1963-01-24

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely of Hon. William Earl Rowe, member for the electoral district of Dufferin-Simcoe, by resignation.
Accordingly I have issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have now received the report of the special committee on new drugs appointed at my request by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada to examine the present departmental procedures for dealing with new drugs, the requirements of the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, and any other matters felt to be relevant to the issue. With the permission of the house I should like to table this report and offer a few introductory comments on it.
At the outset I should like to express my deepest thanks to the royal college for having established such an effective and hard working committee. Possibly the best way to express my thanks to the committee is to say that I find myself in complete agreement with the conclusions it has drawn and the recommendations it has made, and I am anxious to move forward as quickly as possible to achieve the objectives described in the report.
As the house will see, this document should prove to be of great value in the government's current study to find the best means of ensuring that the Canadian public continues to receive the utmost protection in this age of scientific and medical advancement. Under the chairmanship of Dr. F. S. Brien the committee has gone into the subject in a wealth of detail, receiving a considerable number of submissions from Canadian sources and much assistance from U.S. authorities. Dr. Brien, and his associates Dr. Dufresne and
Dr. Sellers, must be congratulated on the manner in which they have come to the heart of the problem, and on the forthright way in which they suggest the steps that should now be taken.
The committee has clearly stated that the underlying purpose of the Food and Drugs Act is not the impossible objective of eliminating risks associated with the use of drugs, but the more practical one of keeping such risks to a minimum. It also recognizes that it would be quite impractical to suggest that all drug testing be assigned to a government agency. Its principal recommendations involve increases in the directorate's professional staff and the provision of further discretionary powers to the minister, permitting the immediate withdrawal of a drug from sale or other changes in its status when it is felt that the need for such action has arisen.
We have already made certain moves toward remedying the staff situation and are making progress in other respects. I would hope that the special committee of the house on food and drugs will turn its attention to this report, and I shall be pleased to go into further detail at that time.
With its formal report the royal college committee sent to me a considerable number of appendices containing documents and reports it had referred to in the course of its deliberations. In view of the bulk of this material it has not yet been possible to take copies from the originals, and with the permission of the house I should like to table copies of the report now and undertake to deposit copies of the appendices with the Clerk as soon as these are available.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister seeks leave of the house to table the documents referred to in his statement. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to assist and facilitate the development of the national

Inquiries of the Ministry
museum of Canada and to establish a Canadian historical museum, a Canadian museum of natural history, a Canadian museum of science and to authorize such other museums as may be established by the governor in council, as the integral parts of the national museum; to provide for the appointment of the director general of the national museum who shall be paid such salary as may be fixed by the governor in council; and to provide also for the establishment of a national museum advisory committee and for the payment of the travelling expenses and per diem allowances of the members thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say whether the government has considered finding a way to provide the salary increases that were awarded civil servants to those civil servants who had retired before December 10 but had worked during the period covered by retroactivity?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is receiving the attention of the government. We are faced, of course, with the statutory requirements and regulations, but we are giving careful consideration to what steps might be taken.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue in view of the absence because of illness of the hon. member for Charlotte, inasmuch as this question is of keen interest to the residents of Charlotte county. Can the minister advise the house whether a decision has been reached to restore 24 hour service on the Roosevelt memorial bridge between Campobello island and Lubec, Maine, where customs services have been withdrawn during night hours for eight months of the year due to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I indicated yesterday and perhaps also on a previous occasion that this matter should be more properly put on the order paper.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry. As Minister of Forestry and as the representative of New Brunswick in the government, is
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
the minister prepared to give favourable consideration to representations he has received from various sources on behalf of the 1,400 residents of Campobello island for the restoration of full time service on the Roosevelt memorial bridge in order to ensure the continuous movement of both fish and pulp-wood from Campobello to the mainland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is the same as the previous one, in a different version, and I still think it should go on the order paper.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a question which affects the immediate livelihood of citizens of this country. They reside on an island, and this bridge is the one connection they have with the mainland.


George Clyde Nowlan: Who built it?


Mr. Speaker:: I fully realize there may be some importance to the subject, but I am questioning the fact whether the information is urgently required at this particular time, and in the form in which the question was put forward.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the hon. member for Laurier stated on television that he had found a way to force us to vote with the Liberals. In spite of his dictatorial intentions, I rise in protest and I submit that we are free to vote in the house as we see fit.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think there are sufficient grounds here for any question of privilege. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that, before rising on a question of privilege, they should examine the circumstances to determine whether the situation warrants such a question of privilege. At any rate, the hon. member has made his explanation.



MR. DUMONT    REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Since the translation always reaches us a little late, I was unable to put this question earlier.
As reported on page 1 of the appendix to Hansard of November 13, I asked the Prime

Minister whether the people of Algeria could not be assisted with supplies of our surplus foodstuffs.
The Prime Minister immediately answered as follows:
-there has been no request in this regard, no suggestion that this would be appropriate, and nothing to indicate that the government of Algeria would be interested in such a measure.
I received the following reply today from the president of French Algeria, Mr. Ben Bella:
Our newly independent country, which has gone through more than seven years of war, strives to provide living conditions worthy of a sorely tried population; but in the meantime,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering what question of privilege the hon. member wishes to raise. Until now, he has merely been giving certain information. I fail to see any grounds for a question of privilege.


Bernard Dumont: I am getting there, Mr. Speaker. It is because at that time I had been told that Mr. Ben Bella had not asked for anything. However, he informs me that Canada's contribution would be greatly appreciated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has raised the question of privilege. What is it about? He cannot raise a question of privilege by just giving information or saying he has now received a reply. On what does he base his question of privilege-


Bernard Dumont: I would simply ask the Prime Minister that, in giving wheat to Algeria, he proceed as swiftly as he did for the gift of furniture to the headquarters of the international telecommunications union, in Geneva.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a question of privilege. I would suggest to the hon. member that he study what a question of privilege is before raising it. That should enable him to raise a proper one.


Bernard Dumont: I merely wanted to ask the Prime Minister once again to send food to Algeria for the thousands of children who are starving there.
(Text):



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the Canadian government officially endorsed the recommendations of the international north Pacific fisheries commission, thus permitting the Japanese to fish for herring off the west coast of British Columbia?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: No, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary. Is any investigation being made by the national housing corporation at the Cloverdale Park project at Pierrefonds, Quebec, as a result of complaints made by the maintenance staff, a copy of which I believe the minister has received?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that his question would be better placed on the order paper.


Raymond Rock: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question here of the information being urgently required at this time. I think the hon. member will recognize that as a fact.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the references in the press to the Colombo conference and its peace proposals placed before the governments of India and China, and in view of some confusion in the public mind between this Colombo conference and the Colombo plan in which Canada participates, would the minister briefly explain to the house the composition of the Colombo conference as distinct from that of the Colombo plan?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt there is some misinformation about this particular title. As hon. members are aware Canada has, from the start, participated in the co-operative enterprise to provide economic and technical assistance to the countries of southeast Asia, which is known as the Colombo plan. There is absolutely no connection between the Colombo plan and the recent Colombo conference. At this conference, which Canada was not invited to attend, and which met in Colombo last December 10, Ceylon, Cambodia, Indonesia,
3064	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Burma, Ghana and the United Arab Republic were represented. Their purpose was to consider ways by which some settlement of the border dispute between India and China might be found. They arrived at certain proposals, and these were conveyed to the governments of communist China and India.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister. I would like to ask what is now standing in the way of the immediate referral of the terms of the Columbia river treaty to the committee on external affairs.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday.


Arthur Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked this question yesterday and the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: I would draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that he is not in a position to raise a point of order. It is not a point of order he is raising, he is trying to comment on an answer, which is not allowed.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of northern affairs. Does the minister propose to inform the government of the United Kingdom how Canadians manage to survive through the long cold winters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS PROVIDED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the great importance given to physical training by the government, does it intend to distribute the balance of the $5 million provided for sport in the last budget?
(Text):


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I presume the question was addressed to me, and I was a little late getting my earphone up.
[Mr. Green.)

(Translation):


Raymond Langlois: In view of the importance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. An answer has been given. Is this a supplementary question?


Raymond Langlois: The minister did not understand my question, as he did not have his earphones on.
In view of the great importance given to physical training by the government, does it intend to distribute the balance of the $5 million provided for sport in the last budget?
(Text):


Jay Waldo Monteith: The statutory amount
provided by the act is $5 million. As explained earlier it was felt that this amount could not be spent in the early stages of the program, but certainly it is intended to be available.
(Translation):


Raymond Langlois: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it due to the grants already made that the government was able to get Miss Claude Robitaille to give such a wonderful performance at the last Conservative convention?
(Text):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. How long does the government propose to keep the 1962 series of Canada savings bonds on sale?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any definite date. As is always the case, the advertisement said the sale might be terminated on the order of the Minister of Finance. So far they have not been on sale for a period of time comparable to other issues, and I shall give consideration to terminating them at the proper time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question relates to his announcement of last Monday that notices of legislation arising out of the Mac-Pherson royal commission and the O'Leary

royal commission would appear in that day's Votes and Proceedings. Since these notices have not yet appeared, can the Prime Minister say when they will be placed on the order paper?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that. We were in a position to place those matters on the order paper, and I will see what is the reason for it not being done.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my absence the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Berger) asked whether there was any more recent information concerning nuclear fall-out in northern Canada. I wish to state that I have nothing to add to the reply I made on Monday, other than to emphasize that my department is working closely with the Department of National Health and Welfare to determine the actual facts.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I wonder if I could ask the parliamentary secretary whether the department is carrying on a winter works program of building small post offices, as was done last year, and if so whether they would consider building some in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island this year.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the department is carrying out the programs which have been carried out in previous years, and communities which qualify for such post offices will receive them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask a supplementary question, sir? Is the parliamentary secretary aware that none were built in either of those two provinces last year?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the department
spreads its good works in all provinces of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we are now getting into a discussion.
Supply-External Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS



INQUIRY AS TO ABOLITION OF CLOSURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it still the intention of the government, as announced in the speech from the throne, to ask the House of Commons at this session to abolish closure? Meantime, will the government assure us that closure will not be applied this session in any way?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: That is the Liberals.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was a change of government in 1957, and there will be no closure under this government.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: There will soon be another change of government.
(Translation):



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Since the government, for reasons unknown to us, did not see fit to appoint Mr. Jean Drapeau commissioner general of the world exhibition, could the minister tell us at least if Mr. Drapeau will be appointed commissioner or director of that commission?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister oil National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, within a few days the names of the commissioners of the world exhibition will be announced and I hope that my hon. friend's curiosity will be satisfied.
(Text):

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


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $7,305,200.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I intend to go over the broad outlines of various questions in the sphere of internationl affairs in which Canada is directly interested. As hon. members will realize, it will not be possible to go into great detail on any of these particular subjects.
3086	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
Before I proceed with that review, may I express the belief that we have now moved into a new era in the world, largely because of certain developments which have taken place within the last few months or which will take place within the next few months, each one of which has very far reaching implications. For example, there is the movement of Great Britain into the European community. We all know it is not yet certain whether that move will be made; but no matter whether it is or is not, what has happened in connection with that proposal as between Great Britain and the six countries of continental Europe is bound to have very far reaching effects. In the last day or two we have seen France and West Germany signing a treaty of friendship covering political questions, economic questions and defence questions. There is a great shifting going on in Europe, and no one can tell at this time what the end result will be.
That brings up another far reaching development. I believe that in the commonwealth at the present time we are in a state of flux. I had the privilege of attending the prime ministers' conference in September of last year, and naturally every one of the delegates there was very much interested in the question whether Great Britain would go into the European community, and what the future of the commonwealth was to be. Whether one thought that Great Britain should or should not go in, a great deal of thought was given to the future of the commonwealth. I think the value of the commonwealth was impressed upon the mind of everyone there, and I have no doubt on the minds of millions of people in the various nations of the commonwealth.
Again in the field of trade, we are now in a period when very far reaching changes may take place in the trade carried on in various parts of the world. That question, of course, was of great importance in connection with the British and European community negotiations, but it is also important in many other spheres. I recall to hon. members at this point the statement which was made by our own Prime Minister at the prime ministers' conference with regard to this question, when he made a proposal which I think can roughly be described from the following notes of his comments:
I propose that this conference should declare its intention to extend an invitation to all member nations of the commonwealth, of the E.E.C., E.F.T.A., the U.S.A. and Japan and other like minded nations, indicating a desire to participate, to meet at the earliest practicable date to give consideration as to how to deal with the trading problems before us in a way which will be to the mutual advantage of all.
That idea or something very much like it may very well be the course that is followed


eventually. However, hon. members will recall that in the next month, in October of last year, the United States congress approved important new trade legislation under which the United States was to participate in forthcoming international tariff negotiations. At that time, in an exchange of letters between our Prime Minister and President Kennedy, it was agreed that Canada and the United States should take the initiative in proposing a meeting of the ministers of the GATT contracting parties to discuss important trade developments and to make plans for the GATT tariffs and trade conference. That has now been carried out. A joint Canada-United States proposal for such a ministerial meeting was accepted in November of 1962 and the GATT council, which is not, of course, a ministerial council, is to meet on February 18. It will set a date for this ministerial meeting, and it is expected that the ministerial meeting of GATT will be held about the middle of May.
Then at about roughly the same time in the United Nations the underdeveloped countries were pressing for a United Nations world conference. There was a good deal of discussion about that in the second committee, and finally it was decided that there would be a United Nations world trade conference, which will be concerned primarily with the broad range of trade and development problems of the less developed countries; and this conference is to be held early in 1964. Canada, by the way, took a very prominent part in bringing about agreement on the terms of that resolution in the United Nations. There was a dispute between the less developed countries and the large trading countries as to the time at which the conference was to be held, but we were able to bring about a settlement of that difficulty. All these movements are going on, or are about to go on, in the field of trade. I suggest that this will be an extremely significant trade year for all parts of the world, and particularly for Canada, because we are as vitally interested in world trade as any other country.
Another development of far reaching implication has been the successful settlement by President de Gaulle of the trouble in Algeria. This had the whole Arab world in a turmoil and was causing trouble with all the African countries. It was a great bleeding wound for France herself, and was a problem which appeared almost impossible of solution. Yet that problem is at least well on the way to settlement, and I think the fact there has been such a settlement will be of great importance in the months ahead.
Then, of course, there was the Cuban episode. There the Americans, acting with


[Stage Direction]
firmness and I think with moderation-I suggest with moderation-achieved great success. The Cuban episode has made perfectly clear that in the world today the preponderance of power is with the United States. No longer is it a question of two great equal nuclear powers. I suggest that at the present time the United States is beyond any shadow of doubt preponderant in power. That, Mr. Chairman, may constitute quite a temptation. When you are the biggest fellow in the school yard it is quite a temptation to shove everybody else around. Now, I am confident that there will be no such development in United States policy. I am confident that they will not adopt a policy of getting tough with their allies. For Canada, of course, it is particularly important whether anything of that kind develops.
Another outstanding development has been the success of the United Nations in the Congo within the last few days. That was the most difficult operation this great world organization had ever undertaken. I have no doubt that every member in this chamber has wondered many times how on earth the United Nations would ever get out of the Congo and also how they would ever be able to bring about any order in that unhappy country. Yet they are well on the way now. The premier of Katanga met the United Nations troops when they drove into Kolwezi and welcomed them there, and took the stand that his state would be part of the nation of the Congo. This means a great deal in building up the prestige of the United Nations and a great deal in bringing about world order.
The United Nations also had another big lift or a great impetus from the fact that in the Cuban crisis the United States and the Soviet union rushed right into the U.N. in an effort to get some agreement worked out. They did not stand outside. They did not just ignore the United Nations and go about working things out themselves or anything like that. They went to the United Nations and Secretary General U Thant did a statesmanlike job in helping to work out an agreement on Cuba.
Another development which I think is very far reaching has been the steady reduction in the number of colonies. This colonialism question has been a difficult and nasty one in the United Nations and all over the world. Most of the former dependent countries now have their independence. There are a few more to come, and I am confident that they will gain independence in due course. However, quite a large segment of that problem has been settled. There is one which remains to be dealt with and in which our own nation of Canada took the lead, namely the question of Soviet imperialism or what happens inside
Supply-External Affairs the present Soviet union. These Soviet representatives have been very quick and very bold about attacking Great Britain, and France in the United Nations for what they have been doing about colonies. However, there has not been in the Soviet union one little move to give the people within their boundaries any right at all to decide whether or not they wish to have their independence back again. Hence this issue is one which will still have to be dealt with.
Another far reaching development has been the attack by red China on India. That was an amazing action which it is hard for any Canadian to understand. Here was India, one of the leaders of the unaligned countries, which was certainly giving no offence to the red Chinese and doing nothing to justify aggression of that kind, yet red China struck. It does not require much imagination to realize that this action will have a far reaching effect in all the unaligned countries. I am confident that they are watching that action and that they will have made some decisions which certainly will not be against the interests of western nations such as Canada.
Then there has been the disagreement between the Soviet union and red China. For many months now we have heard rumours about arguments going on in the communist camp. I do not think it is ever wise to put too much credence in reports of that type, for should anything develop leading to really serious trouble I have no doubt they would get together again very quickly. However, the argument has gone on, it has grown louder and it has come out into the open, until when they were meeting in East Germany last week they were observed to be really going at it just in the way we sometimes go at each other in the House of Commons. Wonders will never cease. As I say, this development may have very far reaching effects.
Then another development with far reaching implications has been the recognition by every leader in every nation of the world of impending doom-and I repeat the words "of impending doom"-if there is a nuclear war or if no method of living together can be devised. Across this world today there is a will for peace such as there never has been previously. One needed only to go to the United Nations at the last session and be there while the Cuban crisis was under way in order to realize that mankind, as represented there by the delegates from 110 countries, was determined that something had to be done, and quickly, in order to bring about world peace for hundreds of millions of people who otherwise would perish from this earth.
As I see it, these are the main developments which have taken place or are in the process
3068	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs of taking place and which have much wider implications than has been the case at any other time since I have had the privilege of being Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The question may be asked, where does Canada fit into this picture? May I say that Canada is involved and is helping in an idealistic way all over the world. I mention first the field of disarmament. I deal with that first because this is the main way in which world peace can eventually be achieved. This is where effort is most worth while.
By disarmament I do not mean simply stopping the development of more deadly weapons or reducing existing weapons, although such results would be of the utmost importance; I define it in the wider sense as including the stopping of nuclear weapons tests, stopping the pollution of the air that we, our children and our grandchildren will have to breathe, reducing tensions, reducing distrust. It is very hard to bring about any settlement as long as nations distrust each other so that every word one says the other disbelieves instantaneously. I include all activities of that kind under disarmament.
Canada is involved in this question for good reason. We just happen to lie between the two great nuclear powers. If there is a nuclear war we are in for it. Our cities will be destroyed. On the Saturday night after the Cuban crisis arose I believed, and I have no doubt many other people did, that before morning Ottawa might be demolished, as well as Montreal, Toronto and my home city of Vancouver. Canada has another good reason to be interested in questions having to do with disarmament, for we are in a heavy fallout area. This nation is in one of the worst fall-out areas in the world, the temperate zone. It is admitted that Canada is in one of the worst areas. Fall-out may affect not only us but the very food we grow, and no one knows yet what the end result will be of the nuclear tests which have already taken place, because a lot of the fall-out is not yet down. Questions were asked just today about strontium 90 in the food Eskimos in northern Canada are eating.
The government believes that Canada can do something worth while on the question of disarmament. One reason is because we were chosen by our western colleagues in NATO as one of the NATO negotiators on the ten-nation committee set up in September of 1959, and I would point out that this does not look as though we were quite as low in the esteem of NATO as some of our friends opposite would have the Canadian people believe. Five NATO countries, Great Britain,
[Stage Direction]

the United States, France, Italy and Canada, and five communist countries, the Soviet union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Rumania, formed the committee.
Then there is the question of our position vis-a-vis Great Britain and the United States. Our relationships with these two countries are such that we can talk to them on this or any other issue on a more intimate basis than any other country in the world. Another reason we believe that Canada can do something worth while is that we happen to have the confidence of practically all the unaligned countries in the world. I do not believe there is a country of the NATO group or of the Warsaw pact group that has nearly as many friends among the unaligned countries as Canada has, and that is because these nations have confidence in us.
Another reason we believe that Canada can do something on this question is that we have as our chief disarmament negotiator Lieutenant General E. L. M. Burns, a distinguished Canadian with a splendid record in both wars, a record as head of the United Nations emergency force, a splendid record in the civil service, a man who in my judgment is the best qualified man in the world today on the question of disarmament. He certainly has the respect of the delegates of every one of the 16 nations participating in the present disarmament negotiations, including the communist countries.
The ten-nation committee was set up in September of 1959 by the four western foreign ministers, not by the United Nations. The committee tried to work out some agreement but on June 27, 1960, all the communist delegates got up and walked out. The chairman at the time happened to be from one of the communist countries and he refused to hear any western delegates. He heard the delegates from the other four communist countries; then the delegates from the five countries picked up their brief cases and out they went. That was not a very promising development from the point of view of anyone interested in the field of disarmament.
However, the Americans worked with us on this issue in a spirit of splendid co-operation and we managed to get a meeting of the United Nations disarmament commission. The communists said they were not going to attend and were going to boycott the meeting, and they boycotted it right up to the time we were about to meet in New York. But when India and all the other unaligned countries made it perfectly clear that they were going to be there anyway, in came the communist delegates at the last minute, and we had a pretty good meeting of the United

Nations disarmament commission. This was not a meeting of the United Nations, although the nations were the same, but a meeting of the commission and, by the way, it has not met since.
A resolution was approved unanimously urging the resumption of disarmament negotiations at once. The Russians voted for it too. But then nothing happened. However, it was an expression of world opinion. At the meeting of this commission we demanded that negotiations be resumed, and we urged that representatives of the unaligned countries be added to the negotiators. There was no use sending back the five Warsaw pact countries and the five NATO countries, because they would clash in the first 15 minutes and that would be it. So Canada urged that representatives of the unaligned countries be added.
The general assembly of the United Nations met a few weeks after that, in the fall of
1960.	At that time the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was my parliamentary secretary and he took a magnificent part in the deliberations at the United Nations. He really carried the ball for Canada. We stressed the need to resume negotiations from the start to the finish of that session. We insisted that the disarmament negotiations had to be resumed. I remember he telephoned me once at Goose Bay where I had just landed for half an hour in returning from Europe. He happened to get me and he said, "Things are getting pretty tough down here. I am afraid we are going to get a good licking if we go ahead and force a vote on this particular resolution." We talked for a few minutes and then we decided we would go ahead and force a vote anyway. We took a good licking just to show that we meant business on this question of resuming the disarmament negotiations.
At the same time, starting really in 1959, we had been bringing in resolutions about radiation with the idea of focusing world opinion on the menace of these nuclear weapons tests. We have been getting these resolutions carried with more support every year. This year we did not have nearly as much trouble, I will tell you, as we did in 1959. In 1961 the Soviet union, if you please, resumed tests. They had been negotiating the question with the United States and Britain for nearly three years. During all that time there had been a voluntary moratorium. Then in September, 1961, out they come and start tests. Obviously they had been making preparations for several months.
When the United States general assembly met in 1961 the Soviet union was in the middle of these tests. Perhaps you will recall that they were going to set off a 100 megaton bomb
Supply-External Affairs and Canada and the Scandinavian countries- Canada nearly always works with them in the United Nations-took the lead in bringing in a resolution urging Premier Khrushchev not to set off that bomb. There again we had a lot of trouble, because some nations said what is the use? In the meantime he set off a bomb, and everybody thought it was a 100 megaton bomb. Then, fortunately, we discovered it was only 50 megatons, so our resolution still made sense the way it was worded against the 100 megaton bomb. In the final analysis, that resolution carried with the support of all the nations except the communist countries.
By this time opinion had been aroused about this testing, and in December of 1961 the United States and Russia reached agreement that there would be an 18-nation disarmament committee, and they named the committee.
The Chairman:: Order. May I interrupt the minister to advise him his time has expired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the committee will want the minister to continue.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Will the committee give its unanimous consent to allow the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: I am very grateful to hon. members for allowing me to continue. Agreement was reached by all the members of the United Nations to set up this 18-nation disarmament committee including the same five countries from the west and the same five from the east, plus eight unaligned countries as we had been urging. Those countries were India, Burma, Sweden, United Arab Republic, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Brazil and Mexico. They met at Geneva in March of last year. Mind you, only 17 countries met, because for some reason or other France declined to participate. The western countries are now only four, namely, Great Britain, the United States, Italy and Canada.
At the meeting in Geneva we took the lead in urging that the United States and the Soviet union be joint chairmen of that committee. This had worked very well in the conference on Laos, and we thought it would help to have them as co-chairmen of the disarmament committee. This was agreed to. I feel it is a good idea because, in reality, if these two countries do not reach agreement there is not going to be any agreement, and it is wise to have the responsibility directly on them. It has some disadvantages. I think that having nuclear weapons, they do not have the same sense of urgency about getting some agreement worked out that the rest of us do. I know the disarmament committee was to meet on January 15, of this year, but these two nations got together and decided it should
3070	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs not meet until February 12. However, in the meantime they are carrying on what could be very useful. By the way, we did not agree to the delay. We thought it was a mistake to postpone the meeting.
In the disarmament committee negotiations the eight unaligned countries have played an excellent part. I never hesitate to pay tribute to them for their objectivity and for their sincerity, for the way in which they are trying to help bring about agreement. There is a subcommittee on nuclear test ban problems. We tried to have that subcommittee comprised of the three nuclear powers plus some of the others, but they would not agree. There are only three nations on that subcommittee.
Then there is a committee of the whole on collateral measures. This was a Canadian idea. We thought there were some issues which did not come directly within the terms of the disarmament treaty which could be dealt with collaterally and dealt with quickly, that if agreement could be reached on some of these collateral measures, it might help open the door for agreement of a more extensive kind. The first collateral measure considered was war propaganda, a declaration against any of the countries using war propaganda. Agreement was reached on that in the committee of the whole. The Russians agreed to that. They had much to say about changing the words, putting in "these" and "its" and so on, but agreement was finally reached.
Just the day before the agreement was to be approved in plenary session, word came from Moscow that there had to be four or five additional conditions attached to it, all of which were obviously cold war conditions and which made agreement impossible. It was a very good example of Moscow pulling the rug out from underneath their own negotiator. The person involved here was Mr. Zorin, who had the rug pulled out from under him just a few weeks ago in New York.
In so far as this question of collateral measures is concerned, there are three which are in line for consideration. One is a measure to prohibit the launching of weapons of mass destruction from outer space. This was a Canadian idea. Last March, nearly a year ago, when this collateral measures committee was first set up, we walked in with a declaration to the effect that weapons of mass destruction were not to be used in outer space, that they could not be launched from outer space. Well, that threw everybody into a tizzy. I mean there was a good deal of discussion, and it was not accepted with any degree of enthusiasm by some of the bigger countries. The Russians finally said "We do not want to talk about that; we will leave that for negotiation in connection with the treaty." In any event,


this is one question we hope will be considered by this collateral measures committee.
Another suggestion was a measure to reduce the risk of war by accident, miscalculation or failure of communication. Proposals have been made to reduce the risk of accidental war through improved communication between governments, advance notification of military manoeuvres, the establishment of observation posts and the exchange of military missions between east and west.
Another subject which is to be considered in that committee is measures to prevent the wider dissemination of nuclear weapons. In the main negotiations on a disarmament treaty the Americans have put in a draft treaty and so have the Russians, and a lot of time has been spent trying to piece them together. Canada has aimed at picking out points where there was almost agreement and in stressing those points, trying to bring about agreement on those things in the belief that once the two sides agreed on a paragraph of that kind, it would be easier to go on and agree on something a little more difficult.
We went back to the general assembly last fall, and one thing that everyone was agreed on in New York was that the disarmament committee should carry on its work negotiating a treaty. There was no difference of opinion about that.
There was trouble about nuclear test banning. The Soviet side wanted one resolution; the Americans wanted another resolution. In fact there was a lot of difficulty in working out a resolution dealing with the question of a nuclear test ban. Canada moved in on that, and in my judgment this was our main accomplishment in the last session. We were able to bring about agreement on a resolution on the question of negotiating for a nuclear test ban. We based our offensive on the letters which had been exchanged between President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev at the time of the Cuban crisis. They each wrote saying "We must now get together and settle the rest of the problems. Why could we not do this about a test ban?" We picked that up, and with the impetus of those letters behind us we were able to help bring about a resolution which became known as the Canadian resolution, although we had only submitted amendments, and this resolution was endorsed by everybody except the communists, who abstained.
The disarmament committee resumed on November 26 and worked until December 20, when it adjourned until January 15 and, as I explained a few minutes earlier, that date has been put back until February 12. In the meantime developments have taken place which may be, and I hope will be, of great

significance. There has been this exchange of letters between President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev which were printed as an appendix to Hansard some two days ago, and the Americans, the Russians and the British are now meeting in Washington trying to bring about an agreement on the terms of a test ban. They have made considerable progress. The main difference between them at the moment is as to the number of automatic seismic stations which there will be in Russia and on the number of times an international team can be sent in to inspect those stations. The Russians have agreed to three inspections annually, although until a few days ago they were saying they would not agree to any inspections of any kind; the Americans have asked for eight to ten inspections.
It is of the utmost importance that agreement be reached on this question. If they could reach agreement on a test ban then it would stop radiation, and would lead to the possibility of making settlements on other disarmament problems. In any event, Canada will continue her efforts to bring about a reasonable settlement, and I think today Canada is generally recognized as the leader in the field of working out some disarmament agreement between the east and the west.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: So much for Canada's activities in the field of disarmament. Then there is a related activity, and that is the field of peace keeping. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, if we are able to bring about a measure of disarmament there will be more and more peace keeping work to be done. The two go together, and in my judgment peace keeping in the world under U.N. auspices is going to become steadily more important. Canada is ideally situated for this role and, with India, Canada is today the most experienced nation in the world in the peace keeping field.
Take, for example, the Congo. We have been in the Congo from the start. The house authorized the sending of up to 500 personnel, and Canada has been running the communications system for the United Nations in the Congo, taking a very active part in the air services, and also in the staff work for the whole United Nations force. A lot of this work is done by bilingual Canadians, French speaking Canadians, and all over the world there is a job now to be done by Canadians who are French speaking. In the Congo they are the leaders in Canadian activities.
Canada is also represented on the secretary general's Congo advisory committee at the United Nations. There are only three western
Supply-External Affairs countries on it, Sweden, Ireland and Canada, with 17 African and Asian countries. We are able to consult with the secretary general on Congo questions at any time, and are able to advise him and the other members of that committee. I think those members of the house who have been at the United Nations will agree that Canada's actions in connection with the Congo have been of great benefit. We have tried to keep tempers cool. We have tried to urge moderation, and I think we have been able to do quite a lot in that regard.
Our policy in regard to the Congo has been throughout, and is today, to support the United Nations. Some of the western countries have not taken that stand. The French have been against the Congo operation and pay nothing toward its expenses. The British have been very worried about it and have not been as energetic in support of the United Nations as Canada has been. But I repeat that our policy is to support the United Nations in the Congo.
We have also taken action to help in the financing of the Congo operation. Providing the money has been a tremendous problem. It is costing about $10 million a month for that operation, and the United Nations has almost gone bankrupt paying for it. In passing I may say I thought the Globe and Mail of January 23, 1963 summed up our accomplishments in the Congo very well when it said in an editorial headed "The U.N. and International Co-operation":
Many nations took a constructive part, and will continue to do so, in the Congo operation, but perhaps special mention should be given to India. Nigeria, Malaya, Ethiopia, Ireland, Sweden, Tunisia -and Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get a reputation for croaking or whispering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the minister's voice should be better now.


Howard Charles Green: I think perhaps I had better stop, Mr. Chairman, and I shall finish later on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman,. I am sure that I express the view of all hon. members of this house in saying that this failure in the minister's electric power system is regrettable. We will agree that he should have an opportunity later to complete his statement. The minister should not conclude from the loud applause he has just received that the measure of that applause indicates the complete wisdom of his statement. I think the length of the applause was intended in part to afford the minister an opportunity to' recover his lost voice.

Supply-External Affairs
It is to be recalled that this debate began as the result of a question put to the Prime Minister by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday last. The Leader of the Opposition had asked if an opportunity would be given at an early date to discuss matters involving the defence policy of Canada-


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: No; the Prime Minister offered it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and the Prime Minister replied that that opportunity would be given when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were presented on Thursday and Friday of this week.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You were not here, and you have not read Hansard. You are all wrong.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is, I am sure, accepted by all of us that there is a need not only for the discussion of problems involving national defence, but also foreign policy. However, it is significant that while the minister was speaking neither the Minister of National Defence, who has just come in-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; he was here before.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -nor the Associate Minister of National Defence was present.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I was here until half past three, for the first half hour the minister spoke. At that time-as he would tell you if his voice were good enough at the moment-I went to meet the ambassador for Korea on an appointment that had been made some considerable time ago. Hon. members will perhaps recall that the ambassador for Korea saw the Governor General yesterday and presented his credentials. I have just come down from seeing the ambassador for Korea, and that is the reason I was absent for some 20 minutes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, one would have thought that a matter of this importance, in this new era which the minister has mentioned, would be one in which the defence policy would run consistently with foreign policy. It is inconceivable that our foreign policy would be determined by the character and nature of defence policy. Clearly foreign policy must determine not only defence but international commercial policy. At a time when defence does play such an important part in our national considerations I offer no excuse for the statement I make, which involves a sincere and strong belief on my part that

there must be the closest consistency between the formulation and declaration of foreign policy and the implementation of defence policy.
Mr. Chairman, in his statement the minister gave us, as is his practice-and about this I make no complaint-a tour d'horizon of the situation in the world as he sees it since he last spoke to us. It will be recalled that that was some time ago. This is the first time since this parliament was convened that we have had any statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs which could be characterized as a general survey of Canada's foreign policy.
In his statement today the minister reviewed some of the important events of the past year. He reviewed the settlement in Algeria. He mentioned the Chinese aggression against India; and I may say, by way of parenthesis, that what he said in this connection will be widely supported in this house and in this country. Our sympathies are with this commonwealth country, India, with whom we have had, and I am sure will continue to have, the closest and understandable ties. All the assistance that we can give to India, together with other countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, will be given. Any policy in this regard put forward by the government of Canada will receive the widest measure of support in this house.
The minister said we were entering a new era. I hope he will not misunderstand me if I say that if this is the case, there has been nothing in his statement thus far which indicates any orientation in the foreign policy of our country that seemingly takes into account the opening of this new era. What the minister said was important. His report about disarmament, the nuclear test talks, the resurgence of the strength of the United Nations, these are important events; but they do not represent in themselves any developments which could be regarded as outside the character and the context of the kind of problems of the so-called other era which we have dealt with from time to time in this house. It is true that developments in the world today do cause great concern. There have been some developments which warrant a conviction that in the year 1962 some progress was made in international affairs on a world scale. We have seen, as the minister pointed out, increasing evidence of a fragmentation in the communist bloc, with a seemingly ever widening gulf between Moscow and Peking. Of course, we must make sure that this widening gulf does not

cause us to be overly optimistic or ill prepared for contrary eventualities which might well ensue in the relation between these two important powers.
We have been through the crisis over Cuba, serving clearly to emphasize how completely interdependent the free world has become and how much we rely on the concept of the deterrent possessed by the United States. We came through the Cuban crisis, Mr. Chairman, as a result of this deterrent and the strong, forceful and courageous diplomacy of the President of the United States.
This matter is one of such importance that we have the duty to ask ourselves what is the position which our country took in respect of a matter that not only involved the peace of the world but the preservation of the North American communities, including Canada. While there was displayed by the chief executive in the United States the kind of firmness which in the situation was necessary, I do not believe the same can be said for the government of Canada in that same situation. The government properly has insisted upon fullness of consultation between the various members of the western alliance. This is an insistence which all of us in this house will support. No nation can remain free and no alliance of free nations can remain a free alliance if this principle is not in all practical and possible situations observed.
I suggest that the record of the week of the Cuban crisis will demonstrate that there was justification for concern on the part of the people of Canada over the direction given to this country by the government in that critical situation. I well remember questions being put to the ministry by members of the opposition groups with regard to the Cuban crisis. The Prime Minister cautioned us as to the desirability of there being a minimum of interrogation and that there be no question put which did not bear the stamp of full responsibility. With that characterization I do not quarrel. But I remember that that same evening the foreign minister of this country went on the television and was interrogated by newspapermen, who put questions to him not unlike some of the questions which had been put by hon. members of this house to members of the government. I must say to my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the positions which he took that night over the television-not in this house- were such as to contribute considerably to the lack of confidence which the people of Canada had at that time in the conduct of the foreign policy of the government.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the Cuban crisis highlighted once again the need for Canada to take part in the organization of
Supply-External Affairs American states. This was emphasized well over a year and a half ago by the visit of the secretary of state for external affairs to several Latin American countries and by the visit of the Prime Minister to Mexico. Since that time, during which there was a further suggestion made in this very chamber by the President of the United States, we have had from the government no indication as to what is the policy of the government or its view in that regard. This matter is not unrelated to the Cuban crisis. It will be recalled that it was a salutary experience to have ministers of the council of the organization of American states meeting on the eve of the greatest crisis since the second world war to discuss the possibility, indeed that evening the likelihood, of nuclear weapons being fired upon North America, and Canada not even being present at the meeting. Of course, Canada had no right to go there as a member, but I well recall the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition, that perhaps some way could be found by which Canada as an interested party-and this cannot be denied- might have had an opportunity of sitting at the table. In the light of events currently in Cuba, in the light of events in other Latin America countries, involving as they do fundamental economic readjustments which will have their implications in the relations which will prevail between that particular area and the rest of the world, it seems to me that the time was never more urgent for us to accept the long-standing invitation of every member of the organization of American states and to join this organization.
Mr. Chairman, these are vital matters, and as the minister said events which are now unfolding indicate that we have to be ever vigilant if we want to make sure that we are not the object of destruction. It is an elementary principle in government that the government of the day should regard as its first obligation, the taking of every possible step to make sure that it has so arranged its procedures in national life to guarantee the preservation and the integrity of the nation. This is the standard by which we will judge, and by which in duty we must judge, the conduct of this government in the days that lie ahead and in respect of the events of the immediate past.
I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Cuban crisis has shown that the United Nations has not lost its force and its value. Indeed, the Cuban crisis demonstrated the importance of the United Nations. However, we should remember that it is illusory to think that the United Nations can impose solutions upon great powers like the United States or the Soviet union. But the United Nations can by its good

Supply-External Affairs offices, as was demonstrated in the case of Cuba, provide the channel for a change of policy by a great power. It is not without significance that the United States, after what were thought to be necessary precautions were taken, did go to the United Nations. But what the United Nations can do is to supervise and inspect a solution, and that it has done in Cuba and in other situations.
Speaking about the United Nations, I am sure that my hon. friend will agree that 12 months ago it looked as though the cold war might destroy or seriously impair the usefulness of this collective security organization. We know that the death of the former secretary general was used by the Soviet union to press for a troika secretary generalship which would have reduced the United Nations to impotence. At the end of last year the unanimous decision to establish in that important office U Thant gave the United Nations a new hope and a new opportunity; and it is not without significance, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out elsewhere, that the three executive chairs at the United Nations general assembly are now filled by gentlemen who come from Asia.
I note with satisfaction, as has the minister himself, that the near settlement-what we hope will be the final settlement-of the Congo problem represents a major achievement of the United Nations, and particularly in the final days, to the determination and persistence of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, the minister referred in his speech to the important developments now taking place in Europe in regard to Britain's application for participation in the European common market. Recent weeks have shown a deterioration, however, in our hopes for Britain's taking this historic step into Europe. Indeed, recent days have had an air of unreality, with France and Germany signing a treaty of friendship. This action in itself could, of course, be a significant development provided it remains outward looking. The vision of a united Europe including the United Kingdom which has been presented by great statesmen in this century and which goes back to at least the days following the first world war, cannot lightly be set aside. One must stress the need for wider perspectives in pursuing this vision rather than short run pessimism because of difficulties in the Brussels negotiations.
Speaking as an individual I will say this. I regret that General de Gaulle and the government of France have felt it necessary to take the position they have with regard to participation by the United Kingdom, a position different from that of the other five member states of the European community.

From what the minister said I do not feel that there is on the part of the government a proper appreciation of the consequences of the failure of Britain to be in Europe what she has so much wanted to be in these last few months. Her failure to participate in the European common market will not mean the end of Britain or the end of Europe, but in my judgment it will certainly mark a very significant retreat in the opportunity of furthering peace in the world and unity among the western nations of the world. I greatly doubt whether the alternative which seems to be in the mind of the hon. gentleman is one that will have the significance underlined in the terms in which Mr. Churchill spoke when he advocated a united Europe. As to the conference which Canada and the United States have helped to cosponsor, I think he exaggerated the contribution made by this government. It should not be forgotten that well over a year before the invitation was extended and long before the prime ministers' conference in London last September, preparatory meetings for this conference had taken place elsewhere.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister says that is not so. He will have an opportunity of showing why it is not so. However, I say that if he will look at the facts and will get properly briefed, he will see that what I have said represents the situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Secretary of State for External Affairs, after talking about this world economic conference, spoke of the desirability of the United States not getting tough with its allies. Of course, as I said a moment ago, we all recognize the fact that if the western alliance is to remain strong it must be, in fact and in truth, a real alliance of free nations. Each nation must be given the opportunity to express its views and make its influence felt.
I am going to say this to the minister and in doing so I have no pointed reference to any particular individual when I make the observation. I suspect that one of the tests, in diplomatic effort, of a nation's capacity to have a sphere of influence and to be persuasive, is so to comport oneself and so to formulate and execute the foreign policy of one's country so as to invite the kind of confidence among one's colleague states which will guarantee the preservation of that kind of freedom and of that kind of desired influence. I believe that in this context a disservice will be done and has been done

to the nation by the use of foreign policy as a means of furthering political ends in this or any other country.
In this context I might as well come to a subject that was referred to by the minister when he spoke of the attempts made by this government to bring home to the nations of the world the dangers of Soviet imperialism. No one denies that the subjugation of the free peoples of the world by the Soviet union is abhorrent to us all. No free man or woman in any part of the world can justify the subjugation by the Soviet union of the people of Poland, of the Ukraine, of Czechoslovakia, of Hungary and of other nations. All of us are agreed on this. However, the Prime Minister has sought-and I must say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs today seemed to do the same thing-to give the impression that not until this government came into office had any real advocacy by the government of Canada been made on behalf of these people, or not until the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues came into office. This is not the case. The present Leader of the Opposition, as secretary of state for external affairs in Canada, as leader of this party, as president of the United Nations general assembly and as chairman of the political committee in the United Nations, on many occasions spoke of the dangers of Soviet imperialism. I do not need to put on the record all the things he has said. His observations are to be found in the reports of the United Nations deliberations. They are to be found in the report of the deliberations of this house. However, I single out one because I well remember its being uttered in the United Nations general assembly when the Leader of the Opposition addressed himself to the then Soviet delegate, namely Andrei Vyshinsky. These are the words of the member for Algoma East speaking as secretary of state for external affairs on September 26, 1949, in the general assembly:
Imperialism of the old kind is a rapidly diminishing force-a dying doctrine. The real danger today lies in the new imperialism of the post-war period. During that period only one state in the world has extended its borders and the area of its domination. That state has annexed 179,000 square miles of territory and included within its borders in the last ten years more than twenty-one million people. Backed by its armies, it has imposed satellite regimes on neighbouring states. It has used its great material power and resources to rivet its economic control over the peoples under its influence. Its leaders have talked freely of "liberation" and of "national sovereignty", but its agents abroad have never hesitated to proclaim their obedience to its control and their determination to serve its interests above the interests of their own governments and their own peoples.
How can there be a feeling of peace and security-
Supply-External Affairs Said the Leader of the Opposition of today.
-where an alien power insists on imposing its domination over other nations and peoples?
We of the free democracies-
And when he said this, I am sure he spoke for everyone in this house, for everyone in this country and for all free peoples all over the world.
-reject this new imperialism which uses the subversive forces of international communism to destroy the national independence of even communist states which will not accept its interference and its dictates.
We also find at pages 1628 and following in Hansard, volume 2 for the last session, 1962, other statements placed on the records of this house, declarations made by former prime ministers who preceded this present government, and by the present Leader of the Opposition in several capacities, as secretary of state for external affairs and president of the United Nations general assembly. I am not saying that what the hon. gentleman said would not be supported by the Prime Minister or by others in this house. Indeed, I know that all hon. gentlemen in this house would support a statement such as the one I have quoted. But the significance of this turn in the debate is that the Prime Minister in particular has sought to convey the impression, as I sought to emphasize a few moments ago, that he alone and this government alone are to be regarded among the Canadian people as the political power in this country that has spoken up on behalf of the people in Europe who have been denied their freedom, because of Soviet union domination. Such is not the case.
I support the statement made by the right hon. gentleman in the general assembly of the United Nations in September of 1957. He made a speech there that won acclaim in the United Nations and in Canada. It was a statement that expressed in proper terms the views of the government of Canada and its people with regard to the denial of freedom by the Soviet union to millions of people in enslaved Europe. That was a speech of the highest order delivered by the Prime Minister. I took occasion in this house shortly thereafter to commend him for it. But what the Prime Minister said on that occasion, it should in fairness be noted, had been said on many occasions by Mr. St. Laurent and by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.
307G	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs


Rémi Paul: Does the committee give unanimous consent to permitting the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the house for this concession. But this is not the end of the story. In the fall of 1961 the Prime Minister made a speech before a large gathering of Canadians with European origins. He spoke then as he had spoken in the general assembly of the United Nations in September of 1957. He spoke of the subjugation and enslavement of the peoples of certain European countries. The people who heard him applauded, quite properly, because he indicated further the concern of the government and the people of Canada. This was early in the month of November, I think. At any rate, it was while the general assembly of 1961 was in session. The Prime Minister said that as an earnest of what he was telling them the government was going to introduce in the United Nations general assembly in 1962 a resolution, calling upon the United Nations to condemn the Soviet union for acts of enslavement of human beings in many countries.


John George Diefenbaker: With the support of like-minded nations in the United Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, obviously you cannot pass a resolution unless you have the support of a sufficient number of nations. But I am suggesting to the Prime Minister that if he will look at the texts, and I have them all here-


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -he will find that when he made that speech he did not say anything at that time about the support of other nations.


John George Diefenbaker: Just read it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister can do so when he speaks.


John George Diefenbaker: I am just giving the hon. gentleman the facts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I have said will be supported by the newspapers, and in this instance I want the Prime Minister to know that I propose to make my own speech. Two days after the Prime Minister spoke I had occasion to speak at a gathering where I commended the Prime Minister for the course he had taken. But I urged him, if he thought it was desirable in order to achieve results, of the necessity of making friends in the United Nations, of providing a really effective solution, if these were the conditions and that was his wish, not to wait
[The Deputy Chairman.]

until the general assembly of 1962. As head of the government and in concert with his colleagues, why not give instructions at once to the Canadian delegation at the general assembly to bring in a resolution in 1961? That could have been done but it was not done.
Then we had the general election. I well remember the speech made by the Prime Minister in Neepawa, I think it was. It was a speech which he later corrected, particularly as to words attributed to him and as applied to the Leader of the Opposition. But the Winnipeg Free Press of May 11, and this is supported by the Toronto Telegram of the same date, reported him as follows:
Mr. Diefenbaker promised that next fall he would present a resolution to the United Nations asking the Soviet union to give freedom to the "captive peoples".
Certainly there is no reference there to having the support of a sufficient number of nations in the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: It was used all the time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Toronto
Telegram of May 23 reported the Prime
Minister as saying:
The Prime Minister also announced that Canada plans to enlist the support of other nations in introducing a resolution at the next United Nations general assembly calling for self-determination for the captive people in iron curtain countries.
And so on. This was repeated in several places throughout the campaign for one obvious purpose. I charge the Prime Minister that it was done for the obvious purpose of seeking to influence certain people to support the government in respect of a matter on which the Prime Minister knew perfectly well there was no division whatsoever as between political parties in this country.
The general assembly of 1962 has terminated its sessions, but there was no resolution put forward by the Canadian government or by the Prime Minister. He said at one point he was going to go there himself. In the Montreal Gazette of August 23, 1962 he is reported as follows:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker indicated yesterday he may go to the United Nations general assembly session in New York late next month to sponsor a resolution calling for free elections in Soviet satellite countries.
Then there is this very interesting addendum:
He told reporters he would consider doing so if Premier Khrushchev attends the general assembly meeting, but at the moment reports of the Russian leader's plans are contradictory.
I simply want to say to the Prime Minister that while he holds a very important office I doubt very much that the decision of Mr. Khrushchev to go to the United Nations

depended upon the convenience of the present Prime Minister of Canada. In any event, there was no resolution presented. The parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a speech. It was a good speech. I would expect him to make a good speech. But what he said in substance, I am sure he will agree, was the same in principle as was stated by the Prime Minister in the general assembly in 1957 and by the Leader of the Opposition and by Mr. St. Laurent and others at the United Nations over the years.
I say to the Prime Minister that there is a lot of talk these days about the commitments of a nation to other governments. This was a particular commitment by the Prime Minister to the people of Canada and it was not discharged.


John George Diefenbaker: It was always subject to getting the necessary support of other like-minded nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke again today of disarmament. I must say the minister did not have the same confidence in the outcome of nuclear test ban and disarmament discussions which has characterized the other speeches he has made on these subjects in this house, since he became Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister, I am sure, now recognizes that the solution of the problem of disarmament is not as easy as he thought in the early period of his ministry. We all support disarmament. We must continue to negotiate with the Soviet union and, ultimately with communist China, and with all countries, in an effort to have a system of disarmament that will minimize the possibilities of war by miscalculation.
Let there be no mistake about our support for this objective, all of us in this house and all of us in this country. This we can do, however, in this difficult nuclear age, only provided there is an agreement accompanied by the assurance of fulfilment of that agreement with regard to the measures of control which must be mutually agreed upon, not only control measures and inspection, but agreement as to what the objectives of control are.
Now, the minister seems to think that there is some ground for hope as a result of a recent exchange of letters between the Soviet union and the United States concerning on-site inspections. He looks upon this as an encouraging reason for believing that there may be some progress in this area. Let us hope that there is. I can only remind the hon. gentleman that Mr. Arthur Dean, for whom I know the minister has the highest regard and to whom he paid a tribute the other day, shortly before retiring as United States spokesman in the
Supply-External Affairs nuclear test discussions, did not express the view which the minister has expressed here. He did express the view, however, with regard to disarmament, that while every effort must be made to bring about some agreement in this vital field, it was not doing any service to mankind to overstate the possibilities or to be guilty of exaggerated optimism.
I have read with very considerable interest, as perhaps the minister has, a book that has just been published by Mr. James Wadsworth who, under three presidents, represented the United States in the disarmament discussions. Here is what he said, among other things:
There is a very real question whether genuine disarmament is possible at all in the continued presence of critical political situations like Berlin. Many experts believe, and I concur, that a significant and durable relaxation of the cold war is a prime prerequisite to any relaxation of the arms race.
I think it is not a mature position to take to say that we are going to achieve disarmament in the light of the existence of the very serious differences that yet prevail between the disputants in matters of major political importance. We all hope it will be otherwise. I would not want the leader of the N.D.P. party to conclude, as the hon. member for Kootenay West has on other occasions with regard to this kind of observation, that there was not on my part the fullest appreciation of the desirability of making progress in disarmament. Of course, we must all work towards this objective. My point is that we will not reach that objective if we continue to overlook the realities involved in the present international situation.
The minister mentioned, as an indication of the recognition of the worth of Canada in these consultations, the fact that we had been selected as one of the members of the 10-power disarmament committee. We were selected by the four foreign ministers who met to set up this body. Well, I am sure that we are all proud of the fact that the contribution of Canada has been such that it has warranted the selection of this country to serve in the current disarmament discussions. However, I would remind the minister that in 1954 Canada was a member of the subcommittee on disarmament, the five members of which were the United States, France, Great Britain, the Soviet union and Canada. Canada was selected by the United Nations generally to represent all the other nations. I think that marks us as having warranted at that time the very tribute which the minister wants to take, and I think properly so, for his government and for Canada. We were on that subcommittee. It was Canada that was selected to carry on negotiations on behalf of the other four with the Soviet union concerning the conditions that must prevail if

Supply-External Affairs there was to be a resumption of disarmament discussions. Let it not be suggested, therefore, as the minister sought to imply today, that only this government is interested in disarmament. No one worked harder for disarmament under equally difficult circumstances than did the Leader of the Opposition, just as I frankly acknowledge the minister, himself, has worked diligently and hard towards this objective during his term of office. I simply say to the minister, it is one thing to work hard but it is another thing to work wisely in this field. I do not think it is possible to work wisely unless we take into account the existence of the fundamental differences in ideology that prevail between the Soviet union and the free world, the existence of major political problems that divide east and west.
We will reach, I hope, a stage where we can have at least partial agreement on disarmament under conditions that will not violate our security. But it is not mature, it seems to me at this time, to overstate the possibility or the extent of progress made thus far.
Now, Mr. Chairman, one striking fact it seems to me in international affairs today is the interrelatedness of a nation's defence policy, its foreign economic policy and its over-all policy. These three areas which in the past we have tended to look upon separately, now must be considered all together. Indeed, the continuous nature of this interrelatedness has major implications, as I see it, for our own foreign policy, particularly in the area of planning and co-ordinating of our own efforts and our own policies. Perhaps we should be considering some alterations. Do we have over-all planning and co-ordination of effort in the government at the present time which gives its total attention to a particular problem in external relations and is continually casting its eye up and down the radar screen looking for problems in areas where Canada can exert an influence?
The diplomatic influence and effectiveness of a nation is a total process, a composite whole, in which our political conduct, the state of our alliances, the amount of foreign assistance which we give, our military power, our domestic economic situation, operate all together. It is a truism that Canadian diplomatic influence and effectiveness must be less than what it could be when our own internal economic affairs are in a state of confusion and when our nation appears to be doubly confused and without a vigorous national purpose.
Many commentators in recent years have noted that Canada seems to have less "effect in international affairs than formerly. They say we do not possess the power and influence

we once did. The minister knows who say this. I am not saying it, but I can refer, as the minister knows, to those objective assessments which have been made of the government's foreign policy, to the way they have executed it; I cannot absolve the government from blame in this matter. Indeed, as has been so often commented on, our diplomacy has been a great deal less than satisfactory in a number of areas, and there are other reasons as well for our present situation.
The fact is that in today's world the pace of change has become so rapid as to destroy utterly the process of gradualism which we had once come to know. Revolutionary change has become a part of our lives, and yet we have not adjusted our thinking to the implications of the scientific and technological revolution of our times.
We need to be constantly re-examining our foreign policy objectives, constantly querying the means by which these objectives are carried out. The minister today said we have begun a new era. Well, if we are in a new era surely we are entitled to have, particularly at a time when we are discussing national defence, a statement on it as well as on our foreign policy objectives, how we pursue them and how they are related to defence and international commercial policies. This is necessary if we are to have a mature consideration of our foreign policy.
Now, Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat I say to the minister, as I have often said to him on other occasions in these debates, we endeavour in this country, and I think properly so, to minimize the occasion when we have to differ with the government on foreign policy. We basically support the same principles, although because of what the minister said today it seems to me that in this new era there is a need for a re-enunciation of those principles and new adaptations, if we are to satisfy fully the obligations of this debate.
The government, this party and other parties in the house are not basically divided on the broad lines of foreign policy. Therefore, in the consideration of these matters, let us not be afraid to express our differences. Let us not be afraid to point out where there are weaknesses. Let us not exaggerate our achievements whether in terms of collective effort or in terms of national achievement, but let us bear in mind that in this difficult period there must be stated goals of foreign policy carefully adhered to, respected by all branches of the government, the defence department as well as the Department of External Affairs.
Differences between ministers or differences of policy with regard to ministers in these

departments are not conducive to the development of a strong and respected position for this country in the United Nations or elsewhere in the world. So I say to the minister we must pay more attention to our long run objectives and to policies and ways by which we can continue to play an effective role in foreign policy. The minister has that opportunity and I submit to him with the greatest respect that that obligation was not discharged by him today.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, we have listened to a partial statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and we have listened to today's spokesman for the Liberal party on the same subject. I am more than ever convinced that it is time we came to grips with all of the basic issues concerning external affairs and defence. We have avoided decisions long enough. Canadians want to be informed. They want action, not talk.
I shall not take time this afternoon to review world developments. That has already been done. Rather I shall endeavour to get down to what I regard as some of the major issues that are before us. During the past few weeks the question of Canada's military policy, and this is very definitely related to the over-all picture of external affairs, has come prominently before the public, and Canadians have become properly concerned about the attitudes of their politicians and alarmed at the general situation relating to Canada's role in the international scene.
The politicians of our old line parties have much to answer for to the electorate of Canada. Surely, however, nothing condemns the weakness of both the government and the Liberal party in the face of urgent threatening problems so much as the total failure of both to state clearly their policies on nuclear weapons for a period of something like three years, except perhaps to accuse each other of what the other has not done or, if done, has done wrong? It is no wonder the Canadian people have become confused. It is no wonder, because there has been no clear light for them to follow.
Canada's weapons policy at the present time is a matter of urgent public importance. Perhaps we only now realize how serious was the Cuban crisis last October and how totally unprepared we were to take effective action. If this crisis has driven politicians in all parties to come to some decision on this important question then perhaps indeed it has done some good. Events do not wait on us forever, and through lack of decision our freedom can easily be lost. If we look back it is not difficult to see that the government has in fact committed us to a policy whereby, if we had no nuclear arms, we had no effective weapons for defence at all.
Supply-External Affairs
The CF-104 and the Voodoo aircraft, the Honest John rocket launcher and the Bomarc missile were all designed for maximum effect with nuclear warheads. Their empty mouths mock us if we do not arm them as they were intended to be armed; yet now we learn the Bomarc is no longer to be used by the United States. In fact it has rapidly become obsolete altogether. The government of Canada has at no time admitted it had a nuclear policy. Rather we have had the pathetic spectacle of our minister of external affairs respected as the apostle of disarmament and negotiated peace at the United Nations while, at the same time, the Minister of National Defence travels about the country and the world telling us we need nuclear weapons, and all the while the Prime Minister of this country sits in between remaining evasive and uncommitted. It is no wonder the Canadian people are confused.
On the other hand the leader of the Liberal party can hardly be proud that it took him three years of shilly-shallying to come down at last to a recognizable position on nuclear policy. He is a winner of the Nobel peace prize, a man known to be one of the best versed Canadians in the field of foreign affairs, a man who should know, if anyone knows in this country, the ins and outs of NATO policies and our commitments and our responsibilities to our allies. He is the man who hopes one day to become prime minister of this country.
How long has this man been evading his responsibility of bringing to the people of Canada a clear statement of policy regarding the question of nuclear armament? I ask him to state just what are our commitments to NATO and to NORAD. I would like to know. Or does he know? I think it was Mark Twain who once said that it is always good to know the facts before you twist them. Did the Cuban crisis and the developing political situation force him to announce a decision? Perhaps it was on the advice of the former commander of NATO, General Norstad. Or was it another instance of political expediency? Why have not the Liberals advocated before today Canada joining the organization of American states?


An hon. Member:: They have.


Robert Norman Thompson: Why did they not do so when they were in government because, as the previous speaker has stated, the invitation to join the organization of American states has been there for many, many years. This is why I believe that today Canada needs leadership, a statement of what is its policy and what are the facts as they relate
3080	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs not only to our commitments but to our responsibility, to our people, to our nation and to our friends and allies.
We are at war with communism. The war is not a "hot" war at the present time. Pray God that it never will become that. It is a war, none the less. It is the expressed determination of the leaders of communist nations to force their will and their way of life on the free nations of the world. It was Khrushchev himself who said, "We will bury you"-and he means just that. He now thinks it can be done without the use of nuclear conflict, but the Chinese communists have other ideas. They mutually agree, though, on the subversion of our institutions and our government by infiltration, by economic techniques-yes, and by destroying our will to resist. This is the greatest danger that threatens us in this war, because brainwashing as far as the communists are concerned is nothing more or less than a method of destroying the will to resist. Certainly we can hardly expect to peacefully co-exist with men who deny and reject the moral laws which we accept and by which we live. The leaders of communism make no attempt to conceal this fact. The problem is simply that we refuse to hear, or if we hear, we refuse to understand.
In the face of reality I suggest that there are three alternatives before us. One is that we become neutral; second, that we join the forces of the east in this ideological struggle; third, that we join the forces of the west. Now just let us look at this simply. Neutrality does not pay. In fact, there is no dogma, there is no intolerance so intolerant as neutralism. Certainly Canada has no part, nor do Canadians have any part, in neutrality. It took a long time for Mr. Nehru to wake up to this fact, but he now has. It is impossible for us to join the opposite side in this cold war. If we stop for a moment and recognize the heritage that is ours in this free land of ours, certainly these are the things that we ought to hold most dear, and there can be no place for us whatever on the other side. Therefore we are put without equivocation on the side of the free world, and as one of the larger of the small nations we must stand with our friends; we must stand on those principles which we know are true and then, when all has been done, stand again. This is our responsibility and it is only in the light of this that we can actually face up to the problems that we have.
Mr. Krushchev in speaking to the world
has made it very clear that he is against nuclear wars. His reason for saying this is simply that he knows that in a nuclear war

no one could emerge a victor and that both sides would be destroyed. Instead he favours war of his own design that will speed the day of the communist take-over. He promises to support the inevitable revolutionary wars such as we now have in Laos. He calls these wars "people's wars", wars of liberation; he calls them sacred wars. He has not changed his opinion on that. They are inspired and led by the communists themselves. He intends to abolish the occupation regime in Berlin, as the dividing wall has already told us. The new front of active struggle centering in Cuba is regarded as something which all communists regard as a duty to support. Let us not think that just because a few missiles have been taken away from Cuba the danger in Cuba has disappeared. All one has to do is read the newspapers of today or yesterday to understand that. Nevertheless, where the transition to communism can be accomplished by peaceful means, no war is desired. Otherwise communists must encourage armed uprising and civil war. They believe capitalism is doomed and is declining in power and prestige. That communism is the invincible force of our age is their basic conviction. Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock?


Rémi Paul: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is private members' hour but I wonder whether the house would agree to revert to motions in order to permit me to make an announcement regarding the Atlantic development board. It will only take a very short time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister seeks the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the house. I wish to announce the appointment of the chairman and members of the Atlantic development board. Hon. members know that this board is being established under an act passed earlier in the session and will have the responsibility of investigating and reporting upon measures and projects for fostering the economic growth and development of the Atlantic region.

The chairman of the board will be Brigadier J. Michael S. Wardell of Fredericton, New Brunswick, the publisher of the daily Gleaner and also that well known monthly magazine The Atlantic Advocate. Mr. Wardell has been tremendously interested in expanding the economy of the Atlantic provinces. The other four members of the board will be Mr. Frank H. Sobey of Stellarton, Nova Scotia; Mr. Melvin McQuaid of Souris, Prince Edward Island; Mr. Fred Ayre of St. John's, Newfoundland; and Mr. Donat LaLande of Moncton, New Brunswick. Mr. Sobey is the chairman of Sobey's Stores Limited of Stellarton; chairman of the United Steel Corporation Limited; and president of Industrial Estates Limited. He is also a director of a number of firms, including Maritime Steel and Foundries Limited, Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Limited, the Nova Scotia Trust Company, and so forth.
Mr. Melvin McQuaid is a well known public figure in Prince Edward Island, who from 1958 to 1962 was provincial treasurer and attorney and advocate general of that province. Mr. Fred Ayre of St. John's, Newfoundland, is managing director of Bowring Bros. Limited, one of the largest, if not the largest, merchandising establishments in Newfoundland, with branches in Labrador, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Montreal, Quebec.
Mr. Donat LaLande of Moncton, New Brunswick, is the assistant general manager of the maritime district, Provincial Bank of Canada, who has also throughout the years devoted himself to the welfare of the maritime provinces.
The act provides that members of the board are appointed to hold office for a term of five years, except that of those first appointed one shall be appointed for three years and two shall be appointed for four years. Accordingly, the term of the chairman and Mr. Sobey will run for five years, that of Mr. McQuaid and Mr. Ayre for four years, and that of Mr. LaLande for three years. The government is very appreciative of the fact that these five outstanding representatives of the Atlantic region have agreed to serve as the first directors of this important new institution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, whatever our views have been of the legislation, I am sure that everyone in the house will be glad that this board has now been appointed. Our hope will be that it will set to work without delay and that there will be some projects forthcoming for approval at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Speaker:: It now being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of 27507-3-195
Divorce Bills
private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills as appearing on page 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the house for unanimous approval for the precedence of private Bill No. S-15 standing in my name, which is No. 447 on today's order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Unanimous consent of the house is asked by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Mitchell) that item 447 should come to the head of the list in precedence to the first item. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Rodger Mitchell: the second reading of Bill No. S-15, to incorporate the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read a second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill SD-5, for the relief of Marion Ruth Catherine Slattery -Mr. Mandziuk-Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, we are being asked today to grant a divorce to Marion Ruth Catherine Slattery, who lives in the city of Montreal. We note that in this case the people concerned are quite young. They have been separated and there has been a history of some disagreement. We also note that there is a rather unique feature in the bill in that the investigators are not the normal class of investigator but are related to the petitioner. As in all cases where there are investigators and where investigation must be proven, I think there is also a desire to give more credence to the evidence of those who are not interested for financial reasons in the case. But where there are blood relations involved there are other interests which must also be given consideration.
In this case it seems to me that we must look at the evidence. I think it is important to look at the questions asked. The questions commence on page 2, and I should like to point out that in reading the evidence I found that the barrister-at-law from Montreal in my opinion did a very good job and asked the questions in a way in which I think they should be asked. I certainly would commend his handling of the case to other lawyers who I think have not done as well.

Divorce Bills
The questions start in this way:
Q. Mrs. Slattery, were you born in Montreal?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you lived there all your life?
A. Yes.
Q. Was your husband bom in Montreal?
A. Yes.
Q. Has he lived there all his life?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he still living in Montreal, to your knowledge?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he employed in Montreal?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the firm for which he works?
A. The Weekend Picture Magazine.
Q. Do you know how long he has been employed by that company?
A. About 10 years.
Q. So far as you know does he intend to remain in Montreal, Canada?
A. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, I think that in this case counsel has established the matter of domicile in a straightforward way and has asked the questions which are sometimes not asked, but which in this case have been well presented.
Then the chairman asked:
Q. How old is your husband?

Then Mr. Greenberg continued:
Q. Did you cohabit with your husband and live as man and wife after you were married?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there any children born of your marriage?
A. No.
Q. How many times have you separated from your husband?
A. Twice.
Q. When was the first occasion?
A. In June of 1959.
Q. What were the immediate causes of that separation?
A. He was constantly going away on week ends by himself, and when I asked him to explain his absence he wouldn't tell me and he didn't treat me very well, so I went to my mother's.
Q. When was this?
A. In June of 1959.
Mr. Chairman, you will notice that the difficulty which developed in this marriage developed after the marriage had been in effect for something like three years. Mr. Chairman, if you would give some consideration to a suggestion which has been made by many hon. members in this committee which is in the form of a bill now before the house, it would seem to me that if a court was handling this particular case and had been available to this couple, in view of the fact that this marriage had a reconciliation feature about it and the marriage had been in effect for three years, if family counselling had been available this is probably one of the cases which would not have come before us. If we are going to continue as we appear

to be continuing and to operate as a pseudocourt, if we were to establish for ourselves the services of a family court, which would have all the machinery available to such an institution, which would allow for the assistance and the rendering of advice to this particular couple during the period when the marriage was already in jeopardy, when there had been a temporary separation and the marriage was later resumed, then it seems to me this marriage might have been saved.
It seems to me that as a court we should have the right and the obligation to suggest whenever it seems advantageous that assistance be made available, and be made available by competent people on the instruction of the appropriate court, in order to see that a reconciliation of the marriage is attempted and is worked for. Because it is generally assumed, I think correctly so, that the institution of marriage, lying in the public domain, is of public interest and therefore the public has an obligation to see that the element of matrimony is maintained at as high a degree as possible. I think this can be accomplished in many cases by the use of a family court and the machinery which would be available for counselling services.
After the second reconciliation took place the wife returned to her husband. She had lived at her mother's house for the period of her separation which was of very short duration, namely four or five days and she had returned to her husband. Fortunately in this case, while the couple were quite young and probably ill advised in some of their actions, the mother of the girl insisted that the couple return and after four or five days had persuaded her daughter to go back to the husband. The questioning continues as follows:
Q. How were things after you went back? A. For a while they were fine and then in November, 1959, he started the same things again, going away week ends by himself and he wouldn't explain his absence. When I asked him why he didn't take me he said, "If you want to go out, go out. I don't care what you do".
I think this is an indication that if the services I mentioned had been available at that time we might not be considering this case today. There was a period of time in which the marriage had actually been reentered upon successfully and not much objection was taking place at the time. The questioning continues:
Q. Did you have regular quarrels after these week ends of absence? A. Yes.
Q. Did he treat you badly during these quarrels? A. Yes.
Q. What did you do after this? A. When I would ask him where he was he wouldn't answer me and he pushed me aside and told me not to bother him. I would ask him, "Where were you? Where have you been?" And on one occasion he grabbed me and tried to choke me and he said, "Look, don't bother me. It's none of your business where I go."

Q. When was the occasion of your second and final separation? A. In May of 1960.
Q. How did that come about, exactly? A. He was away for the whole week end. On the Saturday night I was afraid to stay by myself because the people in the building were away. I was alone in the building.
Q. What did you do? A. I went down to my mother's place on Saturday night.
Q. Did you try to communicate with your husband during the week end? A. Yes. I phoned him all week end and I couldn't reach him until the evening of Sunday night.
Q. What happened when you reached him at that time? A. I called him and all I said to him was, "I am at my mother's". And he said, "Good, stay there".
Q. Have you lived with him since that time? A. No, I haven't.
Q. You have stayed with your mother since that date? A. Yes.
Q. What did you do the next day, Monday? A. I left the next day. I went home and took some of my clothing with me and I went back to my mother.


Rémi Paul: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I think he is now reading the evidence in this case. When he is doing that, he is reading a speech. I should like to refer the hon. member to Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 124, citation 144:
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, for the reason that, "if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by other people, and the time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention.
I think the hon. member may say a few words about the evidence in this case but I am sure he will try not to read in extenso the evidence in the case.


Mr. Scott:: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. Surely, on reconsideration, you will alter your ruling which seems to be an incredible one. The hon. member for Timiskaming is not reading a speech. He is presenting to the committee some evidence from the transcript of evidence taken in the other place. How that evidence could, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as a speech, I find it extremely difficult to understand. If the hon. member had written his remarks out and then had purported to read them to the committee, I could see some merit in your ruling, Mr. Chairman. However, what he is doing here is reading into the record from a transcript of evidence those portions which he considers to be very important. I am completely at a loss to understand how that procedure comes under the heading of reading a speech. I wonder whether you, Mr. Chairman, could explain it to me in language which I could comprehend.
27507-3-195J
Divorce Bills


Rémi Paul: If the hon. member refers to citation 144 he will find these words in the last lines:
-and the time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention.
That is the reason why I asked the hon. member for Timiskaming not to read all the evidence in this case. I am sure that, with co-operation, we can discuss the whole of this problem without reading the evidence that has been given in the other place.


Mr. Barnett:: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a word on the point of order that has been raised. With reference to your last remarks may I say that I feel sure you would not be suggesting that matters which have been given in evidence in the other place are matters which are not worthy of the attention of members of this House of Commons. In addition to that-


Rémi Paul: Order. I do not think the hon. member understood what I said. I never said that. I asked the hon. member for Timiskaming not to read all the evidence. He may advance arguments and make remarks about it but I asked him not to read all the evidence. I never asked him not to make any remarks about the evidence that has been given in the other place.


Mr. Orlikow:: Surely, Mr. Chairman, the only person who can decide how much of the evidence in a particular case is germane to his argument is the member who is speaking. I presume that, some time during this session, we shall be discussing a subject such as the Columbia river pact. I presume that certain members, and perhaps some on the government side, will wish to quote extensively from the evidence which was given before the committee which studied the pact. Surely Mr. Speaker is not going to decide when a member, whether he sits on this side of the chamber or on the other side, will have quoted enough of the evidence. Surely this is not reading somebody else's speech. Hon. members may or may not think that the evidence which the hon. member for Timiskaming is referring to is important. However, surely only the member involved can make a decision on that matter.


Rémi Paul: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North misunderstands the duty of the chairman of the committee. I should like to read to him standing order 59, paragraph 2:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.

Divorce Bills
And also paragraph 4:
The chairman shall maintain order in committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house, on receiving a report thereof.


David Orlikow: Since the only item before the committee is a particular divorce action and since the hon. member for Timiskaming is quoting from the evidence with regard to that divorce action, surely he is in order, as there is nothing else to discuss.


Rémi Paul: I think the hon. member is not following the citation. He is reading, and that is the reason I asked the hon. member for Timiskaming not to read his speech. He can make any comments about the evidence he pleases but I ask him not to read all the evidence.


Reid Scott: Speaking still to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would not want you to think that in anything you say we are in any way questioning your authority. We have always found you to be extremely fair and very courteous in all the dealings you have had with us in the house. Therefore anything we say is in no way intended to reflect upon you; indeed, we hold you in the highest esteem. But I should like to ask you, if you would be so kind as to give me your indulgence, to explain to me your ruling that the hon. member for Timiskaming cannot read this evidence.
I must confess I am completely confused. When you first objected you said that the member was reading his speech, and when this was discussed with you you then said that according to the citation we were referring to matters not suitable for the house to consider. When that was discussed you then said that the hon. member was reading long citations. Now we seem to be back to a ruling that he cannot read the evidence. I am wondering what the ruling is.
The hon. member for Timiskaming is purporting to read into the records of the house portions of the transcript of evidence taken in the other place on which this bill is based. It seems to me that is relevant and should be available for the consideration of members of the house. I wonder whether you would restate the ruling why the hon. member cannot read this evidence into the proceedings here.


Rémi Paul: Perhaps I can give my ruling in French and with the translation I am sure the hon. member will understand well what I said.
(Translation):
I asked the hon. member not to read in extenso all the evidence submitted during the inquiry by the Senate committee.
I suggested that the hon. member confine
[The Deputy Chairman.]
himself to commenting on the evidence, referring to part of it when necessary, but he is not to read it because that would amount to reading a speech and I cannot allow it.
That is what I meant when I asked the hon. member to abide by the rules of the house.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your guidance. I should like to say that I am not reading entirely from the evidence. You also have my assurance that I am not reading from a speech. I have the original certified copy of the transcript of the actual evidence from the other place and it is certainly not a speech, although these transcripts may be a collection of speeches by barristers, senators, petitioners, respondents and various other witnesses.
I think that to paraphrase some of the evidence would not be a fair way to present the case. Unfortunately many members of the house do not get the evidence and I should not like to give an improper presentation of the evidence by paraphrasing rather than referring directly to it. However, you have my assurance that it is not a speech I have here but rather the transcript of evidence obtained from the other place.
As I was pointing out, in this particular case there was considerable opportunity to do something if the circumstances had been right, and in referring to the evidence and making some comment on it I should like to say that I think it highlights our inability to assist these people when assistance is needed most.
Hon. members will notice from the evidence that in 1962 the respondent was 25 years old and that the marriage took place on June 16, 1956 when she was only 19 years old. While she was of the age of legal consent, I believe we leave to chance many times the obligations we have under the matrimonial causes act. There is little education along this line and I think that we may have failed in this case to take advantage of what I believe was an obvious opportunity for the operation of marriage counselling services. It may be, and rightly so, that in many cases it is a responsibility of the faiths to which these people belong to provide this type of counselling. I am sure that in many cases this is done and that advice along this line is provided.
However, I think it would be advisable for us to consider certain points in looking at a case of this kind. The marriage took place in 1956 and it was 1959 before trouble developed. The marriage staggered along until the spring of 1961 when there was a final break-up. It seems to me that there was

an opportunity in this case for some type of family counselling. The British North America Act has given us the right to do these things and to make regulations and laws, and I would point out that I have already placed a bill before the house which would accomplish this end if it were adopted.
The very serious problem which developed here and which resulted in this young lady coming to parliament and asking for a divorce from her husband could quite possibly have been eliminated, particularly in the period from May, 1960 to 1961 when the marriage Anally broke up. It is unfortunate in this case that the necessity arose of presenting such evidence as is found in the latter part of the transcript. There is evidence that the marriage which took place on June 16, 1956 was consummated but there were no children.


Rémi Paul: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. I have given him additional time because of the points of order that were raised.


William Arnold Peters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Reid Scott: In rising to speak on this bill, I want to say that I do so reluctantly. This afternoon in the house we have been talking about matters of world-wide importance, matters concerning all the countries of the world, problems relating to the survival of mankind, peace and war, and now at Ave o'clock the whole machinery of the House of Commons grinds to a stop. These great matters of world-wide importance are set aside and we begin to discuss the problems of divorce.
I have read the evidence in this particular case. It is a well documented case. There is no reason why it should not go through. Everything appears to be in order, and I hope that the committee will pass the bill this afternoon. As I say, I am reluctant to speak on it at all. It is unfortunate we could not ask for the unanimous consent of the house to continue discussing the world-wide problems that were before us. Indeed, to me it is a tragedy that these items are pushed aside while we consider matters of this kind.
I do hope that during this session some action will be taken by the members of the house so that we will not continually be put in this absurd and tragic position.


William Arnold Peters: While I agree with what the hon. member for Danforth has said, I think it should be pointed out that the members of this house have taken unto themselves the responsibility for adjudicating upon each case. Since that has been done, I believe we are going to have to And some new way of doing this. If I were to adjudicate on this case,
Divorce Bills
I would say that I agree with the hon. member for Danforth when he says that this is
a good case.
However, Mr. Chairman, I think this case has the same problem attached to it as all other cases have which come before us. We have to look at this evidence very closely because we are setting ourselves up as a quasi court. I am prepared to study this case and bring some matters to the attention of the committee. I believe we should consider the evidence as carefully as we do in any other case. In looking through the evidence I notice that the lawyer very carefully and skilfully leads the witness through a number of questions in order to establish certain facts. I am wondering if the same evidence would have been given if the witness had been allowed to make her own presentation rather than just answer questions. It seems to me that in this case the lawyer handled it very well. He asked questions such as these:
Q. Did you have regular quarrels after these week ends of absence?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he treat you badly during these quarrels? A. Yes.
Q. What did you do after this?
A. When I would ask him where he was he wouldn't answer me and he pushed me aside and told me not to bother him. I would ask him, "Where were you? Where have you been?" And on one occasion he grabbed me and tried to choke me and he said, "Look, don't bother me. It's none of your business where I go".
In reading this evidence it would appear that they had a nice quarrel, a very quiet quarrel. You might as well have said, "After you Alphonse". It seems to me the language does not indicate the fact that the young lady has been choked; he says, "Look, don't bother me." It seems to me the questioning is rather leading.
We come now in this case to the establishment of the charge of adultery, and I think this is fairly important. I should like the hon. member for Danforth, if time is available, to say something on the legal aspects of a problem we have here. This problem is indicated by these questions and answers:
Q. Mrs. Slattery, what has happened since that time to lead you to believe that your husband hai been living with another woman?
A. Well, he lives in the same area in Verdun as I do and I saw him in his car with another woman and they had a little baby in the car with them.
Q. Did you recognize this other woman?
A. Yes I knew her from the area.
Q. Are you personally acquainted with her?
A. No.
Q. Do you know her name?
A. Yes.
Q. What is her name?
A. Joan Tibbo.

Divorce Bills
Q. On this occasion when you say you saw her with your husband in his car with the little baby did you inquire about this?
A. Yes, I did.
If the hon. gentleman wishes to carry on a conversation, I hope he will speak a little louder. Now, I am only annoyed by the mut-terings but I would be quite happy to answer a question if he wants to ask one.


Mr. Legare:: I am just helping you to kill time.


William Arnold Peters: I would be very happy to have the hon. member discuss this case if he sees fit.
I would make this point. The evidence given establishes that, before the divorce procedure was set up, the true reason for the divorce is established rather than the adultery charge which is dealt with later. I should like the hon. member for Danforth to consider the fact that, here is a woman who presumes her husband is living with another woman who has a child. This, in itself, would be fairly strong evidence that adultery had been committed. It does not seem as though any effort has been made to hide the fact that there is a child. I believe, therefore, that the basis of this case is a common law arrangement, which is not necessarily an adulterous arrangement; but in a case where a child is born adultery would be presumed.
I believe this would be the grounds in this case rather than the grounds established in the evidence. I feel that this is a technical point. I notice, too, that there is an interest on the part of the wife herself who did not go out and hire lawyers to get the evidence that must be produced before this tribunal. My point is that I do not believe we should go through all the procedures since there appear to be grounds established in the early part of the evidence that are more legitimate than the grounds that are developed later in the evidence.
I believe the fact that she is commonly accepted as his wife in that part of the community, of having a child accepted by him in that part of the community, and of establishing a common law domicile habitation in that area should establish the grounds for divorce, and not the grounds that are later developed. These grounds involve the brother of the girl and her mother. Maybe the committee would be interested in what happened. They go to the house, and it is interesting to note that again the mother comes in. She seems to be a very intelligent woman and says that the daughter should take a trip and go on holidays to think the matter over very seriously before she does anything about it. On returning

from the holiday the mother and daughter both go to see a lawyer to get information about how to get a divorce.
This is the part that seems to me rather foolish, that in normal circumstances the establishment and non-denial of the establishment of a common law marriage in itself should not be an acceptable ground before this committee. It is quite true that we have not amended the Canada divorce act, that we have in it only provision for divorce on the grounds of adultery, but it seems to me there should be an amendment to the rules in the other place to allow for a divorce on the grounds of cohabitation with someone other than the marriage partner. This should be very easily established if there is an issue of that common law union.
In this case the normal procedure is gone through. The brother, the wife and the mother go to the apartment of the husband and they enter it. Incidentally she decided that she was not going to go there but she said she discussed it with her lawyer.
Q. Did you inquire about anything else with Mr. Rohrick at this time?
A. Yes, I told him I had been trying to get some personal things and my husband wouldn't let me have them, and I said, "Can X go to the apartment and get them?"
Q. What personal things were these?
A. I had a portable sewing machine I wanted and some crystal I bought before I got married.
Q. And your husband wouldn't give you these things?
A. No, and he said he would have me arrested if I went to the house because I had left on my own accord.
Q. Did you still have the key to the apartment?
A. Yes.
Q. What did Mr. Rohrick tell you?
A. Mr. Rohrick said that he couldn't have me arrested, that I could go but he said, "You best bring somebody with you to witness that you are just taking what is yours."
Q. And did you do this?
A. Yes.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, this reminds me of the R.C.M.P. going into somebody's place just taking what is theirs, and doing so in many cases without what seems to be the proper advice being given.
Anyway, they arrive on Tuesday night, September 26, 1961 and she is accompanied by her brother and mother. They open the door with the key and the brother goes in first. They go into the bedroom and again there is the same kind of problem. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, this is only because they are not qualified detectives and have not had the experience of some other detectives; because in the whole shuffle-and I do not want to read it all-they missed the baby. In the contention I put forward the baby would be an important part of our consideration; but if you will notice they went into the house, the brother went down the hall and into the bedroom, and

the husband was at the door of the bedroom. The brother met him and while he was putting on a bathrobe over his pyjamas the question is asked:
Q. How many bedrooms were in that apartment?
A. Just one.
Q. In this bedroom was your husband alone?
A. No.
Q. Who was with him?
A. The same girl who was in the car with him.
Q. Miss Joan Tibbo?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was she?
A. She was in the bed.
Q. Do you recall the exact date of this visit to the apartment?
A. 26th September, 1961.
Q. Where was this Joan Tibbo?
A. She was in the bed too.
Q. How many beds were there in that room?
A. Just one.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder at this point what would happen if there were two beds in that room. What would the senators do in that particular case? Somebody says "Look under the bed." In this particular case the question was not asked if they looked under the bed. Maybe the committee would be interested some time in finding two beds in one bedroom to see what kind of situation would develop.
Q. What kind of a bed was it?
A. Double bed.
Q. What part of the bed was she in?
A. The side near the wall.
Q. Do you recall what she was wearing?
A. She had baby doll pyjamas on.
This may be the advisor to the other famous detective who always had the girls dressed in baby dolls. They may have been blue or pink but they were always baby dolls. Maybe it was not the detective who thought this up. Maybe it was the lawyer in the case who thought it up.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


William Arnold Peters: Some lawyers have lots of imagination, I have found.
Q. Did you notice any articles of her clothing around the room?
A. Yes, there were some things showing on the chair, a slip and some other things.
A number of other questions follow which I do not think are of any importance and the question is asked:
Q. Could you tell whether the bed had been occupied by the two of them before you got there?
A. Yes, because there were marks on the pillows and the bed clothes were thrown back.
Q. What did you do then?
A. My brother said, "Let's get out of here", so we turned around and walked out.
I notice in walking out they did not take either the crystal or the sewing machine. They may have been excited. There may have been other things said but it surprises me that they did not stop for the sewing machine or crystal.
Divorce Bills
Q. You have not. of course, lived with your husband at all since that day?
A. No.
Q. Have you received any support financially from your husband since that day?
A. No.
They then go on to ask what she earns and then the chairman intervenes and said:
Deal with collusion and connivance.
I am very pleased to see that was done. This is something we could recommend to some of our provincial courts to deal with, so that judges would keep this in mind and refer to it.
By Mr. Greenberg:
Q. Has there been any collusion between your husband and yourself to obtain this divorce?
A. No.
By the Chairman:
Q. You know what that means?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You have not made any arrangements with your husband to get this divorce?
A. I have not spoken to him.
Q. You have not connived at or planned the adultery in any way.
A. No.
Q. You have not condoned the adultery, forgiving your husband?
A. No.
The reason I believe this is very important is because of the fact that in a case like this it is quite likely that the young lady herself would decide that, and she has indicated there was no chance of reconciliation, and because there is no chance of reconciliation she really is getting the divorce on the basis of the common law marriage that is in effect. This is the point I would like the lawyers to consider, that in the legislative sense it would be much easier for us to say the divorce is being granted on the basis of the common law alliance rather than on this particular limited and very sketchy evidence which indicates absolutely nothing about adultery but that two people were together sleeping in this particular bed. I believe the adultery is much more clearly indicated in the common law alliance which has resulted in an issue, and at this point I would wish some of the legal pundits in this court would give it their consideration. Then Mr. Greenberg, the counsel, asked the question I was concerned with before:
Q. Would you take your husband back at this time?
A. No, not when there is a baby involved, I wouldn't.
By the Chairman:
Q. Was the baby in the room when you went in there?
A. It wasn't in the bedroom. The living room was in darkness so I don't know if it was there.
I wonder why she did not ask when she went to get the crystal and the sewing

Divorce Bills
machine. She might then have found out whether the baby was there. Mr. Chairman, while I agree that this is a good case and would probably go through in court, has adultery, in your able opinion, been proved in this case? Was the baby borrowed from one of the neighbours to create a situation which would set up this investigation? I would think that if the baby was there, if there was a baby in fact in the whole procedure, the common law alliance itself would of necessity have to be proved. The detectives in this case or, as it happened, the sleuths- the wife, the mother and the brother-should have scouted around and found out whether this baby was in fact living there. At this time the baby was probably old enough to be out and around. I suggest that is a very important part of the evidence.
Normally there are other matters that detectives consider, but in this case the evidence concerning the charge of adultery appears to be of a very stereotyped nature, and I would suggest that perhaps some coaching was carried out in connection with the answers given. I hope I am not being discourteous in this regard.


Rémi Paul: Order. I have to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I was not intending to speak again on the bill but at the urging of my hon. friend I will give an opinion on the validity of the evidence in the hope that it will convince him to withdraw his objections and let the bill go through. My hon. friend seems to think that the case for passing the bill and granting relief has not been made out and I want to try to convince him that it has. But, Mr. Chairman, if he is going to invite legal opinions from hon. members of the house, I wish he would make it clear in what capacity he is consulting us, whether it is in our legislative or professional capacity, because there might be a difference to his pocketbook depending upon which classification is applied when he is asking the question. My hon. friend seems to think that because there is a common law arrangement here, all this is not satisfactory evidence. That is his point of view. I would like to assure him that as I interpret the law there is no such thing as a common law marriage. It is merely a polite name for living in sin. In the handling of divorce actions the whole arrangement of living together and passing yourselves off as man and wife is, of course, the very best evidence that you can have. Man being man, and woman being woman, the courts will assume that the necessary grounds have been proven and the marriage will of course be dissolved.

Therefore if that is the only objection that the hon. member for Timiskaming has to this particular bill, let me assure him that the evidence is there, the case has been proven, there is no reason why he should object further, and I urge him to lift his objection to this bill, to accept our assurance that the case has been made out, and to permit the committee to pass the bill.


Rémi Paul: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I think that what has been said is probably true in a legal sense, and therefore I am satisfied that it is so. However, I think there is a legislative question, because we operate in this pseudo role, that must be dealt with by the House of Commons in this business of Quebec and Newfoundland divorces. I think the final discussion of the bill should concern the fact of how the divorce is paid for. I know that many hon. members have looked at the methods that have been used for paying for some of these cases, and know that the fact is that on occasion the other place sees fit to give a rebate of the payment to be made. Therefore we appreciate the questions put by Senator Kinley in which he asked about the financial arrangements of the petitioner. He starts by asking:
Q. Were you working during this period?
A. I have worked eight years. I have always worked.
Q. Ever since your marriage?
A. Yes.
Q. And you helped to support the household?
A. When I was married?
Q. Since you were married, what did you do with your money?
A. I used some of it for the house but I was able to save quite a bit because he has a very good job.
Then the chairman asked:
Q. Would you take your husband back if he wanted to come back?
A. I certainly would not.
Then Mr. Greenberg asked:
Q. Have there been any previous court proceedings of any kind between your husband and yourself relating to your marriage?
A. No.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very interesting to have these questions asked in a straightforward way. This establishes one of the major facts in this case and puts it in a different light from some of the other cases we have considered, in that it would appear to me-and I think it would appear to other hon. members, on consideration-that this woman, working as she did as a secretary and earning a fairly good remuneration-


Rémi Paul: Order. It being six o'clock, I shall rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house. Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed tor the consideration of private members' business having now expired, the house will revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Paul in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 1. Departmental administration, $7,305,200.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, belief in a democracy does not necessarily mean hostility toward or enmity of different ideologies. Our nature as Canadians is to be tolerant. In the beginning we did not want to come to the point where we would counter communism with war and armed strife. We may even be loath to admit it now, but we must admit that deep in our hearts we recognize that there can be no conciliation between communism and western democracy, any more than darkness can be conciliated with light, or wrong with right. It is time that we admitted this openly. However, we cannot be so foolish as to believe that we can preserve our way of life by force alone. Particularly at this present time should we realize that armed force is no longer the only means by which a country can prevail over its enemies. On the other hand we must also realize that we can never prevail in our cause in this world struggle if we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the force of an enemy. Thus we Canadians face up to the reality of world crises and the inherent dangers which face us, even now at this particular time.
The cold war is not one of our own choosing. The Canadian people want nothing more than to live in peace-to live in peace with themselves and with their neighbours. But we are at war because communism is at war with us, and if we wish to preserve our way of life we must fight for it or it will be wrested away from us. It is our responsibility as politicians to lay these things clearly before our people. The Canadian people want to be told the dangers which face them. We all want to do our part in our humble stations to secure freedom and safety for ourselves, for our families and for our 27507-3-196
Supply-External Affairs country. Too much of the time our old line politicians take no decisive stand against this danger. Either they pooh-pooh it or else they pretend it is not there.
Since the end of world war II the free world has been pursuing a policy definitely designed to contain the communist menace. I believe this policy has been right, in spite of our government's indecisiveness at times. I believe we must stand for the way of life we believe in, one that respects the rights of an individual against the threat of a totalitarian government. I believe that if we are to win then we must adopt the best weapons at our disposal, and these are not military weapons alone. There can be no substitution for moral standards; let us never forget that.
To put the present situation in its proper perspective the over-all military picture must be considered from four aspects; from the moral aspect, from the economic aspect, from the political aspect, and from the strategic aspect. Let us look at the moral side of the picture first. In one sense Canada is already committed to nuclear arms. For 15 years she has been sheltering under the umbrella of the United States nuclear deterrent. I do not believe that it has been wrong to do that. If we are serious in our fight against communism, the choice is not simply nuclear arms or no nuclear arms. It does mean choosing the best weapons which will serve the national policy we have decided upon. Morally speaking, there is little difference between a rifle with a bullet in it and a Bomarc with a nuclear head on it.
In considering the moral aspect in its most extreme form, the nuclear bomb is basically one of mass destruction. This is the H-bomb. This is the bomb carried by the intercontinental ballistic missile, by the heavy bombers which fly overhead, by the Polaris submarines. It is the technique of warfare which brings about mass destruction. It brings the terror of total destruction to force the way of the aggressor upon an unwilling victim. This is the nuclear offensive weapon of mass destruction as carried by the carriers I have outlined.
Let us remember that there are also other weapons of mass destruction. There is bacteriological warfare, poison gas, ray warfare, the poisoning of food and water supplies. Yes, and even conventional arms may come under this classification. I was surprised when in Tokyo the other day to learn that in a number of single bombing raids during the last months of the war more people were killed in Tokyo than in the dropping of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima. I believe that the

Supply-External Affairs use of all such weapons is a crime against humanity and is not justifiable on any moral grounds whatsoever.
It should be made clear too that there are two types of nuclear weapons which do not fall within the category of weapons of indiscriminate or uncontrollable mass destruction. One is the ground-to-air missile of comparatively small range and limited fall-out and used for the purpose of military troops in the field. I believe that such weapons are entirely different from the heavy nuclear bomb of mass destruction. The decision for their adoption must be made on the basis of military advisability. I agree that our forces cannot be "sitting ducks" for an enemy which they face and which has superior weapons to what they have. A few weeks ago I visited the Canadian cemetery in Hong Kong. Here I found the grave markers of many a young Canadian who gave his life in December, 1942 to defend that outpost in world war II. These men were sent to defend Hong Kong ill-equipped, improperly trained, and they became easy prey for an enemy which they did not believe existed. This cannot happen again.
The second type of weapon is the nucleararmed anti-missile missile, examples of which are the Bomarc or the Voodoo aircraft. The aim of such weapon is not to cause destruction of any person or territory but to destroy in flight hostile rockets or aeroplanes carrying these rockets which menace our country or continent. These are defensive weapons particularly as they relate to Canada in our geographic position, because by no means could they reach enemy territory.
Let us now look at the second aspect, namely the economic aspect. From the economic point of view Canada is a nation of limited population and resources placed in the uncomfortable position of being the buffer state between the United States of America and the U.S.S.R. I do not believe that Canada should or even could as a matter of fact, manufacture or obtain her own independent nuclear deterrent. It is significant that while the balance of world power would be small, the danger in extending the scope of the nuclear club would be great. Even Khrushchev has not allowed his satellites to have the nuclear bomb in their hands, not even in Cuba. We would be wise in Canada to respect this unwritten convention for the sake of keeping world tension to a minimum.
We must also consider the military and strategic aspect of this military picture. It is sound policy to say that any government is responsible to see to it that at all times their nation is prepared to defend herself


against any aggressor or any intruder to the best of our physical and economic ability. It is also our responsibility and privilege to share in the collective security which we have without friends, and to fulfil any or all commitments it is necessary to make. However, our big problem now is that we do not know how far our commitments go. We do not know this with regard to NATO. We do not know whether or not we have any specific commitments to NORAD or NATO. Strategically our need goes further than that. We are losing this war against communism because we are not fighting on many fronts where the weapons are not shooting ones, as we know them, but rather weapons of intrigue, subversive propaganda, trade infiltration and economic disruption. We dare not be so smug as to think we can win this cold war using the methods of world war II or of world war I. If we are to develop a peaceful world we must get away from the use of force upon our fellow man. Rather, we must prefer to give him our help, our friendship, our trade. In the first instance, this responsibility extends to the nations who are one with us in the cold war struggle. I believe there are a number of points which more or less sum up this entire picture for us.
I think we should methodically approach these points in an intelligent way with the information we must have in order to do it. I believe our responsibility to our electorate requires this procedure.
First of all, what are the logical policies which develop out of this approach? On behalf of my party I pledge that Social Credit will never adopt or support a defence policy whereby Canada adopts or makes use of offensive weapons of indiscriminate or uncontrollable mass destruction. Canada should indeed use its best efforts to promote the complete abandonment of this type of armament throughout the world, through effectively supervised multilateral international agreement.
The second point concerns whether or not Canada should acquire nuclear defensive weapons at this time at home or with NATO. The leader of the Liberal party has said that we must acquire nuclear armaments in order to keep our commitments with NORAD, with NATO. This is a reversal of the policies he enunciated up until the last couple of weeks.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Norman Thompson: I wish to ask him what these commitments are. Have we agreed to accept nuclear weapons or have we not done so?


An hon. Member:: Ask the Prime Minister.


Robert Norman Thompson: I would ask the government, the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister the same question.


An hon. Member:: And get three different answers.


Robert Norman Thompson: When we agreed to purchase Bomarcs, did we agree to equip them with nuclear warheads? What about the Star-fighter? What about the Voodoo? Is the question of NATO weaponry a Canadian decision? Is it a bilateral decision or is it a multilateral decision? What is our responsibility to NATO? If it is secret let us say so, and tell the public. After all, that is the only way in which we can be informed. Let me say that this question of emotionalism is no basis upon which to settle the problem before us. How can this house make any sound decision before it has the facts. I say that the onus is on the government to make these necessary facts available. We on our side of the house agree that a special defence committee should be set up. It is absolutely imperative that a means of continued sound approach to the safety of this country be instituted. Let us not forget that consideration. We in Social Credit are convinced that Canada's defence policy must not be a matter of partisan politics or party squabbles.
The Prime Minister so far has refused to set up an all-party parliamentary committee on defence. We believe he is wrong in this refusal. It would be well for him to remember that this is a house of minorities and that neither he nor any of us knows which political party will be responsible for Canada's government and defence policy even three months from now. We ask that all parties together may have a chance to work out with proper information a constructive policy for our country in its relations with other nations of the world and in our own internal policy in which Canadians of every political allegiance can have confidence. The answer to this second point cannot be answered until we have the facts before us and until something of this type has been done. What if we should go into an election in the next week and another Cuban crisis arises during this election period? How could we meet our commitments then? What if there should be a change of government and if in the first few days of that government we should face a crisis? This is something that we collectively in this house of minorities ought to consider if we are to be responsible to the charge that is laid upon us. I believe that the nuclear question has been made far more complicated by the indiscriminate lumping together in the public mind of every variety and form of nuclear armament as if it all were identical. Nuclear weapons of tactical military use, such as the 27507-3-196J
Supply-External Affairs Bomarc, have been lumped together with 24 megaton nuclear bombs as if each would cause equal destruction and each had the same purpose.


Mr. Hellyer:: By whom?


Robert Norman Thompson: I am speaking now of the public impression of this matter. It is becoming more and more apparent that no military force can afford to be without such tactical nuclear weapons when opposed by forces which have those weapons. Their deficiency in firepower would be so great that they could not longer be considered to be an effective fighting force. I believe it is ridiculous to use the argument that because the 24 megaton bomb is a bomb of mass destruction, there cannot be defensive weapons which in an emergency are legitimate. It is asking us to throw out the baby with the bath water. Whether such weapons are a defensive military necessity in the defence of our country, or whether we have given a commitment to an ally to adopt such defensive weapons, it is a question which must be answered now and it must be answered by this house. The government has the main responsibility in the matter simply because it is the government. It is the responsibility of this parliament to speak clearly on these points and it is the responsibility of the government to state clear their policy. However, all fit into the world picture to which we are now committed.
I should just like to make one more remark in connection with this second point. Canada for years now has been sheltering under the umbrella of the nuclear deterrent of the United States. For our own good I believe it is our duty and our responsibility to help keep this deterrent strong. I believe that we must assist in maintaining a strong surveillance system, an efficient anti-submarine force in full co-operation with the United States. These are just the facts of our geographic location. We must also equip our three services with sufficient highly mobile, conventional, effectively co-ordinated defence equipment. Such forces must be completely mobile in this day and age, equipped with only the best and most modern equipment. We should discard all land equipment which cannot be air-lifted. Our air force should be equipped with the best tactical aircraft and light and heavy transport. These permanent forces should be supported by strong forces of civilian soldiers and a university training program.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give unanimous consent?

Supply-External Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you very much. I appreciate this courtesy.
Third, I would say that we must intensify our efforts toward multilateral nuclear disarmament and total military disarmament. We must continue without respite our efforts through the United Nations and by international negotiations to obtain effective international disarmament. The enlargement of the nuclear club and the expansion of the nuclear stockpile must be stopped. Perhaps Mr. Khrushchev removed all the missiles from Cuban soil, but let us remember that just the other day in east Berlin he said that the 60 missiles from Cuba have become 120 missiles elsewhere. We are also told that communist China will have nuclear bombs within the next year or two. Surely civilization will never resort to the destruction of itself. As a pioneer, peace-loving friendly people Canadians can reach their evident place in destiny as champions for a sane, vitally needed armament control program.
At this point it is well to remember that effective disarmament can only come as a result of peace. Peace will never come as a result of disarmament. Disarmament will come as a result of peace. Because if we have no peace there is no chance of reaching a disarmament agreement as we think of it today. Nevertheless we must continue to work for it. Yes, Canada must continue to take part in disarmament negotiations wherever and whenever they might be held. We want to be there when the first crack in the wall appears that might lead us through to something that is definite in this regard. We want to be there when the first ray of light appears through the darkness that now divides the world and makes disarmament impossible. In addition it is our responsibility to make our services available and our influence felt in any armament control agreement that may come in the process of disarmament negotiations, however small it may be. Arms control even through international agreements can never bring about an established peace, though it can and will serve toward lessening the probability and the destructiveness of war and lead us on to the peace that we all agree we should have.
In the fourth place, I would say that on the positive side in our own hemisphere the need for Canada to join the organization of American states is urgent and it has been for many months. Bolivia can never survive without United States financial assistance. Peru may even vote in a communist government next year. The Argentine becomes more and more vulnerable. Venezuela and Guatemala are unstable. Panama threatens to be a hot spot. Cuba has already fallen. Communist
[The Chairman.]
penetration in all these areas is intense. The population of these countries is soaring. It is estimated that within 25 years the population of Latin America will double to more than 400 million people. Desperately they need the material and moral aid we can give from within the O.A.S., which is basically a non-military organization.
In the fifth place, we must turn to the positive role of mutual understanding and help. We will never be far wrong in our defence against communism if we think of those who need our aid as people who, without it, may turn to the communists because the communists tell them that they can do more for them. Communism and the forces of totalitarianism are on the march. We who care for the individual must go on the offensive also, to respect the rights and the desperate needs of the people, particularly those who live in the emerging nations. Can we do this if we are actually cutting back our foreign aid appropriation? This aid involves developing realistic trade and mutual assistance policies with our friends, so that our surpluses that we wish to export will go to them, not to the powers that are seeking to destroy both them and us. We must recognize that in the war which engages the attention of the greatest part of mankind, the war against want, we have been endowed by nature with the most plentiful supply of resources of any country in the world. Surely with these Canada can take a lead towards the development of the world's needy nations. This will prove far better in the long-range objective.
The sixth point I wish to bring to the attention of the house involves Canada's trade policies. They must be co-ordinated with her external affairs policies. Since one third of all jobs in Canada depend on exports, it is assumed that every sale we make abroad is beneficial to our economy and consequently to the well-being of the nation. This type of trade thinking is completely divorced from political considerations that might be involved. We simply trade with anyone who has the necessary cash or credit. This is in line with the old English principle and tradition which regards trade as a non-political activity and bars trade only with the enemy in wartime. Such an approach to world trade would be justified if all our trading partners regarded it in the same light. Unfortunately in the east-west conflict which has developed a whole scale of new methods of warfare trade is regarded and used by our adversary as a major weapon.
If we accept the premise that we are at war with the communists and that this war is being waged almost exclusively by nonmilitary means, then we must change our

concept of international trade. Whether we like it or not we must accept the fact that trade has become an integral and perhaps the basic and most important part of our struggle for the survival of freedom. Once we grasp this fact it should not be difficult to recognize the suicidal nature of our present trade policy. This does not only apply to the so-called strategic materials. Simply because the communists openly declare and emphatically pursue a policy which is intended to destroy our social system, when we strengthen them we are increasing their chances of reaching their goal.
The difficulty in recognizing the danger in trading with the communist bloc lies in the temporary material benefits which our economy derives from such trade. It is virtually impossible to persuade a manufacturer or an exporter or a farmer, shall we say, that trade with communist countries is in the long run suicidal. It is equally difficult for the government to recognize the danger when every increase in exports, regardless of where they go, helps to create jobs and stimulate domestic economic activity. Since employment and domestic activity are the main pillars of political and financial stability, every government in the free world and every government in the communist world as well is extremely reluctant to let consideration of the harsh realities enter into the trade picture, just as we are in setting up our pattern of foreign trade.
Individual and collective greed, whether we like to admit it or not, is the motivating power of the economies of the democratic countries and it makes it virtually impossible for the governments of these countries to correlate trade with foreign defence policies.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Norman Thompson: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would he agree that hunger is the greatest threat to peace today?


Robert Norman Thompson: I agree, and I would add that the greatest threat to peace as it relates to hunger lies in those countries that are still on the western side of this cold war and who would like to remain there. Just remember that hungry bellies do not care about votes and do not care about democracy. They need to have their wants satisfied.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What about full bellies?


Robert Norman Thompson: I would say that if what you are referring to in your question actually reached the objective which you are thinking of then there might be more reason for your question, but I happen to know that the biggest part of it is not.
Supply-External Affairs


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Robert Norman Thompson: It is quite an easy fact to understand. Come along with me to the Far East and we will certainly find out for ourselves a lot more than you know at this time. Yet, I would say this; without such correlation we can never hope to fight effectively this strange new war that is being forced upon us by international communism. We will, in fact, trade ourselves into defeat and slavery. Moscow and Peking can at any time plunge us into serious economic difficulty, yes and political difficulty too; just remember that on the other side of the house. They can do this by suddenly stopping our exports and at the same time undercutting our prices, by flooding world markets with some of their own raw materials and products.
This may not happen tomorrow. It may not happen next year. But it is bound to happen eventually. The communists are not using trade for profit as we are. They are using trade for the mutual benefit of the participants as political weapons. At this stage of the global conflict they are agreeing to trade with us, to take as much of our exports as they can pay for or promise to pay for, because our flow of goods helps to build up their strength rapidly, even as it did for Hitler in the prewar years and also because it sucks us into dependency upon them.
It is a crying indictment of our policies that we are so blinded by the profit motive or by political expediency, for example, that we are digging our own graves. Our weak and insipid foreign, defence and trade policies are the direct result of our ideological blindness. This folly is neither new nor typically Canadian. It is characteristic of the inability of the west as a whole to comprehend the nature of the global struggle with communism in this cold war. It is also characteristic of our inability to comprehend that, in order to survive in this conflict, we cannot afford to put business interests before political and defence considerations.
Now, the issue would be clear if we were at war in the traditional way with the communist countries. We would then most certainly not trade with the enemy, just as we did not trade with the axis powers during the second world war. No amount of money would have induced us to ship grain or anything else to nazi Germany, Italy or Japan while the fighting was taking place. But has the picture changed at this point in the very basic issues? I do not think it has. The trouble, then, stems from the lack of realization that there is a direct conflict involving Canada. We are in every other sense at war with militant communism which makes no bones about its desire to destroy our political, economic and social structure. By permitting almost the total amount of our present trade expansion

Supply-External Affairs to develop with communist countries, be it tor monetary gain or for reasons of domestic political expediency, we are helping them to accomplish their aim. There is nothing to beat such a policy for suicidal stupidity.
Now, just as defence, trade is an extension of foreign policy. To change our foreign trade we must, therefore, change our foreign policy. Any meaningful revision of our economic thinking must therefore start with a thorough examination of our role in the cold war. This whole issue we are talking about right now is more critical at this point than the question of nuclear arms. After the shocks of the Cuban emergency and the Chinese invasion of India, such a reappraisal can no longer be postponed. Since our national economy is deeply involved in the process, this debate is the logical place to start such a reappraisal. This is a debate of our defence policy, our foreign affairs policy, and I maintain interrelated with them is our trade policy.
Now, to be reasonable about this problem, we cannot cut off immediately or drastically reduce our trade with communist countries. This would undoubtedly have adverse effects on our economy. How can we minimize and gradually eliminate the harmful effects of the political impelling force in our foreign trade? This can be done basically by reorienting our trade to the areas of the free world. It might entail a complete revision of our commonwealth trade policies. The commonwealth is the logical place to begin such a reorientation. I maintain that at this particular time when Britain is having problems in joining the European common market, that this is the logical time to call for a commonwealth trade conference, and to call for it soon. I have said this before, and I believe the need is greater and the opportunity is greater at this point than it has been at any time in the last six months.
It is inevitable to the survival of Canada that ultimately we will have common market arrangements with the United States within a reasonable number of years. Let us take the initiative now in seriously exploring that proposition. Why do we wait? Why are we indecisive? Are we not able to grasp the things that are involved?
There is a tremendous opportunity for increased trade in the Caribbean area which is now waiting for action, not words, to quote a newspaper article in one of the Ottawa newspapers last night. The entire American hemisphere will eventually provide a better outlet for our exports than all of the trade we could ever develop with communist countries, with the great population and the tremendous market potential it has. In this regard, it is interesting to note that just last week Soviet Russia worked out a deal to expand her

wheat trade with Brazil. In fact, the expected trade increase with Brazil is going to be 50 per cent greater this next year than it was last year.
What about the cold war? We can go on and on talking about these opportunities that we have, but we must consider them in their full light. I would say that in addition there is a seventh point that is very important. I refer to our own financial and economic position. We all agree that per capita Canada is one of the richest nations in the world. We all agree that while we have a high standard of living, our financial and economic system has not permitted the expansion that should have developed. We can never survive in Canada with 18 million people. I notice that Japan is intending to double its gross national product in the next ten years. I believe that this is something we can do, too. Our population can be increased by 50 per cent in the same period. It is because of the defects in their economic systems that the governments of the rich nations of the world have come to rely more and more on the production of instruments of war which do not have to be sold in any market place to distribute income and provide employment for their workers. This was the method used by the axis powers prior to the beginning of world war II.
I am frightened that this very same economic technique of the placing of armament contracts to promote full employment has even become evident in our own policies in Canada. It is apparent in the United States also, that they are using the machinery of an expanded arms and space program financed through deficit financing, to keep the nation's economy in a state of buoyancy. It is idle for us to expect permanent peace in the world when the pressures of our economic system, enhance the possibility of a profitable contract to the armaments manufacturers, when employment and the means of life for great numbers of workers-directly or indirectly- demand the continuation of the arms race to prevent an uncontrollable recession. If we seek the long term lessening of world tensions, it is time that we studied very closely the workings of our capitalist economy, and the economies of the countries in the free world, to find out by what paradox it is that when we prepare ourselves for the very wasteful destructiveness of war, we become rich instead of poor.
This is one of the reasons that during the years of the Liberal administration from 1945, shall we say, to 1955, we had prosperity. It was simply because we were living off all the prosperity that developed as a result of world war II. Therefore I think it is high

time we in Canada looked at this thing in the over-all perspective in order that we face up to the responsibilities that are before us. Thus I believe the debate in which we are taking part is at the right time and is the ideal place for us to begin a real, soul-searching look into the problems we face in our relationships with the rest of the world.
So far as external affairs are concerned we cannot separate defence policies or trade policies. I believe of all people in the world we, because of our heritage, because of who and what we are, are standing on the threshold of a new era of greatest expansion and development for the human race. I say let us take a lead in it, if only we have the courage, conviction, determination and will to move forward. This is the responsibility I see before us.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Robert Norman Thompson: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will my hon. friend say if his party believes that the Canadian government should fulfil the commitments it has to NATO and NORAD?


Robert Norman Thompson: I would like to know what those commitments are.


Some hon. Members:: Ask your friend.


Robert Norman Thompson: I believe there is a grave responsibility on the government to tell us what they are, and if they are secret it should say so. If they are something which should not be brought out in public, then let us form a non-partisan defence committee where these things can be brought out in a nonpolitical atmosphere such as we have not had during the last 12 months or so.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Chairman, this debate on external affairs and defence estimates is long overdue. This parliament began its sittings on September 27, and it seems to me a shameful thing that in all these weeks and months we have not yet had any clearcut statement from the government regarding its policy on nuclear weapons, and that this is the first opportunity we have had in the house to debate Canada's role in international affairs.
In the next few weeks and months this country will be faced with fateful and far reaching decisions, particularly with reference to nuclear weapons, and it seems to me imperative that the people of Canada should know where the various political parties stand so that the people can make a decision as to what course this country should follow in the interests of maintaining peace and security throughout the world.
Supply-External Affairs
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I was disappointed this afternoon with the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the international spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. member for Essex East. International affairs, defence, and the whole question of nuclear weapons are irretrievably bound up together. The minister made no statement regarding the government's policy on nuclear weapons. Of course I may say he interrupted his speech. I believe he is going to resume it, and it may be that later on in the course of his speech he will make reference to this matter but certainly, in so far as his resume this afternoon of the international situation was concerned, there might have been no such thing as a problem of nuclear armament. The same is true, of course, of the speech made by the hon. member for Essex East.
I would like to say in great kindness to both hon. members, for both of whom I have very high regard, that the people of Canada are not concerned with whether it was a Liberal government or a Conservative government that first protested in the United Nations against Soviet imperialism. We expect our governments to take that position.
What the people of Canada want to know is what policy is this country going to follow, what commitments have been made, why have they been made, to what extent are they going to be implemented, what does it mean in terms of Canada's future and what does it mean for the peace of the world.
We in the New Democratic party believe that the No. 1 issue facing the world today is how can we prevent a nuclear war. For the first time in his long history man has it within his power to destroy himself. Throughout the centuries we have fought wars that have killed people in their thousands. Two recent wars killed people in their millions, but when the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a new age was born. Mankind has slowly awakened to the fact that man now has within his hand the power to destroy civilization and even life on this planet. It is estimated that the United States and the Soviet union between them have stockpiled sufficient nuclear missiles to have the explosive equivalent of 50 tons of t.n.t. for every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, and when military men speak of the need for a nuclear deterrent surely there can be no gainsaying the fact that we have such a deterrent, a deterrent of terrifying magnitude.
We in this party believe that all Canada's energies should be directed towards preventing a nuclear holocaust, and to lose sight of

Supply-External Affairs that fact in the intricacies of discussing military estimates could be disastrous. This basic fact should be the cornerstone of our foreign policy and all our decisions, all our programs, expenditures and energies should be founded on the determination to contribute to man's desperate quest for peace.
The second thing the New Democratic party sets forth is that we believe that the No. 2 problem is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The world's best hope lies in persuading the two great nuclear powers, the United States and the Soviet union, to reach some agreement fast regarding the cessation of nuclear tests, both for the sake of the health of the millions of people now living as well as for future human survival. Second, to negotiate a treaty for nuclear disarmament under international inspection and control. Everyone knows that will not be an easy task, but in recent days there have been some signs that give reason for hope and optimism. We maintain that the proliferation of nuclear weapons will make this task more difficult, if not impossible. Reaching some viable agreement between the two major nuclear powers has proven long and difficult, but every addition to the world nuclear club will only compound and multiply that difficulty.
We maintain that Canada's best contribution to the peace of the world consists In refusing to acquire nuclear weapons for Canada's forces either at home or abroad. For Canada to become a nuclear power, no matter under what pretext, is to invite the growth of the world's nuclear club. If Canada accepts nuclear weapons from the United States, that country will be under pressure to make the same weapons available to its friends in Europe and in Asia, and eventually in Africa. In turn the Soviet union will be under pressure from its friends to supply nuclear weapons to the countries with which it is allied. Every addition to the nuclear club increases by geometric progression the danger that some irresponsible megalomaniac will press the button and precipitate the world into a nuclear holocaust. It is difficult enough to persuade the two major powers to reach some acceptable agreement for nuclear disarmament. How much greater-nay, impossible-will be the task when 15 or 20 nations have a nuclear capacity at their disposal.
While we all hope that there will be no outbreak in Europe, we must remember that this is always a possibility. If that unfortunate eventuality should take place, then it is imperative that we contain it. The use of nuclear tactical weapons would make this virtually impossible, because it would lead automatically to the full scale use of strategical nuclear weapons. Almost every military

authority in the world-in the western world at least-has now abandoned the theory of limited nuclear tactical warfare.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to just look for a moment at the policy which the government has followed in respect of this question. In my opinion the government has never been either frank or fair with the people of Canada. Apparently they made commitments in 1959 to acquire nuclear weapons which they knew would be worthless without nuclear warheads. They were either wasting public funds or they intended to acquire nuclear warheads for the Bomarcs, the Voodoo planes, the Honest John rocket artillery and the CF-104's. Instead of telling the people frankly that they intended to acquire nuclear weapons, they played this game of, "Now you see it; now you don't".
The Minister of National Defence and his public relations staff have ground out propaganda telling the Canadian people that our military forces simply cannot carry on without nuclear weapons. At the same time the Secretary of State for External Affairs has gone about making excellent speeches giving reasons why we should not acquire nuclear weapons. This has been a government with two voices. While I am not questioning the sincerity' of either minister, I would say that after listening to them it was always difficult to believe that they sat in the same cabinet or that they were members of the same government. If they do not intend to acquire nuclear weapons, we should know why they are continuing this inexcusable waste of public funds. I am told that only a few of the CF-104's, or Starfighters, as they are called, have thus far been delivered, but I understand that the government has contracted for the acceptance of 200 in all. Without nuclear warheads, General Norstad says, these have little military value, yet we keep on spending money despite changing military concepts that make nuclear strike 'planes less valuable. If the Skybolt, which the British are now planning to discard, is nearing obsolescence, it would seem that this would be even more true of the CF-104. We have a long list of 'planes, such as the Vampire, the Starjet, the CF-100, and the ill-fated Arrow, on which the Canadian government over the years have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers money.
I say that the government's policy on the question of nuclear arms has been one of indecision and timidity. They have followed the policy of "nuclear arms if necessary, but not necessarily nuclear arms", which has a familiar ring in Canadian political history. They have never yet, however, defined what is meant by the word "necessary". I assume

that probably the public relations experts, past and present, will watch the Gallup poll and decide when they become "necessary".
I urge the government to come out from behind this smokescreen of double-talk and take a stand. I say to the government: If you have made a mistake in giving commitments, then be honest and renegotiate those commitments both in NATO and in NORAD. The Canadian people will forgive you if you have made an honest error in judgment. But they will not forgive you if you make a transparent attempt to deceive them by refusing nuclear arms with one hand and buying them with the other.
I agree with the fine tribute which the Secretary of State for External Affairs paid this afternoon to Canada's contribution on the disarmament committee of 18 and to the splendid work which has been done by General Burns. If we have followed closely the deliberations of that committee I am sure we have all been proud of the extent to which the representatives of the eight non-aligned nations have looked to Canada in many instances to speak on their behalf. I think this is one of the finest tributes that has ever been paid to Canadian integrity and Canadian diplomacy. But I want to say to the minister that the moral influence which Canada now exerts in the disarmament committee will be very seriously impaired the day Canada becomes a member of the nuclear club. It is well to remember Emerson's words, "What you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you say".
May I make just a passing reference, Mr. Chairman, to the position of the Liberal party on this question of nuclear arms. The leader of the Liberal party has now committed his party to the acquiring of nuclear arms, and did so in a speech on January 12 at York-Scarborough Liberal convention. The talk of negotiating out afterwards was, in my opinion, just a sedative for the more disturbed members of the party who were protesting. This new Liberal policy was made without consultation with the membership of that party and represents a complete about-face from the position which the Liberal party took prior to the last general election.
At a Liberal rally in the city of Ottawa-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The hon. member for York Centre is rising on a point of privilege.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the speaker mentioned what happened in a Liberal caucus.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not mention a Liberal caucus. I talked about the York-Scarborough convention which was reported in the press.
Supply-External Affairs I said nothing about a Liberal caucus. I can assure my hon. friend that I have never quoted anything about a Liberal caucus. I have never been to one and I have no expectation of ever being at one. We have one representative there now and that is enough.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Argue:: Don't cry, Tommy; you'll never make it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One does not have to strive to make it; one just backslides into it.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not how you got out of Regina.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, before I was interrupted I was in the process of quoting the leader of the Liberal party in a statement he made at a Liberal rally in the city of Ottawa in January, 1961. The press quotes him as saying:
We should not acquire nuclear weapons under any kind ol national or joint control.
The Toronto Star of November 10, 1962 says as follows:
Canada should renegotiate her commitments with NATO to take a non-nuclear role in the western alliance. Liberal Lester B. Pearson said yesterday. He told the Canadian committee for nuclear disarmament that Canada could negotiate for a nonnuclear role in NATO and still fulfil all her obligations to that alliance.
So I am saying that the position now taken by the Liberal party is a complete about-face. Every party, of course, has a right to make an about-face, but I am simply putting on the record that this is the case.


Gilles Grégoire: It is not the first time though.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to point out that the Liberal position is completely without logic when they say, in effect "We do not want nuclear weapons, but since we are committed to accept them then we should take them and then try to renegotiate ourselves out of them". Why not negotiate ourselves out now? What, in effect, the leader of the Liberal party is saying is that we should sign a bilateral agreement. We should train personnel in the use of nuclear weapons, knowing all the time we are doing so that we are going to renegotiate ourselves out the moment the ink is dry on the paper.


Mr. Woolliams:: Isn't that terrible.


Mr. Berger:: It is stupid.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is Liberal.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Neither the leader of the Liberal party nor anybody else has given us any convincing reason why having these nuclear weapons would favour the cause of peace. On the contrary, all the arguments

Supply-External Affairs given by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech at the York-Scarborough convention lead logically to the opposite conclusion. Really the only reason he gave why Canada should accept nuclear weapons was because we were committed to accept them. Does this apply to all the other commitments made by a Conservative government? If it did, then there is little use in the Leader of the Opposition's trying to change the government. The President of the United States, President Kennedy, did not hesitate to renegotiate the agreement with Great Britain on the Skybolt when he thought this would be beneficial.
Acceptance of nuclear weapons by Canada is not a condition of our membership in NATO, as is evidenced by the fact that Denmark and Norway and some other countries have not accepted nuclear weapons. Rather than nuclear weapons giving us greater security, the evidence is all the other way. The United States nuclear deterrent is estimated to be five times as great as that of the Soviet union. Even Great Britain's tremendous expenditure on nuclear weapons has given her only 2 per cent of the west's nuclear deterrent. Canada's contribution, therefore, to the west's deterrent would be insignificant militarily, but it would do tremendous harm in proliferating the acquisition of nuclear arms and would therefore far offset any military value which might accrue.
I am sure many hon. members are familiar with Henry A. Kissinger, who has for many years been the chief proponent in the United States of the use of nuclear arms and nuclear strategy. It is rather interesting that in the July 1962 issue of Foreign Affairs he has written an article on this question. I shall ask the committee to bear with me while I read just a very short excerpt from it. Mr. Kissinger said:
The present deployment of NATO's nuclear capability represents an anomaly in terms of current NATO doctrine. Nuclear weapons and delivery systems for technical use have been placed in Europe in considerable numbers. Yet deputy secretary of defense Gilpatric has rejected the notion of tactical nuclear war.
Then he quotes Gilpatric as saying:
"I, for one, have never believed in a so-called limited nuclear war. 1 just don't know how you build a limit into it once you start using any kind of a nuclear bang".
Then Kissinger goes on:
And this view seems to have been reinforced by secretary McNamara at the NATO ministerial meeting in Athens.
At the same time, secretary McNamara has insisted that in case of general war our strategic forces are alone sufficient to perform any nuclear mission.
Then he quotes McNamara as saying:
"There is no question but today our strategic retaliatory forces of bombers, missiles and Polaris


are fully capable of destroying Soviet targets, even after absorbing an initial nuclear surprise attack".
Kissinger winds up this part of his argument by saying this:
In these terms, the nuclear establishment on the continent is both dangerous and useless. It is dangerous because it may make inevitable the limited nuclear war both Mr. McNamara and Mr. Gilpatric have declared is certain to escalate. And it is useless because it will merely duplicate attacks on targets already covered by our strategic forces.
Therefore the whole idea, which I understood the hon. member for Red Deer to expound, that you can make a differentiation between tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons, and that you can have a limited tactical nuclear war, has now been abandoned by nearly all of the military experts today, men like Kissinger, John Stra-chey, the former secretary for war in the British government, John Gellner, and many others.
We believe that Canada should not accept nuclear weapons. We believe that as far as NORAD is concerned this was designed to meet the threat of attacks from manned bombers. But today manned bombers are no longer the real threat. Intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear missiles from submarines are the growing danger. Against these there is no defence other than the threat of the massive deterrent. We believe that the warning systems should be retained as long as they have any value but that nuclear warheads for Bomarcs have no military value and would lessen Canada's position in promoting nuclear containment.
In so far as NATO is concerned, we note that even the United States authorities are veering away from stressing the value of nuclear tactical weapons. These were thought of in the first instance as a means of gaining time during the period when the Soviet union had a preponderance in conventional forces;
I refer to gaining time until the United States could build up its technical and strategic nuclear arsenal. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out this afternoon, that arsenal is now so great that the United States has a tremendous preponderance. It is significant that the nuclear missile bases in both Italy and Turkey are being dismantled and that the real defence now will be the use of the I.C.B.M. missiles and the Polaris submarine.
The two great dangers of tactical nuclear weapons in the hands of NATO forces is summed up in the two terms now used by the military, namely escalation and proliferation. As to escalation, the military authorities recognize that the concept of a limited nuclear action is no longer accepted. They recognize

the fact that kilotons on the Elbe would mean, in a matter of days or hours, megatons on the Volga and on the Hudson. This is why President Kennedy has been stressing the fact that conventional forces should have increasing importance in NATO and that the use of conventional forces would provide a "pause" during which it might be possible to contain the conflict before resorting to the ultimate strategic nuclear deterrent.
The other danger is the danger of proliferation.


Rémi Paul: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Rémi Paul: I presume he will receive unanimous consent to continue his speech. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I thank hon. members for their indulgence. I can assure them that I will try not to impose on their generosity.
Even military authorities are becoming increasingly concerned about the difficulty in controlling tactical nuclear weapons when they get into the hands of a number of nations. The Nassau declaration is the outcome of a struggle between, on the one hand, the United States which desires to keep control of the nuclear deterrent, and on the other hand, certain European leaders who are recklessly pressing for independent nuclear capacity, not for military reasons but in order to bolster an outmoded concept of national prestige.
I have serious doubts about the safety of having 15 fingers on one trigger, but I have no doubt about the fact that 15 fingers on 15 separate triggers would mean disaster for mankind. We in the New Democratic party believe that any proliferation, whether to independent nations or to NATO as a multinational nuclear power, would add immeasurably to the danger of nuclear war and should be resisted.
We in this party believe that Canada should have a positive program for peace consistent with the type of contribution which we can best make toward establishing collective security in the world. Canada cannot divorce itself from the world in which it lives. Canada's foreign policy should not be a neutralist one. The program of the New Democratic party drafted here in the city of Ottawa in our founding convention stated as follows:
In the struggle between democracy and totalitarianism, Canada cannot evade its responsibility;
Supply-External Affairs
it must always stand squarely on the side of freedom and with the genuine forces of freedom.
Our policy cannot be one of pacifism. A refusal to fight is no guarantee of immunity from attack. In the world community, just as in the local community, there will always be those who, from a desire for personal gain or a lust for power, will resort to banditry. The present dispute between India and China is a glaring example of the fact that even an unprovocative nation is not free from aggression.
Canada's policy, it seems to me, would be unrealistic if we were to advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament. In the present nuclear stalemate it is merely wishful thinking to suggest that either of the great nuclear powers should discard their nuclear weapons unless they can be assured of an effective system of inspection and control under which they will be guaranteed that while they are disarming, the other party to the agreement is doing likewise.
Canada's role should be to work for a system of collective security under the United Nations. Regional alliances must never be regarded as a substitute, and even when they are necessary they must be considered as a temporary expedient pending the development of a world authority clothed with the necessary power to keep the peace. This situation cannot be brought about overnight and cannot be whistled up out of nothing. It will involve using all our influence to strengthen the United Nations in its various activities. For years public men have talked about establishing a permanent international police force. Yet after 18 years we have not yet attained this objective.
The United Nations has had more success in putting out "brush fires" than many of its detractors had anticipated. Suez, the Egyptian-Israeli war, the present conflict in the Congo and the Cuban episode all gave evidence of the fact that, when solidly backed by world opinion, it is possible for the United Nations to take police action to stop the spread of military conflict. I would draw the attention of the committee, however, to the fact that these police actions have been taken with conventional military forces and it is here that Canada could play its most effective role by offering to make its military forces and equipment ready and available for a permanent international police force.
Canada should use its influence to remove some of the tensions that are likely to provoke military conflict. We should seek military disengagement in central Europe along much the same line as that followed in the case of Austria. We must seek a solution to the Berlin situation and the eventual

Supply-External Affairs signing of a German peace treaty. It is 18 years since the war ended and until some agreement is reached Berlin will continue to be a powder keg that can explode at any minute. Canada should make it clear that we will work for the right of self-determination for all peoples but that we are not prepared to lend ourselves to military adventures to satisfy the illusions of grandeur which seem to have taken hold of some of our allies in recent months and years.
In conclusion I want to say that Canada can make a much greater contribution to the positive programs for peace that are so urgently needed throughout the world. Today we are spending about $1J billion per year on defence, much of it for equipment which is already obsolete, but we are contributing less than one twentieth of that amount for programs like the Colombo plan and in providing help for underprivileged and underdeveloped countries. Canada is not a great power in military terms or in the size of our population. Our military contribution is relatively unimportant in the sum total of military forces as they exist in the world today, but in terms of economic aid Canada can play a role out of all proportion to its population and size.
Food is one of the most important weapons in the arsenal of democracy. The New Democratic party at its founding convention endorsed the idea of having Canada contribute 2 per cent of its gross national product to assist underdeveloped areas. This would mean an expenditure of $700 million to $800 million a year to provide food, consumer and capital goods, medical supplies and technical personnel, which in our opinion would do more in the long run to remove the causes of war and to promote peace than the purchase of a few atomic weapons which would simply be added to an already dangerously large military stockpile.
The 17-man committee of economists which the United Nations appointed to look into the economic problems arising out of disarmament have made an interesting report. They state that all the nations of the world for which statistics are available, are now spending $120 billion a year on defence and are employing 50 million people in their armed services and defence industries. They estimate that if we could turn this money and manpower to peaceful uses we could raise the living standards of the people in every part of the world. We could banish hunger, disease and ignorance. It is in this war against man's age old enemies that Canada can play her most effective role.
I believe that the people of Canada would respond to such a challenge. I am sure there are thousands of young Canadians who would [Mr. Douglas.!

gladly enrol in a Canadian youth service as teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers, engineers and scientists to represent Canada in helping to raise living standards and improve living conditions of people in the underdeveloped areas of the world.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that there is a longing for peace in the world. I believe he is right. I believe that in every country of the world the people are tired of war and they are tired of living in a balance of terror with the threat of the nuclear bomb hanging over their heads. I believe that in many ways the people of the world are ahead of the statesmen of the world in their anxiety for peace. I believe that the Canadian people are waiting for the government and for this parliament to give a lead to show them how we may work together to promote peace in the world. I submit that this country is waiting to see whether or not we are capable of giving that leadership and whether or not we have the capacity to match the greatness of the times in which we live.


Mr. Wahn:: May I ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to tell the house if he is or is not in favour of Canada remaining in NORAD and NATO?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I think I answered the first question. I think that Canada should terminate its agreement under NORAD in so far as supplying Bomarc missiles and Voodoo interceptor planes is concerned, because they no longer have any function in a military sense, and that we should stay in that agreement in so far as supplying warning systems is concerned as long as they have any value. With reference to NATO, I believe we should stay in NATO. I believe that NATO has a function to perform until such time as the United Nations is strong enough to give us the collective security which the world so greatly needs. But I point out that membership in NATO is not conditional upon our accepting nuclear weapons, and that we have a conventional role which we can play in NATO and in the United Nations.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, we have now had the volleys from the heavy artillery on all sides of the field and I will introduce something of a lighter calibre. The discussion has been a very interesting one so far. I always enjoy hearing from my good friend, the member for Essex East. We have had some good times together. I have a high regard for his ideas, except when he talks about partisan politics, and the only thing that worries me is that he has such a proclivity for talking about partisan politics.

I was interested too in the statements of the other preceding speakers. I think the hon. member for Red Deer is right, of course, when he injects what we must in a country like this always inject, the question of morality in the whole field of international politics as indeed in national politics. There were times, however, when I thought that perhaps the hon. member for Essex East injected partisanship a little too deeply, sharply and unnecessarily. I quite agree with him that Canada has in general looked upon the field of external affairs with a bipartisan approach, although I suppose out of respect to other parties I should say a multipartisan approach. When I was a student and should have been studying I had the opportunity to sit in the gallery of the house and hear external affairs discussions when the hon. gentleman's party was in power in those unhappy days behind us, and I remember that generally there was a transcending of partisanship. I deplore the fact that he discussed in somewhat critical and perhaps cynical terms the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At one time, he invoked indecision, and I thought at the time that was a very dangerous subject for a man in his party which has been noted for its gyrations and inauguration of changes in policy over the past few months.
He did refer to the minister's interview on television, and I looked up the transcript after the hon. member referred to it. I noted that in the very opening statement, the minister said this:
Canada always has stood by her friends, and of course Americans are our friends and we are standing by them.
On the same page of the transcript in answer to another question, the minister said:
We are friends of the United States and we are standing beside them.
This, I think, was an explicit and definite statement. I listened to that interview and I remember, I think we all remember, that was a grave night indeed, the night of October 22. When the minister was asked if he would spell out the gravity of the situation, and he was asked these questions:
Should we start putting watercans in our basement?
Should we start making plans to get out of town?
If this minister, in possession of confidential communications from governments all over the world, had at that time said anything to augment or increase panic in the country, I should think he would not be properly discharging the duties of the high office which he holds.
My hon. friend mentioned another subject on which he and I share views, that is the membership in the organization of American
Supply-External Affairs states. I may say that when his party was in power I was enthused about that and I wondered to myself time and time again why he had not seen that action was taken along those lines. I know and he knows that this government has brought us closer to that very important Latin American world than his government ever did. We are today represented in every single state in Latin America. We have attended inter-American conferences. We have developed contacts with these people which are extremely valuable. I quite agree with the hon. member for Red Deer that the people of Latin America and these important nations to the south with their great problems, their great prospects and possibilities, are worthy of the utmost consideration.
I heard a great international statesman say not long ago that the problems of today which would become most important tomorrow in their development and fulfilment lie with those people below the equator, and the Latin American area is a very important part of that particular set of problems.
I think, too, it was a bit unfair to suggest that the minister had overstated his optimism in the field of disarmament. He has not, through his long political career and his highly successful diplomatic career, been given to overstatement. He has not gone in for excessive optimism. Like the President of the United States, he pointed out today that these strains which may appear within the communist world are not fractures. We all know that the disagreement which interests us would appear to be a disagreement over means and not ends. As the president, that great statesman, said the other day, a dispute over how best to bury the free world is no cause for western rejoicing.
I would say, too, that while the minister during his career has not been noted for excessive optimism he has not been noted for excessive pessimism either. World statesmen have time after time paid tribute to the tenacity with which he held to hope for disarmament. We all pray and hope that these hopes will be realized. He does not, I am sure, claim it alone nor does Canada claim it alone, but down through the course of these difficult and trying negotiations there has been one constant thing and that has been the unyielding determination of Canada to say we shall not give up; we will continue with this great world problem.
There are many aspects of Canadian foreign policy, Mr. Chairman, which are worthy of reflection by this house. In the time at my disposal this evening, I should like to discuss one of those which is very close to my heart and which I believe is becoming more and more meaningful to the people of Canada. I refer to the United Nations and our membership

Supply-External Affairs and role therein. I have had the honour of representing Canada at four general assemblies of the United Nations. This past session, just concluded, struck me as one of the most constructive of these important international gatherings. It seemed that there was a diminution of tension, and lessening of power politics which sometimes makes difficult the day to day progress which is such an important part of an organization which endeavours to make progress on so many fronts.
I believe that in Canada the strain of cynicism is disappearing. We have had people, publicists and others, who believed the United Nations was more a talk shop, that nothing was accomplished, that there was a great disparity in power among the members, that there was not sufficient realism in its construction. I believe the accomplishments of the United Nations in recent years, and they have been enumerated by preceding speakers, have convinced Canadians and others that this great body is in truth the hope of the world as the idealists always said it was. The past session has seen the coming to fruition of a number of projects which had seemed to be discouraging.
One thing which caused great rejoicing, I think, was the confirmation of the secretary general in his office. This great Asian statesman has done a splendid job in one of the most sensitive and difficult posts which the world could convey upon any mortal man. Canada said, from the very beginning, that we were strongly in favour of U Thant's confirmation as secretary general. The minister has referred to the success of the Congo operation and Canada's role in the advisory committee of the United Nations.
I was in the United Nations at the time of the confrontation between Mr. Zorin and Mr. Stevenson, an unforgettable moment of great tension. As has been pointed out, and something which should not be forgotten, the spokesmen for these great super powers, with their tremendous power in comparison to the other members of the United Nations, took that dispute to the very forum of world opinion, the security council. As they faced one another every seat in the security council chamber was filled with members from the general assembly. It was an unforgettable moment. The role of the acting secretary general, as he then was, was highly creditable and crowned with much success.
We are pleased too, that under the inspiration of former president Mongi Slim, the United Nations is moving forward in the direction of improving its procedures and manner of work. A very impressive com-
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
mittee has been set up for which I think lovers of the United Nations may entertain high hopes.
The United Nations, which began with some 50 members, has now 110. The area of the world unrepresented in the U.N. is shrinking daily. Its complexion is changing. Membership of the committees and other bodies is altering and it is necessary in the interests of efficiency to have some improvements in techniques. Indeed it is almost necessary to have an extension to the very physical facilities. These, which once seemed to be so ample, now often appear to be overcrowded.
Mr. Chairman, we in the context of this debate are of course interested in the performance of the Canadian delegation at the United Nations. I was very proud of the way the Canadian delegation performed. There is something extremely humbling to be at an international organization and note on every hand the high respect in which Canadians are held. I think it is humbling because it is quite a challenge to measure up to the tremendous responsibilities constantly put upon Canadians, especially in the U.N. context. We are a charter member of the U.N. I suppose, if one looked back over the whole history of resolutions, Canadians have been co-sponsors or sponsors of more resolutions than any other country.
The Canadian point of view is constantly sought. We have served on all sorts of peace making missions and I think it could be said that this very day Canadian personnel are performing peace keeping operations all over the world. It is something which should cause us pride. At the same time it should cause us some humility because it is a heavy challenge.
Canada took a great many initiatives in the last assembly. One of these dealt with the question discussed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam just a moment ago. The world food program became fully operational on January 1 of this year. As is known, Canada has taken an active part in the establishment and development of this program, beginning with the Prime Minister's proposal to the United Nations general assembly in September, 1960.
This program will provide assistance by means of foodstuffs in three major fields. It will meet emergency food needs and emergencies arising from chronic malnutrition. It will give assistance in pre-school areas and implement pilot projects, using food as an aid to economic and social development.
Since the idea for a world food program was launched events have moved swiftly. In the last few months a pledging conference has been held at which approximately $88

million in commodities, cash and services were pledged. Canada's pledge totalled $5 million in commodities and cash. An intergovernmental committee, of which Canada is a member, has now been established and has prepared a work program. This, I may say, putting it very simply, is one of the concrete moves in the direction of a better world.
Canada also played a major role in the very serious question of radiation. We would be ill-advised to become so sophisticated that we lost our concern and indeed our fear of what is happening to the atmosphere. Canada moved, and was supported magnificently by the other members of the general assembly, to set up a world organization for the dissemination of information on the harmful effects of radiation and to galvanize world opinion regarding those harmful effects.
I mention some of these things because the hon. member for Essex East was asking about new steps. Canada's initiative in the second committee dealing with international economic relations, and in the conference on world trade development, was a most impressive and most successful one, and great credit is due to Senator Blois who was our representative there, a worthy maritimer who naturally did a most excellent job. There were many, many days when differences were quite acute as to when the conference should be held, how it would be held and who should be involved, but these serious differences have been ironed out and it is now set that the meeting will be held not later than 1964.
The Canadian hope is that after careful preparation the conference will achieve positive proposals for the expansion of trade, particularly by the developing countries, and on December 20 Canada was elected a member of the preparatory committee which will begin its meetings in January. Once again this country, which some would have us believe is ill regarded in the international community, was chosen to take part in the planning of this important job.
Another problem which has been facing the United Nations for some time and is becoming increasingly acute is the very mundane problem of finances and how to keep the organization solvent. In this field through the fifth committee the Canadian delegation was extremely active and I am glad to say extremely successful. We called for an appeal to the international court in respect to the question of members' obligations regarding the very costly peace keeping operations in which the United Nations is now engaged. Canadian acceptance of the court's decision was naturally forthcoming, and through our efforts in the fifth committee steps have been taken which look very hopeful in respect to establishing a sound basis for the financial
Supply-External Affairs operations of the United Nations. In connection therewith there comes into our minds what looks to be the happy solution of the vexatious Congo problem.
The United Nations general assembly has seven committees operating for a period of three months and so, Mr. Chairman, it would be quite a simple thing for one to carry on for a long time discussing briefly but a very few of these important avenues of goodwill and important overtures to a better and more peaceful world. In the assembly the Canadian delegation made strong reference to a subject which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East, the question of Soviet colonialism.
It is recalled that a strong statement, which drew tremendous attention not only in Canada but elsewhere, was made by the Prime Minister in September 1960, and I would point out it was made in the presence of Mr. Khrushchev himself. Since that time the present government has dealt with that very important problem with consistency and persistency and has spoken out very strongly on a subject which should have been spoken on with greater strength long, long ago. It is just a little bit difficult to take when one hears the Soviet union constantly denounce the United Kingdom and France on their colonial records; but last year, before the general assembly, Canada suggested that the light of public opinion be thrown on the dark areas of tyranny within the Soviet union. That was a strong statement of which Canadians may be very proud. I do not know whether or not the hon. member for Essex East will be pleased to hear this-I am sure he will, really-but I happened to be the spokesman for the government on that occasion and the number of Canadians from all over this country who praised the speech and who reiterated the approval they had given the Prime Minister in opening the subject so strongly in 1960 brought joy to my heart.


Miss LaMarsh:: He didn't open it.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I may say to the hon. lady that 'I have examined very carefully the records of the United Nations, I have read the documents probably as carefully as she has, and I say that the strongest statement ever made on this subject was made by the Prime Minister of Canada in September, 1960.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the hon. member whether he will admit that what the hon. member for Essex East has said is perfectly correct; that what in fact the present Leader of the Opposition,, then the secretary of state for external affairs,, said on that and previous occasions was in,

Supply-External Affairs the same vein as the speech made by the Prime Minister, that much noted speech, and in fact what the Prime Minister said was only following along with what the Leader of the Opposition had previously said, although perhaps the hon. member may believe, because of his personal bias, that it was better said by the Prime Minister.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I have listened to a great many speeches in this house and I have always been able to contain myself until they were finished before asking a question, even those delivered by the hon. lady. There is no doubt that the speeches to which she referred were in the same vein and dealt with the same subject. But perhaps she should read the whole speech. I say that this subject was opened up by the Prime Minister and that a persistently strong stand has been followed. If she wants to read the international comment on this, I invite her to do so. I very much deplore an interjection of partisanship into a discussion of foreign affairs. I would say, if I could presume to advise a man much older and more experienced than myself, that if the hon. member for Essex East is desirous of scoring a point against the Prime Minister of Canada- and no doubt he is-then he is not on very good ground, even in political terms, in dealing with this particular question, because the Prime Minister has been noted for his stalwart and outstanding championing of the *very subject matter with which we are dealing, and I do not think any charge of insin-*cerity would stick very well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think we should look upon this whole subject as one in which -Canadians might find cause for common action and common appraisal, rather than seeking to find avenues for disagreement and the scoring of political advantage. I am not one who would ever suggest that the discharge of -Canadian foreign policy did not bring distinction to Canada in the days before the present government took office. Naturally I would not say such a thing if I did not think such a thing. I will say this, that it ill-behooves any [DOT]Canadian to draw comfort from the suggestion that our country's prestige today is not *shining and bright, because that is exactly the situation in which it stands. I have had an opportunity to see Canada in international scenes and I have heard this tribute from all sides. As a Canadian I take great pride in that fact.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a *question of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat? Could the hon. member tell us why he has declined in his speech, which I take it was made as a spokesman on behalf of the government, to discuss the most
vital issue that now faces this parliament; that is, whether Canada should acquire nuclear weapons, and the government's stand on that issue.


Mr. Winkler:: Make your speech when the time comes.


Some hon. Members:: No answer.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Chairman-
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Would the house consent to General Norstad sitting beside the Leader of the Opposition while the latter delivers his speech?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, that intervention represents the level of intelligence of the hon. gentleman. With regard to General Norstad, I may say that I would rather have General Norstad, a NATO commander and therefore a servant of Canada, sitting beside me than Mr. Hitler or any of his henchmen.
It is a minute before ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder whether I would be trespassing on the indulgence of the house if I asked it to be called ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock. (Translation):


Rémi Paul: Order. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
(Text):
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the house leader what the business will be for Monday and next week, as it was promised by the acting house leader last evening?


Mr. Churchill:: The business for tomorrow will be a continuation of the discussion on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I will announce tomorrow the business for Monday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Give us a little bit of a break.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am giving the Liberal party and the New Democratic party time to think over how they propose dealing with the estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You had better do a little thinking yourself. You may have to do a good deal of squirming.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 25, 1963