many troops to the United Nations command it can, on request to the secretary general, withdraw those troops. I am sure that is probably what the hon. member for Essex East intended, but I think his remarks perhaps did create the impression that if country A supplied troops to the United Nations command, country A exercised actual control over the use of the troops while under this command, and I thought the hon. member would not object if I clarified the situation.
A little farther down on page 4034 the hon. member for Essex East suggested that
External Affairs
one of the most effective things Canada could do, in addition to putting forward a substantive proposal in the field of disarmament, would be to put forward, after careful preparatory work, a scheme for an effective United Nations force which must take its place in a disarmed world if that should ever eventuate. The hon. member quoted, in support of his position, a statement by the secretary of state, Dean Rusk, when he said:
-the experience in the Congo suggests that we must turn once more to the possibility of constituting a permanent United Nations force specifically trained and equipped and held in readiness for immediate use.
In connection with the argument for having a permanent force to meet a situation of the type in the Congo, it might be of interest to note the following comments of the secretary general, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, as found on pages 3 and 4 of the introduction to the annual report of the secretary general on the work of the organization, general assembly official records, fifteenth session, supplement No. 1A (A/4390/Add.l):
I have mentioned the need for some strengthening of the secretariat on the military side. This, in the light of recent experience, would be my reply, as regards actions by the United Nations, to those who have found in the Congo developments new reasons for the organization of a standing United Nations force. As I have already clarified my views on this problem in earlier reports to the general assembly, I have no reason to go into the matter in any detail here. It should, however, be stressed that the Congo experience has strengthened my conviction that the organization of a standing United Nations force would represent an unnecessary and impractical measure, especially in view of the fact that every new situation and crisis which the organization will have to face is likely to present new problems as to the best adjustment of the composition of a force, its equipment, its training and its organization.
It is an entirely different matter if governments, in a position and willing to do so, would maintain a state of preparedness so as to be able to meet possible demands from the United Nations. And it is also an entirely different matter, for the organization itself, to have a state of preparedness with considerable flexibility and in the hands of a qualified staff which quickly and smoothly can adjust their plans to new situations and assist the secretary general in the crucially important first stages of the execution of a decision by the main organs to set up a United Nations force, whatever its type or task.
In these circumstances, a Canadian initiative at this time along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Essex East might not be very productive of good results. This is not to say that a proposal to this effect should not be made at some appropriate time in the future. In this connection, we have in mind that the question of the United Nations peacekeeping machinery might be one of the subjects which an ad hoc committee of the disarmament commission could carefully pursue.

External Affairs
I should like to point out that one of the suggestions we have made in respect of disarmament, which I know is procedural as the hon. member for Essex East has pointed out but is still rather important, is that when the negotiating body on disarmament which will be set up outside of the United Nations later this summer is constituted, there must be some liaison between this body and the United Nations. We feel that the United Nations disarmament commission, which is composed of 99 member states, would be the appropriate body for liaison on the subject of disarmament between the negotiating body, whatever its size and composition may be, and the United Nations. We feel that a negotiating body composed of 12, 13 or 14-whatever the number of nations that may comprise this body-should report periodically to the United Nations through the disarmament commission. We feel also, in turn, that member states of the United Nations who have ideas and suggestions on disarmament should be able to transmit those ideas and suggestions for consideration by the negotiating body through the disarmament commission.
We feel also that the disarmament commission could very well set up ad hoc committees to study specific aspects of the problem of disarmament. One of the things we feel the disarmament commission should set up an ad hoc committee to discuss and carefully look into is this question of peace-keeping machinery when disarmament is largely achieved. It is a most important matter and many member states of the United Nations could very effectively serve on such a committee. When I say an ad hoc committee, I mean a committee composed of perhaps 10, 15 or 20 states. Perhaps the non-nuclear powers could very well work out an effective scheme for peace-keeping machinery. It is something that will take a long time to do.
Some people might say, why set up a committee? Why not have the whole disarmament commission study the problem? Those who have worked on committees and commissions know that 99 countries do not form a very effective committee for the conduct of business. Perhaps a subcommittee of 15 or 20 countries would do this job very much better. I mention this in passing. This whole problem of working out peace-keeping machinery will need long and continued effort. It is something that will take a great deal of thought and study, something which the committee on disarmament might very well do.
In conclusion, there is one other matter I should like to mention. Again, it relates to this question of peace-keeping machinery. As reported on page 4036 of yesterday's Hansard, the hon. member for Essex East inquired about what type of international police force

should be established to preserve international peace and security. He asked what principles of international law should perhaps govern such forces. I can assure the hon. member that we have been giving very close attention to this problem. It is one of the most important problems to be solved if we are to be able to reach the final stages of general disarmament.
As the hon. member is doubtless aware, there have been a number of books and pamphlets issued proposing plans for international peace-keeping forces. Ideas in connection with this part of the general disarmament plans put forward by the west at Geneva last year were discussed between the delegates of the western five nations at the 10-nation disarmament conference. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the difficult part of the problem is not how to make a plan for creating a force. Competent military staff officers could do this very quickly. The subject, especially as it relates to United Nations peace-keeping forces under present world conditions, has been under study by officers of the Department of National Defence as well as by officers of external affairs, and certain general conclusions have been reached. Officers of the Canadian defence services are well able to carry out a useful and practical study of this kind in view of Canada's experience in the several peace-keeping efforts of the United Nations.
The real problem, Mr. Speaker, is not how to organize, administer and operate such a force from the purely military viewpoint. The question is how it is to be controlled politically. We all know that at the present time these forces are under the control of the secretary general, and at the moment the secretary general is not accepted by the Soviet union. The five members of the security council who have the veto certainly do not agree on any of the major political problems in the world. As the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East indicate, the difficulty in this connection arises from the fact that the political objects of the communist countries led by the Soviet union and those of the countries of the west are, in most cases, opposed, I think we should all agree with that.
I should like to read an extract from a statement made by Mr. Zorin, deputy foreign minister of the Soviet union, during the discussion of the question of international armed forces in Geneva upon the resumption of talks in June, 1960. It reads:
The western powers submitted a proposal to create a so-called international armed force. But what would this lead to? It would lead to the world continuing to live as before, in fear of the use of weapons. Instead of national armies there would be created an international army, which would in fact be the army of one side directed against the other side. We must look at things

realistically. The world today consists of two parts -one socialist and the other capitalist.
This was before they divided the world into three parts.
It is clear to everyone that neither side will agree to the other side dominating the international armed force. It is absolutely clear that the western powers would not agree to the socialist countries playing a leading role in such a force. And we would not agree to assign such a role to the western powers.
Thus, it would be wrong and unrealistic to set out to create an international armed force. It would be another matter if we agree to place at the disposal of the security council, when necessary, in order to ensure the maintenance of peace, units from the contingents of police (militia) remaining at the disposal of states after the implementation of general and complete disarmament.
That is an entirely realistic measure which is also in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations charter, and it is provided for in our new proposals-
-"our new proposals" being, of course, the Soviet union proposals of the day.
Also in the statement which introduced the Soviet disarmament plan of June 2, 1960, the following sentence occurred:
Of course, such police (militia) detachments may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining peace among nations, not for the suppression of peoples who are struggling for their independence and social progress, and not for interference in the internal affairs of states.
From this hon. members will see that the Soviet union does not intend that there should be any peace-keeping force set up over whose operations it will not have a veto. This is confirmed by their attacks on the way in which the secretary general has interpreted and carried out the provisions of the security council resolutions dealing with the Congo. The Soviet union according to its own statements and actions is insisting that no peace-keeping force shall be used in a manner which is inconsistent with its own objects in promoting what it calls the "struggle for independence and social progress". Of course for the western nations and I think for the majority of other members of the United Nations any peace-keeping force, if it is to be worthy of the name, must not be subject to the veto of any nation or minority group of nations. How to devise an organization or modify the existing organization of the United Nations so to be able to carry out the function of political control and direction of the United Nations peace-keeping force is as yet an unsolved problem. It is our intention to continue to try to find a solution, in consultation with other like-minded nations, and especially with those with whom we are associated in disarmament negotiations.
There are a number of other things with which I should like to deal but I do not propose to request further time of the house.
External Affairs
I greatly appreciate the extra time that has been given to me. On another occasion I will deal with the other matters I have in mind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of taking part in this debate- perhaps I should not call it a debate but rather a discussion on foreign affairs-even though there is not that noisy, controversial and tense atmosphere we find in the house if we are talking for instance, about the unemployment insurance fund or even the support price for soya beans. But even though one might not gather it from the calm atmosphere of the house, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with fundamental matters which affect the very survival of our nation and of humanity.
Before I proceed further, if I may, I should like to associate myself with what the minister said yesterday in appreciation of the intelligent, selfless and devoted service of the members of his department from the deputy minister down. He will know that I do this in no formal sense because perhaps no one in this house has more cause than I have to be grateful for the work of that department. I hope it will not make the minister feel uncomfortable if I tell him also that we on this side of the house also appreciate the sincere and honourable efforts he is making on behalf of all Canadians, as the spokesman of the government and indeed of Canada, to contribute to those causes, policies and developments which are making, we hope, for peace in a dangerous world. In this tribute to the minister I should like to include the parliamentary secretary who has just spoken to us and who has worked so hard and so long at the United Nations assembly.
Perhaps that should be the end of my complimentary references but, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add this observation. It is sometimes said by my hon. friends on my extreme right geographically that there is no difference between the two old parties that have together made, I think, a worthy contribution to the building of our nation. May I say that there is every difference in domestic affairs and that we show those differences in the House of Commons. However, there is no difference between us in our joint desire to support, on behalf of the Canadian people, policies that will bring peace and security to our country and to the world. We are at one in those objectives even though we may, do and will differ at times on how we should reach them.
We are at one in our support for the new commonwealth and for the United Nations.

External Affairs
must be known by anyone who has been following the development of the North Atlantic treaty organization in the last year.
When we mention these things it is only with the hope that these trends can be changed. The chancellor of the west German republic, who is one of the strongest and most fervent supporters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, had this to say in Texas the other day:
It looked for a time as if NATO were going to fall apart.
I should add that he went on to say that as a result of his visit to Washington he felt a little better about it.
The minister will know that the recent secretary general of NATO, Mr. Spaak, who has worked so hard and brilliantly for the organization, has had some frank and worried things to say about its future. Perhaps at this point I should pay my respects to the new secretary general who I think will undoubtedly serve the organization in the same way as did his predecessors, Mr. Spaak and Lord Ismay. I refer, of course, to Mr. Stikker who was once a distinguished foreign minister of his country, the Netherlands.
The reasons for our worry on this side- I am sure the minister, though he may be inhibited in saying these things publicly, at times shares these worries-are obvious. We feel on this side that NATO has not adapted its defence strategy to new circumstances, new threats, new situations, confronting it in the last few years. One fear for the future, surely, is in an over-reliance on nuclear weapons. To rely on nuclear retaliation alone, or for a nation to risk its existence by deliberately depending on a strategy which permits of no alternative but annihilation or capitulation in the face of every threat, is certainly a very dangerous situation. That is something that we want to avoid in NATO. To avoid it we have to strengthen NATO's conventional forces so that the organization will not have to rely too much even on tactical nuclear retaliation.
Another danger facing the organization is the introduction of colonial problems and difficulties into NATO in areas which are technically outside the NATO zone but which in fact cannot help but have an effect on NATO itself. These colonial difficulties have, I am sure, caused division and disturbance, and perhaps at times, some distress inside NATO. It will be difficult I would think, to have the kind of co-operation which is required in the North Atlantic treaty organization, if there is division between the members of NATO in respect of matters outside- divisions which reflect themselves also in

policies at the United Nations. It may even be dangerous for the future, if we have to keep trying to relate co-operation in Paris to conflict at New York.
There is another worry developing in NATO. At least one member does not seem to share the views of practically all the others, that the direction must be toward greater collaboration and integration, both political and in defence.
As one who believes in this organization, I hope that these difficulties will be surmounted; that these dangers will be overcome so that NATO will be stronger both in the field of collective defence, and collective nonmilitary action because, after all, strength is more than military.
I now want to say a few words about the United Nations. We have heard, with interest, a great deal about the United Nations from the parliamentary secretary this afternoon and this evening, and from the minister yesterday. As with NATO, I do not think it is being unduly pessimistic to say that the United Nations is facing very difficult times at present. I could not help being impressed by an article in Foreign Affairs for April, 1961 by Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong, one of the great supporters of the United Nations over the years, one who was also present at the founding conference at San Francisco in 1945. Under the title "U.N. on Trial", he had this to say:
In the closing days of the general assembly last December one heard even responsible heads of delegations remark, sadly, bitterly: "The United Nations is done for."
He goes on to say:
The United Nations, though not yet done for, is indeed on trial for its life-
Perhaps that is a little over-dramatic but there is no doubt, as some hon. members pointed out yesterday, that we are facing new problems, new difficulties, and at least some new dangers at the United Nations. We are doing this at a time when it is more essential to preserve and strengthen this world organization than perhaps at any time in its history. I say that because, as the international situation deteriorates, that is the time when the United Nations should be most effective. It should also be more effective now than it was ten years ago because it is a better reflection of the world in which we live.
It is a more complicated, at times, a more disturbing reflection; 99 members, 45 of whom as the parliamentary secretary pointed out a few moments ago, come from Asia and Africa. But with all its complexities, the difficulties and the irritations; with the large new membership and with the shifting

of influence and authority to new nations, recently colonial, suspicious, sensitive, with all of that, I venture to say that this organization now reflects the world in which we live probably more accurately than that which we set up in San Francisco, which carried on the traditions, the diplomatic procedures, the political courtesies and conventions of western Europe of the nineteenth century and the league of nations in the 1930's.
We could all perhaps adjust ourselves to those changes without difficulty if we were allowed to do so by the communist bloc inside the United Nations. Yet last autumn Mr. Khrushchev showed that he was even willing to take the risk of destroying the world organization if it got in his way and he could not alter it. He showed this in the attitude of his government toward United Nations intervention in the Congo and in Africa generally.
He has also shown it in his attack on the Secretary General of the United Nations. I congratulate the minister, the parliamentary secretary and, indeed, the government on the way in which they have stood up for this great man. One of the hopeful developments in the last two or three months, after some very worrying times last fall, is the way in which the secretary general has managed to rally support around him. His position is stronger today than it was a few months ago. But the communist bloc has made it clear, I think beyond doubt, that they will do their best from now on to destroy not only this man because he has got in their way, as Trygve Lie got in their way, but also the office of secretary general. That is what in fact their proposal would amount to. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, their proposal called for three secretaries general. Putting the office into commission with a communist, a non-communist and an anti-communist, simply means frustrating and hamstringing it so that it could not work at all. Indeed, the alternative proposal put forward, I think by India, for assisting the secretary general with three deputy secretaries general, one communist, one non-communist and one anti-communist and which, superficially, seems to be a more reasonable and perhaps workable proposal, might very well have the same ultimate effect itself on the office.
If the United Nations is to survive and remain strong it will be because the middle powers, both the uncommitted and the committed middle powers rally around an organization which is the one organization that can save them as a force in the nuclear world. In return, they are the ones, these middle powers, that can save the organization.
External Affairs
The minister had a good deal to say about disarmament. It is very hard at times-perhaps not so hard for the minister who is not a cynical person-not to become cynical about the absence of progress made in this vitally important field.
I have been concerned with disarmament conferences and commissions and developments since the first league of nations disarmament conference in 1932. At that time I think we got about as far after the first month of that meeting as we have got now. This is no argument for slowing down our efforts, of course, but it is an indication of the complexities and difficulties of the problem. Yet, I cannot refrain from pointing out, there are many decisions to be made by the Canadian government, especially in the field of defence, which are dependent upon progress being made in disarmament, so we are told. There is also the resolution supported by the Canadian delegation last autumn, the Irish resolution, I think, to prevent the extension of nuclear weapons to countries not now possessing them. This was supported by the Canadian delegation and I am certainly glad that support was given, but it depended we are told, on significant progress in the immediate future in the disarmament negotiations. I would hope that if there is not the kind of significant progress which the minister may have had in mind when that resolution was put forward, that this will not be used as a reason for abandoning the resolution.
Yesterday the minister mentioned the question of nuclear tests. I do not know how long-at least two or three years now-we have been struggling with that specific and concrete problem. Our hopes go up and down. There was a time when it looked as if the powers were almost on the verge of an agreement. Now they are further away from an agreement than they were six months ago.
Yesterday the minister explained why an agreement had not yet been achieved. With the Russian position at Geneva now falling back on the veto over control arrangements, I do not know how it is going to be achieved. However, the minister did say that notwithstanding, during the period of these discussions no nuclear tests had taken place. I wonder how we know that? If we can be sure that during those three years no nuclear tests took place, if we can be sure of that, then we do not need to worry about control arrangements in a nuclear test agreement. I hope no nuclear tests have taken place, but the fact that we have to insist, and rightly so, on control and inspection arrangements indicates that presumably we do not know whether or not they have.

External Affairs
I now come back to our own continent, and I should like to say a few words about our relations with the United States, especially in connection with the current Cuban problem, something that has been touched on by nearly everyone who has spoken in this debate. The minister said yesterday in connection with this delicate and dangerous situation, and of course he was right, that this is a time for cool-headed action and words. I think that is true. He might pass that on to his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees).
Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to understand-at least I am not able to understand- the immediate significance of the Cuban situation without studying it against the background of general Latin American developments over recent years. Social and economic revolution is taking place in certain Latin American countries. I think that is both inevitable and desirable. Mr. Macmillan's winds of change are blowing in Latin America, and not only in Cuba where they have achieved destructive gale force.
This is happening in many Latin American countries. It is one of the reasons why I am glad we have extended our representation in that part of the world. Many of those who are interested in this social and economic evolutionary development in those Latin American countries are greatly attracted, or at least were greatly attracted, by what has happened in Cuba. Many of these people abhor communism just as they also abhor some of the dictatorial non-communist rulers that they have been subjected to in their own countries. The difference between the two tyrannies, however, is that a local tyranny is only local but a communist tyranny is an international one. That is a big difference. And behind all these social and economic movements in Latin America, or in any country of the world, lurk the forces of communist imperialism, who are hiding in the background, perhaps not responsible for the initial surges and developments but ready there to exploit them and to take charge of them.
As I see it, Mr. Speaker, intervention from outside against economic and social change is both futile and dangerous. If it were only a question of a local dictator perhaps there would not be the problem in all its dangerous implications that we find in Cuba today. But that problem becomes infinitely more dangerous, more difficult and more complicated when the dictator has behind him those international forces that I have been talking about, the international communist conspiracy. That has been the situation in Cuba, of course. Something that started out as a social and economic revolution, which won the support of practically everybody interested in human

progress, the support of practically everybody in the United States and in most of the Latin American countries except the dictatorial ones, has been taken over by international communist forces.
I think that what happened last week in regard to the policy of intervention by the United States was a mistake. Having in mind the way the landings worked out, it was certainly not very successful. Yet we would be wise not to lose our sense of proportion in regard to this matter. We would certainly be most foolish if our reaction were to assimilate United States policy with Soviet policy in Budapest, the Congo, or any other part of the world. The United States is our neighbour and friend. It is a free democracy where public opinion can express itself, where mistakes are made known and can be corrected. That does not apply in communist dictatorships. Furthermore, the United States today is the only power strong enough to provide the nuclear deterrent which, until there is general disarmament and we can find a stronger foundation for peace than force, is absolutely essential for the preservation even of the kind of peace which we have. Because of its strength the United States alone today can give us leadership as we face powerful and aggressive empires whom we have good cause to fear. Therefore, surely it is in our interests as Canadians to try whenever we can to support the United States to the very limit of our ability as a member of the coalition of which we are a member but to support her in the way which is both best for the coalition and best for ourselves.
We should rejoice when United States leadership is strong and wise and we should lament when things go wrong. But lamenting in that way is very different from getting almost a kind of sly satisfaction out of some American default or some American mistake; a kind of satisfaction based in part on envy. When mistakes are made, and I think a mistake was made by the United States government in this Cuban matter, that is the time to try to help to put things right rather than indulge in purely negative criticism.
Certainly Cuba presents one of these situations. We should not forget that the intervention which took place was not by Batista Cubans but, so far as I know, for the most part by Cubans who had fought against Batista in the early days of the revolution. That does not alter the fact that the intervention was a failure almost to the point of a fiasco, and the United States cannot escape some responsibility for both the intervention and for the failure.
I know that up to that time the United States showed great patience in the face of very considerable provocation. I remember

when we talked about this in the House of Commons last July 15. In my contribution to the debate on foreign affairs at that time I had this to say about Cuba and I have no cause to change the words used then. As found on page 6358 of Hansard, I said:
I think the United States of America has shown very great patience in this situation up to the present time against very considerable provocation. I suggest that the United States will have to show even more patience, and that is not going to be easy in the light of what is going on on the island of Cuba. Intervention by armed forces or intervention by forces of any kind, the illegal use of force to protect even vital economic and other interests, is not now possible in the world in which we live. The Suez incident certainly showed that, and the United States should be just about the first country in the world to draw the right conclusions from that incident.
What was the reason for this action? What should be done about it now? What should be the policy that we as neighbours of the United States should follow? What line should we take? It seems to me that the menace to the United States in the situation in Cuba is not a menace to her territorial integrity. That is nonsense. The United States could deal with Cuba in a few hours in a straight conflict between the two countries. The menace to the United States, and it is a very real one which we would certainly appreciate in this country if we were in a similar situation, is that Cuba may be used as a base for the extension of communism to other Latin American states by the centre of communist power, the Soviet union, exploiting for that purpose legitimate forces for economic and social progress in those countries and taking over those forces so that eventually they will become totalitarian satellites surrounding and pressing against the United States. This is the situation as a great many Americans see it; a communist base of that kind, not a menace to the United States directly, of course, but a menace in the way I have indicated; a base only 90 miles away from the shores of the United States, even closer than Formosa is to mainland China. Therefore American anxiety is understandable.
What should be done? I suggest not what was done last week where the worst of both worlds seems to have been achieved. I read yesterday an article from Washington written by Mr. Max Freedman who writes for the Manchester Guardian and the Winnipeg Free Press. He had this to say, and these are pretty worrying words:
The time has come to set down certain clear facts that have emerged from the wretched tangle of error and miscalculation that haunted the Cuban affair. The Kennedy administration intends to use force if necessary against the Castro government if no effective action can be obtained through the organization of American states.
External Affairs
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not inappropriate for a country that is her friend to urge the United States to bring about the appropriate action that is necessary through the organization of American states. Otherwise, it means unilateral intervention. The long range result of that, however great the provocation, would surely be unhappy in terms of relations between the United States and her Latin American colleagues in the organization of American states who have shown themselves over the years to be so sensitive about American unilateral intervention even when it was justified. It would also be an unhappy development for the position of the United States in the Atlantic coalition, even more so if the United States could be charged before the United Nations, however unfairly and unjustly, even on a technicality of aggression.
Therefore I can only express the hope, as I am sure all hon. members do, that whatever action may have to be taken will be taken collectively through the organization of American states or at least attempted through that organization.
The President himself made a statement on April 20. This is the one that has caused so much interest, not unmixed with anxiety. The President said this, and these are the words that have been quoted so much in Canadian newspapers in recent days:
Should it ever appear that the inter-American doctrine of non-interference merely conceals or excuses a policy of non-action-if the nations of this hemisphere should fail-
We are told he did not mean Canada.
-to meet their commitments against outside communist penetration-then I want it clearly understood that this government will not hesitate in meeting its primary obligations which are to the security of our own nation.
I interpret this to mean that if there is outside aggression against a Latin American state or against the United States, the United States will discharge its obligations for assistance and for its own security, under the appropriate treaty. I get some support for that interpretation from the first sentence of that same paragraph of the President's statement which has not been quoted very much. He said this-these are good words:
Any unilateral American intervention, in the absence of an external attack upon ourselves or an ally, would have been contrary to our traditions and to our international obligations.
I should like to think that is still the policy of the United States government. In other words, intervention will be based on collective resistance to aggression under the appropriate hemisphere doctrine. That doctrine, of course, is the Monroe doctrine which goes back to 1823. We have been told at school that this doctrine should really be called the "Canning's policy" because if it had not

External Affairs
been for George Canning and the British navy President Monroe would never have been able to put it into effect early in the 19th century. President Monroe enumerated it in 1823. It is interesting to read his words now. All you have to do is change a couple of words and his statement is applicable to the situation today. He said, in 1823:
It was impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either (American) continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren-
The Latin American states.
-if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord.
That has a 1961 ring. This doctrine has been interpreted in various ways throughout the century. The recognized American interpretation, and the one on which the United States government has acted in recent years was laid down by secretary of state Olney in the latter part of the 19th century when he said -I hope it is still this interpretation of the Monroe doctrine which will prevail:
It does not justify any attempt on our part to change the established form of government or any American state or to prevent the people of such state from altering that form according to their will and pleasure.
The latest statement bearing on this doctrine was made at the inter-American conference at Caracas in 1954. 1 think it is interesting to put on the record now a paragraph from that declaration. It certainly has a bearing on this situation and, I venture to hope, will guide the policy of the United States government when it faces difficult problems in the days ahead. The United States and the Latin American states in 1954 accepted this declaration:
That the domination or control of the political institutions of any American state by the international communist movement, extending to this hemisphere the political system of an extracontinental power, would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and political independence of the American states, endangering the peace of America, and would call for a meeting of consultation to consider the adoption of appropriate action in accordance with existing treaties.
This would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, to give any member of the organization of American states adequate power to invoke collective action in the situation set out in that paragraph, that is one of communist aggression against or domination of American states. Section III of this declaration states:
This declaration of foreign policy made by the American republics in relation to dangers originating outside this hemisphere is designed to protect and not to impair the inalienable right of each American state freely to choose its own form of government and economic system and to live its own social and cultural life.
I cannot help but think that if the United States government took unilateral action- I am not suggesting it will-against the provisions of that particular paragraph there might be a difficult situation created, especially in view of what secretary Herter had to say at the Santiago conference in 1959. This also has a bearing on the present situation. He had been talking about intervention and non-intervention and relating it to the earlier Caracas conference. Secretary Herter said:
Moreover, it appears that at least some of these expeditions were organized in other countries with the knowledge and consent of officials whose governments were pledged to prevent such action. Expeditions have obtained arms from official sources in other countries despite public declarations of policy to the contrary.
Some of these movements have been justified before the public on the grounds that they were undertaken for the purpose of establishing more democratic regimes in certain countries and that thereby they helped to fulfil a principle of the charter of the O.A.S.
I do not wish to speculate on what the motives may have been behind these interventionist activities. Yet, whether or not they were commendable we cannot conduct our inter-American relations on the theory that the end justifies the means, and that the charter and other treaties may be flouted at will.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the United States government will adopt this attitude toward the problem about which we have been talking, and I am sure that by adopting such an attitude they will get the other American states behind them, thereby enabling them to take stronger action against communist penetration than would be possible by any form of unilateral action. That is what we must have in mind in our own country because we recognize today the provocation and menace in what is happening in Cuba. We hope that this menace can be dealt with in a way that will not make it difficult for the friends of the United States who ask for nothing better than to follow her wise leadership in the search for peace and security in the world.
I talk like this tonight as a Canadian. But Canada is not in the organization of American states. We are told that President Kennedy did not have Canada in mind when he talked about the western hemisphere. I am sure he was thinking only about the members of that organization. It seems to me that if we are to recognize this new-it is at least new in its manifestations-menace of communist penetration, this use of a Latin American state as a base for communist penetration into other American states, this taking advantage of a legitimate desire for economic and social change which cannot and should not be damned; if we feel that the menace can best be dealt with by collective action
[Mr. Pearson.1

through the organization of American states, and if it is a menace to Canada as much as to any other state in the western hemisphere, then perhaps the time has some for Canada to take its responsibilities as a member of the organization of American states. Perhaps we should not wait for the Canadian institute of international affairs to tell us what to do in this regard in view of this changed situation; although, I am sure the minister will get the best advice in the world from the public-spirited experts of that institute.
So I should like to echo what the hon. member for Essex East said yesterday. In view of the growing importance of Latin America in the world; its economic and commercial importance; in view of the necessity of the states of the western hemisphere working together to deal with these dangers of communist penetration, sympathetic consideration should be given by the minister now to something which he seemed to be considering very sympathetically a year or so ago, the problem of Canadian association with the organization of American states. That is one piece of advice, and I think it is the only piece of advice I have given to the minister, in a speech which is already far too long.


Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the concluding minutes of this very important debate, I merely wish to speak very briefly on Canada and the Pacific. I shall confine myself to this topic for three reasons. The first reason is that as a member of NATO we agree with the principle of the need to help undeveloped countries and these undeveloped countries are situated mainly in Africa and Asia. The second reason is that we also have member commonwealth countries in the Pacific. My last reason for talking about Canada and the Pacific is that we shall have to consider the competition between the free world and the communist bloc to win those uncommitted countries, and our discussions will underline the fact that the problems facing us are changing from month to month and that we must use great imagination to solve these problems.
In our dealings with other nations, Mr. Speaker, and in our effort to find solutions to the various political and economic problems, I suggest that we must first reassess our own thinking in order to find out if some of the things in which we believed some 50 years, 25 years or 10 years ago are still valid. I particularly have in mind the concept of the sovereignty of nations. My concept of the sovereignty of nations is that each country has the right to administer its domestic affairs without interference from other countries.
A few years ago I suppose that if a country had sufficient natural resources, a large
90205-6-258
External Affairs
population and an economy sufficiently developed to supply the needs of its own people from its own resources and if this country had reasonably capable leaders, this concept might hold true. But is this concept true today, Mr. Speaker? Can any country stand alone sufficient unto itself? Using my earlier criteria I can think of only two great powers which come near to fulfilling these qualifications and these great powers are the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and even these two great powers are dependent on other countries for many vital things.
It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that many countries in the free world have recognized that national sovereignty is a highly effective rallying cry for domestic politics, but in international dealings a rigid adherence to the concept of national sovereignty is unrealistic. It is for this very reason that 15 nations have joined themselves into NATO. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said, "There is no sovereignty without survival".
I know that many Canadians feel strongly about sovereignty. There has been criticism that we are a satellite of the United States and that our armed forces are but mere appendages to the U.S. forces and therefore subject to the whim of the Pentagon in Washington.
Let us be realistic, Mr. Speaker. No matter how much it may appeal to us in our hearts and to our national pride can we, by virtue of our physical limitations, stand by ourselves in trying to solve our problems of defence and of trade? On the other hand, in spite of these physical limitations, Canada's role in international affairs is such that we are being regarded more and more as a major power. I suggest that Canada is living proof that a country need not have huge armed forces in order to be considered a major influence in world affairs.
We can therefore see that the concept of national sovereignty is altering because in NATO, by voluntarily sacrificing some of our sovereignty, we preserve our right to survive. Survival then, in modern times, is based on a collective arrangement. This implies a sharing with other nations not only of obligations but also of benefits; and this brings me to the subject of trade and assistance to the underdeveloped countries of the world and to the topic on which the minister himself spoke at length, namely, Canada and the Pacific.
On November 2, 1959, Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak, who was then secretary general of

External Affairs
NATO, addressed the Imperial defence college in London. Among other things this is what he said:
Provided that the military forces in the free world are maintained efficient and up to date, it may well he that Europe will no longer be the main scene of the long term struggle between communism and the free world. This will very largely take place in the economically underdeveloped countries of Africa and Asia.
His statement was followed in December by the Atlantic congress of NATO which reiterated the need to switch the emphasis from military forces to economic co-operation not only among the NATO countries themselves but also in the underdeveloped areas of the world. On November 11, 1957, 1 myself spoke in the House of Commons about the aspect of aid to the underdeveloped countries. Because of the shortness of time at my disposal I will not make detailed reference to or quote my own speech.
Mr. Speaker, we can be proud of our contribution to some of these countries. The assistance which we have extended under the Colombo plan has been far-reaching, ably administered and well received. If anything, we have been unduly modest in letting others know about our contribution. However, not all of the contributions of the free world to these underdeveloped countries have had the same results. There have been cases of extravagance and poor administration and, instead of earning good will and friendship, we have in some instances suffered ridicule and animosity.
In our haste to woo the uncommitted countries, we have sometimes poured money into projects which at best are of a stop-gap nature and which cannot produce lasting results. Measures designed as emergency help catch us on the horns of our own dilemma because if we were to discontinue this type of help the U.S.S.R. would step in to fill the vacuum. Yet we dare not impose control or restrictions because to direct that long range measures must be undertaken by the recipients in order to help develop industry, promote education, social welfare and the like, would leave us open to the charge that we are interfering in domestic matters.
We must therefore revise our thinking in so far as financial aid to these countries is concerned. Financial aid alone is not enough. That help must be extended with a genuine and sympathetic interest. We have heard reports to the effect that loan administrators have gone into countries and that the first thing they did was to set up a private club for their social life. There is nothing wrong with that procedure because anyone going to

a strange country instinctively turns to something familiar. But let us contrast this procedure with the actions of the communist mayor of the city of Semarang in Indonesia, who works twice a week for a total of seven hours "for free" in order to help construct village roads and schools. He has also collected from the sale of empty bottles, enough money to build a primary school.
In competing to win the friendship of the people in these underdeveloped and uncommitted countries we sometimes forget to take into account their temperament, background and philosophy. Because they experiment with communism we are afraid that they will turn communist. Let us not forget that, in the eyes of these people, neither the communists nor the people of the free world approach them with spotless records. To these countries the great attraction of communism is that, under a socialist system, the U.S.S.R. has been able in a very short time to catch up with and in certain areas to surpass the west.
Let us remember that many of the Asiatic peoples have developed over a long, long time their own philosophies and cultures and that to them communism is something which appears to be another philosophy which they can examine and with which they can experiment without any danger of losing their basic philosophy. A recent example of this is the overthrow of the communist government in the state of Karala in India. These Asian people are a patient people and they are prepared to wait 10 years, 50 years or 100 years for their television sets or homes with two-car garages. However, there is no doubt that they want their independence now; and it is in this respect that they are impatient because they feel that independence will give them dignity.
To a people who were creative and artistic enough to be wearing silks and to have developed a very sophisticated culture when some of our forefathers were still roaming the country in animal skins, time is not measured in generations but in hundreds of centuries. That is why spiritual and personal dignity mean more to these people than next year's car.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's role in the Pacific is a significant one. We have had a good start with the Colombo plan. But Canada must also look to its own expansion. New expansion means more trade, but where are we going to get this trade? Even within the commonwealth we do have the trade that we would like.
In an effort to establish economic stability and to encourage economic expansion nations are now forming economic blocs without too much regard for political implications. It may

well be that the establishment of the European common market marks the beginning of a new era in world trade, because nations are beginning to enter into economic alliances even where they differ geographically, politically and racially.
I suggest that an example of this is Australia. Drawn by her political and racial background to the west, she is in a natural and physical position to contribute a great deal to Africa and Asia, much more so than Canada. When the time comes, is Australia to sacrifice a magnificent opportunity purely in the name of the commonwealth, and insist on trading with only the English speaking nations of the world? I think not. For that same reason I suggest that Canadians take a new look at our relations with our neighbour the U.S.A. and every other country in the world.
In the economic battle ahead we must use every bit of ingenuity, strive for maximum efficiency and make bold moves because we are facing ruthless competition. As Mr. Khrushchev said as far back as 1955 to a group of visiting United States congressmen:
We value trade least for economic reasons and most for political reasons.
Recent events have shown no changes in the position taken by Mr. Khrushchev. That is why I am glad to hear the minister say that he intends to pay more attention to the Latin American countries.
Finally, may I say a word about the efforts of the minister to bring about discussions on disarmament. At the United Nations he has established himself as a man dedicated to peace. To those who know him, this is not surprising. However, his efforts at the United Nations have not all been warmly received and I know there must have been times when the minister felt discouraged. But it is the mark of a man, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of these difficulties he has persisted in his efforts.
The fact that Canada was a member of the ten power disarmament committee is eloquent testimony to the work done by the minister, and I give him my wholehearted support in anything that he does which will bring about fruitful discussions.
I put on record my support for his efforts for disarmament, because there are some in this country who seem to think that our leaders are uninformed and indifferent to the consequences of a nuclear conflict.
Those who hold that attitude, in my opinion, do a great disservice to the people of Canada when they try to spread the picture of our leaders callously leading our country to destruction. No one knows better than the Prime Minister, the minister himself, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness), 90205-6-258i
External Affairs
and others in the government, the horrors of nuclear war. Most of us in this chamber have served our country in war and no one need lecture us as to the waste and futility of war.
The mere fact that we are maintaining our defence until such time as a satisfactory formula for disarmament is found is entirely consistent with government policy. Indeed, how can anyone, in all honesty, advocate unilateral disarmament on our part when there is no similar desire on the part of others?
Disarmament could be accomplished tomorrow if the major nuclear powers could agree to the necessary procedures for inspection. But until such time we can only support the efforts of the minister in trying to bring together the nuclear powers so that disarmament discussions may be continued.
Learning how to live together is much more difficult than learning how to fight together. There are times when we will be impatient, but we cannot all at once build for a hundred years. None the less, I am in agreement with the statement made last year by the minister when he said that Canada will end this decade as one of the leading nations of the world.
When we achieve that status-and I say this without derogating in any way from the contributions made by his colleagues or predecessors in office-I am sure that the minister will derive great personal satisfaction from the contribution he has made in helping Canada attain that position.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I understand that under the rules I have no right of reply in this debate. However, perhaps hon. members of the house will bear with me for a minute while I express to those who have participated in the discussion-as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) so aptly called it a few moments ago-my thanks for the manner in which the debate has been conducted, and also for the very helpful suggestions which have been made.
Quite a few hon. members had hoped to participate in this debate but have not been able to do so because we allotted just two days for it. Of course, I was personally responsible for several hon. members being unable to take part because I spoke too long yesterday afternoon. For that I apologize.
However, I understand that the sittings of the external affairs committee are to commence next week and I plan to be available for interrogation, further suggestions and criticisms in that committee before leaving for the NATO meeting in Oslo a week from tomorrow night.

Business of the House
I am sure we can all look forward to further consideration of these vital foreign affairs problems and that this consideration will be a great help to our own nation, as I feel this debate has been during the last two days.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order of the house made on Tuesday last, it is now my duty to put the question on the motion now before the house. Before doing so I may say that the special order of the house was probably wide enough, as it permitted a general debate, to permit the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) to make his last intervention. However, that does not fall to be decided now.
Accordingly, the question is the following:
Mr. Green moves that items Nos. 76 to 110 inclusive and item No. 481 as listed in the main estimates 1961-62 referring to the Department of External Affairs, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the program is for tomorrow and next week.


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow, the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The suggested program for next week will run as
follows. The first item on Monday will be No. 6 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-85 referring to the national design council.
The second item will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys dealing with the Coal Production Assistance Act. The third item will be the resolution in my name dealing with the army benevolent fund. These two resolutions will perhaps not take up much time of the house.
The fourth item will be Bill No. C-84, which is item No. 5 on today's order paper, an act respecting the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons, etc. On the order paper tomorrow I expect there will appear a bill dealing with amendments to the Fisheries Act. This will then be available as a fifth item. I am speaking now of Monday and Tuesday combined.
If time permits, we may finally reach Bill No. C-77, which is item No. 4 on today's order paper, dealing with agricultural development.
The intention at the moment is to proceed on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and, if good progress is made, perhaps the estimates of a third department will be made available for discussion on Saturday. I will announce that later.


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