1962-03-08

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron)
presented the fourth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisler of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement with regard to the training of British army units in Canada during the forthcoming months. The house will recall that last summer, in response to a request from the United Kingdom government, the Canadian government agreed to a battalion of the British army being airlifted to Camp Gagetown in June to train with the 3rd Canadian brigade group. This exercise proved of value to all concerned.
This year, and again at the request of the United Kingdom government, we have agreed to a battalion joining Canadian regular army forces in Canada for summer training. The first battalion of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers has been nominated. Details as to the location of the training area are now being worked out and will be announced in due course. As was the case last year, the United Kingdom will bear the total administrative costs. In addition, the Canadian government has also agreed to a proposal that a British army battery and a parachute company should come to Canada later this year and early in 1963 to obtain training experience under winter conditions.
I am sure all hon. members will appreciate this further evidence of the close co-operation which exists between Canada and the United Kingdom in matters relating to our common defence effort.
26207-1-101



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay East, under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the need for federal assistance to the provincial government of British Columbia to effectively deal with the extremely serious situation in the Kootenays caused by continuous bombings and acts of terrorism, culminating two days ago in the destruction of half a million dollars worth of property causing unemployment to over 1,000 persons for a period of a few weeks to months.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear the minister, perhaps I should ask the hon. member who requests leave to indicate, if he can, what is the urgency of debate. The problem of bombings and other unlawful acts by certain people in the Kootenays has engaged the attention of this house and of the country for a long time. It is true that there was recently an outbreak with particularly serious consequences to which the hon. member has referred. However, I wonder whether or not that creates an urgency of debate in a continuing problem. I would ask the hon. member to address himself briefly to that point, then I shall hear from the Minister of Justice.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The question is urgency of debate. Recognizing that there is a serious problem, it is a continuing one. Is there some new aspect to it now which it has not been possible to debate in this session or will not be possible to debate within a reasonable time?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The urgency of the situation for the people of the Kootenays is in the fact that according to some it has now almost reached the stage of civil war with these continued bombings, acts of terrorism and sabotage. The mayors of the various cities in the Kootenays, the heads of industrial organizations and numerous unions have wired members of the government, including the

Acts of Terrorism in B.C.
Prime Minister, the member for Kootenay West and the member for Kootenay East, urging the federal government to take action. They believe the urgency is very particular at the present time, and it is on that basis I moved the adjournment of the house.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: If I may say a word on this, I would prefer not to deal directly with the question of urgency because, as a minister coming from British Columbia, you will appreciate that I am aware of the nature of the problem and the serious aspect it has taken on just lately. Whether or not that kind of urgency brings it within the rule regarding urgency of debate is a question Your Honour has raised which I am content to leave where, I submit with respect and deference, you have correctly summarized it.
There are two other grounds on which I think the motion is out of order, and it is with those I should like to deal. The first is based on citation 100 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 89, where he says:
The definite matter of urgent public importance for the discussion of which a member may ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 must involve the administrative responsibility of the government.
The constitutional position, sir, as is well known, is that the responsibility for the maintenance of law and order and the protection of property is that of the provinces. So long, therefore, as the province accepts this responsibility there is no way that the federal government can intervene to give assistance in this field, so there is at present no way in which any question of the administrative responsibility of the federal government arises. No indication has been received that the province of British Columbia does not accept the responsibility of maintaining law and order. Therefore, as I say, there is no way in which this matter could come within the administrative responsibility of the federal government.
In saying this, I would not want to be taken as implying that responsibility would automatically be accepted if a request were made. There are relevant statutes and other provisions in this regard with respect to the kind of assistance and the circumstances under which assistance of the kind referred-that is, military aid and extra policing-can be requested by a province. These would have to be looked at, and certainly would be looked at, at once to see whether or not these circumstances prevailed if any such request were made. The point that is important to note here for the purpose which we are dealing with now is that no request has been made by the province. There is no indication that the province does not accept the responsibility


or feels it cannot discharge the responsibility for the maintenance of law and order. In those circumstances I submit that it is not a matter within the scope of the citation to which I have referred.
I repeat that I do not want to take what I may call, with respect, the narrow ground with regard to urgency, although I do submit with deference that you have correctly stated the position there. Rather I prefer to rest on the ground I have referred to, and on the ground contained in paragraph 5 of citation 100 at page 90 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, namely:
The adjournment of the house cannot be moved with reference to critical conditions generally prevailing in certain parts of the country.
Although it is British Columbia's misfortune, nevertheless fortunately the conditions prevailing in the constituency of my hon. friend from Kootenay West are not those generally prevailing across the country.
So on those two grounds, while respecting fully the desire of the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Kootenay East and their anxiety in this matter, and while indicating that all hon. members in the house share that anxiety-certainly the government shares and understands their concern-nevertheless in my respectful submission this is not the kind of subject that can be debated here at this time, for the reasons I have given.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member who is asking for leave feels that the matter has been sufficiently placed before the attention of the government to allow his request to stand, or whether he would like me to deal with it on its merits.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have listened to the minister's explanation with great interest, and in view of the facts he placed before the house I feel I have nothing further to say at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances I think I might be correct, then, in rejecting the motion at this time.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister in view of the forthcoming disarmament meeting at Geneva next week. Does the government consider that the first and essential step in reaching a general

disarmament agreement should be an agreement to end all nuclear tests, with appropriate provision for inspection and control, and that this should be given first priority at the forthcoming conference?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: There is no doubt that the question of nuclear tests will be raised. There are to be preliminary discussions on that point among the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet union commencing on Monday, and there probably will be subsequent discussions in the disarmament committee itself. But I think it would be unwise for Canada to insist that this question of nuclear tests must be settled before the committee undertakes any discussion of the broader question of disarmament.
We shall be doing our best in the general field of disarmament to bring about an end to nuclear tests, but I do not think there should be a rigid dividing line between the discussions on these two subjects, such as the Leader of the Opposition would appear to be suggesting.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question based upon a report of a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on March 2 in Vancouver, when he said:
Canada's policy has been against any atmospheric testing by any country but the Americans have the responsibility for defending the free world and apparently have decided they are in danger of being outclassed.
Is it now government policy that Canada will not oppose nuclear tests unless there is an agreement providing for a system of controls, inspection and verification, along the lines suggested by the United Kingdom and United States?


Howard Charles Green: The Canadian policy remains as I have enunciated it on several occasions.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West asked me whether the government had had any communication with representatives of the Brazilian government with respect to the emigration to Brazil, of Doukhobors.
The answer is no.
The Brazilian embassy informs us, however, that a group of Doukhobors are attempting to negotiate the purchase of land in Brazil 26207-1-1011
Inquiries of the Ministry
and have requested immigration visas for entry into that country. That question is now under consideration by the Brazilian authorities. The Canadian government has not been involved in any way with this matter, and I am therefore unable to say whether or not the Sons of Freedom are included in those who are desirous of being considered as potential immigrants into Brazil.


Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to pose a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the serious situation in the Kootenays, would the minister be willing to send in the militia if the request is made by the appropriate authorities in British Columbia?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The responsibility for maintaining law and order in the Kootenays, as indicated by the Minister of Justice, is with the provincial authorities. It would appear to me that until they have exhausted their capabilities in that direction there would be no necessity to call upon the members of the Canadian army to assist them in that regard.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: If I may, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Will the minister not admit that under section 91 of the British North America Act the parliament of Canada is responsible for the maintenance of law and order if a provincial government fails to act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I believe the hon. member well knows, Mr. Speaker, the National Defence Act provides for assistance to the civil power in the event that it is requested by a civil authority. No such request has been received by the defence department.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his absence last week I directed a question to the Prime Minister which was to this effect. I was interested in view of certain statements which had been made at the Canada-United States interparliamentary committee to the effect that Canada had not yet officially asked the international joint commission to deal with the Champlain waterway cut-off, in learning whether the Prime Minister was in a position to answer the question or make a statement to that effect.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The Prime Minister said that the reply had better await the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would advise the house whether the information we received in the committee was accurate, and whether or not this matter has now been referred to the international joint commission for consideration.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that on January 22 the Prime Minister told the house that the United States government had been informed of the Canadian government's desire to submit this matter to the international joint commission, and of its willingness to have this done by means of a joint reference of the two governments.
The matter has not yet been referred to the international joint commission. We are working on the reference, and it is hoped that it will be made in the near future. When it is, the house will be informed.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Now that the minister has been allowed 24 hours in which to give the matter due consideration, is he prepared to report to the house on the meeting which was held yesterday with Premier Stanfield and representatives of the coal industry of Nova Scotia?


Mr. Maclnnis:: They failed to show up again.


Hon. Jacques Flynn (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the delay. I could have told him the same thing yesterday, however; that the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Forestry, the Minister of Labour, myself and members of parliament from the area concerned met a delegation headed by the premier of Nova Scotia and including two of his cabinet ministers, representatives of the coal industry and the U.M.W., members of the clergy and mayors of the municipalities of the area; in connection with the proposed closing of No. 16 colliery.
The meeting lasted three hours. The representatives made a very forceful plea, but in a most reasonable manner, to obtain from the government the continuance of the operation of No. 16 colliery. Needless to say, the
[Mr. Chevrier.l
government will consider these views in the most sympathetic manner, and a decision will be taken as soon as possible.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware of the explosion and devastating fire that took place at the CKNX television and radio station at Wingham this morning, and is the government doing anything to assist this very important news and entertainment medium in western Ontario to carry on its operations?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to telephone my office this morning with respect to this matter, and I was able to make some inquiries of the corporation. I can advise him as follows. As he has informed the house, the fire this morning destroyed the Wingham television and radio establishment, wiping out the studio facilities, but the transmitter is intact. The C.B.C. has been requested to try to supply equipment to fill the void pending the repair and reconstruction of their equipment.
The C.B.C. is trying to arrange for a direct feed to Wingham from either their Toronto telecine or Meridian studios. It is not expected that they will be able to loan telecine equipment to Wingham. They are definitely able to assign a mobile video tape cruiser, with one camera, and a one camera field set-up with camera control and audio facilities. The C.B.C. is endeavouring to locate a two or three camera mobile unit which can be assigned, and which will be assigned as soon as it can be located.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena inquired during orders of the day as to the progress being made toward satisfying an order for return arising out of a question of his, which question I assume from his description was No. 119.
I am informed that the consent of the province of British Columbia to the tabling of this information was necessary. This consent was received only this week, and I expect the return will be tabled in the next day or two.

(Translation):
On the orders of the day:


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell me when the return will be available which was ordered by the house with regard to the correspondence between the Minister of Transport, Quebecair and other people?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member reminded me of the question he asked on that matter. This will enable me to make further inquiries. I shall do my utmost to provide him with a reply very shortly.
(Text):



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and inquire whether in her department or in the minister's office lists are prepared of the persons who have received citizenship, on a weekly basis; and if so, whether those lists are available to anyone outside the department.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should inquire within his own political party. He will find that both in Toronto and Montreal representatives of his party are securing this information from the local courts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. lady a question as to whether or not-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Hees:: You received your answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the floor. I cannot ascertain whether or not he is using it properly unless other hon. members will listen. Will the hon. member repeat his supplementary question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. lady-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for the hon. gentleman to ask the question again. It is true I did not answer it. The answer is no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer is no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister. Can the minister inform the house how records of those obtaining citizenship at Hamilton and London, which are not available to the Liberal or other political parties, are available to the Progressive Conservative Association of Canada?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I presume they obtain the information in the same way the Liberal representatives obtain it at Toronto and Montreal.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They refuse to make it public,
and you know it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I saw the article to which the hon. gentleman refers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Discrimination.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I saw the article in this morning's newspaper. The gentleman who says he went to the office at Hamilton and was refused is not fully representing the facts as they are.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What are the facts?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That he never even called at the office.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Labour or the parliamentary secretary.
In view of the recent bombing of the power transmission facilities of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company on Kootenay lake, which will cause over 1,000 employees to be unemployed for a period from weeks to months, and in view of the fact that the union and company have made satisfactory arrangements to distribute employment as fairly as possible, would the minister assure the house that the unemployment insurance commission will co-operate with the union and management with respect to unemployment insurance benefits and by providing the staff required to service these unemployed persons so they will suffer no inconvenience?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to bring the hon. member's suggestion to the attention of the commission.

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MEAT INSPECTION SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture or to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the recent series of outbreaks regarding the sale of meat unfit for human consumption in various sections of the country, is the Department of Agriculture prepared to meet the requirements of additional staff needed to provide adequate inspection service as provided for under the Meat Inspection Act?


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being given every consideration by the department, and I am sure it will be looked after.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell us whether he thinks his staff is sufficient to do the policing jdb required in the circumstances?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by the hon. member for Gloucester, this is really a responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, inspecting the quality of meat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But is it not a fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare regards this as his responsibility as well, and has already taken some action in this matter, belated as it is?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, this practice apparently had been going on for many years under the administration of the previous minister, and this minister actually did take action.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in my absence the hon. member for Laurier asked a question regarding the location of a branch plant in the United Kingdom by Dominion Tar and Chemical Company. In answer I would say that for a very long time Canadian firms that wished to locate branch plants in other parts of the world have been quite free to do so, just as branch plants are often located in


Canada by firms that have their head offices and main operations in other countries of the world.
I might say that this government and my department take great pains to encourage companies located in other parts of the world to establish branch plants here in Canada, thereby providing employment for Canadians.
(Translation):



BEAUCEVILLE, QUE.-REQUEST FOR ARMY ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Theogene Ricard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question. Has the federal government received a request for assistance from the government of the province of Quebec concerning floods caused by the Chaudiere river at Beauceville? If so, what action is the national defence department contemplating in that regard?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A request for assistance was made yesterday by the province of Quebec to the Canadian army, and a state of emergency has been declared in view of the fact that the Megantic dam on the Chaudiere river is in danger of breaking owing to ice conditions, which could result in the town of Beauceville being flooded.
A full reconnaissance of the ice conditions is taking place, and it is expected that this will be completed by approximately three o'clock this afternoon. It is planned to blow up the ice, and to have a force of approximately 75 all ranks stand by on twelve hours' notice for further operations if required for the following reasons: (a) to observe ice conditions and use further explosives, (b) to assist in evacuating threatened civilian population if the situation makes this necessary.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister noted the endorsement of the Canadian conference on education that Canada should change its system of weights and measures from the English system to the metric system? If so, does he propose to introduce such a measure in this house?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest the article referred to by the hon. member.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Are you impressed?



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murray Lincoln McFarlane: should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether consideration has been given to our request for the construction of a penitentiary in the Fernie area. We have been very much interested in this project for a long time. In view of press releases in a Calgary paper recently, I felt that the penitentiary was going to Alberta.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure about the urgency of the question. From what we have heard earlier today, perhaps it is an urgent matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, no final decision has been made as to the actual site of a new penitentiary in western Canada, although I think I can safely say that one is imminent. In the consideration so far given and in the final consideration to be given I can assure the hon. member that the qualifications and interests of Fernie in having an institution located there have been and will be fully borne in mind. Even if I were inclined to overlook or forget that point, it would not be possible in view of the constant and urgent representations made by the the hon. member.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has any comment to make on a reported statement of the Belgian trade minister yesterday to the effect that he was happy to be able to say that the common market would study the possibility of arrangements for an enlarged European Common Market which would preserve the objectives of the present community.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to comment on any statements made by the minister from Belgium. We had a most useful talk lasting for over an hour, and a great many matters of mutual interest and concern
Inquiries of the Ministry were discussed. As these conversations were private, I would not want to comment on them at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it not a fact that the Belgian minister in question informed the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the point I have just made, namely that they would be happy to see the European common market enlarged at this time?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I said that we discussed a great many things. I do not intend to discuss with the Leader of the Opposition what passed between us at this conference. It was a most illuminating and useful conference held between two ministers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the minister then state that this report is inaccurate?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: I have tried to tell the Leader of the Opposition three times, Mr. Speaker, that I did not intend to state anything.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should
like to ask the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether they have received any public complaints about criticisms made of past performances of the officials of the Department of External Affairs by the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Middlesex East?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I rather think the question is not one of such significance and urgency that it would warrant being asked on the orders of the day. It would open the door to asking questions about members' outside speeches. That would leave considerable scope for members who have not any other questions to ask.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should just like to make one point in relation to this matter. I was asking whether the minister or the Prime Minister had received any public complaints-that is complaints from the public of Canada-with regard to the substance of the criticism. I am not asking for information on the criticisms themselves. I suggest that from indications in the press there is great interest in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the hon. member to be talking about complaints before the hon. member for Bow River made his statement?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Mason Fisher: No; complaints with regard to the statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps that question could be permitted, whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has had anything since the statement in question was made.


Mr. Walker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Port Arthur is today preaching for a call.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the imminent transfer of the historic post office from Gambo to Dark Cove, Newfoundland, he would give consideration to the establishment of a subpost office in that historic place, which has had a post office for 60 years.


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of a year I must receive several hundred representations with regard to post office establishments. If each hon. member displayed the lack of consideration just displayed and raised the matter in the house, we would never get any business done at all. If the hon. member wishes to write me about the matter or put a question on the order paper, I shall be glad to look into it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. gentleman, I submit that this is one of those urgent and exceptional matters that arises very rarely, and as a member who presided over-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not understand the minister to be raising a point of order but rather to say that he could not undertake to answer questions of that kind generally in the house. In other words, an answer was given. It is not customary nor allowable for members to debate the sufficiency or otherwise of an answer. If there is a supplementary question it is permissible. However, it is not permissible to debate the sufficiency of the answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister. Does the minister realize that this is not a usual situation but is rather a most exceptional situation, and will he give it careful consideration?


William McLean Hamilton: Each one of the hundreds is given careful consideration.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
S25. Canada's civilian participation as a member of the international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China-further amount required, $100,000.
Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to participate in a debate on this item but, rather unusually, we have played a bit of hopscotch in connection with the items in these estimates.


Mr. Churchill:: I have informed all parties.


William Moore Benidickson: Could all members of the committee be informed by the house leader as to the likely order in which the various departments will be taken up?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will start with external affairs.


William Moore Benidickson: What follows?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then the Department of Forestry, which was just about completed the other day, then citizenship and immigration, and after that we will carry on in the order in which they are in the further supplementary estimates.


William Moore Benidickson: Thank you.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Chairman, we have not had from the minister a report on the situation that prevails in the countries covered by the three international commissions for supervision and control, in South and North Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos. The minister will recall that toward the close of the last session there was some discussion on his estimates about developments in Laos and particularly with regard to the reactivated international commission on which Canada, along with Poland and India, serves.
At that time the minister expressed an optimistic note. He said that notwithstanding difficulties that had prevailed from the month of January, 1961 up until the summer of 1961, he was confident that the situation in that particular section of old Indo-China would evolve in a manner that did not warrant some of the apprehensions that I and several other members affirmed. I am sure that on this item the minister will want to bring the house up to date as to the situation in Laos.
The position taken by the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet union,

along with lesser powers, was that there should be established in Laos a government that would be truly neutral in character. That seemed to be one of the ways, it was thought at the Geneva conference, by which stability and peace could be provided for this area. As we all know, however, notwithstanding the apparent agreement to establish a government under the former prime minister, notwithstanding the meeting of the three royal princes including the present prime minister of the government of Laos, the former prime minister, Souvanna Phouma, and the leader of the Pathet Lao, since last summer there has been no disposition by these three gentlemen to effect conditions which would have permitted the establishment of a truly neutral government, along lines envisaged by the United Kingdom and the United States.
I am not saying that it will be possible to establish a truly neutral government because of the incursions that have taken place in Laos by guerilla activity emanating from certain communist lands. Canada, however, has a very important stake in the outcome of events in Laos. The reactivation of the truce supervisory commission, which adjourned sine die over a year and a half ago, was effected to determine whether pursuant to agreement, there had been in fact a cease-fire between the Pathet Lao forces and those of the royal government. Since the beginning of the time Mr. Mayrand as our representative on that commission took over his functions in Delhi, prior to going to Laos, there have been skirmishes and conflicts between the opposing forces. It would be interesting to know what progress the commission has been able to make in determining in fact whether there has been a cease fire and whether in fact the commission has been able to fulfil the functions for which it was set up a second time.
It would also be of value to hear from the minister if the material shortage situation continues. When we discussed this matter last there was not provided to the commission, as I recall, necessary air equipment to enable the commission to discharge its functions effectively. These and other questions perhaps better known to the minister, will be of interest to the house and to the country. We would appreciate having from him a report with regard to the commission in Laos. What is to be its likely tenure? How effective has its work been?
I am not suggesting that it has not been effective, nor am I suggesting that the commission has not made every endeavour to make a useful contribution to the situation which prevails in an area adjacent to which are such nations as Cambodia, South Viet 26207-1-102
Supply-External Affairs Nam, Thailand, Burma and other countries in south and southeast Asia, all of which have a direct involvement. It would be interesting to know whether the minister believes that the evidence is that the Soviet union has made every endeavour to co-operate along the lines originally agreed on, and if the difficulties which have arisen come from another communist nation and not from the Soviet union.
Then, of course, on this item we would want to hear from the minister as to the situation with regard to the commission in Cambodia. There relative peace prevails but, as we know from earlier discussion, the obligations of the commission in that little country have not been great in the last four or five years. One could successfully argue, I think, that the commission there might well have been disbanded. However, there were good reasons, I believe, for continuing the commission, reasons essentially exemplary, because of the situation that attends the government of Laos and of South Viet Nam. I take it that although the commission continues to be in existence in Cambodia, there has been no successful resistance to the contention of Canada that it should not concern itself with boundary matters.
Then there is the third commission in South Viet Nam. In the last four or five months we have been hearing a good deal about South Viet Nam. We are told that this has become a very critical area, in which the United States, through its president and secretary of state, has indicated a deep concern and interest. It is a country into which are flowing military contributions, materiel and personnel, to assist directly or indirectly the government of President Diem against infiltrations and attacks originating within and more particularly from North Viet Nam.
Now, certainly when this commission and the other two commissions were established in 1954, as a result of the Geneva accord, it was not envisaged that the responsibilities of the three participating countries on the commission would have as extended a period of operation as has proved to be the case. I am sure we will agree with the minister's statement last summer, and with similar statements made by his predecessor earlier, that these three commissions have served an important and steadying purpose at the time they were established. They continued to provide a measure of stability and peace in all three countries. But it is a fact that in 1956 the situation had so developed in at least two countries, South Viet Nam and Cambodia, that there was some reason for Canada to anticipate that the period of the commission's usefulness was perhaps approaching an end, although in the case of Laos I believe

Supply-External Affairs the position of Canada, notwithstanding the wish of the royal government, was that the commission had not yet fulfilled its purpose.
Canada is represented on these commissions. It has a civilian representative in South Viet Nam, as in the two other countries. There are military personnel, I do not know to what extent, in all three countries. Perhaps the minister will inform us about this. In any event we have a considerable number of Canadians serving in the cause of mediation and the cause of peace in these three countries. It would be interesting, because of the continued and disturbing internal conflict which prevails in South Viet Nam in particular, to know what the attitude of the Canadian government is with regard to this situation, particularly with regard to the operations of the commission in South Viet Nam. It would be interesting to know the significance of the recent bombings of the palace in Saigon.
Many people suggest that the situation there is second only in importance, in so far as the peace of the world is concerned, to the situation in divided Germany. Whether that is the case, we are participating in the commission in South Viet Nam. We have a duty, and I think the minister would recognize this, to ask what is his view as to developments. What are our reactions to the recently declared policy of the government of the United States in its desire to assist, by way of paramilitary power, the forces of the government of South Viet Nam? The committee will expect the minister to make a report on these three commissions because we are participating in them. We have many Canadians participating in the work of these commissions, in one way or another. We are spending considerable sums of money, and properly so, to help maintain these three commissions in an area of the world, so far removed. All of this indicates the interdependence of nations in this period in which we live, and the attendant responsibilities of peace loving countries like our own toward situations that exist in other parts of the world.


Erhart Regier: I believe every member of this house is extremely proud of the work that Canadians have been doing within recent years in southeast Asia. I believe there is no member of this house who would dare to vote against the request of the government for an additional $100,000 in the supplementary estimates in order to pay for our participation in the commission in Indochina. I am inclined to believe, Mr. Chairman, that if it had not been for these commissions in recent years, the history of this portion of the world would be entirely

different from what it now is. I believe they have a steadying and a pacifying influence in the area.
We are all aware of the fact that the commission is made up of representatives of one nation that is ordinarily labelled as being within the communist bloc, one western nation, namely our own, and another more or less neutral nation in the ideological warfare between the two major power blocs. I think Canadians ought to take a great deal of pride in what must be often a heartbreaking and frustrating task assigned to our people who are serving on the commission.
I am a little disturbed by the attitudes and even the activities of our good friend, neighbour and ally, the United States of America. I would hope that whereas we always welcome any advice that our good friend, neighbour and ally the United States decides it may wish to give us, that it may also be receptive to a bit of advice, on occasion at least, which we may give. I realize we are not a big nation like the United States, but I would hope they would be willing to lend an ear to expressions by the Canadian people. Most of us have been led to understand that an agreement, at least in principle, had been more or less arrived at between the warring factions in Viet Nam a considerable time ago. One cannot help, after reading the United Kingdom and Canadian press, but have the feeling that the United States of America is not, in spirit, really living up to the terms of that agreement in the policies that it is pursuing.
This is my whole plea. I feel that the Canadian government ought to use its good offices to appeal to the United States to do what it can to remove the appearance it has created, whether accidentally or by deliberate design, of preventing the implementation of the spirit of the agreement that has been recently concluded.
There seems to be a feeling that we can defeat the communists in Viet Nam by guerrilla counter attack. In this respect I would like to quote an article which appeared in last month's issue of the Atlantic Monthly entitled "The limits of defence." written by Arthur I. Waskow, who served as legislative assistant to a congressman from Wisconsin until a year ago. In analysing the situation, as printed at page 84 of the magazine, he says:
Successful guerrillas are not merely underground soldiers in an alien land. They need the support of the population and get it by demanding, or pretending to demand, social and economic reforms that would benefit the population around them. If the United States is prepared, with huge amounts of economic aid, to support social revolution even against western business and political associates in the local governments, it is not necessary to send commando fighters. If we refuse to support

basic social changes, sending commandos will not stop communist guerrillas, because our commandos will not get popular support.
The other attitude that seems to be adopted far too frequently in the western world is that we might be able to use the principle of a military deterrent in this part of Asia. On that Mr. Waskow has this to say, as recorded on page 85 of the magazine:
An attempt by the west to meet this dilemma by matching the Sino-Soviet alliance in sheer numbers of men under arms would be disastrous. The effect would be that of permanent limited wars, like those in Korea and Algeria, limited in the amount of violence allowable, so that no victory could be won, but seemingly unlimited in the length of time they might last. During these wars, the United States and France each experienced great pressures at home against keeping the war limited, and also great pressure against democratic civil liberties During the three short years of the Korean war, the United States had to deal with MacArthurism and McCarthyism. What would be the effect of 25 or 50 such years?
In the very short run, the balanced deterrent would undoubtedly be safer than a counterforce strategy, but it would only be useful as a way of getting the time to move to new solutions.
I would like to think that the Canadian government was doing its utmost to persuade our alies in Washington that a long term program or social change in southeast Asia is the only solution, and that guerrilla warfare and the deterrent of large numbers of armed personnel are not the long term answer, even though the deterrent may give us the time in which to work out the social changes needed.
I am not criticizing the attitude of the Canadian government in any way, shape or form. I believe we have been most useful in the past in this area of the world and, by the very nature of the request now before us, I know it is the intention of the government to continue to be a positive force in that area. I would only like to plead with our government to use its good offices to request a hearing in Washington with the end in view that we would not wind up with another Korea, Algeria or Congo situation in this part of the world.


Howard Charles Green: The part which Canada has been and is playing in former Indo-China is a good example of the very large field we have in peace keeping activities, and this is one of the most useful types of work our nation can do. We are called on frequently for work of this type, and no country has a larger number of trained personnel in its departments of national defence or external affairs than Canada to undertake work of this kind.
I shall deal first with the situation in Laos. That can be divided into two different sectors. First of all there is the 14 nation conference which has been in session at Geneva for practically 10 months. When I say "14 26207-1-102i
Supply-External Affairs nations" I mean there are 13 national delegations there plus a triple delegation from Laos, one representing the group which is pro-western, one the group which is procommunist, and one representing Souvanna Phouma who is the head of the neutralist group in Laos. As I say, we have this threeheaded Laotian delegation in Geneva and by a process of patient negotiation, which has involved compromise on both sides, the representatives at Geneva have reached virtually complete agreement on arrangements to replace the 1954 general agreement for Laos.
While the issue is still in the balance it would not be helpful for me to attempt any detailed assessment of the results of their efforts, other than to say I think these results have been excellent, and they may well have set the standard for the disarmament negotiations which are to commence next week.
Canada's part of course has to do with the terms of reference for the international commission which will have to carry on in Laos after the conference in Geneva is ended. The primary role of our delegation has been to try to ensure that these terms of reference are such as to enable the commission to operate effectively in support of an internationally agreed settlement. However, an international agreement aimed at securing the independence, territorial integrity and neutrality of Laos presupposes an accepted and generally recognized government of Laos sharing these objectives and prepared to cooperate in bringing them about.
As hon. members know, each of these three factions in Laos is led by a prince, and the meetings which have taken place between the princes have not yet resulted in the formation of a government for Laos, although I am hopeful that result will be achieved fairly soon. Time, of course, does not seem to mean a great deal in the Orient. They have a meeting and then decide to adjourn for two or three weeks or a month, and then after much effort they meet again and the same process is repeated.
There has been some small narrowing of areas of disagreement, and Souvanna Phouma, who is the leader of the neutralist group, continues to show patience and perseverance in his efforts to complete the task of forming a unified government acceptable to all three parties. Mind you, until there is agreement on a government for Laos the conference in Geneva cannot complete its work. I think it would finish up very quickly once agreement had been reached on a government for this unhappy country.
Then I turn to Laos itself. There the international truce supervisory commission has been functioning as best it can. It has not been permitted to visit any of the scenes

Supply-External Affairs of real fighting, and no proper arrangements have been made for providing it with equipment under its own exclusive control, but I think the very fact that this commission is in Laos has greatly reduced the amount of fighting taking place, and I believe that if the commission had not been there there would have been a great deal more serious trouble than we have at the present time.
The head of the Canadian delegation is Leon Mayrand, who is our ambassador to Italy. He had done a splendid job; I do not think any Canadian could have done finer work than Mr. Mayrand has done. There has been fighting from time to time. There are protests made to the commission, sometimes protests from both sides, and then the fighting stops there and starts somewhere else. It goes on in this way, but nothing very serious has occurred as yet. I think that all the countries represented at the conference in Geneva on Laos really desire to see that country set up as a neutral state and to see the fighting stop. I think they all believe in the effectiveness of the international control commission, of which India is the chairman and Canada and Poland are the other two members. I cannot make any promises, because you never know what is going to happen-we learned that the hard way-but in any event there has been no starting of a third world war in Laos, and I think there is a reasonable chance that a settlement will be worked out. At the moment it all depends on these three princes.
With regard to Cambodia, this country is truly neutral and they have had very little trouble. The government of Cambodia is anxious that the truce commission should remain, otherwise I think-as the hon. member for Essex East said-that particular commission might well be disbanded, but we do not like to move to have it disbanded when the Cambodian government is anxious that it should remain. They express this desire from time to time, and I think Prince Sihanouk, who is the head of the government in Cambodia, has handled the affairs of that country extremely well. He attended at Geneva in May when the conference on Laos was opened, and he made the opening statement with what I thought was a very statesmanlike speech. He is a leader who is very well qualified and, as I have said, there is no really serious trouble in his country.
The situation in Viet Nam is a great deal more difficult. As hon. members know, in North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam the commission has jurisdiction over both separate countries. I think it would be unfair to single out the United States for blame in respect of the situation in South Viet Nam. The provocation, in my judgment, has come from North

Viet Nam. There have been troops infiltrating from North Viet Nam, and I am certain that the communists have been at the root of most of the trouble in South Viet Nam.


Erhart Regier: I agree with that.


Howard Charles Green: There has been some very nasty guerrilla warfare going on there, with officials murdered, villagers blackmailed, villages destroyed, and all this sort of business, and the main blame for the trouble in South Viet Nam rests squarely on the shoulders of the communists-


Erhart Regier: I agree.


Howard Charles Green: -and not on the United States at all. Any action the United States has taken has been in a measure of defence against communist action. There the commission has many complaints from both sides. It does its best to examine these complaints. There is quite a long list of them now which have not yet been examined. I cannot say what will happen in South Viet Nam, or in North Viet Nam either for that matter, but here again Canada is playing her full part in restraining people and in trying to work out a solution to these internecine quarrels.
We have, of course, very many ways of discussing questions like this with the United States on a friendly basis, and questions such as Viet Nam are discussed practically daily with the state department. We will do what we can to urge moderation on everyone. Here again we will just have to hope that in the end a settlement can be worked out. It is not going to be easy; it may take a long time. I do not see any prospect of Canada being able to leave the Viet Nam commission at an early date, but as I said in opening, this is an area in which Canada is making a great contribution in the way of peace keeping activities and I think it is one of the finest contributions that has been made.
The hon. member for Essex East asked for the numbers of personnel involved. In Viet Nam there are four foreign service officers and eight on the administrative side, for a total of 12. In Laos there are three foreign service officers and three in administration, for a total of six. In Cambodia there are one foreign service officer and two on administration work, for a total of three. The military representation as of October 16 last is Viet Nam, 27 army officers, 26 other ranks, for a total of 53; two R.C.A.F. officers and two Royal Canadian Navy officers. In Laos there were 14 army officers and seven other ranks for a total of 21. Apparently there was also provision for one other officer and two other ranks in Cambodia, but these positions are not filled under present circumstances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to make one further observation on what the minister has said, and to recall to him the attitude I took and the words I expressed when we discussed this matter in the house on September 11, 1961.
One appreciates, of course, that Canada as a member of these various commissions cannot on that account be expected to accept responsibility for solutions that rest with other powers. But we are on these commissions and we have an obligation to discharge. I know we are fulfilling that responsibility to the best of our competence and ability within the opportunities provided. It seems to me that we have the right to expect a more realistic appraisal of the consequences of the developments that are taking place not only in South Viet Nam but in Laos as well.
It is worth recalling that as late as 1956 the view was put forward that the policy of certain powers in the west toward Laos in particular was not a practical and wise policy, under the conditions that then prevailed. To have insisted upon a partisan government at that time was not a practical and wise policy. It is now agreed that there should be a government that is truly neutral.
I find it difficult to believe in the light of conditions that have prevailed since last January and in the light of the conflict among the three competing forces for government-the present royal government and the two other personalities involved, either in coalition or separately-that we can anticipate that there will be in fact a truly neutral government, because of aggressive intentions on the part of communist China in particular. We can only hope that a neutral government will result and that it will be able to work out conditions for the betterment of the people in that little Indo-China nation.
I believe we have the right to expect from our Secretary of State for External Affairs a wide appreciation of the situation as he sees it, not only in terms of the moment but as well of the future. If it is a fact that this is a theatre which might well occasion trouble extending far beyond south and southeast Asia, surely then this is a matter of great concern. The time for us to face the matter is now rather than wait until ominous events happen. We must at least try to anticipate what could happen, and discuss dispassionately and understanding^ what steps might be taken to avoid eventualities prejudicial to the maintenance of peace.
On September 11, 1961 the minister took issue with me when I said as reported at page 8185 of Hansard:
Supply-External Affairs
-it seems to me we ought to take a very realistic view of what is happening in the whole of Indo-China. While there may be a declaration of agreement on the question of the kind of neutrality that is to prevail regarding government in Laos, it would surprise me very much, in view of the record there and the infiltrations that are taking place via North Viet Nam and from across the Chinese-Burma border, if we can conclude that there have as yet been placed before us those guarantees which would give us the conviction that the solemn undertaking of those ideologically opposed to us will be observed. However, only time will tell.
The minister in commenting later, at page 8185 of Hansard, expressed the view that I was unduly pessimistic. Then he went on to express words of optimism which I do not believe were warranted at that time. I do not believe the minister on that occasion gave us justification for the optimism he expressed. I know the minister is optimistic by nature. Possibly he felt it would be better to create the impression that the situation was not a hopeless one by any means. There could be a very good argument for this attitude. As I see the situation, however, this is an area where the friction is of a character that must cause great concern not only to the minister and the government but to all of us.
Canada as a member of the commission will wish to be able to have an assessment made of her present and future role in a way that will warrant the belief that we have done everything we could to avoid any situation which the future might prove to be of the greatest concern. I am sure we are doing everything we can. But are we not entitled to an assessment from the minister as to what lies ahead? Will there be a truly neutral government, or will it be a tool of aggressive powers that intend to violate the peace of the area? What are the implications of this for us? What is the attitude of the present government toward the operation of the commission? Is the commission able to fulfil its functions? Is it able to accomplish the mandate given to it? If not, why not? Are there obstacles still being placed in its way as was the situation last September when, as the minister indicated, necessary military equipment was not made available?
The situation with regard to Viet Nam is no less difficult. It is much more serious. What is the attitude of the government of South Viet Nam to the commission? As a member of the commission do we have access and has the commission access to the territory in North Viet Nam? Do we have contact with the governing bodies in North Viet Nam? The minister said our role would be to do all we could to provide a balance between the discordant elements. I am sure the minister was sincere when he said that. I am sure Canada

Supply-External Affairs does take that position. I merely ask whether the opportunities are present for us to be able to exercise on all sides the influence implied in the minister's assurance that we would do everything we could to pacify the competing forces.
These are some of the questions in the minds of all of us as we read from day to day of the continuous conflict, a conflict that is being assisted by outside participation, providing thereby for a situation which I think demands on the part of the minister the frankest possible statement that he feels he can make in respect of situations which we are led ot believe and which our own judgment suggests are calculated to bring about serious and dangerous provocations for widening conflict.
We in the west have often been accused of not facing situations, of always being behind events. Here is one situation that threatens. What can we do about it? What are we doing about it? What assessment is made of the situation by countries with which we have a close interest in the western world? This is the kind of comment I think we should like to receive from the minister today. We assume that Canada cannot rectify this question by herself. All the good will in the world on the part of the minister cannot rectify this situation. However, we are on these commissions. We are in this turbulent area where vigorous guerrilla warfare is now being carried on. It is a form of warfare which is intended to arrest the infiltration from the north into South Viet Nam. We shall not avoid these problems by refusing to face their consequences.
I am asking the minister now if he does not think that the seriousness of the situation -it is one which I thought was serious last summer, and it continues to be even more serious-is one that demands from the minister a more penetrating analysis, I was going to say, or a more penetrating report on the situation as he sees it. I think that is something which we are entitled to ask. Other governments have felt that it was their duty to give a much more detailed reply on events as they saw them than we have received today. These other nations may have a heavier responsibility. However, as the minister has often stated, although a smaller power our opportunity is not necessarily less on that account. That being the case, I think the minister possibly could give us a more definitive appreciation of the situation.


Howard Charles Green: I am very grateful to the hon. member for inviting me to enter into the field of prophecy. However, I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I find that it does not pay very big dividends to start prophesying when one is head of the Department of

External Affairs. What does pay dividends is not taking an attitude that any situation is hopeless. If the foreign minister adopted that attitude, it would be much better if he were in the Senate or somewhere else instead of being in this office. After all, there are serious situations in many parts of the world. Canada is involved in as many of them as any other middle power, and is playing a part which is as big as or bigger than the part played by any other middle power in these various areas.
What will happen in Indo-China in the final analysis will depend upon what red China decides to do, possibly on what the United States decides to do, and possibly on what some other large countries decide to do. However, we are able to exercise a good deal of influence on all these countries. From my experience at the Geneva conference on Laos I would say that no country represented there wants a world war started over Laos. I shall be greatly surprised if, with regard to Viet Nam, there is not exactly the same reaction. There may be all kinds of guerrilla warfare and troubles of one kind and another; however, I do not think red China wants a war started over any part of IndoChina.
So far as the western countries are concerned, there is in existence the SEATO pact. We are not a member of SEATO; however, I think the leaders of these other countries realize that it would be insanity to have a nuclear war break out as a result of anything happening in Indo-China. This is the main reason that I do not adopt the attitude that the situation there cannot be solved. My experience is that all the countries sitting in on the conference on Laos at Geneva desire to have that country really neutral and that they desire to have a condition in which a truce commission can function properly.
I would be the last one to assert that there are not many frustrating events happening in the work of the two commissions. I refer to the one in Laos and also the one in Viet Nam. We are not able to do all the things we should like to do. For one thing, there is a division on the commissions. The Poles are there representing the communist world, and often it just is not a situation where you can get agreement. Sometimes decisions are made on a majority basis. However, by and large, I think Canada's part in all three of these countries in former Indo-China has been very much worth while.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister did not answer some of the questions that were addressed to him by my friend the hon. member for Essex East, as I understand them, about the powers and responsibilities of the commission, and the opportunity to discharge those

responsibilities, particularly in Viet Nam; whether they had had access to the northern or the communist part and, if so, whether they had had any opportunity, because of that access, to examine what was going on there. After all, these commissions were set up in conditions which were much different from those which exist now. They were set up to police a cease fire. However, they have taken on responsibilities-and I am certainly not complaining about this matter- which were never entertained when they were established.
I think they have discharged those responsibilities to the best of their ability, having regard to the fact that there is a communist, a non-communist and an anti-communist on each commission. Certainly the Canadian members of the commissions have discharged their share of the responsibilities in a manner that has done great credit to themselves and indeed to our country. Hence it is not a question of complaining about the work of the commission; it is a question of trying to find out whether, in new situations, these commissions, especially those in Viet Nam and Laos, which are the two that matter, have now an opportunity to do the job which is required in these new situations, or whether in fact these commissions can be used as a front behind which forces are at work which will not make for neutral countries in that area but for something much more dangerous. I am thinking of communist governments in these countries, especially in Laos, where the communist infiltration has gone very far indeed, backed by communist forces outside of Laos; forces now getting across the border into Cambodia. We know, of course, what the situation is in Viet Nam. It is a situation which is bound to arouse anxiety.
I think it is perfectly in order for us, without asking the minister to prophesy what is going to happen in the future, to find out whether the commissions can in fact do the job which they are required to do in these circumstances. The minister said that he does not intend to be a prophet. I think he is very wise in not attempting to be a prophet. However, the minister very often- and he is not being criticized for this fact- has prophesied optimistically about what would happen in respect of this situation. We hope his optimism will be justified. He was optimistic about the situation in Laos, Viet Nam and Cambodia when we last debated this subject. But that situation certainly has not improved. I hope it has not deteriorated to a point where it can become a real danger to peace in the world.
The minister said that what optimism he has is based on the fact that as a result of his experience at the conference at Geneva
Supply-External Affairs it is his opinion that all members of that conference-I hope I am not misquoting him, because I am certainly paraphrasing-sincerely desired a neutral Laos, a neutral Cambodia and presumably a neutral Viet Nam; that they are countries which could be isolated and insulated from the cold war.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say anything about a neutral Viet Nam.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, a neutral Laos and a neutral Cambodia. But it is hard for me to believe that the Chinese communist representative at this meeting was really anxious or even willing to have a neutral Laos. If that were the case, it is hard to understand the support that the Chinese communist government is giving to the Pathet Lao forces which, as I see it, are trying to prevent a neutral Laos and trying to set up in that country a communist state or a state which will be allied to the Chinese communist empire.
Similarly in Viet Nam, as the minister has said-and it has been said by others-the force mainly responsible for the civil war, because it is civil war, is the intervention of Chinese communism in that area. That is the main force behind the intervention that is causing the trouble. I am sure that is true. You have the Chinese communists supporting one faction in Laos. You have the Chinese communists supporting the communist side in North Viet Nam. You have these North Viet Nam forces now facing South Viet Nam which has been very actively, and understandably in view of the situation, supported by the United States of America.
It may well be, I am sure it is the case, that no one at the Geneva conference and perhaps no one in this area of the world wants a world war to start over Laos or Viet Nam, any more than people wanted world war II to start over Danzig. But you have a situation now where you have two parties to the cold war, the Chinese communist empire and the United States, facing each other, one in South Viet Nam and the other in North Viet Nam. That is a danger to peace. Perhaps no one wants this situation to develop into a world war, but on the other hand perhaps the Chinese communist regime wants a united communist Viet Nam. It is certainly operating for that purpose.
To what extent then are the forces on the southern side in South Viet Nam, willing to fight to resist that kind of penetration. In that fight what is the nature and extent of the United States intervention going to be? I read the other day-this has been stated in Washington and I do not think it is any secret, because the United States has given a great deal of information recently about its activities

Supply-External Affairs in Viet Nam-that there are about 4,500 United States troops operating there. Ostensibly they are there to train and help to equip the South Viet Nam forces who are defending their country against civil invasion from the north. But training intervention of this kind is gradually shifting to more active intervention in operations. Surely this is a dangerous position. I do not know whether greater danger can be avoided; I hope it can.
I am not at the moment criticizing the United States for the shifting nature of its intervention. This may well be required unless the United States is willing to abandon its friend, President Diem, and the government of South Viet Nam. In that regard however, our anxiety is increased by the fact that the popular base of support for the government of South Viet Nam is not very deep or broad. At least there have been indications recently that the position of the government there, which the United States and other western powers are backing, is pretty shaky. How far then will western intervention go to preserve this government because it is the friendly government of South Viet Nam and is opposed to the communist government in the north?
All these questions are of very great importance. They would be important to Canada whether or not we were represented on the commission; just as what happened in Danzig in 1939 was important to Canada, and what happened at Sarajevo in 1914 was important to Canada. But we have an additional responsibility because we have accepted, and we have rightly accepted membership on these commissions, and we have discharged our responsibility on them in a way that has brought credit to the men on these commissions and to the government and people of Canada.
I wonder, therefore, whether the minister can give us some further information especially about the work of the commission in Viet Nam. To what extent is the commission consulted in respect of relations between the government of the United States, the government of South Viet Nam and, if there is any relationship, with the government of the north, or is it being used as a screen behind which dangerous forces are at work? In the future it might even be asked to accept some responsibility for developments there without in fact having any power or opportunity to control in any way those developments. As Canada is represented on these commissions, I think we are justified in expressing some preoccupation with this matter and in asking for this kind of information if the minister feels it can be given.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the commission visits Hanoi in North Viet Nam from time


to time. I have had no reports of their interviewing Ho-Chi-Minh, the president of North Viet Nam, this year. Mind you, their ability to get around and check the whole situation is comparatively limited. I do not think the commission can be attacked fairly on the ground that it is simply being used for someone to build up trouble behind it. If that were a proper criticism, then one would perhaps be justified in asking that the commission be withdrawn.
I do not think that is the case. They do what they can to check these incidents. One incident, for example, involved the murder of a South Viet Nam military officer who was attached to the commission. He was murdered in a most cold blooded way, and the commission has had the greatest difficulty in finding out the facts behind the murder. They have also had great difficulty in getting the facts with regard to various other incidents that have taken place.
It would be unfair to make the commission assume responsibility for all that goes on in Viet Nam. When the Leader of the Opposition referred to the red Chinese coming into South Viet Nam, I think he was wrong. The infiltration is from North Viet Nam and not, as far as I am aware, by red Chinese troops either in South Viet Nam or in Laos. By the very nature of the operation of the commission its work cannot be perfect. Those Canadians who are serving on the commission simply do the best they can under conditions which are extremely trying.
Looking at the broad picture, I think the presence of these commissions in the area has prevented a big war breaking out. I may be wrong in that view. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, it is quite impossible for anyone to be certain just what would have happened had the commissions not been there, but I think they are a restraining influence. It must never be forgotten that the commissions themselves are divided. It is not as though they go in as a team of three working together. That is not the case at all. They go in with the representative of one country working very closely with the communists, and it is a very difficult situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not mean to give the impression, perhaps I did give it that red Chinese troops as such had moved across the border. I have no reason to believe that, and no evidence I have seen would support that. But there is no doubt that the communists from the north have red Chinese forces behind them, that these communists from North Viet Nam who are doing the infiltrating are in very close relationship to the Chinese communist government. This is how it is being done. I am glad to hear the

minister say that the commissions have been a restraining influence. I am sure that is right. It has been a good thing to have them there. The time is going to come when perhaps their usefulness is over, in which case they should be withdrawn. I believe the government has considered withdrawing the commissions from Cambodia and Laos, but perhaps it has been a good thing to have them there in view of events in the last year or two.
It is useful to have the minister's opinion that the commissions are not being used as a screen behind which activities could be carried on of which we would not approve. The danger remains, however and I am sure the minister will agree with me, that behind the North Vietnamese are the Chinese communists who have not interfered openly as yet any more than they interfered openly in North Korea in the early days of the war there. Behind the South Vietnamese are the United States forces. If this civil war can be confined to the forces of Viet Nam, on one side or the other, perhaps there is not going to be any widespread trouble. But if, in fact, the war broadens out to the point where those who are helping each side get in conflict with each other, then anything can happen.
The other day when it was announced the United States had sent some more troops into Viet Nam, a great deal of publicity was given to this. The minister will recall a statement was issued from Peking that if this kind of thing continued the Chinese government will consider what kind of action it will have to take to support its friends. This is what happened in Korea. At the beginning there was no Chinese intervention. It was felt by a lot of people that there would be no Chinese intervention, but the Chinese government said that under certain circumstances they would intervene and they did intervene. We missed world war III by a hair's breadth. Let us hope that does not happen in Viet Nam.


Howard Charles Green: I should point out that there are no United States combat troops in South Viet Nam.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think there are United States combat troops there for training purposes. There are 4,500 according to the announcement from Washington, and they are there to help train the Viet Nam forces to meet the forces from the north.


Erhart Regier: I believe that the vast majority of the Canadian people will always be grateful that our Secretary of State for External Affairs likes to regard himself as an optimist. I would hate to think of the attitude of the
Supply-External Affairs Canadian government towards the world scene if our Secretary of State for External Affairs were anything else but an optimist.
There has been a bit of discussion of the role and duties of the commission in that part of the world. I had never expected that the role of the commission would be to ensure that that part of the world would some day be in either the communist or the western camp. I had always imagined that the role of this commission was primarily to maintain peace and to prevent an outbreak of war, to limit any violence or to attempt to use its influence to keep violence to the lowest possible level.
Then, my basic reason for rising was that I did want to make it perfectly clear that it is our contention that the basic cause of unrest is that the people in the area of the world now know that the conditions of life which they have experienced in the past can be improved upon. There has to be a change in the social and economic lives of the people in that area. I agree with the minister when he contends that the communists are the immediate cause of the disturbances. They will always exploit to the utmost, on behalf of their ideology, any social or economic complaints of the people anywhere in the world. Our only plea was that our reply to the challenge of the communists, especially the reply of the United States, ought to be directed towards removing the economic and social complaints of the people in order to take away from the communists their most valuable source of ammunition.
Before I sit down, however, I should like to ask the minister a specific question. Has any report ever been issued to the government as to why a Canadian official was murdered in that area? The minister referred to this only a few minutes ago. I should like also to ask him another question. Have any Canadians, either from the Department of External Affairs or the Department of National Defence, been sent home for reasons other than the normal reasons of leave, furlough, et cetera? If so, for what reason were they sent to Canada?


Howard Charles Green: I was referring to the murder of a South Vietnamese colonel, not a Canadian. I believe there was a Canadian murdered some years before I took over the portfolio.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was one of our
own.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, there was a Canadian murdered that time. I have no report on that particular incident. From time to time, Canadians are brought home, but I think it would be of no benefit for me to go into that any further.

Supply-External Affairs


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister if he can enlighten us as to whether the small Christian colony in or near Hanoi, where Canadians used to foregather quite frequently, has been permitted to continue, or have the personnel left?


Howard Charles Green: I have no knowledge of that, but I shall be glad to get the information and send it to the hon. member.


Erhart Regier: The minister seemed to be hesitant in replying to the latter part of my question. To the best of his knowledge, have any Canadians been sent home, other than in normal circumstances, and have they been found guilty of violating the laws of our country?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Erhart Regier: I wonder whether or not the minister would care to tell us about that? I believe that Canadians realize we are not without sin and that we sometimes err. I feel that the committee is entitled to know what has happened.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the situation is this: While it would be very nice from a curiosity point of view to make statements on facts like this, unfortunately the matter very seriously affects those Canadians still serving in Indo-China and for that reason I do not think it is in the public interest that I should go any further.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
626.	Gift to commemorate sesquicentennial anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Mexico-further amount required, $2,500.
Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a gift to commemorate the sesquicentennial anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Mexico, a country with whom Canada has traditionally cordial relations. Mexico is a member of the organization of American states. It may be that many citizens in that great and friendly country would regard, as one of the most effective ways for Canada to observe the sesquicentennial anniversary of the independence of the republic of Mexico, a clarification of the government's intentions with regard to joining the organization of American states.
I do not say that everyone in Mexico would accept that as the proper way for Canada to pay tribute to Mexico, but I suspect that the encouragement given by the minister himself on his peregrinations to Mexico as well as to other Latin American countries, and by the Prime Minister, has whetted the appetite of many people as to Canada's intentions.

It will 'be recalled that the minister himself took the initiative in saying that the government was giving careful attention to membership in the organization of American states; and indeed the Prime Minister, on the occasion of his official visit to Mexico, by the emphasis he gave to the matter at any rate seemed to have gone a step further. Then I recall the minister's statement in Vancouver which encouraged protagonists of the organization of American states to regard the minister as the real precursor of Canada's interest in association in that organization. However, I was surprised the other day to see in the paper that government policy in this regard was being expressed not by the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister but by the speaker in the other place.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, may I ask what a British Columbia totem pole, being sent to Mexico as a gift to commemorate its 150th anniversary, has to do with Canada joining the organization of American states?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I said, and I thought rather ingeniously-


Howard Charles Green: Certainly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -I thought my ingenuity had won the sympathy of the minister-


Howard Charles Green: You stick to the totem pole.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -was that one way of expressing our appreciation to this friendly country would be to give an indication of what our present views are with regard to the organization of American states. The speaker in the other place said that financial reasons stood ini our way of joining the organization of American states, but that has never been the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


The Chairman:: Order. I think perhaps I should rule on the point raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Chair is certainly inclined to take the view that the hon. member, in discussing the OAS, is out of order on this particular matter, and I would ask him to relate his remarks to the gift in question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to press something that the Chair regards as being out of order. I had thought the character of our discussion was such that the minister would have agreed that I had got under the umbrella with some procedural justification. However, since all we are going to present to Mexico is a totem pole I can only conclude that the government has not made up its mind as to whether we should join the organization of American states although, if

I would not incur your wrath, I would go on to point out it is perhaps because the government has not been able to ascertain the state of public opinion in the matter.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am inclined to be wrathful just now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister what is happening to this totem pole? I take it that is what the $2,500 is for. Where will it be erected in Mexico?


Howard Charles Green: I understand the totem pole is at sea at the moment. This vote for $2,500 is to cover the transportation costs and presumably the erection costs. It is to be put up in Mexico City.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assume of course that this totem pole is made of wood and the minister, being the kind of man he is, the wood has come from British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: There isn't the slightest doubt of that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a former superintendent general of Indian Affairs may I ask could the minister assure us that this is an authentic totem pole and was secured from the Indians; and because the Indian band that was responsible for it might take some pride in it, could be tell us which Indian band it was?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is an excellent example of Indian art.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister the high man on this totem pole?


Howard Charles Green: No, but I will tell you the Leader of the Opposition is the low man, the same place as he is going to be on some other poll.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister realize he is well below us on the Gallup poll?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
627.	Gift to commemorate the inauguration of 'Plaza Canada' in Buenos Aires, Argentina, $1,100.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Since we are marking our friendly relations with these Latin American countries in a material way I am sure we will all support this gift to our close friend, Argentina; but it would be interesting to have an explanation from the minister as to the circumstances of this gift. The gift will be placed in the Plaza Canada in Buenos Aires. It would be interesting to know what it is, a plaque or a totem pole.
If it is a totem pole then it certainly is not as impressive as the one we are giving to Mexico because it is only going to cost $1,100. Maybe that is the kind of pole the minister will admit he is really on. I think we should
Supply-External Affairs have some explanation and I am sure there are many reasons why we would want to recognize our friends, the Argentinians. It would be interesting to know whether this is by way of reciprocal act for the gift Argentina has given to us. Does this arise out of the gift of the president of that country during the last few months?


Howard Charles Green: I am very happy to explain this vote. In Argentina there is an Argentina-Canada cultural institute, the membership being made up of citizens of Argentina who are interested in Canada, as well as Canadians who happen to be living there. They proposed to the city council of Buenos Aires that a square in the city should be named Plaza Canada. That was done and on July 27 last year this square was formally inaugurated with great ceremony and publicity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was the Associate Minister of National Defence there?


Howard Charles Green: I beg your pardon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that the occasion when the Associate Minister of National Defence was in Latin America?


Howard Charles Green: No, he stopped a revolution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, he stopped a revolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was that in Argentina?


Howard Charles Green: They have two schools in Buenos Aires which are named Canada schools. One is affiliated with a school in Toronto and the other with a school in my riding in Vancouver. When the President of Argentina was here last December he went to Toronto and visited the school there, and renamed it the Argentina school. All of these activities are part of the wonderful work being done by this Argentina-Canada cultural institute. In view of the fact that they had undertaken this we felt we should give some recognition to that action and we are supplying a painting, which is to cost $700-it was obtained through the national gallery-and in addition we are procuring and shipping maple trees to be planted in this Plaza Canada. I think this is an excellent example of promoting good will between our two countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Plaza Canada is in the square, I take it, in Buenos Aires, but where do you put a painting in a square?


Howard Charles Green: I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would be so obtuse. The painting is to go to the city hall. It was the city council that named the square.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A few weeks ago, I think it was, there was a story in connection with this

Supply-External Affairs ceremony to the effect that the Argentine government, in this much appreciated gesture of establishing this Plaza Canada as a further symbol of the friendship between our two countries, decided according to the report to set up in the plaza a statue of the liberator of Canada and asked the government of Canada who was the liberator of Canada. Can the minister give the committee any information as to that exchange?


Howard Charles Green: I think the Leader of the Opposition must have read that in some Liberal campaign literature. I never heard it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It could still be authentic, of course.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Other payments to international organizations and
programs-
628.	Assessments for membership in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied-further amount required in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1962, $2,400.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this is a rather important item. Perhaps the minister will tell us whether any progress has been made in the payment of obligations by member states, particularly in the United Nations. The number of countries which have failed to meet their obligations is rather discouraging. While we are aware of the steps that have been taken to elicit from the International Court of Justice an advisory opinion as to the obligations of member states with regard to the maintenance of peace keeping operations, that is not necessarily going to correct the situation because there is no way of enforcing a decision of the court.
Since this question was asked of the minister in the house about two or three weeks ago I note that the Soviet union, for instance, said that it was going to pay its obligations to the United Nations. Were those with regard to its normal assessment, or were they because of the operations in the Congo?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, that question has nothing to do with this item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It deals with assessments.


Howard Charles Green: There is a later item under which the hon. member could raise that question. This vote is for-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Assessments for members.


Howard Charles Green: -the permanent court of arbitration in the Hague.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This item reads:
Assessments for membership in the international . .. organizations that are detailed in the estimates-
Could the minister give us the details of these international organizations?


Howard Charles Green: The details will be found at page 12. It is for the permanent court of arbitration, 7,717 Dutch florins, $2,400.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under what item did the minister say the discussion which I initiated could take place?


Howard Charles Green: Vote No. 668, loans, investments and advances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. There we could, of course, discuss all the problems of the United Nations, and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
629.	Purchase and transportation to British Honduras of skim milk powder, canned pork and other supplies for the relief of victims of the hurricane disaster and to authorize reimbursement of the agricultural stabilization board in respect of the purchase of such skim milk powder and canned pork, $70,500.
Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see this item of $70,500, part of which has been directed to skim milk powder. We know something of the circumstances of the disaster that affected particularly the city of Belize in British Honduras and we are very pleased that Canada can come to the rescue of these people, so many of whom suffered so grievously.
I am wondering if the minister could explain to us on this vote whether this is the type of thing that we now have handled through the food and agricultural organization on utilization of surpluses for economic and social development.
I was fortunate in being an observer at the second committee which met in New York on Friday morning, December 8 last, when there was a statement made by Mr. B. R. Sen from India, the director-general of that organization. His secretary, whom I had the pleasure of meeting, was Miss Jessica Campbell of Victoria. Mr. Sen, in his statement to that committee, said:
-that the world conscience could no longer tolerate restriction as the solution to the problem of surplus production in some countries when half of mankind remained underfed or poorly fed.
He said further:
-the resolution gave proof of the unanimous desire of all member nations to strengthen their co-operative effort to bring about a world order based on human dignity and progress.
Then he went on to a matter that I think asks for some clarification on this vote. Mr. Sen said this:
As regards the scope of operations-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is five o'clock and it is therefore my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill SD-1, an act for the relief of Madeleine Frangoise Hankowski-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I had hoped to be in a position today to make some statement. Unfortunately some factors have intervened, some of them unforeseen, and I would ask that the 102 divorce bills standing in my name today be stood.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that item Nos. 1 to 102 stand until the next day for private bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-20, to amend the House of Commons Act (election writs for by-elections).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill which is a very short one and which contains only one clause is to amend the House of Commons Act to provide that in the event of a vacancy occurring a writ shall be issued within 60 days of the receipt by the chief electoral officer of the warrant for the issue of a new writ instead of the present provision that it shall be issued within six months.
As Your Honour will recall, earlier this week the Prime Minister asked leave to revert to motions at six o'clock for the purpose of announcing that the writs had been issued for two by-elections to take place in two constituencies, Waterloo South in Ontario and Nicolet-Yamaska in Quebec, both of which have been vacant since long before the present session of parliament began and one of which was, of course, just coming up to the wire of the six-month provision.
It seems to me there is a lack in the law at the present time with respect to the holding of by-elections. I drew attention to the fact the other day, in response to the Prime Minister's announcement, that it was unfortunate and totally unnecessary that these two constituencies were going to be unrepresented for a whole session of parliament. Since parliament did not meet until January there
Private Bills
was no reason why these writs should not have been issued last September and the by-elections held in ample time to give the people of these constituencies an opportunity to be represented at this session of parliament.
The Prime Minister replied in a fashion which of course has become almost habitual with hon. members of the present government whenever it is suggested that they do any of the things they said they were going to do before they were returned to office. The Prime Minister used the phrase, "physician heal thyself". When hon. gentlemen opposite were appealing to the people to turn out the previous government and put themselves in its place they were not appealing for the purpose of doing precisely what the Liberal government was doing, but that is their invariable excuse for every sin of omission or commission of which they are guilty. They seem to feel, now they are in office, that everything that was done by their predecessors was perfect and all they have to do is follow that model and they will be perfect.


Mr. Peters:: That is not true, of course.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is quite right. There are a great many things which were done by the government of which I was a member which were not perfect-a great many things-but unlike hon. gentlemen opposite we are human enough and modest enough to admit that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is true that in 1953 in the session before the general election and again in 1957 in the session before the general election there were two or three constituencies which went unrepresented for the whole of those sessions of parliament.


An hon. Member:: York South was one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, York South was one of them. I do not think the fact that that happened is any credit to the previous administration. It is a matter of history, however. If it was not a credit to the previous administration there are at least two circumstances that differ from the situation that has prevailed under the present government.
Those were the last sessions before a general election and the government of that day had made it very clear that there was going to be a general election. They did not seem to regard it as a cliff-hanging mystery which now seems to be an occupation to fill the idle hours of the Prime Minister. One would have thought that the Prime Minister of a great and important country like this would have more

Private Bills
important considerations to occupy his attention than trying to play tiddly-winks with the press and the public. But we are told by those pressmen who seem to enjoy the Prime Minister's confidence that that is his main preoccupation these days, trying to create mysteries about this matter. I appreciate, sir, that in saying that I am straying somewhat from the bill but I have been straying along paths that seem to be of great interest to many hon. members.
What I am saying is this. In the case of those particular vacancies which occurred in 1953 and in 1957 they were vacancies that occurred just before a general election, the last session before an election. I am not advancing this argument, but it might be argued that there may be some justification when one is really close to a general election for leaving the seats vacant. I do not think so myself but I am sure that argument would have been made at that time and perhaps I might even have made it myself in those circumstances. But looking back on it I do not think it is a proper thing. I do not think it ought to happen.
There was another difference. In the case of those vacancies the opposition of that day did not draw the vacancies, in most cases, to the attention of His Honour the Speaker. That is not very important either because the government had an equal responsibility; but I just note that members of the opposition of that day by and large did not draw attention to those vacancies whereas in the case of Waterloo South notice was given on September 8 last year.
This may not be the last session before a general election. There are some of us, sir, who have very considerable doubts about whether this will be the last session before an election. Under the constitution there is plenty of opportunity to have another session. There is no constitutional need to have an election before July 1, 1963, and if the Prime Minister shows the same capacity to reach conclusions about this subject as he does about many other subjects, there are many of us who would not be surprised if the election was brought about by the efflux of time as it was the last time we had a Tory administration and as it was in 1896 when a dying Tory administration was in office.
As I say, that could happen. This is not the first time there have been constituencies unrepresented in this parliament for an entire session. This government which went to the country on a plea of restoring the rights of parliament seems to ignore completely the very foundation of parliament, and that is the representation of the people. It should not be possible for a prime minister or a cabinet to

deprive the people of representation under the law. I am not accusing the government of doing anything unlawful. I say the law is imperfect and I am seeking to improve it and make it more perfect if I can convince hon. members that my bill should be supported. I say the law should not allow a prime minister or a cabinet, by failing to do something, to deprive taxpayers of representation in this house which taxes them, or to deprive citizens of representation in this house which makes laws governing them in a country which professes to be self-governing. It seems to me this is the very foundation of everything we stand for and support.
We know there are times when it is very inconvenient to everyone including the electors to have an election. I think it would not be feasible or reasonable, and that it might work unnecessary hardship to have a rigid provision that immediately a vacancy occurred the writ must issue the next day or in the shortest possible time. I have therefore not made any such suggestion. What I have suggested is that once notification is given of the vacancy a period of two months might elapse. I realize that this bill by itself will not correct the whole problem. In addition to this legislation, in order to make absolutely sure, that the by-elections will take place, there would also be required an amendment tc another statute in order to set a time limit beyond which the election itself could not be delayed. Even if the writ is issued two months after the notice of vacancy instead of six months afterward, though it might be scandalous it would not be illegal to set a by-election a whole year later.


Mr. McGrath:: As Joe did in Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member's intervention is singularly ill-timed because his leader and his friend in Newfoundland is complaining bitterly because the premier of Newfoundland has set a by-election too soon, not too late, and he has been doing so in the last few days.


James Aloysius McGrath: Surely the hon. member will allow me to correct the record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the conclusion of my speech I would hope that the hon. gentleman would make a speech on this subject himself.


James Aloysius McGrath: I will certainly correct the statement made by the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I also hope that in doing so he will support this bill in order to make sure that there are no delays and that there is no possibility of any constituency being unrepresented for any length of time in this house at any time. Whatever may have been

the record of other governments in the past, I do not think since 1935 there has been any record worse than that of the present government in delaying by-elections. It is true that immediately after 1958 they did not delay them. However, they have done so from the date on which my friend the hon. member for Trinity was elected in a byelection that marked the beginning of the turning of the tide in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hon. gentlemen opposite have a singular reluctance to test their fortunes with the electorate. Perhaps this reluctance is human. Perhaps they should not be blamed, knowing what they know about the currents of opinion. However the facts are there on the record. More than half a dozen constituencies for whole sessions of parliament have been deprived of representation in this house. The matter has now become a scandal. Being a scandal, I suggest it is time the situation was corrected and that this is one important step in making that correction.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for St. John's East rising to make an explanation?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who has just taken his seat made the statement which is on the record about the premier of Newfoundland. He said that our party was complaining because the premier of Newfoundland had called a by-election too soon. That is not a factual statement. What in fact happened was that there has been a vacancy in the Newfoundland legislature for a Labrador constituency. The premier of Newfoundland waited the complete six months statutory period and called the election for March 19 in a constituency in the wilds of Labrador and he gave only three week's notice.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get into this feud between Newfoundlanders or perhaps I should say between a Newfoundlander and a Manitoban. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying that there is possibly a bit of a hazard involved in expressing support for a bill emanating from the area from which this one emanated. It might be misinterpreted as leading to something else.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not suspect it.


Frank Howard: No; and it will not happen. We support the principle of the bill. We feel that it is not compatible with our ideas of democracy to have seats in the House of Commons remain vacant for inordinately or exceptionally long periods of time. A case in
Private Bills
point is the constituency of Waterloo South. By the time the by-election is held, if it is held on the date which has been announced, that seat will have remained vacant for well over a year. We think that this is just not the full degree of decency of treatment which should be afforded to voters in this country. Many of our forefathers went to jail and suffered great hardships in order to obtain the right to vote, the right to representation in parliament and the right to exercise their own ideas through their own elected representatives. With this long history behind us we feel that the desires of people in a country or in a constituency should not be frustrated because we have a government headed by a Prime Minister who has the propensity for great procrastination or for using the calling of by-elections for some obscure political purpose. As was mentioned, taking into account the problems of the country in connection with geography and weather, it is not possible nor do I think it is sensible to set a rigid time for the calling of elections or by-elections. For instance, in the midst of January it would be most awkward and difficult and would indeed cause hardship to the people involved if they were obliged to participate in an election, say, in Yukon, or in the new constituency of the Northwest Territories or in any of the other northern ridings. As the hon. member mentioned, in the Labrador area also this situation works a hardship upon the people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to ask a question?


Frank Howard: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would he not think that this would work as much hardship in March of one year as in March of another year, and that this consideration would have applied to 1958?


Frank Howard: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of getting into this feud between a Newfoundlander and a Manitoban on this question. All I am doing now is supporting the contention which was advanced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate originally and which he is doing his best to talk me out of supporting. I want some flexibility to be contained in the statute that says you must call an election within a certain length of time, in order to allow a certain period of time to meet the exigencies of weather and the like. In short, we support the principle of the bill. We think it is most necessary to ensure that the population in constituencies have representation in parliament at all times during the time parliament is in session. Of course,

Private Bills
we then get into the realm in which members have been accused on a number of occasions, namely that we may even have sitting members in the house but that actually the people in the constituency in question have no representation, even though there is a sitting member. We cannot get into that field, of course, as then we would be going beyond the scope of the bill. We do not wish to do that. However, in general we support the principle of the bill. We hope it will come to a vote. We hope that hon. gentlemen opposite will not spend the balance of the time until six o'clock ensuring that this bill does not come to a vote. It is far too important to be treated so disdainfully, as other private members bills are treated by hon. members opposite.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Vicloria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill. I notice that it has two parts to it. The mover wishes to have byelection writs issued within 60 days and byelections held within 90 days after the issuance of the writ. Before I say any more, the last speaker more or less accused members on this side of the house of being ridiculous and talking about things that are not important. I think he has spent more time in this house talking about unimportant things than any other member and I do not think he should accuse us of wasting time if we want to express our opinions on this bill.


Frank Howard: Attaboy, Gage.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I am one of those who first entered the House of Commons after a by-election quite a while ago, and I take a different attitude from that of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with regard to this matter. I will tell him right away that I will not support his bill if it comes to a vote.
It is not particularly the job of members of parliament to decide to limit the wishes of the people in any constituency. The rights of parliament are different from the rights of the people in a constituency. In some constituencies a by-election may be desired soon and in others the people may not want a by-election to be held quickly. That is just as true for one party as for another. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said a while ago in confessing his past sins, it may depend on who is sitting in the chair of authority. In my opinion the people of the constituency should be given lots of scope.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How can they do anything about it?


Gage Workman Montgomery: Well, I find that people in a constituency get pretty much what they

want if their requests are reasonable. I have sat in the opposition and on the government side, and if the people of a constituency have a member of parliament who is a cussed nuisance they sometimes do not get everything they request because they are misled. If they have a good, sound member of parliament who is reasonable, they usually do.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would not understand that.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I think the people in a constituency are fairly reasonable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit me to ask a question?


Gage Workman Montgomery: I will try to answer if I can.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would he tell me how, under the law as it now stands, the people in the constituency can have a by-election if they want to?


Gage Workman Montgomery: There is nothing to prevent it if they petition the government in the right way and make their wishes known. The trouble with some hon. members is that they feel they represent everybody. They do in one sense; but there are a lot of people in their constituencies who apparently do not pay much attention to what they recommend. For 22 years when the party the hon. member supports was in power you fooled the people many times. It is like the old story that when you cry wolf, wolf too often, help is not given.
I do not want to get away from the bill, though it seems so easy to do in view of the circumstances. Under the present law the time within which a writ must be issued is six months. It can be done sooner if the people of the constituency get after their member of parliament. If he is reasonable and can present a good case I venture to say that even an opposition member could secure a byelection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But he would have to be dead first.


Gage Workman Montgomery: But if you have an opposition member to whom no attention is paid and who makes himself a nuisance to the government he is not going to be able to get a by-election. There are only a few of us who have had experience both in the opposition and as members of the party in power and who can really speak with a good idea of the opinion of the people in the constituencies. Therefore I am quite happy with the way the law is.
There is another point. Under this bill it could be possible to have two by-elections in one year. Any hon. members who have had to

run in one election and then seven or eight months later run again know that it is not a very pleasant experience from a financial standpoint at least. There is also the point that sometimes the people in the constituency do not want an election called when somebody in the opposition might like to have it called because of the weather conditions and so on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the new democracy, is it?


Gage Workman Montgomery: All of these things have something to do with the matter. Like many other things, I think this is a matter that should be subject to a request from the constituency and left to the discretion of the people who must call elections.
I have not had time to investigate to see why a period of six months was established in the present law. There must have been some good reasons, and I think the law as it stands has served very well. Maybe I should not say this but I know of one or two constituencies where the people would be just as well off if they had no representation as they are with the representation they have.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. member thinking of Restigouche-Madawaska?


Gage Workman Montgomery: No, I was not referring to that. New Brunswick is very happy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I mean the former member, of course.


Gage Workman Montgomery: There are many reasons other than political ones. We do not want to limit discussion of this matter, and I am certainly not one of those who would wish to cut down the time. I do not believe the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had this in mind but I can see some people might say that he would want to have somebody elected before the former member had cooled off, before he was buried. You can go to extremes in these things.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You cannot have an election in less than 60 days.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I think you could under this bill. I am quite happy to support the law as it stands at the moment unless far better reasons are advanced than those offered by the mover of the bill. I know that the hon. member has brought the bill forward in good faith. I sat on a committee with him and he is quite adept at changing his mind. He told us he started out as a Conservative and that if he had had a chance to vote early enough in his life he might have been a Conservative. However, he then got into other company and by the time he was 21 he had changed his mind. As time has gone on he
Private Bills
has changed his mind on several occasions and now he is apparently ready to throw his old party overboard on account of all their sins. He has repented but I do not know what he is going to do with some of the fellows he has with him on that wagon who have not repented yet.
I think we can assume that there must be some political reason behind this, although I will give the hon. member credit for his sincerity. He seems to have in mind the fact that this government is not doing right by the people. He has forgotten that under his scheme the people who are really represented in parliament would not have very much to say about whether or not they wanted the time to be longer than the five months. I think six months is all right for the issuance of the writ, and a reasonable time thereafter for the election. I am sorry but I must tell the hon. member that if this bill comes to a vote I will be voting against it.


Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: When
this debate began, I thought the bill was a very simple one. I was going to congratulate the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate upon introducing it because I think the measure is very much needed in our democratic system. I must say that since the last member spoke I have become more and more confused. I think we are getting near reincarnation now because I have not been able to understand how a member of parliament can ask for a by-election in his own constituency, especially when by-elections usually occur after the death of a member. It seems to me we have become involved in a whole area of trouble because of the apparent lack of efficiency of our undertakers in terms of getting our members of parliament buried before this by-election can take place.
Surely, we are dealing with the rights of the people in the constituency. I think one of the speakers had a point when he said that the people in the constituency had rights. It is not the right of a few supporters of the government party, whichever party that might be, to decide upon the date of the election. We have a situation where perhaps 100 or 200 people in a constituency have the right to make the decision for all the people in that constituency. I do not believe this is sound in terms of our parliamentary democratic tradition. Nor do I think it is very sound to assume that the government party, no matter which party that might be, should be able to delay the election over a long period of time, to wait until unemployment decreases or until the economy begins to rise before deciding on the date of the by-election. All of us in this house know to what extent a by-election becomes a means of

Private Bills
judging a political party or an opposition party in terms of its performance in this house or in the country.
Perhaps, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned, this bill is a first step towards remedying the situation. I would expect that, as a second step, perhaps the hon. member would introduce another bill by means of which we would be able to set a time limit on the government's ability to postpone a by-election. Perhaps we would have the opportunity then of having the election within five months after the death of a member. As one who did come into this house on a by-election, I can assure hon. members of the difficulties which exist in a constituency which has no member. I think the by-election was called in fairly short order in the federal riding of Peterborough. However, there was a tremendous backlog of problems. Veterans become very much concerned about pensions when they cannot seem to get through to the right person. Many of the people have problems. I am sure every member in this house finds five or ten letters a day on his desk. When you multiply this by the number of days a constituency is left without a member of parliament, you can well imagine the frustration created for a great many people in a constituency.
I think we can put this discussion on a very high level. I thought I heard the hon. member for Trinity mention, no taxation without representation. Certainly this is one of the great strongholds of our democratic tradition, that is the tradition that all the people must have the right to decide, through their representatives, on the taxes to be imposed on them. I sincerely hope that this bill will come to a vote tonight and all hon. members will have an opportunity to take another step towards making our parliamentary democracy more democratic.


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would be inclined, under normal circumstances, to approve of a measure to speed up the process of filling vacancies in the House of Commons. As I say, I would be inclined to approve of this if I could bring myself to believe in the sincerity of the hon. member's purpose in proposing the measure to this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will have to rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It is not, of course, competent for any hon. member to question the sincerity of any other hon. member. I hope the hon. gentleman will withdraw the implication and will deal with the bill regardless of who sponsors it. It is the bill with which we are dealing, not the sponsor.


Frank Charles McGee: I take it, Mr. Speaker, you wish to rule on this?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must rule on this point. It is not proper to impute motives to an hon. member, and the hon. member should continue to discuss the bill.


Frank Charles McGee: First of all, I did not think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was so sensitive, so touchy, but I will defer to your ruling, sir, and withdraw that to which exception has been taken. Surely I may be permitted to do a little wondering out loud. I am wondering why today the hon. member dons both sackcloth and ashes, beats his breast in humility and proclaims the sins of his administration. Has this been a sudden thing that has come on him as a fit?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I introduced the same bill last year but it never even got second reading.


Frank Charles McGee: The criticism for that delay might be directed to another part of the house, not this particular corner. As the hon. member well recalls it was the actions of certain hon. members in another corner of this house that, for all practical purposes, deprived every hon. member who had a private bill on the order paper from having that bill discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


William Arnold Peters: Where were you last session? He is not talking about this corner, anyway.


Frank Charles McGee: Surely I am permitted to wonder why, when the committee on privileges and elections was reviewing the election act, the hon. member did not mention this problem at that time. I must pay tribute to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate because he was a most vocal and articulate member of that committee. Do we find in the records of the committee this passion and concern for this particular matter? I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, you will look in vain through the records of that committee to find any evidence of an effort by the hon. member in connection with this subject.
The hon. member had some comments to make about the cliff-hanging aspect of the situation when elections are being called. He stopped beating his breast and proclaiming the sins of the past too soon. I seem to recall an incident in the history of this House of Commons in which a prime minister well known to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate dissolved this house over the dinner hour. The hon. member was suggesting that some virtue existed in the Liberal party so far as the calling of elections were concerned. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, he acknowledged the monumental task of cataloguing the sins of this previous administration by desisting-


Mr. Habel:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Charles McGee: I shall answer any question the hon. member might have at the conclusion of my remarks. There is a point to be made here; and again, without questioning the sincerity of the hon. member in any way, I wonder why he did not put a bill together which would clearly do the job which this pretends to be doing. A case can be made that six months is too long a period of time. When the six months period was first established in the elections act, communications in this country were such that clearly all that time was required for word to get out to the more remote areas in most of the constituencies. Now, on the grounds of increased communications over the past two decades, a case can be made for reducing that period from, say, six months to something perhaps in the area of four months.
Had there been any kind of serious intent behind this bill it might have something to say about the difficulties of weather, perhaps designating constituencies affected by it as we designate them for other purposes in the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a purely factual question? Does the hon. gentleman appreciate that this bill does not set the date, or purport to set the date of election? It is only the date on which the writ is issued, and that has nothing to do with what he is talking about.


Frank Charles McGee: These considerations were
raised by the hon. member himself and surely basically we are concerned here with the period of time which will elapse-


John Whitney Pickersgill: From the vacancy to the issuance of the writ. The election date would be involved in another bill.


Frank Charles McGee: But surely the purpose of the bill is to reduce the period of time which will elapse between the vacancy and the byelection date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Between the vacancy and the issuance of the writ.


Frank Charles McGee: I heard the hon. member speaking and he addressed himself almost entirely to the proposition that by-elections should be held sooner than they are now, and this is precisely the point to which I am addressing myself. Before the hon. member interrupted my train of thought I said I would have expected to find some reference in this bill excluding certain constituencies because of communication problems, and the hon. member, with his ability to place words together both in verbal and written form,
Private Bills
should have been able to find some phrase to cover the situation in which a by-election, by some sequence of events, would be held deep in the depths of winter.
There is some difficulty involved where a by-election can be held too soon, and we have in this parliament an hon. member who demonstrates the doubtfulness of the proposition that by-elections should be held almost instantly. I make reference here to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and his unhappy circumstances, although mind you the results were very happy. Hon. members will recall that there was a disputed election in his constituency and a new election was called. I am sure all hon. members felt for the hon. member for Yukon, who went through and conducted three separate election campaigns within the space of one year in some of the most difficult and inaccessible terrain in the whole of Canada.
Hon. members will recall that the original election in 1957 was disputed. Then a new election was called, and then the general election; so that the hon. member was engaged in almost continuous campaign activity throughout the whole of that period. Certainly a case can be made for the holding of by-elections but it must be pretty clear to almost everybody, except the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, that we are not too far away from a general election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What do you know about it?


An hon. Member:: As much as you.


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton made reference to the question of unseemly haste and it seems to me that consideration should be given to a decent interval being allowed to elapse between the death of an hon. member and the beginning of activities to replace him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Say 15 months, in the case of Waterloo South.


Frank Charles McGee: I am attempting to place on the record some relevant, and I hope intelligent factors, which I had hoped to find contained in this bill, and if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who lectures this house almost every day and calls everybody's attention to the rules of the house, would keep quiet, I might be able to continue. Indeed I might say I heard somebody offer the suggestion the other day that if the hon. member would reverse the procedure-open his mind and close his mouth-he might learn something.
As I have stated, there is room for improvement in this area, but I have attempted to point out some of the considerations which should be given a great deal of thought. There

Private Bills
is the question of allowing a decent interval and the question of the difficulties of organization. In discussing such matters as this in the elections act and when they are discussing redistribution of seats, some hon. members seem to forget the very real problem of locating a candidate, and of forming a committee as each party and in fact as each individual candidate must do, arranging and gathering persons around him who will be acting in his support to conduct an election within our current practices. They seem to forget that these things take some time, and the undue haste that the hon. member suggested should not be allowed to disrupt the true purpose and the ideal all of us have in connection with this matter.
In summary I would say that the hon. member has made a case, but on a basis which curiously enough he did not mention, that of communications. He was so busy trying to make political hay on the question that he overlooked the basic proposition which is valid to support his own bill. I am prevented from questioning his sincerity but that omission raises doubts in my mind about the bill. I hold there should be consideration given to geographical areas and weather difficulties and I suggest that the bill in its present form is not worthy of support. However, I think a bill which would be worthy of support could be presented to the house but in all probability, as is normal, it will be left to a Conservative member to clean up the mess, improve the inadequacies of the members of the Liberal party, and present an effective measure to the house.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: May I ask the hon. member a question? He referred to a dissolution during dinner hour. Does he know that in 1958 this house sat for half a day after it had been dissolved by the present Prime Minister?


Frank Charles McGee: This is a very interesting observation. I presume the hon. member was in the house, in full possession of his faculties, when the house was not in session. I wonder what the hon. member was doing there.


Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I often notice that the hon. member for York-Scarborough is more an expert on capital punishment than on elections. According to the bill there is no question about a dispute after an election; it is only a question of dealing with the date of issuance of a writ. Therefore the elections act will take care of what happens after an election has taken place, and if we want to bring in an amendment to the elections act we will do so.
In answering the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, who said he makes a difference between the rights of parliament and the

rights of the people, I do not know whether there is much difference between the two. Anyway, he said that the people might not want an early by-election. He says this, of course, because since they have been in power they have lost most of the by-elections.
I would remind the house that as far as the constituency of Labelle is concerned, on January 19, 1960 the then secretary of state was nominated to the Senate-as we see at page 77 of Hansard-and then only two and a half months after, not from the government but from the Liberal side, the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) gave notice to the Speaker that there was a vacancy as far as the constituency of Labelle was concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How did that vacancy occur?


Azellus Denis: Because he had been nominated an honourable senator-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member from his seat is posing questions which do not seem to be relevant to the bill.


Azellus Denis: We might forget about it because the honourable senator is not there any more. But two and a half months after, notice was given by the Liberal member for Gatineau. It is amazing that the Conservative party was not in such a hurry to declare vacant the seat in the constituency of Labelle. The by-election took place on October 31, 1960, which was nine and a half months after the seat for the constituency of Labelle had been declared vacant.
It is obvious that delays which are allowed as far as by-elections are concerned are far from being fair to the party in power or the party in opposition, and especially are they not fair to the people of the constituency in which the vacancy has occurred. I am sure that if the bill of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is passed-and I do not want to delay it because I want to leave enough time for a vote-it will be much fairer and justice will be rendered to those constituencies in which a vacancy exists.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the phenomenon of elections is on the Canadian horizon as a huge cloud which will one day burst over the heads of the electorate. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is not unaware of that atmospheric phenomenon. Indeed, he shows great interest in it, since he has introduced this bill on by-elections.
I have listened most attentively to the hon. member's remarks and, although I do not

want to be unkind to him, I must say that during all the time I have been sitting in the house, never have I heard a member defend so badly a bill he has himself introduced and support it with such insubstantial arguments.
Must we conclude that the hon. member is more interested in by-elections than in general elections? Would he be considering retirement in the near future? We are wondering whether he has decided to leave the hustings in order to devote himself to the writing of numerous literary works for the benefit of future generations.
In any case, let us say that we will have a close look at the present elections act and what it would gain through the bill introduced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate.
According to the act now in force, a vacancy may occur when one of three things happens: the resignation of a member; the death of a member; or the appointment of a member to another post.
When a member resigns, the Speaker notifies the chief electoral officer, who must issue a writ within six months. Then, it is up to the government to set the date for the byelection.
When a member dies or is appointed to some other function, another member notifies the Speaker, after which the same procedure applies.
If I understand correctly, the purpose of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate it is to reduce the period I mentioned a moment ago from six months to sixty days and to compel the government to order an election within 90 days after the issuance of an election writ.
We listened carefully to the mover of this bill and he asked that we vote for this legislation.
He spoke as fast as he could and wandered off, as he often does, into political issues, and he is a past master at that sort of thing.
He spent most of his time anticipating the legitimate and justified criticism we could voice in reminding him that when his party was in power they could have taken the steps he considers of such importance today.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask for the unanimous consent of the house to raise a question of privilege which will take ten seconds. I used the wrong expression earlier when I said "tiddley-winks"; I meant "button, button; who's got the button?"
Supply-External Affairs Mr. Speaker: Order. The hour for consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Other payments to international organizations and programs-
629. Purchase and transportation to British Honduras of skim milk powder, canned pork and other supplies for the relief of victims of the hurricane disaster and to authorize reimbursement of the agricultural stabilization board in respect of the purchase of such skim milk powder and canned pork, $70,500.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, just before the adjournment I was referring to a statement made by B. R. Sen of India, the director-general of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations which reveals something of the scope of operations proposed by the world food bank. He suggested it should be used to finance emergency relief and international food reserves as well as national food reserves, the relief of chronic malnutrition, to provide infant pre-school and school feeding, to provide educational fellowships and assist other social development activities and other economic development projects.
Mr. Sen indicated that in the discussions that took place at the food and agriculture organization conference a difference of view was expressed. Some members felt that this fund was only for emergency relief perhaps with the addition of relieving chronic malnutrition, but the other view taken was that its use went far beyond this and embraced the welfare of people in need.
I think it would be of interest if the minister were to place on the record the Canadian view with respect to the purpose of this important body. The world food bank has been endorsed in strong terms by nearly all agricultural organizations. The national farmers union in its brief dated January 31, 1962 spoke of its enthusiasm for the world food program to be developed within the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations.
The dairy farmers of Canada consider that many of their problems will perhaps be resolved by the development of this program.

Supply-External Affairs


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this vote is not one under which the world food bank should be discussed. I will be perfectly happy to discuss it at the proper time. This is a vote providing $70,500 for the provision of certain goods to British Honduras and the discussion should be limited to that.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think the point raised by the minister is well taken. The discussion should be limited to this particular item. I trust I will not have to remind hon. members of that on future occasions.


John Ross Matheson: I trust I will not be prevented from dealing in my remarks with skimmed milk powder which presents a problem to dairy farmers at this time. There is a holdover of over 50 million pounds and the export situation has been seriously declining this past year. Production of this product this year has been 23.5 per cent over that of the previous year. This is one of the most important elements of Canadian dairy production-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I am not discussing what the hon. member has just said and the only point upon which I wish to rule is the relevancy of his remarks at this particular time. I am inclined to take the view expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that it would not be in order to discuss the matters upon which the hon. member is embarking at this time.


Mr. Maiheson:: Mr. Chairman, with respect, as I read it this item of $70,500 covers the purchase and transportation to British Honduras of skimmed milk powder, canned pork and other supplies for relief of victims of the hurricane disaster. Surely we are not limited to a discussion of the hurricane disaster.
Can we know the quantity of skimmed milk powder that was supplied by Canada and at what prices? I am pleased with this item which may indicate a future solution to our problems of surplus agricultural products. I hope I have not gone beyond the limitations of the item in these remarks.


Howard Charles Green: The following was provided under this item:
350,000 lbs. of skim milk powder at
7 cts. a lb	 $25,000
85,000 lbs. of canned pork at 17 cts. a lb	 17,000
Shipment of pickled mackerel, corrugated roofing and transportation charges on skim milk powder, canned pork, pickled mackerel and roofing 18,000 Reimbursement to R.C.A.F. for aircraft, etc	 10,500


Neil Alexander Matheson: May I ask the minister this question. If similar disaster should occur in 

the future in places like British Honduras is it anticipated that relief will be provided through the food and agriculture organization?


Howard Charles Green: That would depend on the position of the world food bank at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans, investments and advances-
668. To authorize the purchase in the current and subsequent fiscal years of United Nations bonds in an amount of $6,240,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars estimated as of January, 1962, which is, $6,493,500.
Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister indicates, Mr. Chairman, that he does not intend to make a statement with respect to this item. This is a matter of great importance.
Canada, of course, is doing its duty in providing $6,493,500 in respect of the purchase of its quota of bonds that have been offered for sale to meet the present financial difficulty into which the United Nations has been plunged. The comments that have been made in many quarters suggest that the necessity of extending this form of financing to the United Nations is regarded as an indication of the ineffectiveness of that body.
I rise at once to say that regardless of its inadequacies this is not the time to belittle the work, the purpose and the potential role of the United Nations. We strongly support the government in the affirmation of this principle. There are on both sides of the iron curtain people and countries that have engaged in a depreciation of the effectiveness of the United Nations. However, I would strongly support the observations made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and indeed by the Leader of the Opposition in speeches that both have made outside of this house to the effect that all we have to do is to glance at the world, its problems and its turbulence in order to realize how much worse the situation would be if it were not for the United Nations. The time that we would lose, the experience that would disappear, in the process of building up a world community if the United Nations were to disappear, I am sure will cause most people to regard these attacks on and depreciations of the United Nations as idle indeed.
The fact is that the United Nations has presented its members with this financial situation for a number of reasons. Not the least of these reasons is that this deficit situation arises out of the fact that the United Nations itself was engaged in the accomplishment of one of the purposes for which it was created, namely to deal with situations that threaten the peace or actually violate the peace. It also arises out of the fact that all

countries have not lived up to their obligations as their membership in the United Nations commands. I understand that 82 members or 87 members-I am not sure of the figure; there seems to be some dispute about it-of the United Nations are in default. This is, of course, a serious consideration. When one thinks of the millions of dollars being spent in armaments today and when one realizes the relative low cost of the operations of the United Nations, this deficit and the need for providing for it should not occasion the criticism or depreciation that has been made of the United Nations.
Canada's foreign policy is based upon a number of factors, one of which is the United Nations. I take it that in this house we are all united on that one point, at any rate, and that we are determined to see to it that this collective security organization is maintained, is strengthened and is not allowed to lapse into a position in which its usefulness is no longer apparent.
The charter of the United Nations, in article 19, deals with the case of members who are in default. It provides that there may be a period as long as two years in which defaulting members may have an obligation of paying their dues. Then under article 19 likewise provision is made for countries which, in certain circumstances, cannot pay their dues. A country may have suffered some particular catastrophe such as a severe earthquake, may have undergone an economic crisis or may have a government which is so unstable that elections are not possible. Circumstances of that kind may be extenuating circumstances explaining why a nation has not met its obligations. While these are descriptions of possible situations, the fact is that many nations are not living up to their obligation to bear their portion of the cost not only of peace keeping operations but of the general work of the organization itself. What are we to do? Are we to take punitive action against those nations which do not even meet the requirements of article 19? I think that course would be unwise. In any event, before punitive action could be taken, I think there would have to be an amendment to the charter. As that course in turn requires action by the security council in which the veto operates, we cannot look for any solution through that particular form of procedure. However, even if we could take it, I would think that course would be unwise.
In examining the list of countries which are in default we note that there are a number of them which do not offer the kind of excuse which is permissible under article 19. Among those countries are two at least
Supply-External Affairs of the great powers. Just by way of digression may I say this. I believe that the amount of contribution that Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom is going to take up of this $200 million bond issue does not represent fully the percentage requirement which the United Kingdom would be expected to take up. Her contribution would be 7.58 per cent which would mean the purchase of $15 million worth of bonds, whereas actually the government of that country has decided to take up bonds to a maximum value of $12 million. I am assuming that the figure represented by the intended purchase by Canada of United Nations bonds represents our complement or our obligation as a member of the United Nations and that we have taken up the full amount. The minister will correct me if I am wrong in this regard. I certainly think that we should take up the full amount. However, I think that we have done so.
As I observed a moment ago, the fact is that some of the greater powers have not met their obligations. Notable among these is, of course, the Soviet union. The Soviet union has refused not only in this instance but in many others since 1946 to assume obligations not only with regard to peace keeping operations that were contrary to what she regarded to be her foreign policy interests but has also refused to take up certain other obligations. Moreover, her payments have not always been payments that were made on time. Other countries-and France is among these-have refused to bear their share toward certain peace keeping operations. It seems to me that this situation is regrettable. However, these remarks are not intended to be exclusively applicable to France. While they apply to her, they apply as well to other countries. There certainly ought to be a distinction made between an obligation to pay one's financial obligation to the organization and willingness to accept certain consequences of the decisions of the United Nations. There should be no equation between the decisions of the United Nations in matters of policy and the payment to the United Nations by any member state affected by that policy.
Fortunately, Canada has in this regard an unblemished record and we may well pride ourselves on that fact because, whatever we may think of the United Nations, whatever may be the weaknesses in the voting procedures of the general assembly, whatever we may think about some of the abuses that may have developed, the fact is that the United Nations is the instrument of the world that speaks for the conscience of mankind and which has been a stabilizing factor. The fact
1622	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs that the question of disarmament in a sense is now being discussed outside of the United Nations, the fact that such questions as Germany are being resolved or attempted to be resolved outside the precincts of the United Nations, must not be regarded in any way as an indication of the failure of the organization to accomplish its purposes.
Nor are we going to gain much by suggesting that because we now recognize the principle of universality of the United Nations the interests of some of the great powers are being seriously affected as a result. It should not be forgotten that between 1946 and 1955, when the United Nations was half what it now is in size and membership, we in the west were able to find concurrence for many of our policies and many of our international objectives. Now that new members have been added to the United Nations, now that as a result the balance of power in the United Nations has changed, and on some occasions materially changed, that should not cause us, disturbed possibly by some of the consequences, to embark on the kind of campaign of depreciation that has been launched, notably by the Soviet union.
This was begun, of course, a year ago last September when, because the Soviet union recognized that its particular objectives were not being realized in the United Nations, the Soviet union sought to change the character of the organization. It sought to give expression to this determination by urging a reform in the office of the secretary general itself. It did so by proposing the principle of the troika instead of the secretary general operating as he does now under article 99 of the charter as one who speaks, not for any one nation but for the interests of all of the nations, which they regarded as something not in their interests.
Canada resisted their proposal, and the Leader of the Opposition in speeches he made in this house and elsewhere supported the government in the expression of support they had given through the Secretary of State for External Affairs and others in joining the majority view that that kind of procedure would result in the emasculation of the United Nations itself. This problem has been temporarily met and it has been met by catastrophe. The death of the secretary general created a hiatus of which the Soviet union took advantage to seek again to urge a majority of the United Nations to accept its recommendation for a division of the office of secretary general to take into account the three important divisions of world opinion-the western world, the communist world and the uncommitted world. Undoubtedly we shall have to face this situation in 1963 when the


office of secretary general will become vacant and when an opportunity will be provided to elect a permanent secretary general.
In talking about a permanent secretary general, I have never mentioned this before but I should like to take this occasion to note this fact for purposes of the record.
I think it should be noted that there is a long history attached to the office of secretary general that is not unrelated to one of the members of this house. I hope he will not be embarrassed by what I am going to say tonight. In 1946 I was one of the delegates from this country at the United Nations first general assembly that was held in Church house in London. I was privileged to go there with the then minister of justice, Mr. St. Laurent, later to become Prime Minister of Canada.
At that time, following meetings of the preparatory commission which had met in London during the fall of 1945, a number of names were being discussed for the office of secretary general and among those names were the following: General Eisenhower as he then was, later to become president of the United States, Monsieur Henri Spaak, then foreign minister of Belgium, the present Leader of the Opposition who was then under secretary of state for external affairs, and Mr. Trygve Lie. I do not think I do any injustice to Mr. Lie when I say that at first his name was not a prominently mentioned as other names.
General Eisenhower indicated that, if offered the position, he did not propose to accept it, and Monsieur Spaak, for reasons best known to himself, indicated early in the proceedings that he would not be a candidate. But I can attest because I was there that the name that was most prominently bandied about from one delegation to another was that of the Leader of the Opposition. That was in 1946. As we all know, Mr. Trygve Lie, who was at that time foreign minister for Norway, became secretary general. Mr. Vishinsky, then foreign minister of the Soviet union and the head of the Soviet union delegation, indicated in a press interview the reasons why Mr. Trygve Lie had been selected, and among those reasons was the fact that he came not from a commonwealth country but from one of those areas of the world where it could be said a greater measure of apparent neutrality in foreign affairs prevailed.
Mr. Trygve Lie served with distinction as secretary general of the United Nations. He resigned and when he was not asked to carry on it became necessary to elect someone in his stead as permanent secretary general of the United Nations. At that time the present Leader of the Opposition was

president of the United Nations general assembly. I was with him at that time as head of the Canadian delegation and again I can attest to the fact that it was almost the unanimous wish of every nation in the United Nations at that time that Mr. Lie's successor should be the present Leader of the Opposition.
The security council met one day. Ten of the eleven members indicated their preference for the present Leader of the Opposition. The Soviet union indicated that the Leader of the Opposition's name would not be acceptable. I want to say now, as one who went through those days and who perhaps more than anyone else knows what happened, that the reasons which motivated the Soviet union in rejecting the present Leader of the Opposition as secretary general were reasons that were associated with the view that as one of the architects of NATO he would not be acceptable to them.
The communists did not want him. That was the real reason. I think all Canadians in this country who do not know the details of this episode should be so informed. I do not want to embarrass the Leader of the Opposition in recounting these details. However, he was the choice of most of the nations because he incorporated, in everything that he had done, something that I think is symbolic of the convictions and the feelings of the Canadian people, that is the belief that in this interdependent world, in this period of turbulence, if we are going to have peace in the long run it will only be by establishing on the international plane those processes of law, adjudication and conciliation that have proven so successful on the domestic plane. I think that every Canadian will be proud of the fact that one of our own was the overwhelming choice of most nations who would have preferred him. This is in no way to be construed as an expression of depreciation of the great services of Mr. Ham-marskjold.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs may be assured that we support strongly the efforts of this government to make the United Nations a vital force in this world of ours. We support the present vote to enable Canada, its government, to purchase bonds, a rather unique device conceived I believe by the United States, to enable the United Nations to meet its present financial difficulties. All this does not mean that we regard everything as satisfactory in the United Nations. I think we can say this because Canada had a lot to do with extending the membership of the United Nations. We recognize that in sup-26207-1-103
Supply-External Affairs porting the principle of universality and giving it effect, problems have been created for all nations.
But this is the essence of the United Nations. We can only hope that wise statesmanship, patience in diplomacy, will enable us to see developed in the general assembly of the United Nations, those attitudes, postures and procedures that are calculated to make it more effective than seems to be the case at the moment.
While it is not easy, we ought to try to develop a tradition in the general assembly to resolve some major issues at least by other means than merely voting. Some of these great issues of international consequence cannot be resolved by vote. The procedural questions are of a different order, such as whether there should be 10 or 14 members on the disarmament committee. That is another matter. However, the great issues that divide the world, the great issues involved in policy are such that I would hope the reputation Canada has built up over the years would enable us to make a contribution in the assembly by indicating to the newer members, towards whom we have much in common and towards whom we have great sympathy, that the way to resolve many of these issues is not always by the mere act of voting.
On the other hand, we want it to be clearly understood that if there have been abuses, the abuses do not lie on one side alone. When we think of the attitude of some of the great powers between 1946 and 1955 particularly, even up to the present time, we see that the abuses were by no means the monopoly of the newer members of the United Nations. We recognize, too, that there have to be changes made, changes in the security council to take into account the number of newer members; changes in some other organs of the United Nations to likewise take into account the increases in United Nations membership. These are things, however, that we can only deal with in the light of circumstances at the time. I believe that the words of Mr. Nehru, delivered in the 15th general assembly, are perhaps applicable here. He said:
It would not be desirable for the executive to be weakened when rapid decisions have to be made; that would mean abdication of responsibility undertaken by the United Nations. If the executive itself is split up and pulled in different directions, it will not be able to function adequately and with speed. There is always a particular time when decisions have to be made and this applies equally to the United Nations.
The minister may be assured that we in this party believe that Canada is taking the right course in having decided to purchase these bonds. The necessity for the creation of this issue of $200 million does not represent

Supply-External Affairs the bankruptcy of the United Nations, although in actual financial terms that may be the case. It represents rather the dangerous situation in so many theatres of our world in which the nations of the world have been projected. It is because the United Nations has a role to play that it finds itself at this time in the embarrassing position of having to devise a method for obtaining financial assistance beyond the normal procedures provided in the regulations under which the United Nations operate. When we think of the moneys that are being spent all over the world on armaments, how anyone could criticize the United Nations because it has resorted to this particular form of financing is difficult to understand.
I have taken the liberty tonight of saying these things with which we all agree because I think it is appropriate that in this parliament those of us who believe in the rule of law amongst the nations should fearlessly affirm our faith in the purposes of the charter, recognizing at all times its weaknesses, but firm in the conviction that it is the only instrument in the long run by which we can hope to make any progress in laying a solid foundation for peace amongst the nations of the world.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words on this item when it is being considered. Last fall I had the privilege of being one of the Canadian delegates to the 16th assembly of the United Nations and, at the assembly represented Canada on the second committee. No one, I think, has any doubt that the United Nations is now facing a serious crisis. This is brought about by two particular matters: First, the financial problems with which we are being faced tonight because of the delinquency of some members of the United Nations. This has resulted in the United Nations going to the governments of member nations and asking to borrow funds with which to carry on the work of the United Nations. The second problem results from the material change in the balance of voting power which is unpalatable now to some of the great nations who contribute largely to the finances of the United Nations. There is a potential danger of the day arriving when a majority of the members of the United Nations may vote money matters to which the majority contributors are not prepared to contribute. When that time comes, although I hope it will not, there will be a very serious crisis in the United Nations.
A change in the voting procedure on money matters is one of the changes which I believe must be effected in order to keep the United Nations operating. Even municipalities in this and other countries recognize there is a difference between voting on matters of principle

and voting money supplies, and even the municipalities have separate rules for the type of voting procedure as between two different matters in principle. I believe the United Nations will have to grapple with this very difficult subject in order to avert the day of crisis.
To deal specifically with the item under consideration, it is my belief no one will deny that the small sum which we are being asked to vote tonight for the purchase of bonds is very insignificant in the light of armament and other tremendous expenditures made to maintain peace in the world. I would go further and say we in this parliament should be prepared to leave the way open for further contributions should the United Nations not reach its objective after all the countries have been canvassed and their contributions received.
Canada has always taken its fair share in the work of the United Nations. It has been a respected member and has contributed to every worth-while project that the United Nations has sponsored. Therefore I heartily approve the expenditure of this sum of money for purchasing the bonds and I express the hope that if further funds are required Canada will not be found wanting.
In conclusion I want to express my appreciation of the very great work our Secretary of State for External Affairs has done to maintain and increase the great stature which Canada has gained among the nations of the world.


Howard Charles Green: Before the vote carries I should like to make one or two points. Reference has been made to bonds being purchased only by the members of the United Nations. That is an erroneous idea. For example, it is hoped that West Germany would buy quite a substantial amount of bonds as well as various specialized agencies of the United Nations itself. The bond issue is not restricted in any way to those countries which are members of the United Nations.
To date the subscriptions come to $136,810,000, including $100 million which it is anticipated will be paid by the United States. The United Kingdom is the second largest subscriber with a sum of $12 million, and next comes Canada with $6,240,000, Sweden $5,800,000, Australia $4 million, Denmark $2.5 million, India $2 million, Norway $1,800,000, Malaya $340,000, Ireland $300,000, Pakistan $250,000 and Burma $100,000.
Canada was the first country to subscribe to this bond issue and we co-sponsored the resolution which provided for the undertaking of the bond issue. We are very hopeful that the total issue will be subscribed.
Another important factor is that there has been the reference to the international court

of justice in the hope that that court will decide that payments for such operations as the Congo operation should be considered as regular assessments. If that is done I believe there is a very good prospect that most members of the United Nations would pay their regular assessments, which would mean they would be paying their share for the refunding of this bond issue. As I told the hon. member for Essex East some days ago, Canada has placed a submission before the international court of justice and we are very hopeful that the decision which is finally made will be to the effect I have mentioned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This vote for $6,493,500, which we on this side of the house certainly support, is made necessary, as the minister and the hon. member for Essex East pointed out, by the additional expenditures incurred by the United Nations and by the refusal of certain members of the United Nations to discharge their financial obligations in respect of those expenditures as well as in respect of normal expenditures. These additional expenditures have to do with such special and vital activities of the United Nations as the operations in the Congo.
I have not the figures at my command. Perhaps the minister has, but I know that the expenditures on these special operations like the Congo will soon run into amounts which will be comparable to, if not in excess of, the ordinary expenditures of the United Nations. This of course involves a new problem of finance, a problem which if it is not solved will create grave problems and dangers for the future effective existence of the United Nations.
There are member states who are in default of their ordinary obligations and the charter, at least in theory, has a way of dealing with that, but there is no provision in the charter, as I understand it, for dealing with special expenses for special activities. If they do not do so now, these will soon involve sums in excess even of normal expenditures. It is one thing to be in default of normal expenditures. We have some way of dealing with that in the charter, and I shall return to that in a moment.
But there is no way of dealing with these special expenditures in the sense that any particular obligation can be imposed on any particular state to pay its share. We are now getting into a position at the United Nations where if a member of the United Nations does not accept a particular operation-if it votes against a particular activity of the United Nations-it then claims it has no obligation to bear its share of the expenditures of that activity.
The best example of that, I suppose, is the Congo, where the Soviet union and the other 26207-1-103J
Supply-External Affairs communist states have washed their hands of all responsibility financial or otherwise for an activity of which they do not approve, at least in the form in which it is being carried on, although they voted for it in the first instance.
The Soviet union and the communist members are the most striking examples of this default, but there are other countries too. There are countries of the west which have taken the same attitude; they do not support the decision of the United Nations in respect of a particular matter and they will not pay their share of it. What do we do? We are now floating a bond issue in order to take care of these emergency expenses. The United States, which is always under criticism by these countries which do not take their share of these international responsibilities, is of course going to be asked to bear the great share of the burden. One hundred million dollars out of $136 million is to be taken up by the United States. If the United States does not do this, what will happen to the United Nations? There is only $36 million to be taken up by the other members, and with regard to that amount I think only eight, nine or 10 members have indicated that they will do anything at all. I think that is what the minister said a moment ago.
This is the problem, and I am glad this problem of the obligation of members of the United Nations in respect of the financing of these particular activities has been submitted to the world court. I hope the world court will come up with the kind of solution the minister has mentioned. That may be a good solution, but it will be one thing to get the verdict of the court and another to get the members of the United Nations to accept that verdict in terms of payment.
As my hon. friend from Essex East tells me, it will only be an advisory opinion in any event; it will only have the weight of an advisory opinion. So this is a very serious problem. It would be the tragedy of all tragedies if the United Nations were allowed, perhaps not to collapse-because it cannot collapse; it cannot be permitted to collapse- but if these activities were diminished because funds could not be found for that purpose, funds which are very small indeed in relation to the expenditures on modern armaments by some of these countries which are refusing to pay anything for this. We on this side of the chamber hope, Mr. Chairman, that this money will be made available in the way suggested.
I should like to ask the minister one or two questions. He has said that the United States is proposing to take up $100 million.
I take it that this matter is now before congress. I do not think it has been approved

Supply-External Affairs by congress yet. What will happen if congress does not approve of it, we do not know, but it will certainly involve a very serious problem for the organization in New York if the United States-and I hope this will not happen-does not find it possible to pay as its share such a high proportion of the total amount that is required.
Mr. Chairman, in this house on January 22 the Prime Minister had this to say in respect of the default of members of the organization on their ordinary contributions and in respect of the application of article 19 to members who are defaulting. This article is a way of dealing with these members. If they are in default after a certain length of time-I think it is two years-and if there are no circumstances which are considered as mitigating by other members of the United Nations, their franchise can be taken away from them.
I am not suggesting that this would be a wise course of action to follow. It has not been followed in the past. If it had been followed in the past we would have been in great confusion and difficulty at the United Nations. There have been cases in the past when nations were four or five years in arrears and then paid up. Therefore I am not suggesting that this should be done at this time. However, the Prime Minister did say at that time:
There should be no free riders in an International organization designed to maintain and preserve peace.
Therefore I should like to ask the minister what steps, if any, the government proposes to take to implement that statement of the Prime Minister that there should be no free riders; and is this a matter which the government proposes to take up at the next assembly of the United Nations in respect of those members who are now more than two years in arrears?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, we believe that if the court's opinion is in the affirmative, then the United Nations will have improved its prospect for insisting upon the payment of assessments for the United Nations emergency force and for the Congo force, and for taking action against the defaulters. But it has not been considered practical to invoke article 19 which, as the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, concerns the suspension of voting rights in the assembly, in the absence of an authoritative opinion on the legal obligation, in view of the actual response of members to the financial assessments levied for the emergency force and for the Congo force.
The court's opinion is to be rendered in time for the 17th session of the assembly,

which will begin about the middle of September. If that decision is favourable, then I think there would be much better ground for taking action against defaulters; but in the meantime there is nothing practical that can be done to deal with the question of the nations which are in default.
Payments are made from time to time, and in some cases nations simply are not able to pay. We do not quarrel with their failure at all. But it is in the case of the nations who can pay and will not pay where the blame is due. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the communist countries will not pay anything either for the United Nations emergency force or for the operations in the Congo, and some other countries-some of our best friends- will not pay anything for the Congo operations. The question of expelling members of the United Nations or depriving them of the vote for failure to pay is a rather complicated one. There is some doubt as to the effectiveness of the working of the organization as a whole if action of that kind was taken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister have readily available the list of states in arrears and the length of time for which they have been in arrears?


Howard Charles Green: I have not got it by states, but as of January 31, 1962, four states-here I am referring to arrears on the regular budget- were in arrears on 1959 contributions amounting to $37,885. Fourteen states were in arrears for 1960, amounting to $3,127,709.80 and seven of those had paid something on account. Forty seven states were in arrears for 1961-this was as of one month after the end of the year.-amounting to $9,066,297.63. Of those 47, there were 18 had paid something on account. Communist countries, I believe, keep up their assessments on the regular budget.
The position with regard to the special peace keeping operations is of course very much worse. Twenty nine states were in arrears for 1957, amounting to $3,988,931; eight had paid something on account; 31 states were in arrears for 1958, amounting to $7,272,756; two states had paid something on account; 36 states were in arrears for 1959, amounting to $4,415,462; one state had paid on account; 41 states were in arrears for 1960, amounting to $4,768,882.75; two states had paid on account.


Murdo William Martin: Did that last figure relate to 1960?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. To continue, 73 states were in arrears for 1961, amounting to $5,060,074.18; three states had paid on account. I point out again that that was only 31 days after the end of the year. That was for the United Nations emergency force in the Gaza strip.

For the Congo force, 66 states were in arrears for 1960, amounting to $18,844,853,75; 3 states had paid on account; 78 states were in arrears for 1961, amounting to $33,125,008; 2 states had paid on account. I believe the hon. member referred to 82 states.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said 82 or 87.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. Actually 78 states were in arrears for 1961.
Obviously the position is extremely serious. Canada has been very active in trying to get something done about this situation. We were a member of the small working group which devoted a great deal of time to this during the whole of last year. Also we were one of the co-sponsors of the resolution providing for the bond issue.
I think it should be pointed out again that if the decision of the international court of justice is to the effect that assessments for the repayment of this bond issue are to be considered in the same category as assessments for the regular budget, then there is far more likelihood that the payment will be made. Of course, we are hopeful that the decision of the court will be to that effect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I believe the total amount involved in this bond issue is $136 million odd. It is interesting to note that the main reasons for this are the special activities of the United Nations such as those in the Congo, and the United Nations emergency force in Palestine. But one source of additional expenditure to the United Nations and one source in which we can all take pride is the fact that the United Nations activities have been so greatly widened and extended because of the inclusion in its membership of a number of Asian and African countries which were not long ago colonial territories.
Seven or eight years ago the ex-colonial territories members of the United Nations who were then members of that body, could have been numbered on your two hands. Now there are 25 or 30, I should think, members of the United Nations who only a few years ago were colonial territories. Because of the weakness of their economy, they cannot, of course, make any great contributions to the United Nations in terms of money and I suspect their contributions are assessed at a very low percentage of its costs. They do, on the other hand, add to the expenses of the United Nations and this is an additional expenditure which I am sure the other members are very glad to bear except perhaps those members of the United Nations which have their own colonial territories which are not likely to become members of the United Nations; and I am talking about the communist empire.
Supply-External Affairs
I wonder whether the minister in respect of the $136 million which is required and of which we are being asked to contribute roughly $6.5 million could relate that expenditure to the cost of operations in the Congo, let us say, since the operations began. I may be wrong but I would not be surprised if the costs of the Congo operations would be in excess of the figure of $136 million. If that is the case, that itself would explain the necessity for this extra amount about which certain members of the United Nations refuse to do anything.


Howard Charles Green: The cost of the Congo operation is running, I think, at approximately $10 million a month.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Ten million a month?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition got his figure of $136 million. That is the amount that has been subscribed. The bond issue is for $200 million which it is estimated will allow the United Nations to carry on until the payments come in under the regular assessments for the amount required to be refunded.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was wrong in my figure. The minister now says that $200 million is being asked for and that $136 million is, we hope, being subscribed by those members who have already indicated their intention so to subscribe.


Howard Charles Green: Provided the United States will contribute $100 million.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. That leaves, of course, another $64 million to be raised by other members which have not yet indicated any intention. If in fact $136 million or $140 million is subscribed that will only carry the United Nations through the Congo operations for a year, roughly, at $10 million a month. That would not be enough to meet the expenses of the Congo operations since they began, at the present rate. This underlines the serious financial position of the world organization and the necessity of doing something about it above and beyond even the present subscription of $200 million, if that is all subscribed. This is one temporary way out of a very great difficulty, but it is only a temporary solution to this difficulty.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing further methods by which we can meet the current financial difficulties of the United Nations organization which the Prime Minister referred to last fall, speaking

Supply-External Affairs in Toronto, when he said that it was the government's intention at the next general assembly, presumably that of next September, to move a resolution condemning the Soviet union for its colonial policy, its subjugation of former nations, of people who formerly enjoyed the advantages of a free society. I think the house generally will agree with the observations made by the Prime Minister on that occasion, as indeed we had, in the condemnation levelled against the Soviet union's colonial policy and its practice of a new type of imperialism, as set out in the speech he made to the general assembly in the autumn of 1960.
I think it should be noted that what the Prime Minister said on that occasion in the United Nations, and what he said last fall regarding Canadian intentions for the assembly in the fall of 1962, did not break new ground.
I would not wish anyone to misunderstand what I am saying. I think it was well that the Prime Minister of Canada spoke the mind of the Canadian people and expressed the views of those in this house with regard to this matter. In a matter of such importance, I think it equally important to remember, however, that the Leader of the Opposition in particular, the prime minister in the former government as well, and others, too, took opportunity from time to time at the United Nations to use the procedures there available to condemn the Soviet union for its policy of subjugation, for its denial of the normal processes open to people in a free society. I think it is well that we recall some of the words that were used by Canadian spokesmen in the general assembly as well as in this house.
The Prime Minister said that at the next general assembly the Canadian government would cause to be placed before the general assembly a resolution condemning the Soviet union for its colonial policy. At that time I expressed the view that, commendable as was the Prime Minister's statement, it was regrettable that we should have waited until the next general assembly. He spoke in the month of November. The general assembly was still in session. There was actually before the assembly at that time a resolution that did not embody the precise terms of the Prime Minister's intention but to it could have been an annexed amendment, expressing Canada's view of the regressive step taken by the Soviet union towards the subjugated nations of Europe.
I expressed the view that the government of Canada through the Prime Minister ought

to give instructions to the Canadian delegation to see to it that we expressed condemnation right there and then in the general assembly, at a time when the Soviet union was attacking Britain as well as other countries for its colonial policy, overlooking of course the progress that has been made notably by Britain in this regard. However, that step was not taken. I am not rising to oppose the intention to do that kind of thing at the next general assembly. However, what the Prime Minister said was not new. There are many people in this country-and some of them are represented by distinguished members in this house-whose friends and relatives, many of whom are now dead, have become the victims of Soviet imperialism and colonialism. For instance, I have before me some observations made by the Leader of the Opposition in the general assembly of 1949 when, among other things, addressing himself to Mr. Vyshinsky, the spokesman for the Soviet union, he said this on December 1:
If Mr. Vyshinsky really wishes to do something about the preservation of peace, he should try to persuade his government to pay some attention to the fear in the world of this new imperialism; to the concern which is deep and widespread about the methods which it adopts to spread its influence, and the threats to peace which are inherent in those methods.
Then he went on to say this:
Within the USSR sphere ol influence-the new Soviet empire-have been included many peoples who previously had their own free governments: Finns, Estonians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Rumanians.
He expressed the same view in more general terms on September 26, 1949, in the same general assembly. Then on September 27, 1950, speaking on a resolution having to do with the war in Korea the Leader of the Opposition said as follows:
This war in Korea is but the continuation by armed and open aggression of the policies which communist imperialism has been pursuing by other means. It is part of the theory of communism that the disruptions and dislocations of a post-war period give to the communist minority its best chance to seize power by force and maintain it by the terror and repression of a police state. Systematically the forces of communist imperialism, in these last years, have been trying out their theories in the four corners of the world.
Then again in 1956, he spoke in the general assembly. On November 4, 1956, he said this:
This is a sad-


Mr. Jones:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member for Essex East in his third or fourth speech since eight o'clock but I wonder whether he could relate his remarks to the item we are considering, namely item No. 688 of the estimates. It would be helpful if that could be done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. member has seen fit to interrupt my hon. friend in order to raise a point of order, I should like to say a word about the point of order. As hon. members know, an attempt has been made to bring a certain matter before the United Nations. We are discussing an item having to do with the financing of the United Nations. It seems to me that what my friend the hon. member for Essex East was doing on this occasion was showing that the government, in taking this course which my hon. friend was supporting, was operating on historic lines which had been followed by Canada under the previous government as well as under this government ever since the United Nations was established. It seems to me that on this the eve of the anniversary of the birth of the great Ukrainian poet Shevchenko, thinking as we do of the thousands of our fellow citizens whose families and friends are behind the iron curtain, we should not attempt any narrow interpretation of the rules in connection with a subject of such deep interest to them and one which the government itself has said should be considered in the United Nations.


Henry Frank Jones: Speaking further on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that it was certainly not my intention nor did I wish to suggest a narrowing of the debate beyond its proper limits. As is the case with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I am prepared at all times, as I have done in the past, to pay tribute to Taras Shevchenko, that great poet of the Ukrainian nation. I do not know how that subject got into the debate but inasmuch as it has I am sure that all members of the committee will take advantage of the opportunity to affirm again support for this great poet. However, on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to bring to your attention the suggestion that the energies of the hon. member foi Essex East and his remarks should be directed towards the particular point we are discussing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. member for his contribution. As was said by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I was simply expressing my approval of the general statement made by the Prime Minister on this important matter, one which concerns so many groups in this country, and to which he intended later to give expression in the United Nations, as indeed he did himself a year ago. In discussing this matter so related to the United Nations which we are discussing I was simply pointing out that the course followed and the observations he made had been pursued and made by those who preceded him.
Supply-External Affairs


Mr. Macdonnell:: Is anyone questioning
that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I am grateful for that question. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that there are those who question this. That is why I have taken the time of the committee to put before it this vital matter, one that affects many people in this country. I have many of them in my constituency. They expect me and others to deal with this matter. There are people who question it. What I was saying was this, however. I was referring to a quotation of remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition on November 4, 1956 when, addressing himself again to the colonial policy of the Soviet union, he said this:
Mr. President, notwithstanding the words of the Soviet delegate, in the past 24 hours we have witnessed in Hungary one of the greatest and grimmest betrayals in history.
This is a sad and desolate moment for all who have been striving for the extension of freedom and justice throughout the world.
For ten years all the resources of a great empire were used to weaken and destroy all feeling for national and personal freedom in Hungary and the other countries of eastern Europe on whom communist regimes have been imposed after world war II by foreign forces.
Are we not all happy in this House of Commons to know that not only the present Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs but the Leader of the Opposition, as leader of the opposition and more particularly as secretary of state for external affairs, and the two prime ministers who were in office prior to this government's coming into office and after the foundation of the United Nations in 1945 all gave expression to views which in principle were of the same character and tenor. It is important to realize that what the Prime Minister said was a continuation of policy. When we realize the freedom that we enjoy in this country and that people in the other free lands of the western world and elsewhere enjoy, when we think of the subjugation of people in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, the Ukraine and elsewhere, I think it is up to us in this free parliament to take whatever means we can to assert our dissatisfaction with the policies of a government that have resulted in such subjugation. That is what the Prime Minister and others in Canada have done.
My final comment about this is that I would have preferred the Prime Minister not to wait for the next general assembly but, as I said, to have instructed the Canadian delegation to take formal action at the last assembly to express once again, as was expressed by others in other years, our regret that colonial policy as practised by the Soviet union had resulted in the denial to so many

Supply-External Affairs millions of people behind the iron curtain of that freedom which we all cherish and regard as vital for the development of human personality.
But there is one other aspect of this matter, in addition to taking steps at once, which occurred to me last fall and to which I gave expression after discussing it with members of our party. The United States, through the president had said that if there was going to be a general conference on a divided Berlin and a divided Germany, it would be anxious to see that the subject matter of such a conference should not be confined to the question of a divided Germany or a divided Berlin. I think it was the United Kingdom government that said that such a conference should deal primarily with that question. The United States thought at that time at least that such a conference might encompass a discussion not only of the problem of Germany but of the major problems that divided east and west at that time. While we are not one of the occupying powers, it occurred to me, because we have at least a constitutional link with the declaration made by the occupying powers as to their right of access to West Berlin, that if there was going to be a package deal, Canada might seek to persuade the major western powers that they should include on their agenda a consideration of the problem that we have been discussing in the last few minutes and that part of the settlement should be the restoration of freedom to the people in these subjugated lands.
I do not know whether the government has taken any steps along this line, but I suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I know is interested in these matters, that in his discussions with his opposite numbers, particularly from the United States and the United Kingdom, he should express what I believe the Canadian people would want him to express, that is our view that in the settlements we seek to make with the Soviet union to bring about a better understanding between east and west, consideration should be given to the steps we feel should be taken by the Soviet union to accord to the people of the subjugated nations the freedom which, since the United Nations came into being in 1945, has been accorded to over a billion people who now enjoy freedom under the canopy of selfdetermination, extended to them in many instances as a result of the decision of former colonial powers. This is a matter that concerns many millions of people in the world. I do not think for one minute that any hon. member will take exception to the views I have expressed tonight.


I am glad to have put on the record not only the views of the Prime Minister, but alongside them, the views on the same subject of the Leader of the Opposition, uttered at a time when he had the opportunity open to him as a member of a government to express the strong feeling that Canadians have against the subjugation of these people, whose sons and daughters now take part in the Canadian family. This should be one of the objectives of our foreign policy. I am sure it is. If it is, we should not hesitate to speak about it in this house.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East really has not been aware of just what has been going on. I think most other people in Canada know that the Prime Minister in particular has been in the lead among all western statesmen in urging that these subjugated peoples must be freed. All that is necessary is to read and to follow the reports in the Russian press to realize Who it is who is considered to be the main western statesman demanding freedom for these peoples.
It is all very well for the hon. member for Essex East to wake up on March 8, 1962, and realize that there is a problem, but the government acted on it many long months ago and has been acting continuously during the intervening period. At the United Nations in the fall of 1960 when the heads of state were in attendance it will be remembered that Premier Khrushchev made his strongest appeal on the question of colonialism. He demanded that all colonies should be freed by the end of that year. The reason the Soviet leader did this was that all of the new members of the United Nations, particularly the African but also some Asian countries, are highly emotional on the question of colonialism. They cannot understand why anybody in the world should have to live in a colony. The Russians never lose an opportunity- those of us who have been in New York have seen this-to try to make trouble for the west because of this deep conviction of the African and Asian countries. This was Premier Khrushchev's main line of attack in the session of 1960. He made an exceedingly strong speech on the question of colonialism. It fell to our own Prime Minister to be the first western leader to speak after Premier Khrushchev had spoken, and in his speech our Prime Minister devastated the arguments of Premier Khrushchev. There were Liberals there with our delegation and they told me personally that it had been a magnificent speech, one of the finest speeches ever made by a Canadian prime minister.
It had the effect of ruining the Russian initiative for the whole session of 1960 on

the question of colonialism. I am not questioning that speeches had been made in earlier sessions by those who then represented the government of Canada. But I do not believe there was ever a more magnificent speech made in the United Nations by any Canadian than the speech made in the fall of 1960 by our own Prime Minister. Certainly, there was never a more powerful appeal on behalf of the subjugated people of Europe.
Then, the hon. member for Essex East insinuates that last fall the Prime Minister should have had action taken in the United Nations. He knows very well, just as well as any of us who have been at the United Nations know, that this came up late in the fall just when the business of the United Nations was finishing. All the committees with the exception of the fourth committee, which is the trusteeship committee, finished their work before Christmas. It is true that the first committee met occasionally in the resumed session after Christmas, but practically all the work of the United Nations was finished before Christmas.
It would have been utterly absurd for an attempt to be made in the dying days of that session to tack on an amendment to some other resolution and hope thereby to deal with this question. The Prime Minister took the proper stand when he said in November that this subject would be dealt with at the next session of the general assembly. It is all very well to try to leave the inference that the Prime Minister made a big speech in 1960 and then did nothing about it ever since. If representatives are to be judged on that basis then I could easily say that the present Leader of the Opposition made a speech in 1949 and then did nothing about it ever since. I do not make that accusation because it is not fair. On the same basis, I am afraid it is not very fair to the hon. member for Essex East to try to insinuate tonight that the Prime Minister of Canada has not been following up on this issue which is so dear to his heart and for which he has fought so long, even long before he came into this House of Commons.
We all recognize why this subject has been dragged in tonight. It was dragged in as a sort of pre-election speech. I do not doubt but that the people across the country will realize that is exactly what the hon. member for Essex East had in his mind. But do not make any mistake about it, the government has been fighting for the subjugated people of Europe since it came into power and will continue to do so. We only hope we will have the support of the opposition party in that effort.
26207-1-104
Supply-External Affairs


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here awaiting an opportunity to speak about jackpine and tamarack and the exotic air of the virgin forest. The debate in the last hour or so has inspired me to ask the minister a few questions. I should like to say that I feel there are a few lively ghosts in this house tonight. I am thinking specifically of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Middlesex East. It seems to me that these particular gentlemen, in their remarks in the very recent past, have had a decided effect upon everything that has gone on in the house tonight. For that reason, I should like to come directly to the minister and ask him a couple of questions regarding comment that seems to be raging in the country and released to a certain extent by these gentlemen.
I should like to ask him first of all, has it been his experience in the United Nations that he has been hindered in any way in his operation through discovering that the former incumbent under a previous government of the position was considered to be soft to the communists?


Howard Charles Green: I am not going to comment on statements that are made outside this house by private members of the house. I suggest that the question now before the committee is on the financing of the United Nations.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Don't evade like the rest.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Where has this discussion been? It has ranged all over and the minister is one of the ones who has been ranging.


An hon. Member:: Get back to the item.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is an item relating to the United Nations and the discussion has ranged in many directions. The minister, not the least, has been responsible for that. Now, I should like to ask the minister straight. When you took over at the United Nations, did you find you were working under any handicap as the result of the performance of the Leader of the Opposition when he was secretary of state for external affairs? Can't you answer yes or no?


Howard Charles Green: Don't try to talk to me just in that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: If you are prepared to discuss the merits of any question dealing with the United Nations, I am quite prepared to answer a question of that kind. I am not going to deal with this. I have not made any allegations about any of my predecessors in the office of secretary of state for external affairs, and I do not intend to do so.

Supply-External Affairs


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think this is the first time I have ever taken any part in the debates on the estimates for the Department of External Affairs. I am moved to do so this evening for two reasons. I am moved to do so first because of the last observation made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in reply to the hon. member for Essex East. I do not believe the latter part of what the hon. gentleman said was quite worthy of the rest of his contribution to the debate, and I will tell him why. The hon. member for Essex East commended the Prime Minister throughout. He commended everything he had done about this matter, but he did point out in doing so that what the Prime Minister was doing was following historic continuity going right back to the beginning of the United Nations. My hon. friend demonstrated this point over and over again by quotations.
Now, it seems to me that the Secretary of State for External Affairs might have shown the same generosity, the same largeness of spirit, that was shown by the hon. member for Essex East by saying, that is quite true; we have followed the continuity in this matter because it represents the views of all Canadians, as it does, except for a small minority of communists in this country. The kind of implication that the hon. gentleman was seeking to make, that some of us have these matters more at heart than others, I suggest is quite unworthy of him as f suggest it is unworthy of any other Canadian. I would not say for one single minute that, because in 1953, in Winnipeg, my right hon. friend Mr. St. Laurent, at a Ukrainian-Canadian conference said this:
All decent Canadians share your desire to show the people in the Ukrainian homeland and the other countries dominated by communism who still long for personal liberty and national freedom that they are neither forgotten nor deserted.
I would not say Mr. St. Laurent felt more keenly about that than the Prime Minister. I would not think of saying it. I would say he felt as keenly, every bit as keenly. My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, on September 26, 1949, long before the Prime Minister had any opportunity-I am sure the Prime Minister had the same sentiments, but he did not have the opportunity-said this, and I think the quotation has already been put on the record so I will not read it all:
Imperialism of the old kind is a rapidly diminishing force-
Then, he went on to deal with this Russian imperialism, and to point out, as my hon. friend from Essex East has pointed out this evening, how repugnant it was, how dangerous it was for the peace of the world and for everything that decent men hold dear. That is what was done. It seems to me we have

enough things to play politics about in this country without playing politics about which of us is most anxious to see other human beings liberated. That kind of politics we can well do without.


Henry Frank Jones: Why don't you shut up about it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not making comparisons.


Some hon. Members:: You started it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
James Aloysius McGrath: You started it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I repeat sir that I commend the speech made by the Prime Minister. I commend everything he has done in this matter. I commend everything done by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I would like to hear him, in the same unqualified way, pay the same tribute to others in other parts of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY Forest research branch-
635. Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $80,000.
Douglas Mason Fisher: In the discussion we had on the previous occasion on these estimates, towards the end the minister made a statement which was very much appreciated. I have no quarrel with it, but I made remarks during that discussion to the effect that I had found the forestry profession very confused in so far as its purposes and goals were concerned. Since then I have had some reaction from the foresters whose attention was directed to these remarks, and I want to make some further comments in relation to the forestry profession just to put on record more clearly what I meant.
The country at the present time has four or five forestry schools. Normally forestry is a four-year university course and it produces people who are trained in both the scientific and technical aspects of forestry, and with some experience in the matter of logging on the industry's side of it. The pattern has been that little over half these foresters go to work for the various pulp and paper and lumber companies across the country, with the rest going to work for various government agencies such as the one the estimates for which we are now discussing.
26207-1-1044
Supply-Forestry
There is a tendency on the part of the industrial forester to look upon the government forester with a critical eye, because in most of the provinces his operations are supervised by the government forester. In addition the terms of the leases under which most companies operate follow the regulations and statutes put out by the provincial forestry services. This leads to one kind of a conflict between the two, but a further fact is that in both the provincial forestry services and in the industry itself the professionally trained forester has not as yet made many of the top positions. There still seems to be a preference for the man who comes up through the bookkeeping and business side of the operations to have managerial control, rather than someone who has been specifically trained in forestry.
To hon. members who may feel I am oversimplifying the case I can only suggest that they look very quickly at the large pulp and paper corporations in Canada and if they find two or three foresters-I think H. R. MacMillan is an exception-who have reached the very peak positions I would be very surprised.
In terms of this confusion you have the tension between the government forester and the industrial forester, together with the suspicion that exists in many cases. On top of that you have the general attempt of the forest industries, and I am not blaming them here, to escape as much as possible from the regulations and controls which they have to meet. In doing this through the Canadian forest industries' various associations, they have managed to create a climate of publicity that many people are accepting and yet many professional foresters, who know what they are saying is not exactly right, never object to it. As a consequence, when the foresters themselves get together in their meetings and professional groups, a great deal of time is spent really in discussing nothing but in trying to get away from this.
I want to pick an example of what I mean by the popular progaganda that is put out-I do not mean propaganda in a nasty sense at all-by the large forest companies. I have one here entitled "New sounds in the forest". It is beautifully coloured and illustrated and it is put out by Abitibi Power and Paper Company. I just want to read a few of the sentences from this brochure to indicate why I quarrel with the role of the professional forester at the present time. The first sentence to which I refer reads:
The land cut over this year should have a similar crop 100 years from now.
This is what is ideal, but I wonder whether anyone who has been around the cut overs

Supply-Forestry
in the boreal forest really thinks that information is very accurate. Later on this lovely brochure says:
Except when fires and insect infestations occur, the result of planned cutting is a satisfactory new and natural forest 85 per cent of the time.
I would suggest that Abitibi cannot prove that 85 per cent figure; they cannot even come close to it. I would suggest, on the other hand, that Abitibi cannot be proved wrong on that 85 per cent figure. This is what I am suggesting to the minister he should get his professional foresters working on, because I have heard it from some foresters that cut overs in the boreal forest are coming back in perhaps 65 or 70 per cent of the sites, but in many ways no one is actually sure whether the stocking is adequate. No one has really worked out a policy for the sites when they are not coming back. Almost any forester in the boreal forest will tell you that the best spruces come off the swamps. The black spruce swamps are the source of the very best spruce, and yet that is where the regeneration is most inadequate and that is where you get thousands of acres in our part of the country where five, ten or fifteen years after the cut there is really nothing worth while growing and there is really no black spruce swamp of any kind; yet there is this statement in the brochure that says that 85 per cent of the time a natural forest comes back as a result of planned cutting.
The brochure goes on to indicate that there is a great deal of experimentation taking place in ways of cutting the forest so that they will get better regeneration. I do not know how much experimentation has really taken place in a genuine way. I know there are very many logging techniques being worked out. For example, we are now working on a machine that will walk into the bush, cut the tree, limb it and prepare it for loading on to the truck, all in one operation, doing away with the chain saw and the whole operation of cutting as we now know it in the forest.
These are the kind of statements that are made by these companies.
This is another one that is a real laugh to anyone who has been around a pulpwood limit. I have talked not only to logging managers but to the pulp cutters themselves. The kind of pulp cutters we have in northern Ontario today are not worrying about the small trees, but this is what the Abitibi brochure says:
Trees which are too small to cut are left standing. Cone bearing tops and branches are scattered between skid tracks to provide seed for new growth and protection for the young trees already firmly established.
That is a lovely picture but it is not the actual practice in more than a fraction of the cases. This is not the minister's responsibility,
fMr. Fisher.1
but in the sense that these kind of practices, if they were indulged in widely, are good or bad, it is his responsibility to let us know, not the scale but whether they are worth while. This sounds very good, but it really is not the practice. It certainly is not the practice as I know it on the majority of the Abitibi limits in our area, and they are of considerable size.
Then we get this statement:
Constant effort is being made to preserve the young trees present at the time of cutting and to develop economical logging methods that promote natural reseeding.
Well, I challenge anyone to visit any of the cleared cuttings in the boreal forest and see where a real effort is being made to preserve the young trees. The only way this can be done is to work on the cutters, because they are the people doing the job. I have spent hours watching cutters on pulp and paper limits and I have yet to see them worry about the young underbrush or young trees that are coming up. Their whole incentive is toward production. You cannot blame them for this; that is what they are paid for; the more cords they turn out, the more money they make. Therefore they cannot have top production and worry about the smaller trees or the smaller growth that may make the next forest. This is just not in their minds.
Here again I would appreciate having from the minister's foresters an assessment of the forestry education and approach of the average cutter in this country. One of the other points that is made in the Abitibi brochure is this:
Our target is vigorous young pulpwood stands.
It goes on to say:
However, as trees grow, they face the twin threats of fire and insect damage. Canadians, young and old, should be constantly aware that forest fires, eight times out of ten, are caused by human carelessness. A fire blackened forest is a scar which takes a decade to heal-a century to replace.
This may be very true, but there are a great many suggestions today that we need controlled burning in our forestry practices, and as yet I know of no really large scale studies in Canada by forestry experts to indicate how this can be done practically. The Abitibi brochure concludes with the sentence:
But, nature through protection and wise forest management provides the forest of our future.
I think that nature through protection and wise forest management will provide the forests of the future, but I am very skeptical that management is providing it today. This, it seems to me, is the onus that is upon the minister's foresters to determine the methods by which this can be done.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. I think it is ten o'clock. There are one or two hon. members who have some brief observations to make. I would not anticipate that it will take very long.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

['Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we propose starting with Bill No. C-67, which relates to the proposed railway line in the Gaspe peninsula. That has been through the committee and might be completed very quickly. Then we will follow with the supplementary estimates.\nI had hoped that we would finish the supplementary estimates this week because we are spending more than the normal time on supplementaries, and there will still be final supplementaries coming before us during this month. But uncertain as to whether or not we will complete the supplementaries tomorrow, I cannot forecast the business for Monday and Tuesday.\nIf we do not finish the supplementaries we might have to continue with them on Monday, because certain works will come to an end and people will be without pay unless we are able to get these supplementaries approved.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the house leader if he could enlighten us-I think he told us what we were expected to do tomorrow-and give us a preview of next week, particularly the early part of the week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we propose starting with Bill No. C-67, which relates to the proposed railway line in the Gaspe peninsula. That has been through the committee and might be completed very quickly. Then we will follow with the supplementary estimates.
I had hoped that we would finish the supplementary estimates this week because we are spending more than the normal time on supplementaries, and there will still be final supplementaries coming before us during this month. But uncertain as to whether or not we will complete the supplementaries tomorrow, I cannot forecast the business for Monday and Tuesday.
If we do not finish the supplementaries we might have to continue with them on Monday, because certain works will come to an end and people will be without pay unless we are able to get these supplementaries approved.


[Stage Direction]
Business of the House At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed In committee
of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
625.	Canada's civilian participation as a member of the international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China-further amount required, $100,000.
626.	Gift to commemorate the sesquicentennial anniversary of the independence of the republic of Mexico-further amount required, $2,500.
627.	Gift to commemorate the inauguration of 'Plaza Canada' in Buenos Aires, Argentina, $1,100.
Other payments to international organizations and
programs-
628.	Assessments for membership in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied-further amount required in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1962, $2,400.
629.	Purchase and transportation to British Honduras of skim milk powder, canned pork and other supplies for the relief of victims of the hurricane disaster and to authorize reimbursement of ihe agricultural stabilization board in respect of the purchase of such skim milk powder and canned pork, $70,500.
Loans, investments and advances-
External affairs-
668. To authorize the purchase in the current and subsequent fiscal years of United Nations bonds in an amount of $6,240,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars estimated as of January, 1962, which is, $6,493,500.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 9, 1962