1963-11-28

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the rights of all hon. members in the house to get the truth in answers given by members of the cabinet.
To a question put to him yesterday by the leader of the official opposition, the Acting Prime Minister gave this reply, as reported on page 5156 of Hansard, left hand column:
If hon. members will allow me, I will do my best to answer it. In the next place I should like to say that there is nothing either in the statement made by the premier of the province of Quebec or in the statement I listened to this morning that is in the nature of an ultimatum.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on May 27, 1963, I put a question to the Minister of Justice and Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Chevrier) and here is what he replied as shown in Hansard, at page 282.
Mr. Speaker, I duly received the press releases the hon. member sent me. I even heard the Quebec premier, Mr. Lesage, on television, when he stated that he considered as an ultimatum the claims or proposals of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, on May 27, 1963, the Minister of Justice admitted that the Quebec proposals were in the nature of an ultimatum and yesterday, November 27, as shown in Hansard, the Minister of Justice stated that there was no ultimatum.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, and this is my point of privilege, that the members of this house are entitled to get the whole truth and not answers where facts are concealed; and members of the cabinet have no right to shirk their responsibilities as the Minister of Justice tried to do yesterday.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday dealt with the federal-provincial conference now under way.
I remember very well the press releases that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) sent me, as well as the answer
I gave him, but in my opinion this release is several months old, while the question of the hon. member concerned only what happened yesterday and immediately before. I am in a position to say that there was no question of an ultimatum.
As a matter of fact, my attention is called to the fact that this was confirmed by the premier of Quebec himself.


Gilles Grégoire: Does the Minister of Justice mean that the premier of Quebec changed his mind?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.



INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING LOTTERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Acting Prime Minister?
Could he tell the house whether the idea of establishing lotteries has been rejected once and for all this morning at the federal-provincial conference or whether it is still possible that the matter will be further considered during this conference?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to provide an answer such as my hon. friend is asking. The matter has not been settled one way or the other.
The purpose of this meeting was to hear the representations made by the attorneys general of the various provinces, and this has been done. A frank discussion was held and in due course, I intend to report on it to the government.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Will the matter of lotteries be discussed again before the end of the conference?


Lionel Chevrier: Such a decision rests with the provincial premiers. If they so desire, the federal government is willing to discuss the matter again.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing my question to the Minister
5184	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of Justice. As it seems evident that no agreement will be reached with regard to provincial lotteries during the federal-provincial conference now taking place, can the Minister of Justice tell us whether he intends to introduce in the very near future a bill in the house tending to amend the Criminal Code so as to allow provincial lotteries, as promised by the Liberal party during the last election campaign?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the introductory remarks to the question, which certainly anticipate discussions which might take place during this federal-provincial conference, as well as those which took place this morning between the attorneys general of the provinces and the Minister of Justice.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Minister of Justice implied that I might jeopardize the progress of discussion at the federal-provincial conference. Yet, the Minister of Justice stated himself that there had been no agreement with regard to provincial lotteries, that the issue had been discussed, and that there was no chance of the matter being discussed again at the federal-provincial conference.



FEDERAL ATTITUDE TOWARD ALLEGED ULTIMATUM FROM QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister?
In view of the fact that the province of Quebec has a culture and a language which differ from those of the other provinces and that it has, consequently, different needs, can the minister assure us that the federal government will accept the legitimate requests of Quebec?


Lionel Chevrier: The brief of the province of Quebec, which has been tabled, will be given careful consideration by the conference and the federal government, as will the briefs submitted by the other provinces.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is it the intention of the federal government to capitulate to the requests of British Columbia, which are greater than those of Quebec?


Lionel Chevrier: I see that the hon. member must have consulted his chief, as yesterday the latter asked the same question about the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question? Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the federal-provincial conference will carry on with its work next week?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the matter rests with the provincial premiers and with the federal government, as they establish, from day to day, the procedure to be followed.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether the federal government has denied up to now the 25-25-100 formula of the Quebec premier, so that under the equalization system that province will have to be satisfied with some $30 million, a clearly insufficient amount considering its needs at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the formulas submitted by the province of Quebec and several other provinces are now being studied by the government.



AVAILABILITY OF SUBMISSIONS PRESENTED BY DELEGATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask is this a private debate, or can any of us get in on it? From the nature of the discussion I thought we were on motions. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. Yesterday he tabled the submissions which have been presented at the federal-provincial conference, and he said that copies would be made available. On inquiry at the sessional papers office I found there was only one copy, and that was out on loan. I have not been able to get an original copy to make other copies, and there is no copy available anywhere.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite right. The difficulty is that when I inquired yesterday after I returned to the conference there were only four copies, and the copy I tabled was one of those four. Therefore what is being done now by the secretariat is to ask the premiers for additional copies just as quickly as they cam be obtained, and when they are they will be given to the members.



REPORTED EXCLUSION OF OUTSIDE PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I will look into the article in question and may give a reply tomorrow.']
Lionel Chevrier: I was about to reply to a question that had been put to me yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi in connection with the taking of pictures at the conference. The reply I wish to make is that press photographers were allowed into the conference room for nearly half an hour at the opening of the conference yesterday. Press photographers can, furthermore, take pictures of members of the federal and provincial delegations as they come into or leave the conference room. This, I am informed, as well as the taking of an official photograph by the national film board, accords with the practice which has been followed at previous federal-provincial conferences.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to confirm or deny the existence of a spy-ring within his department, as stated in an Ottawa newspaper, the South End News, yesterday?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the article in question and may give a reply tomorrow.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Did the minister receive a telegram yesterday from the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones) regarding disqualification of about 60 houses in Saskatoon from the $500 winter construction bonus, unless by November 30 the owners comply with a sudden new instruction regarding fabrication on site, which completely contradicts earlier C.M.H.C. instructions? What action does the minister propose to take in regard to this matter, which will seriously
Inquiries of the Ministry affect the operations of the building companies involved because they cannot comply with this new regulation?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting some of the implications in the hon. member's statement, I would like to say I have been in touch with the hon. member for Saskatoon and sent him a wire earlier today which I think will satisfy that hon. gentleman, who is a well known and popular member of the house and who we are all sorry is unable to be here today.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. The deadline was November 10, for applications to December 1 for completing the floor basements and floor joists. I think the regulations should be looked into if the minister is going to make this plan work this year. Would he take that into consideration?


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. gentleman to restate his question.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: The tender form I received from the department stated that all applications had to be in by November 10, 1963. Another clause stated that if certain work was completed after December 1, 1963, it would not be considered. Would the minister look into the regulations?


John Richard Garland: I want to be helpful, Mr. Speaker, but I think all I can say at this moment is that I will look into the hon. member's question.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister been informed of the strong protest by the municipalities and boards of trade of territories which will be affected by the abandonment of a C.N.R. grain line between Humboldt and Melfort, because without doubt this will affect the agricultural industry in that area. I would like to register my personal protest against the abandonment of this very important grain line.



MASTER AGENCY PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport with regard to
5186	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the master agency plan being enforced on the people in the Edmonton area by the C.N.R. officials. Is it correct that the stations in the affected area will be closed permanently as soon as the C.N.R. officials have met with the sessional committee of members of parliament, as already announced by one railway official?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the statements made by the hon. member, but I will look into the subject matter raised in his statements and if there is anything in them I will give an answer.



MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS LACK OF QUORUM AT MEETING OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
A meeting of the mines, forests and waters committee was duly called for 3.30 yesterday afternoon. Around half past three or a quarter to four I went there with the hon. members for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Asselin) and Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). We were twelve members whereas the quorum is only ten.
Since there was only one item on the agenda, that is the invitation extended to the Quebec and Ontario ministers of natural resources to come and express their views on the ownership of the islands situated in Hudson bay and James bay, two Liberals, namely the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and the hon. member for Rich-mond-Wolfe left-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is the question of privilege?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secreiary of Sfate):: Mr. Speaker, it is a rule of the house, surely, that matters which are referred to a committee should be settled in the committee and not dragged into the proceedings of this house while the committee is still sitting and has not made a report. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that matters of this kind should be dealt with in the committee, according to the rules of this house.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member for Lapointe please state his question of privilege quickly. If it concerns the proceedings of a committee, such matters should be 

settled within the committee. What is the question of privilege?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Secretary of State it is not a question of the content of the discussion in the committee, but rather that two Liberal members walked out, thus destroying the quorum that was already there and preventing the committee holding a meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I submit that this is a matter for the committee, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and not for the house. I also suggest that the committee should look after its own affairs in regard to matters which have been referred to it by the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the question of privilege, please?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, here is exactly the point of privilege; the committee does not sit because the Liberal members do not attend its meetings and do not want to examine the questions put before them. And when a member takes the time to go to the committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the point taken by the Secretary of State is well founded. It has been decided in this house many times that matters affecting the conduct of a committee must be decided within the committee and not brought to the attention of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because the committee does not sit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have decided the questions. There is no question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I appeal against your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman knows the rules as well as I do.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I appeal against your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair from which the hon.

member for Lapointe has appealed. Those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the ruling sustained on division.



OATS AND BARLEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about oats and barley. First of all he referred to a statement which he alleged had been made by one of the commissioners of the wheat board to the effect that the situation as far as these two farm commodities are concerned is not favourable for export.
I inquired into the statement which the Leader of the Opposition alleged had been made in this regard, and I could find nothing to support the right hon. gentleman's assertion. The statement which was made by Mr. Robertson on this question was as follows:
In the case of oats and barley, it is unlikely producers will be able to market as much as they wish of these two grains but it is reasonable to expect delivery opportunities comparable to those of recent years.
I should like to go on to say something about the position of oats and barley, since this was the subject of the second part of the question asked by the right hon. gentleman. As all hon. members know, there was a magnificent harvest in western Canada this year, and the wheat board expects that between exports and domestic consumption the whole of the wheat crop will be disposed of within the present crop year. There has also been a very large crop of oats and barley. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, in recent years, indeed ever since we have been growing oats and barley, a high percentage of these grains has been marketed or consumed domestically and a relatively small quantity, particularly in the case of oats, has been exported. This will continue to be the situation in the present year.
I should like to add this, however, and I know the right hon. gentleman will welcome this news. There has been a substantial improvement in exports of oats and barley from Canada this year. In the case of oats, exports have been more than doubled, and 28902-5-330
Inquiries of the Ministry in the case of barley they are three times as high as they were a year ago.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Just give us the figures.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, the figure last year, for the period up to November 20 was, in the case of oats, 1,900,000 bushels. This year it is 4,400,000. Last year for barley it was 2,900,000; this year it is 8,600,000. I think hon. members will agree that this represents a very substantial increase in exports. There has also been a substantial increase in shipments of oats and barley out of country elevators to eastern Canada and out of the lake-head. I make this point particularly because there have been a number of suggestions made in the house that the movement of oats and barley to eastern Canada has not been substantial.
Perhaps I might put these figures on the record, too. From the opening of this crop season, shipments of oats out of the lakehead have been 17.8 million bushels compared with 13.7 a year ago. In the case of barley, shipments amounted to 23.8 million bushels compared with 14.4 million a year ago. Notwithstanding this substantial and welcome improvement in the movement of oats and barley both domestically and for export, it is inevitable that, with such a large crop as the commissioner of the wheat board mentioned, delivery opportunities will be limited but will be at least comparable with those of recent years.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would not have risen on a question of privilege had it not been for the gratuitous insertion into the debate of unnecessary figures. Now I want to read what was said:
A Canadian wheat board commissioner says western farmers will not be able to sell much oats or barley this crop year, but growers would be able to sell "as much wheat as they wish to".
It was on the basis of that statement that I asked the question. The hon. gentleman has pointed out the amount of exports-[DOT]


Mitchell William Sharp: That was the right hon. gentleman's question.


John George Diefenbaker: -so far as oats and barley are concerned. I did not interrupt while the hon. gentleman placed his information before the house, and I ask for the same courtesy. Mention was made of the fact that this year up until November 20 exports had been 8,600,000 bushels. I would point out that in 1962-63 the total exports of barley and barley products were 42,900,000 bushels while the previous year it was 15,400,000. So that every statement I made was in accordance with the facts.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: I should just like to make two points. I answered the question asked by the right hon. gentleman yesterday when he said that some commissioner of the wheat board had suggested that there had been a drop in exports of oats and barley. That is not so, and the right hon. gentleman has still not proved it. The second point is that I gave the figures in answer to the question of the right hon. gentleman, and I would not have given them had he not asked for them.


John George Diefenbaker: I want the house to have the facts; that is the reason I made the addendum.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, on October 30 I moved a motion for the production of papers concerning correspondence between certain ministers of the crown and other persons in Canada with respect to the Columbia river treaty. I want to ask that fountain of all information, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when those papers will be produced, because there are a great many people who are curious about those letters.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I shall seek to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. gentleman as quickly as possible.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and his parliamentary secretary, may I ask the acting minister of northern affairs whether negotiations have yet been completed between the government of Canada and the government of the United States with respect to the allweather maintenance of the Haines road in the Yukon.
In the absence of the acting minister may I ask the deputy acting minister if he has an answer?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member was directing his question to me, but in any event I shall take notice of the question and see that it is brought to the attention of the minister.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works.
What are the new technical difficulties affecting the development of the world fair site of 1967 to which Mr. Lucien Saulnier, and the vice president of the fair, Mr. Robert Shaw, referred? Can he tell the house whether those difficulties may delay the development of the site?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question for the order paper.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that these statements have been made within the last 24 hours by very responsible officials of the world fair. They are of a nature that may affect the preparation of the site, and I think the house is entitled to know if such difficulties exist and if in reality they will affect this project, which is very important for Canada.


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would doubt very much that new developments have come up which could delay the working out of the exhibition plan, as I have not received any report to that effect.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture back in the house, and that he has made such a rapid recovery from his recent illness. I see he has Hansard in his hand, and I presume he has an answer to the question I directed to him in his absence the other day.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek asked the Acting Prime Minister this question on Tuesday last, and the Acting Prime Minister was pleased to turn it over to me this morning. I am glad to reply to the question, which reads in part as follows:
It arises out of a statement the Minister of Agriculture apparently made to a Liberal audience in Red Deer, Alberta, as reported in the Edmonton

Inquiries of the Ministry
Journal of Monday, November 25, in which he said in part "Patronage, what is that? I select people according to merit." If it is government policy that personnel are selected on merit why was it, in view of this statement by the minister, that Mr. George Walker, the former P.F.A.A. supervisor for Swift Current, was discharged from the government service? Either this statement is false or the minister does not practise what he preaches.
Mr. George Walker was discharged on the recommendation of the director because he did not perform his duties satisfactorily. The director was appointed by the previous administration and is a good man.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I have another question for the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the answer he gave to my earlier question. I understand that in his files he will find a report made by the present director in regard to the supervisor to whom I just referred, to the effect that he was the most capable supervisor in that branch.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is your question?


John (Jack) McIntosh: If he does find this report, will he consider firing the director and reinstating the supervisor?


Harry William Hays: I should like to answer the hon. member's question. Apparently he does not understand that the problem arose out of the fact Mr. Walker was taking orders from the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek instead of the director. This was one of the problems, and was not satisfactorily fulfilling his job.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask the minister if he would repeat his answer. I did not hear what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is becoming a debating period instead of a question period.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is a question of privilege. If a member has just been accused of giving orders to a civil servant, surely he has the right to get up and make a reply.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I did not hear the exact words the minister used. I should like him to repeat them, and then I was going to raise a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the important business still before the house may I suggest to the hon. member that he read what was said, and if he has a question of privilege he can raise it tomorrow.


John (Jack) McIntosh: If I have your permission to raise it tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I shall do so.
28902-5-3301



FEDERAL AGENCY TO PROVIDE FEED GRAIN FOR EASTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture which concerns a matter of great urgency to the Atlantic provinces. Is it the intention of the government, early in the new session, to bring forward legislation setting up a federal feed grain agency to deal with western feed grains for eastern farmers?


Harry William Hays: This matter is under discussion at the moment and there is nothing I can say about it. I cannot comment further.



REQUEST FOR STORAGE SPACE IN MONTREAL FOR ONTARIO CORN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I have given him notice. Could the minister supply any additional information further to his reply to my question on November 5 concerning the storage of Ontario corn in Montreal national harbours board elevators? Is discrimination being practised against Ontario corn by Montreal elevator operators, who only allow the unloading of five to ten cars per week or a total of
10,000	to 20,000 bushels, while at the same time United States boats arriving at Montreal with 400,000 to 500,000 bushels of corn are unloaded almost immediately? The information I have received is that at the present time there are about 100,000 bushels of Ontario corn in Montreal elevators for the winter months, while at the close of navigation in mid December there will be over two million bushels of United States corn in storage.


George James McIlraith: I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question, and to assure him that no discrimination is being practised against Ontario corn by the national harbours board elevators at Montreal. More than ten
railway cars or 20,000 bushels per week of Ontario corn were unloaded in Montreal elevators in the following weeks:
Week ending November 2 Week ending November 9 Week ending November 16 Week ending November 23 Week ending November 27
26,086 bushels 101,311 bushels 61,300 bushels 69,618 bushels 74,696 bushels
All vessels containing United States corn had to wait before being unloaded in Montreal, as follows: one ship, three days; one ship, nine days; one ship, eight days. As of 8 a.m. today, November 28, the quantity of

Inquiries of the Ministry Ontario corn in Montreal elevators is 252,979 bushels. The quantity of United States corn in Montreal elevators is 1,281,905 bushels. It is not possible to foresee at this time what quantity of United States corn will be in store in mid December. However, as far as it can be determined at this time the quantity of United States corn in store in mid December is unlikely to exceed 1,300,000 bushels. There are at present on harbour tracks nine cars of Ontario corn, and they will be unloaded not later than tomorrow evening.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he say how the importation of corn from the United States this year compares with last year? Is it greater or less?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question for the order paper.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I should like to ask the minister whether any conversations were had or instructions exchanged between the government and the C.B.C. with regard to their capital program that is in the estimates for the coming year, from the point of view of whether they are to plan or prepare it on a five year basis, as his party suggested would be the practice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask the hon. gentleman a question, is he referring to the future or to the present program? If he is referring to the present program, as the hon. gentleman knows, that is a program that was put in the estimates by the previous administration. But if he is referring to the future I regret to say that up to now I have had no time to have any discussions with the C.B.C. about its program for next year or for subsequent years. I would remind the hon. gentleman, however, that if he will look again at the report of the Fowler commission he will find that it was the program of operations that was to be put on a five year basis, and there was never any suggestion that there should not be year to year control of capital development.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. Does the government intend to go ahead with its

announced policy with regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and a five year plan?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the policy of the government, as rapidly as it can be achieved, to put the budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on such a basis that it is not determined from year to year by treasury board, and so that it is known to the whole of parliament that it is not in any way under the control of the government or, as I said when I was in opposition, under the thumb of the minister of finance. I think that is an undesirable situation that should be corrected as quickly as possible.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question.
Since April is some months behind us, it is worth asking what steps the minister has taken to carry this out. Is the C.B.C. simply to understand from this general statement that this is so?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no. The responsibility is clearly on the government, and the hon. gentleman and all other hon. members will be informed of the position of the government as soon as it has been formulated.



NAMING OF BUILDING IN MEMORY OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Does the government intend to name after the late president of the United States, Mr. John F. Kennedy, one of the federal buildings under construction like, for instance, the C.B.C. headquarters in Ottawa?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the hon. member is one that I think will interest all hon. members, and I will certainly bring it to the attention of the corporation.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Could the minister tell the house whether French Canadians in British Columbia will soon be served by the C.B.C.'s French T.V. network?

Supply-External Affairs [Text]	Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Trans-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Port): No- Mr. Speaker.
I, of course, do not carry in my head all the Mr. Balcer: As a supplementary question, details of the plans of the C.B.C., but I shall may I ask the minister if he will give us his be glad to inquire and inform the hon. gentle- opinion on the suggestion of Mr. Lesage? man and the hon. member for Burnaby-
Coquitlam as well, who would obviously be Mr- McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think that greatly interested in this question.	would be a clear violation of the rules.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, but as he is absent I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the current issue of Time magazine carries a detailed report on the developments relating to the government's decision on heavy water, and contains information that some of us have been trying to get for some time; and in view of the fact that the tender deadline date for the heavy water project was May 31 last, could the Acting Prime Minister inform the house when the government is going to be able to give some information relating to its decision on this vital project?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to reply to this question today. I doubt that a decision has been taken. In any event, I shall be glad to draw the question to the attention of my colleague who, as the hon. member knows, is at the conference at this time.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Acting Prime Minister not think that the hour of decision is at hand on this matter?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to that question is probably yes.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell us whether he has made any arrangements to meet with Premier Lesage while Mr. Lesage is in Ottawa, to discuss with him the suggestion of the premier that no decision respecting transport should be taken without previous consultation with the provinces?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: In the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I would like to direct this question to the acting minister. Did the government or the minister make a commitment to one Mr. Henry Castilou of British Columbia to the effect that there would be an Indian liaison committee appointed consisting of parliamentarians and advisers for the purpose of making annual visits to the various Indian villages in British Columbia?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really cannot say, but I will ask the minister to reply.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills."]
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the genial Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether, in view of the fact we have in the diplomatic gallery two distinguished gentlemen from British Columbia, namely the premier and the minister of health, the government of Canada looks upon that province as being a friendly power?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to that question by saying that I am sure we are all pleased to see the premier of British Columbia and other premiers in the gallery today. I understand there are several premiers present in the gallery but I only see Premier Bennett and Premier Smallwood, and if I do not mention the others it is simply because I do not see them.
In answer to the hon. gentleman's question I want to say this government seeks to conduct the public business in such a manner as to enjoy the happiest relations with all the provinces.

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

Supply-External Affairs



The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.
1. Departmental administration, $7,648,800.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the motion to refer the estimates of the department to the standing committee on external affairs gives the first occasion that I have had since assuming my present responsibilities to make a comprehensive statement on Canadian external policies and the international developments to which they are directed.
I have, of course, already made a number of statements in the house on specific aspects of foreign affairs which from time to time have seemed to require special comment. And so I do not intend to cover every aspect of our foreign policy today. Instead, I should like to concentrate on those international developments which are of general concern because of their bearing on international peace and security, and on those which have particular relevance to Canadian external activity.
As we all know, there are certain factors which condition our responses to the shifting international events of our time. Factors such as history, our traditions, our resources, our geographical location and our cultural composition are present at all times, whatever the issue happens to be or whatever government in Canada finds itself in power, and they combine to create what I would call a natural Canadian reaction to any major international development. At the very least, these continuing factors tend to define the limits within which Canadian policy can develop and still remain true to our national values. They give a general continuity to Canadian policy which transcends party considerations, and I am sure that all hon. members would wish to see continued the nonpartisan spirit that customarily has been reflected in our external policies.


John George Diefenbaker: Until last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just as there is a constant theme running through Canadian foreign policy over the years, so also do I believe there is a continuity of external policies on the part of our great neighbour to the south. Even so profound a tragedy as that which befell the United States just a week ago will not alter in any fundamental way the firm but wise and humane qualities which generally have been the hallmark of American leadership on the great international issues of our times, those affecting peace and war, and the task of raising living standards of the less fortunate peoples of the world.

The wanton crime which ended a brilliant young life and career, striking grief into the hearts of all citizens of the world, as the late President Kennedy often called his fellow human beings, may lead to a pause while the new President gathers to himself the strands of office; but the course of American policy, as we know now from his statement yesterday, remains unchanged. The values by which John Kennedy lived, and for which he died, will live on. I know the house will join with me in extending to the President of the United States our best wishes and our pledge of Canadian co-operation in discharging the arduous responsibilities which have fallen to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Among the tasks which will confront him are a number of important and delicate questions affecting Canadian-United States relations. It is not my intention today to go into detail with regard to these relations, except to assure the committee that all of them are under intensive discussion with the United States government; in a general way these discussions were continued with the meeting of the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States on Monday last.
Institutional and personal relations between these two countries are so varied and so intertwined that problems are bound to be manifold, and some conflict of interest cannot be avoided in intercourse between two nations. But without continuous communication in an effort to find solutions that will satisfy the interests of the United States and Canada, no tolerable solutions will be found. It has therefore been a primary objective of government policy to see to it that a genuine dialogue was resumed at all levels between our two countries. This process was begun at Hyannis Port and has been maintained ever since through a variety of channels. It is our intention that it should be continued uninterrupted, however difficult the problems may seem, and I believe it was not without significance that the Canadian Prime Minister was among the first, along with the President of France, to be received by the new President of the United States on Monday last.
At this meeting with President Johnson, which I attended, it was clearly evident that the President regards the relations between our two countries as important, and I can say it was quite evident that he will derive considerable satisfaction from continuous contacts with the Prime Minister of Canada.
In assessing the international atmosphere as a whole, which is one of the things I wish to do in this statement, the state of relations between the communists and the rest of us is

of course basic. Some other problems, particularly that of assisting the peoples of the less developed countries to advance into full participation in mankind's heritage of dignity, freedom and welfare are no less difficult and in the long run even more important, but it is relations with the communist countries which have involved the risk of war and have demanded the diversion to defence of vast resources which, in a more settled world, could be used for the purposes of instruction and well being.
It is therefore with some sense of satisfaction that one can compare the general international situation today with what it was a year ago. At that time the world stood on the very brink of nuclear war as the result of a sudden, secret deployment of Soviet strategic missiles in Cuba. We now know, as I am sure the right hon. Leader of the Opposition would confirm, that a year ago, in what Mr. Gromyko has referred to as the Caribbean situation, the nations looked for the first time right down into the pit of nuclear fire. That Soviet clandestine move produced the most dangerous crisis of the post-war period but it was one which I believe may mark a new chapter in east-west relations. Happily, that situation was resolved in a way which not only avoided open conflict but opened up new avenues for reducing tensions. It was typical of the late president of the United States that at the peak of that crisis he had the foresight to speak of peace.
But the major political problems of the world remain, in Germany, in Indo-China, in Cuba. The problem of Berlin access is with us still, as recent tense moments on the autobahn have reminded us. These and other problems caused by Stalin's division of Germany and Europe remain as grave sources of tension in the world, potentially as dangerous as Cuba. So when I speak of satisfaction at the improvement in the world political situation during the past year, I do not suggest that there are any grounds for complacency. Critical problems in adjusting relations between the communist and the non-communist worlds remain. Of course it is not possible to define precisely what prompted the Soviet authorities to co-operate in concluding certain limited, tension-easing agreements, of which the partial test ban treaty is the most significant, after some years of refusing these same proposals. Doubtless a variety of factors entered into the decision. One Soviet motive may have been a desire to reduce the risk of war; for there is no question in my mind but that the Soviet people, like our own, ardently desire peace and that Cuba was a sobering lesson for everyone. Another motive was, I think, economic, since the partial test ban treaty seems likely to limit the extension of
Supply-External Affairs the arms race into even more sophisticated and expensive areas of development. The Soviet leaders probably also share with us a desire to discourage the dissemination of nuclear weapons under the independent control of more and more governments, a development which could vastly increase the danger of accidental war and make much more complicated, and perhaps hopeless, the prospect of achieving disarmament.
Evolution within the communist bloc may have exerted considerable influence. In eastern Europe the Soviet union's allies now enjoy a greater freedom to manoeuvre than was possible a few years ago. I think this was highlighted the other day when my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I received in our offices a member of the government of Bulgaria who had come to Canada to discuss with us matters involved in a prospective trade treaty. Although on key international issues such as disarmament and Germany and Berlin the bloc countries give apparently unquestioning support to the Soviet union, it is nevertheless evident that on internal policy relating to collectivization of agriculture, de-Stalinization, and so on, and on bloc economic policies, there are variations which indicate clearly that differing national requirements and interests are more and more taken into account.
Moreover, there seems to be some increase in the realism of the Soviet leaders on the essential issues of Soviet-western relations, and this realism may make possible in due course limited agreements on a number of other issues to complement and consolidate the relaxation begun by the achievement of the limited test ban agreement. The dialogue between the Soviet union and the United States, as the leading representative of the west, has been resumed and it is to continue, as President Johnson's first message to Chairman Khrushchev indicated yesterday.
Now, sir, a major factor in Soviet thinking, of course, is the problem of its relations with communist China. While we have long known that there were serious differences between the Soviet union and China, and that China has never been a true satellite of the Soviet union, the new element is the unrestrained public disclosure of the extent of the rift. The dispute now appears to have been carried into the field of interstate relations, affecting economic, political and possibly even territorial aspects. It would be unwise, of course, to judge how far these differences may yet be carried, for the sobering fact is that they are still agreed as to their basic aim, the extension of communism throughout the world. Their differences are related primarily to the means by which this aim can best be achieved,

Supply-External Affairs although in the process national and racial considerations appear to have become involved.
Neither do I wish to minimize, however, the significance of the nature of their differences over method. Communist China maintains an attitude of unreasoning militancy while the Soviet union proclaims the policy of peaceful coexistence. The communist dogma of the inevitability of war is thus at the very root of Sino-Soviet differences. How this conflict of view between the two leading nations competing for influence and domination of the international communist movement is resolved can have the most profound influence on the peace of the world for years to come.
There can be little doubt of the aggressive nature of current Chinese policies. Quite apart from China's often proclaimed call for active prosecution of wars of liberation, her adherence to the doctrine of the inevitability of war, her rejection of the test ban treaty, and similar evidence of a hard attitude, communist China has provided a modern example of expansionism through her limited invasion of India last year. A statement at the time revealed that her object was not only the promotion of territorial claims, but the diverting of India's economic resources to defence and the discrediting in India's democratic process. It had all the evidence of a bid to demonstrate to other nations that the principal power in Asia was communist China, not India. It is also noteworthy that the Soviet union condemned China for its intransigence for refusing to negotiate the border settlement with India on the basis of the so-called Colombo proposals, and reiterated its belief that negotiations are better than war.
The dispute between communist China and the Soviet union is likely to force both of these countries to re-examine the fundamentals of their relations with the rest of the world.
We should be careful, however, not to become complacent at the sight of the two communist giants openly quarrelling between themselves. There are factors which could make them keep their dispute, despite the evident contradictions, within bounds. But quite apart from this, it does not follow that bad relations between the Soviet union and communist China will necessarily mean any improvement in relations between either of them and the west, nor even necessarily any benefit to the non-communist world in which they are already competing for influence.
How, then, are we to deal with the communist Chinese colossus, whose annual population increase is equal to the present population of Canada? For almost the entire period

of its existence communist China has been effectively isolated from the non-communist world, partly as a result of western policies but partly out of deliberate choice. We have had a recent example of China taking an initiative to intensify its own isolation. The test ban treaty was a step, albeit a small one, away from the arms race and therefore away from war. It is unfortunate and ominous that the Peking authorities chose to express strong opposition to it, in sharp contrast to its ready acceptance by the vast majority of the nations of the world.
So we must carefully consider whether the degree of isolation which now surrounds communist China is healthy; whether it promotes international peace or tends to intensify the threat to it. At one time the Soviet union was in a similar state of isolation. I wonder how many of us believe that Soviet isolation served the interest of world peace? I well remember Mr. Vishinsky saying in the United Nations that never would he allow the windows of the Soviet union to be opened to the ideas of the west. And the nations of the west at that time, for the most part, strove to establish contact with the Soviet union along lines which have now clearly become better established.
Some means must be found to remove the suspicion and ignorance which feeds on isolation. The lesson of the last years seems to point toward increased contacts. Whether those contacts take the form of scientific and cultural exchanges or of limited agreements, they serve to lower the barriers of hostility. I do not suggest it would be appropriate to rush into some new formal relationship at this time with the Chinese people's communist republic. The avowed intention of Peking to occupy Formosa stands as a serious obstacle to both the seating of communist China in the United Nations at this time and to the recognition of the Peking regime. But I suggest that the increasing ostracism of communist China from the world community may be self defeating and a potential threat to international stability. It is not too soon to begin in the west to formulate realistic and farsighted policies toward this Asian giant.
Trade, of course, has a special place in the process of overcoming the mistrust which exists between the west and the entire communist block. The Soviet union and other communist countries are facing a particularly difficult problem of resource allocation at the present time, and both the nature of this problem and the attempts to deal with it will have important implications not only for the domestic and foreign policies of those countries but for east-west relations in general.

What are the implications for Canada of the developments which I have been discussing? First, it must be understood that we are bound by treaty obligations, by tradition and by national interest to the Atlantic world and to those countries which derive historically, economically and politically from western Europe. Interdependence is a fact of international life, and Canadian relations with the communist world are inevitably governed by the general state of relations between the two great military groupings, particularly those of the United States and the Soviet union. It is neither possible nor desirable that our relations with the communist world should be significantly better or worse than the relations of our closest friends and allies with the communist world. Within those limits, however, there are certain possibilities open to us which could serve our interests and those of our allies.
I believe profoundly that the long term solution of east-west problems will come through the slow evolution of communist thinking about their own methods and objectives, and about the outside world. It will not help if the Soviet leaders continue to feel that the west is totally alien and implacably hostile. Breaking down this dangerous misconception is the political reason behind our encouragement of cultural and other contacts, and it should also be the political reason for our trade with communist countries.
So for these broad political considerations, as well as for the commercial advantages which accrue to Canada, a country vitally dependent upon its exports, the government intends to allow non-strategic trade with the communist world to develop. We believe that through trade we shall encourage the evolution of institutions and attitudes in the communist countries more favourable to cooperation with the rest of the world.
It is essential, I believe, to assess realistically the elements which have contributed to the better atmosphere which undoubtedly does prevail at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question? What change has there been in the policy with regard to trade with communist countries in non-strategic materials and commodities? Has there been any change from the policy pursued by the government of which I had the honour to be the head?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think there has been any change.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I thought.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think there is any change. I clearly indicated that in the basic Canadian foreign policy there is a continuity of development regardless of
28902-5-331
Supply-External Affairs which government is in power. I believe the matters I am now discussing are of such importance that they do not lend themselves to any political advantage, and certainly I am not trying to take any advantage of that kind in this discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: We just want the record to be clear.


Lionel Chevrier: It should be clear as to other
things, too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Apart from the critical role of the Cuban crisis in stimulating a re-examination of policies in both the east and the west, the concrete steps taken toward the easing of tensions have in fact been few in number. They consist exclusively of measures to slow down the arms race or reduce the danger of a sudden outbreak of war, but they leave completely unresolved all the political problems which could give rise to war.
The measures are three limited agreements, all falling within the general field, which might be classed as preliminary to disarmament. First, a direct emergency communications system has been established between Washington and Moscow which should do much to ensure that war between east and west does not come about as a result of accident or miscalculation. The difficulty encountered in communicating rapidly at the time of the Cuban crisis was evidently enough to induce the Soviet union to accept this measure, which the United States had first proposed in April, 1962.
Second, there was the Moscow treaty banning nuclear weapons testing in all environments except underground, signed by the United States, Britain and the Soviet union on August 5, 1963. Canada signed the treaty in the capitals of the three depository governments on August 8, 1963. It was an unprecedented first step toward limiting, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the production of nuclear weapons, and of course it carried with it the enormous human dividend of removing the most serious source of radioactive contamination of the atmosphere and seas.
But above all the signature of this treaty by the nuclear powers, and its subsequent acceptance by over 100 states, proved that by patient exploration agreements can be arrived at which serve the interests of both east and west. Its real significance lies in the prospect it holds out for a broader settlement of east-west questions by the same process. On the western side, it was accomplished without any sacrifice of principle or of security, and involved no political concessions. For example, adherence to the Moscow treaty by regimes which are not already recognized by Canada, in no way constituted extension of Canadian recognition to them.
5196	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
May I observe that when on July 25 the Prime Minister announced Canada's decision to sign this treaty the authentic text was not available and was, therefore, not tabled in the house before the recess on August 2. Subsequently it was published. However, for the convenience of members I am now tabling copies of the treaty, three copies in the two languages. As all parties in the house have already expressed their wholehearted support of the agreement, arrangements are now being made to deposit Canada's instrument of ratification in Washington, London and Moscow.
The third limited agreement was that reached at the United Nations between the United States and the Soviet union to refrain from stationing or orbiting nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction in outer space. This took the form of separate expressions of intention by the Soviet union and the United States, which were welcomed by a unanimous resolution of the general assembly in October last; and as the house knows, this is a measure which successive Canadian governments have advocated.
It is to be noted that none of these agreements constitutes an actual reduction or elimination of weapons and armed forces. None the less the negotiations in the 18-nation disarmament committee in Geneva have been productive. The committee has played an important role in helping the major powers to reach agreement on all three measures. Even in the field of general disarmament the committee has made a valuable contribution toward narrowing the areas of difference between the communist and western positions.
Important gaps still persist, however, and I would not wish to leave the impression that progress on actual disarmament is likely to be quick and easy. The Soviet position on control, inspection and verification is not giving any evidence of moving in the direction which the west regards as essential.
The outlook therefore for disarmament is fraught with problems, and the 18-nation committee faces an enormous task. In the view of the Canadian government, among those measures designed to increase mutual confidence the committee might give priority to the examination of measures to reduce the risk of surprise attack by land forces, such as the establishment of ground observation posts. If these posts have sufficient liberty to observe within an adequate radius of action they could give assurance against the possibility of sudden war. I appreciate, however, that discussion is likely to be difficult, as the Soviet union tends to try to couple intrinsically worth while measures of this kind with unacceptable conditions, at least unacceptable to the western countries. The Soviet approach to [Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1

disarmament has always been heavily influenced by its policies toward central Europe and toward Germany in particular. Their latest objective seems to be to induce the United States and Canada to withdraw their forces across the Atlantic and thereby remove the North American presence which is, to the great majority of Europeans, the tangible evidence of our commitment to their effective defence. The western response to all these overtures must of necessity be such as will take into account the exigencies of NATO defence as well as the need to reduce the risk of war by accident or miscalculation.
It is difficult to maintain the momentum toward disarmament engendered by the limited agreements which have been reached, especially in the face of political setbacks such as the renewal of Soviet harassment in the Berlin corridor. Yet it would be wrong to slacken our efforts, for as in the case of the limited test ban and the Austrian state treaty of 1955 a seemingly endless and inconclusive discussion can lead suddenly to progress and achievement. We owe it to ourselves and to humanity to persist in our efforts to achieve disarmament within conditions of security that will create the kind of international climate which in turn may encourage the settlement of some of the major political problems dividing east and west.
Our membership in the United Nations, along with NATO, our membership in the commonwealth and our proximity to the United States represent the cornerstones of foreign policy which have been recognized by all governments in Canada. Developments at the United Nations therefore continue to occupy a very important place in Canadian foreign policy.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question before he turns to another subject, in connection with the very laudable objective of disarmament? Is Canada now negotiating with Poland on a resolution for a nuclear free zone in central Europe?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are discussions proceeding between Canada and a number of countries with regard to the proposals for a nuclear free zones. With regard to the particular zone to which the right hon. gentleman directs my attention, as a member of the NATO alliance we must naturally take into consideration the views of our allies and the interests of the alliance itself. I am sure the right hon. gentleman will readily appreciate that. With regard to the proposals for a nuclear free zones in other areas of the world, we have given sympathetic support providing, as I have said before in answer to a question in this house, certain conditions which we believe essential are observed.

The atmosphere at the current assembly appears calm in the sense that the tensions between the communist and the non-communist blocs have eased, thus eliminating one familiar obstacle to constructive action by the world body. But one direct consequence of understanding in one area has been to cause renewed activity in another of no less importance. I refer to race relations, which now emerges as one of the dominant factors in international affairs. The African states are understandably aroused at the failure of their persistent efforts in the United Nations and in the specialized agencies to bring about any appreciable change in the policies of South Africa and Portugal. These and other issues of colonialism and racial discrimination are being featured prominently in the assembly debates. The aims and objectives sought by the African members are shared by almost the whole membership, but there is a substantial area of doubt about some of the measures proposed for achieving their desired ends.
Canada has consistently urged under this government, under the preceding government and under the government before that, that the membership of the United Nations should be comprehensive in character, and this is the fundamental reason we are opposed to any move to have members expelled from the United Nations. South Africa and Portugal have become the immediate object of such moves, which could have much wider application. There are within the organization other member states whose policies are just as repressive and just as discriminatory as the ill advised and repugnant policies now being followed by these two countries. In all cases we believe that such policies are more likely to be modified if they are kept under close scrutiny by the United Nations than if the states concerned were to be expelled. Moreover, we believe that all such measures which conform strictly to the letter of the charter of the United Nations could, unless carefully observed, create a situation resulting in far reaching harm to the United Nations itself. The government has made clear-


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry I have to interrupt the minister. Is it agreed that he continue?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the committee, because I should like on this occasion to make as careful and as comprehensive a statement as possible so as to outline the position which the Department of External Affairs and the government are taking at this time.
28902-5-3314
Supply-External Affairs
I made clear at the United Nations the position of Canada and its determination and desire to see the United Nations strengthened in every possible way, particularly as regards capacity to engage in peace keeping operations. We have urged other member states to follow the example of countries like Canada, the Scandinavian members and now the Netherlands, which have taken steps to prepare their national forces for emergency service with the United Nations.
We have called for the establishment of a compact military planning team in the secretariat to assist the secretary general in the conduct of peace keeping operations involving military personnel and equipment. We have offered to share with other governments our experience which we have gained from extensive participation in peace keeping operations over a period of many years in the United Nations and, pursuant to the Geneva accord of 1954, and through Canadian participation in the three international supervisory commissions operating in Viet Nam, in Cambodia and in Laos. We see the suggestion for extensive participation outside the United Nations by interested countries as a possibility for giving strength to the idea of a world peace force together with the suggestion of improvements to the secretariat by providing for the possibility of staff training for United Nations military operations. We are examining intensively, in this context and in others, ways in which these improvements can be achieved.
An important aspect of United Nations peace keeping relates to the financing of these ad hoc operations, principally those in the Congo and in the Middle East. We have been greatly concerned in recent times, as members of this house are, about the growing deficit in relation to the peace keeping accounts of the United Nations. The secretary general has estimated that this might be about $140 million by the end of 1963, and it is an indictment of our time that it should be possible for us to provide so readily, as we must, for our defences when at the same time it is so difficult to get the necessary moneys to keep functioning properly the organization that was established at San Francisco to try to substitute pacific means, conciliation, adjudication and discussion, for settling disputes between nations, instead of resorting to force.
We believe that the financial burden should be shared by all members of the United Nations, not only by some of the great powers and some of the lesser powers but by all the great powers and all the nations. There is room, of course, for offering the less developed countries some measures of relief from their assessments when peace keeping costs are

Supply-External Affairs high. There is none for absolving countries with a capacity to pay from their financial commitments.
We believe that the peace keeping operations in the Congo and in the Middle East should be continued as long as they are considered necessary, and this will be a determination based upon prevailing practical and other considerations. It was on this basis that we supported the continuation of the Congo force for a further period of six months, that is until June of 1964. We believe that the United Nations emergency force should be maintained. We would be opposed to curtailing that body if by such curtailment there should result any inefficiency or any failure to provide the stability which is generally desired in the Middle East. We believe the continuing effectiveness of these peace keeping bodies will depend on satisfactory financing arrangements being made.
The most recent peace keeping effort of the United Nations, to which Canada is contributing an important element in the staffing and maintenance of the air component, is the observation mission in Yemen, about which I am sure the right hon. gentleman heard a good deal during his visit to the Middle East a few months ago. The government's decision to meet the secretary general's request for Canadian participation was consistent with our policy of supporting this fundamental aspect of United Nations activity. This was a hazardous experience. It was originally participated in by Yugoslavia, the country which supplied the ground force, and by Canada, which supplied the air component. The governments of the United Arab Republic and Saudi Arabia undertook to supply the necessary finances for an initial two month period. Following further commitments to finance an additional four months' operations, the secretary general has extended the mission until January 4, 1964, at which time the situation will, I expect, be reviewed by the security council.
But I must emphasize in this connection that the United Nations mission in Yemen is strictly a temporary operation limited to observing and verifying the progress of disengagement. It is not charged with the supervision or enforcement of the agreement. Unfortunately, progress on disengagement to date has not been encouraging, and I can only express the sincere hope that the extension of this mission's period of responsibility will afford time for more effective implementation of the agreement. I also expect that time will be utilized in devising some civilian observation machinery more appropriate to the task in Yemen.


Mr. Churchill:: Would the minister permit a question? How many Canadians are involved in the operation in Yemen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not have the exact number, but it is somewhere between 20 and 30.
A situation must not be allowed to develop in which the parties would use the presence of the United Nations mission as a cover for the indefinite continuation of their involvement in the affairs of Yemen.
The Canadian delegation at the United Nations is active, as in other years, in many other fields; in promoting disarmament, cooperating in outer space, scientific research in relation to the hazards of radiation, respect for human rights, and the program of economic and social development carried out under the auspices of the United Nations and the specialized agencies. We shall continue our support for humanitarian programs designed to alleviate refugee problems. We are actively engaged, as a number of the preparatory committee in each case, in the organizing work for the United Nations conference on trade and development in March of 1964, and for the international year of co-operation in 1965. I am happy to take this opportunity of welcoming to our capital Mr. Prebisch, the president of the United Nations trade and development conference, who is in our city today and tomorrow. Certainly the trade and development conference will be a matter of special interest and concern, and I might say that it was the subject of considerable discussion at the meeting of the O.E.C.D. in Paris.
Canada has been able in the United Nations, I believe, as I found in the period when I was there at the beginning of the session and from time to time when I returned, to strengthen bilateral relations with most member states, particularly with the new states of Africa. I have welcomed the occasion to talk to many of the representatives of the African states, to get to know their problems a little better and generally to let them understand the good will and the favourable disposition that Canada has toward them.
The opportunity for personal conversation on a wide range of subjects is, in my judgment, one of the valuable dividends of the general assembly. Another is the ability of the organization to provide its member states with a wide variety of means for bridging and reconciling differences. This may be the real reason for striving ceaselessly to keep the United Nations in working order; for in spite of its imperfections this international instrument has demonstrated its capacity to respond

to most of the basic needs of the international community in a period of exceptional difficulty.
A foreign minister of one of the great powers said to me only a few days ago that Canada is an idealistic nation; its confidence in the United Nations seems to be unbounded. My reply was yes, we are an idealistic people; we do believe in the United Nations, and we do believe that if our world is to survive in this interdependent period, that body must be given increasing support. I believed, when I said that, I spoke for every member of this house and for the vast majority of the people of our country.
I made reference a few minutes ago to the rapidly changing nature of the world in which we live. One of the most dramatic manifestations of change has been the emergence in the past few years of scores of new independent nations with widely varied backgrounds. In Africa a whole continent has come awake and for the first time has taken its place on the world stage. The vitality of these new countries, and their determination to play a significant part in world affairs, were demonstrated at the conference of the heads of some 32 independent African states held in Addis Ababa last May. At that meeting the charter of the organization for African unity was adopted, envisaging a new era of political and economic co-operation. At that gathering the African states also served notice of their impatience with the rate of progress toward the solution of the remaining colonial problems.
The Portuguese African territories in South Africa are the focal point of anti-colonial pressure. In the case of Portugal, the difficulty arises from its claim that its overseas territories are an integral part of metropolitan Portugal. The time is, in fact, long overdue for Portugal to give some sign that it recognizes the principles of self determination in its overseas territories. The Canadian government has made it clear that it cannot accept the theories on which Portugal's colonial policy is based. We welcome the reforms which Portugal has instituted during the past two years in its overseas territories. We hope that the Portuguese government will wisely take the further steps which alone can turn aside the criticisms to which it is now exposed.
It is harder to foresee any solution to the problem of race conflict in South Africa. The Canadian government can understand the fears of white South Africans about the possibility of being submerged and eventually forced out of their homeland. However, the Canadian government cannot understand South Africa's claim that apartheid is the only solution, and we deplore the use of harsh and repressive measures offensive to fundamental
Supply-External Affairs human rights which are used to carry out this policy. We derive no pleasure, and I am sure no one in this house derives any pleasure, from seeing our former sister nation of the commonwealth become an outcast amongst nations for its race policy. I repeat what I said at the United Nations, that we are prepared to help in any way possible to achieve a solution based on justice, but we cannot and we will not support one which is offensive to human dignity.
In Southern Rhodesia the race problem is not yet hardened along irrevocable lines. African leaders, including some commonwealth leaders, have pointed out that it would not be in keeping with normal commonwealth practice if Southern Rhodesia were given her independence under a government which is not broadly representative of its whole population. More time is needed to search out a solution in Southern Rhodesia which will avoid the heavy problems now facing South Africa.
Elsewhere in former British colonial territory the movement toward independence marches steadily forward. Malaysia came into being on September 16, embracing Sarawak and North Borneo. We in this house welcomed wholeheartedly the founding of Malaysia. We now regret, along with the British foreign secretary who spoke on this yesterday, the external difficulties which have attended the birth of a state which we are satisfied is destined to enhance the peace and stability of southeast Asia.
In the Caribbean we have watched with satisfaction the progress of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago since they achieved independence last year. They have provided reassuring models of stability in an area which has been otherwise turbulent. The Canadian government continues to follow closely constitutional developments in other islands and territories in that region, and as I have already announced, steps are being taken to improve and expand our aid arrangements for the region in the economic field. This was one of the subjects discussed at Hyannis Port between the late President of the United States and the present Prime Minister.
The nurturing of one of our other cornerstones of foreign policy, the commonwealth, is a basic feature of our external policies. In the past few years membership has been progressively enlarged until today it embraces 16 sovereign states. The majority now are in Asia and in Africa. It is because of the special insight which the commonwealth gives us into the new forces which have emerged in the post-war era that we most value this unique association of states. The commonwealth practice of continuing consultation among members on matters of

Supply-External Affairs mutual concern is especially valuable in a world in which race and colour have too often tended to be divisive forces.
A second important group of newly emerging states meriting special attention from Canada are the 20 French speaking states of Africa, most of which are members of the French community. It is only natural that Canada, a bicultural state, should wish to contribute to the advancement of this important group of French speaking African countries as it does to the African members of the commonwealth. There is a natural link here that also prompts French African states to turn to Canada. Like all the countries of that continent, these states are faced with the enormous problems of education and economic and cultural development. It is our intention to increase the level and quality of our assistance to them in terms that are represented by the announcement I made a few days ago, the details of which are now being formulated into a plan, which will, I hope, be of increasing value in manifesting Canada's concern for these countries.
There is one subject with which I wish to deal briefly now, Mr. Chairman. The house is aware that for many years as a private member of this house I demonstrated my interest in the question of Canadian membership in the organization of American states, a development to which most Latin American countries attach considerable importance and to which I am sure a great many Canadians familiar with developments in Latin America will likewise attach much importance. This government is fully aware of the role that the organization of American states plays in hemispheric affairs. We are aware, too, that there has been a noticeable growth of interest on the part of Canadians in connection with developments in Latin America, with which many of our citizens have a cultural, religious and social affinity.
This is not a question which can be settled summarily. There are a great many factors which the government must take into consideration and which are being carefully weighed. To this end I have had discussions with the president of the council of the organization of American states, and I have had discussions with the president of the interAmerican bank. We are watching carefully the discussions now going on within the organization concerning terms of membership, a matter of considerable importance as well to the commonwealth countries of the Caribbean which are showing increasing interest in participation. All these aspects of the question are now being actively reviewed.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question? He used very signif-

icant words-"discussions are taking place regarding the terms". Does the Canadian government take the stand that the ordinary terms applicable to members of this organization should not apply to Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I implied that. If I did, I had not intended to. At the present time there is a discussion as to the terms of membership of interested countries, and Canada is not one that has indicated an interest at the present time in joining the organization. If we reach that situation-I am not saying we will and I am not saying we will not-then will be the time to give consideration to the kind of question to which my right hon. friend has directed my attention.
There are many questions that I have not covered today but which undoubtedly will be discussed when the committee is set up: Membership in the Indo-China peace commissions; some of our current negotiations with the United States involving such questions as the law of the sea, on which negotiations will be resumed next Wednesday in Washington; discussions with regard to the Columbia river treaty project; our balance of payment problems. Indeed there are a whole series of questions concerning the two countries, as well as many questions concerning other countries and concerning our membership in various international bodies, but we will have an opportunity to deal with those at a later time.
A number of years ago a former secretary of state for external affairs, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, gave the following description of how Canada should pursue its international responsibilities:
In her participation in international affairs Canada will, I hope, act with resolution, with responsibility, and also with restraint. We should not evade our international duties; but in discharging them we should not be influenced unduly by national pride and prejudice. I hope that in our foreign relations we can reconcile our first duty to our own people with our ulitmate obligations to the international community. In a frightened and suspicious world this is not always easy.
His prescription for Canadian conduct is as valid today as when it was first enunciated on April 29, 1948, and the world is only now beginning to be slightly less beset by fear and suspicion than it was then, when the expansionist and threatening behavior of international communism provided the impetus for the present western system of collective security, of which Canada is now an integral part.
The fundamental objective of Canadian policy was then, as it is now, to preserve peace and to seek a reduction in international tensions, whether those tensions arise from

the ideological conflict between east and west or from the upheavals which have been engendered by the surge toward independence and higher living standards of former colonial and underdeveloped peoples. In our pursuit of these objectives we aim to maintain a balanced, realistic and co-operative outlook on international affairs, avoiding excesses of optimism, pursuing policies commensurate with our capabilities, and ensuring that Canada speaks with a reasonable and constructive voice in international councils.
Sir, I have dealt at length with relations with the communist part of the world and with the less developed areas, because those are the dominant forces in contemporary international life, affecting directly the scope for Canadian initiative in international affairs. I have outlined what I believe to be some of the ways in which we can work toward a further relaxation of tension. But I do not wish to exaggerate the possibilities. We are far from the point where we can relax our vigilance. There is no evidence as yet that the decrease in international tension which has begun will prove so durable that the dismantling of our defences would be warranted. We must recognize that the collective security arrangements, which we have developed within the north Atlantic alliance, by their very effectiveness have been a major factor in bringing about the more hopeful atmosphere which prevails today. NATO, which embraces our major military efforts in both Europe and North America, remains one of the main cornerstones on which Canadian foreign policy rests and must rest, not only in our preparations to defend ourselves if the need to do so should be thrust upon us but also in our approach to an era of peace, if that should materialize; and on this question I think the latter is the more likely consequence and result.
It is important to recognize in this connection that NATO is not just a military alliance but an assembly of nations with common ideals and a high identity of purpose, in peace and in war. Since the competition between the communist and democratic worlds will certainly continue, even if war is abandoned by communism as an instrument of policy, all members of the western world will be faced with the same problems of how best to respond. Thanks to the habit of consultation which has been developed over the years, the organization today is well equipped to become a central forum for co-ordination of western policies in the more hopeful period that may lie ahead. The forthcoming ministerial meeting of NATO in December, which some of my colleagues and I will attend, will be of great importance in exchanging views and charting a common course.
Supply-External Affairs
That meeting will also be significant in another sense. As a consequence of the reemergence of Europe as a major world power centre, certain changes in relationships are taking place within the alliance. This development is itself in large measure the product of enlightened policies consistently pursued through the post-war period. It is inconceivable to me that in the moment of success of policies so deliberately pursued, there should be a fear to accept the consequential change in trans-Atlantic relationship that inevitably had to ensue.
There is no cause for concern in the evolutionary process taking place in the west. To be sure, certain problems have been introduced into the relationship within the western family of nations, but I stress that these problems can and will be resolved without undermining the fundamental cohesion of the western alliance, and certainly without harmful consequences to any outside nation.
So, sir, I conclude this statement on Canadian foreign policy as I see it at the present time, a policy that is predicated upon certain constants, membership in the commonwealth, membership in the United Nations, membership in NATO, our traditional and cultural affinity with France, one of the great and strong nations of the world and one of the strong powers in Europe today. I dedicate the efforts of this government anew to the twin objectives of promoting the Atlantic partnership while working unremittingly for international peace and stability.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, my first words must be of congratulation to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the manner in which he has dealt in a general way with the problems facing Canada internationally. He has an amplitude and felicity of phrase that makes it difficult on occasion to follow his exact meaning, but I will say that the views he has expressed today, and in particular the general summation he has made, will cause no serious division as between those in the government and those in opposition. However, that does not mean I feel he has covered the subject as recent events would have demanded.
When he dealt with the question of the recognition of China I thought he was going to make a profound declaration, but by the time he had completed his remarks in that connection he had gone no further than the government of which he was a member seven or eight years ago. He did, however, deal with the question of the problem that has to be faced. I am not applying this in any way to the question of the recognition of China; I realize the difficulties inherent in so doing. I believe that the free world made a mistake 12 years ago, when it was purely a legalistic

Supply-External Affairs matter and when recognition would not have carried the connotations that it does today. Recognition, regardless of one's agreement with the government that holds office in any particular state, follows when certain matters are answered affirmatively. One has only to take the recent example of the recognition of the revolutionary government of South Viet Nam to understand that, whether countries agree or disagree with an administration, when under ordinary circumstances that administration will hold office for a period of time and has a degree of permanence about it, recognition takes place. But with the passing years.-and I have found this everywhere in regard to Asia-today recognition of China would seem to carry with it the approval of communism as practised in that country. If I could use a homely illustration, all of us recognize the Secretary of State for External Affairs; but that recognition does not carry with it full approval of the things that he stands for.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that he desired to secure reasonable unanimity of opinion in the house and hoped we would be as non-partisan as possible. I intend to follow his suggestion in that connection and be as non-partisan as he was when he occupied the position of critic on external affairs during the days of the former administration. I would immediately point out the fact that I am glad to find the reputation of Canada internationally is so widely accepted. I was of those who argued at all times that this has always been Canada's reputation; but I recall that in 1963 in the month of January the hon. gentleman at that time had grave doubts as to Canada's international position. He spoke of the downgrading of Canada that had taken place. I would like to point out in this connection the fact that one who has recently received recognition from the Prime Minister, Mr. John W. Holmes, who was described by the Prime Minister as a wise Canadian commentator on U.S.-Canadian relations, made a statement in the International Journal regarding Canada's international position in which he said:
At the end of the second war, Canada emerged as the third strongest of the western powers and assumed in international organizations a position of influence not far behind that of the minor great powers. During the decade and a half since that time, Canada's population and resources continued to grow, but its relative position in the world fell off considerably.
That, from a man who was in the civil service in a high position during the days the former government was in office, indicates that whatever may have been the change in Canada's external prestige, it continued for a period of approximately 18 years subsequent to the war. As I listened to the

Secretary of State for External Affairs today referring to what has been achieved in the field of international relations, including the test ban treaty, the hopes expressed regarding disarmament and the steps being taken, I was reminded of the fact that when the then secretary of state for external affairs, the Hon. Howard Green, pressed strongly for these forward steps there were those who now sit opposite who ridiculed what he was doing and alleged that what he was doing was in fact the result of a naive lack of understanding of processes of international negotiations. Even the Secretary of State for External Affairs used these words in January last:
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 possible to work wisely unless we take into account the existing 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.
He also indicated there was altogether too much optimism on the part of Mr. Green in expressing the view that it would not be long before we would have achieved an international test ban agreement, now referred to in such fulsome and responsible terms by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Then the hon. gentleman referred to what had been achieved in relation to outer space. That brought back memories. It was in 1957 that I had the honour to bring this particular matter before the United Nations, setting out in detail a course of action to assure that outer space would not be used by the nations for purposes other than those of peace. Mr. Green pursued that course throughout the period during which he held the responsibility of office, and an agreement has now been achieved. Then the hon. gentleman mentioned another matter-the provision of help to nations which lack most of the economic opportunities which we have in Canada. One of the things we advocated throughout the years was the establishment of a food bank. That proposal met with derision. However, with the passing of the years it has become accepted as a basic principle of one of the agencies of the United Nations.
Then the hon. gentleman spoke of how trade could be a solvent of the difficulties between nations. He said the present government intended to continue the policy which was carried out, after much criticism, of selling non-strategic commodities to communist nations. I remember the hon. gentleman at that time-and I just recall this-making a statement about the selling of wheat to communist China on credit, to the effect that we sold on

credit to our enemies but that we sold on a cash basis to our friends. These are changes-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the right hon. gentleman must be in error and I would be grateful if he would quote the statement he now attributes to me in that context.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not have it before me, but I have a perfect recollection of its being said. I am complimenting the hon. gentleman. He should not take umbrage. There has been a change of opinion in this regard.
Then there was mention of the need for preserving within the commonwealth the principle of the acceptance of a colour-blind commonwealth. This was the stand we took before the commonwealth prime ministers conference. This was the stand which was so strongly criticized both in this house and outside it. We took the position firmly and definitely that within a commonwealth increasingly comprising people of so many races and colours no other principle would be acceptable. We asked South Africa to change its apartheid rules even to a slight degree. We asked South Africa to give its 12 million coloured people and negroes, three representatives in the parliament of their country so that they would have the opportunity of presenting their views. That was denied. We did not ask South Africa to leave the commonwealth. That was a decision of the prime minister and of the foreign minister of that country at the conference in 1961. What we asked was that they recognize the fact that, wherever discrimination is practised, there are the incipient beginnings and incubation of communism and its acceptance.
Today, the idea of a colour-blind commonwealth is acceptable, though two years ago, when the government of which I had the honour to be prime minister advocated this principle, we were criticized for dismembering the commonwealth. It could not have survived without that principle. The Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned that there are 16 members today. When I first became prime minister, I think the number was nine. If we ever allowed ourselves the luxury of a vote to determine any matter in the prime ministers conference, that would be the end of the conference and, ultimately, of the commonwealth.
My own view was: let us look to the future; let us recognize that everywhere in the world the spirit of freedom has been aroused in all the races of man; do not let us say, with five out of six of the individuals in the commonwealth belonging to coloured races, that the principle of non-discrimination should be denied. We did not say that, in the heart, there might not be discrimination; but
Supply-External Affairs we said that when discrimination is an integral part of the policy of any of the nations, such a policy was inconsistent with the principles of the commonwealth and with the maintenance of peace within the commonwealth.
The minister referred to the decision of the government to expand the assistance planned for those who live in countries which were formerly French colonies. That was the stand we took. We believe in the bicultural relationship of our country and determined on a course of action in that regard. What is now being done is to extend the amount on the basis of a principle which we adopted.
I do not bring these matters to the attention of the house for the purpose of referring to the past, except as the past shows us a course for the future. It is much harder to speak from this side of the house on the subject of foreign affairs than it is from the government side. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) have access to information far and beyond anything which is available to other members. And that is proper. We do not know the facts as the government knows them. A committee has been set up to look into the whole field of foreign affairs. I hope there will be full discussion in that committee. Today, when I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs two or three questions he was frank in his answers and if the same attitude is adopted in the committee it will be most beneficial. He mentioned the new spirit of Moscow had considerably changed since August, when the badminton game was played in the Crimea. There have been abrupt, even ominous changes. Why these changes have been made, we do not know. It may be Chairman Khrushchev is trying to place responsibility for his national and internal problems on the west. It may be that his agricultural policy having failed, he must find a scapegoat in other parts of the world.
It may be he is endeavouring to bring about closer relations with communist China, although certainly those relations today, if interpreted on the basis of what is being said, are far from as agreeable as one might expect between two great communist states. However, Khrushchev made this statement the other day, and I think it is in keeping with what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said:
We do have disputes and differences with the Chinese comrades but our main difference is that with capitalism. Although there are differences between us and our Chinese brothers we stand together on the main issue. We are against capitalism... We are for socialism and communism. We have one path, that of our common struggle against capitalism, for the victory of communism throughout the world.

Supply-External Affairs That statement by Khrushchev emphasizes the warning given by the secretary of state.
The period of good will during negotiations for and immediately after the signing of the test ban treaty had been followed by renewed polemics against the west. With regard to the division between red China and the U.S.S.R. -this is only one view and may not be accepted-I point out that this division first became apparent to the outside world after we in Canada did that which the U.S.S.R. could not do, and that was supply communist China with wheat to relieve famine and starvation. The U.S.S.R. refused that. The previous government entered into an agreement in that connection. All I can say is that the cleavages between those two nations were intensified following the delivery by Canada of the first shipments of wheat. What the future will bring in the relations between communism and the western world no one knows, but certainly the events of the last few weeks have been anything but hopeful. The detour of smiles of a few months ago has now had a change, and the highway seems to be one fraught with great difficulties.
The minister mentioned the organization of American states. I am surprised that he did not go further than he did, but as I said a moment ago the responsibilities of office and the knowledge that comes therefrom often brings about a change in thinking. I want to point out what he said only a few months ago, in January of 1963, which was a repetition of what the Prime Minister had also been saying. As reported at page 3078 of Hansard he said:
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?
Then he pointed out one of those places in which the influence could be exerted, and that was in the organization of American states. These are his words, which he uttered as far back as September 7, 1961, as reported on page 8067 of Hansard for that year:
We were told by the Prime Minister some months ago that this house would be given the opportunity of expressing its view with regard to the desirability of Canadian membership in the organization of American states. I express once again my own strong personal view that the time has come when Canada must accept its responsibility in this organization.
Then the present Prime Minister, in September 1961, mentioned the necessity of giving the United States advice of the kind that we did, and rightly, during the Cuban mix-up. He said that if we were to interest ourselves in these developments, then we have to take our responsibility in the organization

which is concerned with these matters, namely the organization of American states.
Then on January 24, 1963, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs said, as reported on page 3073 of Hansard:
-it seems to me that the time was never more urgent for us to accept the long-standing indication of every member of the organization of American states and to join this organization.
I wonder what has happened? Why the change of viewpoint. I also point out-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know my hon. friend wants to be very objective today, but I am sure he will agree that nothing I have said this afternoon would warrant the conclusion that there has been any change of personal view.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is an example of the turning of words. A year ago he said "now". Today he says "maybe tomorrow". I dislike bringing these things up, but I could go on with quite a number of other quotations in this connection. He also said this, as reported on page 3074:
-it seems to me the Cuban crisis highlighted once again the need for Canada to take part in the organization of American states.
Then he goes on to point out the need for joining the organization; but today, with the sophistication that comes with knowledge, he is not so certain as he was. Does he suggest that he is? I do not think so, because this is a problem of great difficulty. It is so easy to solve it when on the opposition side, but it is a different thing when one sits over there and has the responsibility. We considered this matter and looked into it very carefully, but decided that we should expand the number of our trade missions and the number of our diplomatic posts in South America. I visited Central America two years ago and wherever I went there was a widespread suggestion that we should join. I asked what the reasons were and the answer given was: "So that we will have you with us to stand up to the United States". Is the government today finding out that the happy euphoria that they showed to the organization of American states for five years has been dissipated in the light of experience? These are questions which will be asked when we are considering the items in committee.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. In order to permit the house to proceed with the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to leave the chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the Secretary of State for External Affairs was introducing his estimates in committee of supply he stated he wished to table copies of the treaty

banning nuclear weapons tests. Is it agreed that the said document now be tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Notices of motions (papers):
October 31-Resuming debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Martineau: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, communications and other documents and replies thereto between the government of United States of America, or any of its departments, and the government of Canada, or any of its departments, concerning the great lakes shipping situation and the proposed trusteeship of Canadian maritime unions since the 6th of July, 1963.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has asked me if I would agree to this motion being postponed. I gladly comply with that request provided that the motion would not lose its priority on the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN R.C.M.P. AND ALERT SERVICE

Douglas Mason Fisher: That an order of the house be issued for a copy of all correspondence between the R.C.M.P. commissioner's office or that of the "I" directorate office and the Alert Service (Marjorie Lamb, P.O. Box 173, Station "Q", Toronto, Ontario), since June 1, 1961.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice indicated that the government is not prepared to provide me with the information requested under this notice and I want to present the argument in support of providing the information. I think the best place for me to start is by reading the description of the Alert Service as put out by that organization. I therefore read this paper which is headed, "The Alert Service, 1047 Yonge street, Toronto 5, Canada, Marjorie Lamb, Founder and Director". Under "function" it says:
The function of the Alert Service is to keep Canadians accurately and constantly informed about the policies and operations of communism, and to
Alert Service Correspondence with R.C.M.P. devise and encourage sound methods of combating communist above ground operations in Canada.
Under the heading "history" it says:
The Alert Service was started in 1950 upon the request of Canadians for authenticated information on communist activity in Canada. Since then it has evolved into a nationally and internationally recognized information and counselling service helping Canadians to equip themselves to meet the propaganda and infiltration efforts of the communists.
Under the heading "financing" it says:
The maintenance and expansion of the Alert Service work have been and continue to be made possible by the voluntary contributions of Canadians. The funds are held in trust and the books are subject to audit. Donations make possible the distribution of literature and information so necessary to meet and overcome the communist threat to freedom.
This is dated January, 1963. I should like to quote from another publication of Alert Service, also with the same heading, in which it says:
Communism and you. Your personal responsibility in frustrating communist activity. Because the avowed objective of the communist party, no matter what they happen to be saying at the moment, is the overthrow of our system of government, the operations of the communists in Canada is the professional concern of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is the law enforcement agency charged with national security. It is their job to know what the communists are doing. Therefore they are glad to receive any information concerning communist activity. In dealing with any infringement of Canadian laws such as sabotage and sedition they act against communists as against any other lawbreakers. It is important for every Canadian to know that under existing regulations it is not the function of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to distribute information concerning communists or communist activity. In the area of communist infiltration of ideas and psychological warfare, at a time when we are not at war with another country, their job is not to act but to watch and know. They do not, for example, take action against communists who are attempting to infiltrate into trade unions, churches or voluntary organizations or to run for government office. To see that the communists do not obtain their objectives in these areas is the voluntary job of every loyal Canadian.
1 think that makes it fairly clear what the objects of the Alert Service happen to be. It is a voluntary service supported, I gather, by voluntary contributions. It is an organization that is 13 years old and it is out to get Canadians to help, in a voluntary way, to understand and to fight the communist menace in Canada in its above board aspects. From its own propaganda apparently it is also an agency that encourages co-operation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and implicit in what it says, of course, is the suggestion that any citizens who have any information or suspicions should let the R.C.M.P. know about them.
I want to put on the record a question I asked last year. It was question No. 1,288

Alert Service Correspondence with R.C.M.P. and it was answered on January 30, 1963, as found on page 3253 of Hansard. The question was as follows:
Has the R.C.M.P. any knowledge of the objectives of the Alert Service, P.O. Box 173, Station Q, Toronto, and, if so, has the R.C.M.P. co-operated in any way with the service, either with advice or funds?
This was the answer:
The R.C.M.P. has knowledge of the objectives of the Alert Service and has co-operated with this service as it does with any reputable news media. It has not co-operated with funds.
In other words, this is an acknowledgment that the R.C.M.P. knows about the Alert Service, that it has co-operated with it and that it considers it is a reputable news medium. This is an important point in my argument that I should have given to me the information I have requested.
I should like to turn to another publication of the Alert Service to indicate the scope of its operations. This publication is dated August 1, 1963 and at the top it has the words "Replacing all previous lists". The heading is "Some Organizations and Publications in Canada Which Follow the Communist Line". The organizations are as follows: Communist party of Canada; young communist league of Canada; congress of Canadian women; Canadian peace congress; B.C. peace council; Edmonton peace council; Manitoba peace council; Toronto association for peace; Canada-U.S.S.R. association; Canadian-Chi-nese friendship society; league for democratic rights; workers' benevolent association; youth friendship league; association of Carpatho Russian Canadians; association of united Ukrainian Canadians; Bulgarian Canadian peoples league; Canadian council of national groups; Canadian language press club; Canadian Slav committee; Chinese Canadian welfare association, Toronto; Chinese youth association, Vancouver; cultural recreational association of Chinese Canadian youth, Edmonton; east wind association, Montreal; federation of Russian Canadians; federation of Yugoslav Canadians; Finnish organization of Canada; independent mutual benefit federation; Kossuth sick benefit society; Lithuanian literary society; Macedonian Canadian peoples league; maple leaf mutual; Polish-Canadian mutual benefit society; Polish Canadian thousand year committee; Polish democratic association; Russian Canadian youth organization; Slovak benefit society; sons and daughters of the Canadian Lithuanian mutual benefit society.
Then, there are these publications:
The Marxist Quarterly-World Marxist Review Canadian Tribune Combat
Pacific Tribune

Advance
C.C.W. Newsletter
Canadian Far Eastern Newsletter
Peace Letter
Peace Newsletter
Northern Neighbours
Az Uttora-"The Pioneer"
Da Zhong Bao-"The Popular Newspaper"
(Chinese)
Druzhba-"Friendship" (Bulgarian)
The East Wind (Chinese)
Forward-bulletin of the youth branch of A.TJ.U.C. Horizons-English language supplement to the
"Ludove Zvesti"
Jedinstvo-"Unity" (Yugoslav)
Kandai Magyar Munkas-"Canadian Hungarian
Worker"
Karpatska Rus-"Carpatho-Russian"
Kronika Tygodniowa-"Weekly Chronicle" (Polish) Liaudies Balsas-"Peoples Voice" (Lithuanian) Liekki-"The Flame" (Finnish)-supplement to
Vapaus
Ludove Zvesti-"Peoples News" (Slovak)
Ukrainian Canadian
Ukrainske Slovo-"Ukrainian Word"
Ukrainske Zhitya-"Ukrainian Life"
Vapaus-"Liberty" (Finnish)
Vestnik-"Herald" (Russian)
Vochenblatt (Canadian Jewish Weekly)
Week End News (Chinese)
In addition the Alert Service on this same date came forward with a list of communist front organizations in Canada that worked closely with their parent international organizations. These international front organizations are listed as follows:
Women's International Democratic Federation World Federation of Democratic Youth World Council of Peace International Institute for Peace World Federation of Trade Unions
The affiliates in Canada are listed, as follows:
Congress of Canadian Women Young Communist League Canadian Peace Congress B.C. Peace Council Edmonton Peace Council Manitoba Peace Council Toronto Association for Peace
Then, this publication reads as follows:
While official affiliation may not be formally acknowledged, some unions in Canada undoubtedly come within the orbit of influence of the World Federation of Trade Unions. The following unions are considered to be under communist dominated leadership.
International union of mine, mill and smelter workers; united electrical, radio and machine workers of America; Canadian textile council; united fisherman and allied workers' union; marine and boiler makers' union; Vancouver outside civic workers union.
Then, there is a list of some other communist international front organizations, and they are as follows:
International association of democratic lawyers; international organization of journalists; international radio and television organization; international union of students; world federation of teachers unions; world federation of scientific workers; Afro-Asian people's solidarity organization.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to get those lists on the record because that goes to the nub of what I am trying to find out about the communications and relationships which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have acknowledged. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police say this is a reputable publishing organization-that is, the Alert Service. I am not making any judgment on whether or not it is. This is the kind of thing that the Alert Service publishes. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have acknowledged they cooperate with this service.
I should like now, Mr. Chairman, to cite one quotation from a publication, The Canadian Intelligence Service, published at Flesh-erton, Ontario. This is volume 11, No. 11, dated November 16, and on page 4 I find the following quotation:
Deputy R.C.M.P. Commissioner George B. McClelland (head of the security and intelligence branch) recently stated publicly that:
The international union of mine, mill and smelter workers has for years been controlled for reds and red sympathizers; and that this is the basis of the present struggle at the great International Nickel mines in Sudbury, where anti-communist workers have gained control of their own local 598.
Not enough is known about what is going on in mine-mill and there is too little public support for men "trying to lift the yoke off their backs."
"At no time in history has it been so essential for every free man to recognize the face of the enemy when he sees it."
There is an example where the head of the security branch, if this report is correct, has identified one of these communist controlled organizations that is listed in the Alert Service.
I should like now to turn to a discussion that took place in this house in 1959, and to read some quotations containing questions that I asked and the responses that were made by the then minister of justice, Mr. Fulton, as well as some interjections that were made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. gentleman who is now the Prime Minister. One of the things I was trying to find out from the minister at the time was the relationship to security, and the procedure of keeping the files, or who determined what was a subversive organization and what kind of control was kept. My argument was that the people of Canada were entitled to know what these so-called subversive organizations may be, if they operated in a public manner, in order that Canadian citizens could protect themselves from association with them. My point was that some of these organizations are active in the field of athletics, drama and so on, and they draw people into them who take part and may even be members. If these organizations are considered as subversive, these people may find later that they are listed as members of subversive organizations and
Alert Service Correspondence with R.C.M.P. there may be information on Royal Canadian Mounted Police files against them.
Now, I should like to quote from page 5145 of Hansard, for June 25, 1959.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, it is the duty of the force to make a report to the government or department of the government in every case where we are called upon to give information. As I say, we do not attempt to influence the decision of the department as to the judgment it may come to on the basis of the facts we may report. If we are asked to report on an individual and we have a file on that individual, then as I conceive it it is the duty of the police to make the report available; but I know on the basis of my experience, from discussions with my colleagues and in another capacity in another department, that my officials and I myself feel free to exercise a judgment and that judgment will be influenced in all cases-
Then, he goes on into the details of what is considered subversive. This is the point where I came back and asked him this:
Give us an idea of some kinds of organizations that are subversive. I am sure that a great many people in the lakehead region would have nothing to do with the Finnish organization of Canada if they were perfectly clear in their minds that the government considered it subversive. Where are the definitions in this field?
Then, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate intervened as follows:
Before the minister answers I should like to put a question to him supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and then the minister can perhaps answer both at once. I think the minister has rather left the impression from his answers that the information gathered by the police is given in the raw or crude form to other government departments.
There is a reply from Mr. Fulton on that, and then the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate comes back as follows:
I do not think the minister has answered the question I asked. Probably it is because I asked it clumsily. This information about an individual is not necessarily all gathered by one constable,... It is a statement which is obviously, in many cases, a composite of various bits of information.
I thought that would help the hon. member for Port Arthur. I think he has a very legitimate question here which is in the minds of many people. I know many people came to me when I was minister of citizenship and immigration about the very kind of thing the hon. member is talking about. I think the public might be very much reassured if we were told, not how the police made an evaluation as such, but how they assess the information-
Then, Mr. Fulton comes back in an interchange to point out the kind of precautions that are taken and he gets into a discussion with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate that leads to this:
As to the suggestion that we should name and list the organizations which have a record or an indication that they are undesirable, from a specific point of view this would be the most self-defeating policy or practice I could imagine. Practically every piece of information that was known to the police would immediately have to be made public; the extent of police knowledge would be made public, and the value and effectiveness of the

Alert Service Correspondence with R.C.M.P. work would be immediately almost completely negated. Efforts would have to be recommended from the beginning to build up a file of information, a body of information, which is now available.
Indeed, if we started naming names and naming organizations we would lose, I would think, at least 80 per cent if not more of the sources of information we now have.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that really correct in the case of an organization like this Finnish organization? It is common knowledge that there are a certain number of communist front organizations in this country, particularly appealing to some people who have come to this country fairly recently. I do not believe there is any doubt but that, as the hon. member for Port Arthur has said, a good many people get inveigled innocently into these organizations. There may be some secret organizations that the minister and the police would not want to reveal, but in the case of organizations that conduct their activities in public it does seem to me that there is a point the government ought to consider. I do not refer to the minister because the minister is quite right when he says this is a matter for the security panel and for the government, not for the R.C.M.P.
Mr. Fulton came back in reply saying:
-I wish to point out that at no time, certainly since I have been minister and at no time prior to that of which I am aware, have the R.C.M.P. ever identified any organization as being a subversive organization. I should like to make it clear here that I am not accepting what my hon. friend says he was told-
Then he goes on to kill a few of the arguments which I made and which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made. Later on, the man who is now Prime Minister commented in this same debate:
I think he-
That is Mr. Fulton.
-was right, of course, when he defended the practice of not making public lists of subversive organizations, which is perhaps not quite the same as lists of communists or communist front organizations which are known to be such. That is in contrast, of course, to the practice-and I think it is a good contrast-across the border where they do have their blacklists or lists of subversive organizations, and where I suspect they have lists of Canadian organizations which they consider to be subversive and perhaps a list of members of those organizations.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the former minister of justice underlined the fact that the practice has been that the R.C.M.P. does not publish and does not give information on what are communist front organizations and what are subversive organizations, but it is acknowledged that it has co-operated with this particular organization, the Alert Service, which it says is reputable. My conclusion is that the Alert Service, if it is reputable, as the R.C.M.P. claim, got this information from the R.C.M.P. It does not say so, but this is the conclusion I draw.
In the judgment of the R.C.M.P. this is a reputable publishing organization. It publishes this list, and keeps it up to date, of

communist front organizations, and including the various unions in Canada that are sympathetic.
I am willing to withdraw this motion if the parliamentary secretary to the minister will give me an assurance that the R.C.M.P. has never communicated to this organization this particular list that I have read, or a facsimile of it, from which the Alert Service drew this, or if he will give me an assurance that there has been no communication of any kind, or anything of this kind, by the R.C.M.P. with the Alert Service. But if, as I have strong suspicions, it is true-and 1 feel certain the R.C.M.P. intelligence and security director has communicated with this publishing service, which is considered reputable-and if the R.C.M.P. has provided it with this particular list, I want to see the communications and I want to know why, because we have it on the record that the R.C.M.P. is against this.
In substance, Mr. Speaker, that is my case. So far as the statement is concerned where Mr. McClelland identified the mine, mill and smelters workers' union as a communist organization, I would also like an explanation of that, but I can find it in another way and on another occasion.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer first to the closing remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), particularly with regard to his undertaking to withdraw this particular motion if I would give him an assurance that the list in question, the one he read, the one that was published in the Alert Service, was not furnished to the publisher of the Alert Service by the R.C.M.P. I would have to say I have not actually seen the correspondence which we have here in question, and therefore I am not able of my own knowledge to state whether or not that was the case.
However, I have discussed this matter with the commissioner of the R.C.M.P., the gentleman who, at the time referred to, was responsible for security within the R.C.M.P., and from my conversations with him it is my understanding that information of the kind referred to by the hon. gentleman was not furnished to the Alert Service by the R.C.M.P. A more fundamental question, which I think is underlying the debate on this particular motion, is one as to whether or not in the proceedings of this house it would be desirable to compel the R.C.M.P. to disclose to members, on notices of motions for the production of papers, correspondence which it has with any individual, with any group of individuals, with any corporation or otherwise-the question of whether or not, in

the great volume of correspondence which the R.C.M.P. receives as a police force, it would be desirable to compel the force to put on the public record of the house its files, by way of private members' notices of motion. I would rather prefer to address myself-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I ask the parliamentary secretary a question? Before he gets down to this basic principle, will he note the fact that the R.C.M.P. has indicated that this is a reputable news media? Surely that does make a distinction or difference between the communications with private organizations and individuals, or between police forces, or within the police themselves? I would like to suggest that this is an indication of a communication between the R.C.M.P. and a news media, in other words, the same as with any other publisher, and I think this does make a distinction that the parliamentary secretary may be missing. I would like him to comment on that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would say not. I would say the principle applies, whatever the nature of the communication from any person. I would prefer to go on and address my remarks to this particular question, that whatever the source, whatever its pedigree in the mind of the hon. member or in the mind of anyone else, whatever the nature of the type of communication, I would submit to the house that in so far as it relates to the police work of the R.C.M.P. it would not be desirable to put on the public record, or create a precedent of putting on the record, the kind of information which might be enclosed in correspondence from any body, whether reputable or having a lack of reputation, and whether it has to do with the reputation or otherwise of a particular organization.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I ask the parliamentary secretary another question? Is this on the basis that it is a police organization, or is it on the basis that it is a government agency?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I put it in this connection exclusively on the basis it is a police organization, and it is a type of government agency with particular characteristics which make it undesirable for correspondence, albeit departmental correspondence, to be made available in this public way.
The function of the R.C.M.P. is set out and can be found by hon. members in chapter 241 of the revised statutes. Its general functions are well understood-the duties of preserving the peace, of preventing crime, preventing violence and offence against the laws of Canada, and also apprehending offenders against those laws. In the job of carrying out its particular function the R.C.M.P.-as indeed with all police forces-must have access to
Alert Service Correspondence with R.C.M.P. all possible information which can be legitimately obtained, or which may be proffered to it, for the purpose of informing itself in connection with its particular duties. I would say this is so whether it is a matter of investigating a particular offence, investigating conduct in a particular case that may be felt to create a particular offence, or conduct in general which may give the police the opportunity of evaluating whether or not further investigations are required which may form an additional fragment going into, as the hon. member said, the composite picture of the situation, or general background information which could facilitate the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the course of carrying out the duties to which I have referred.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Mr. Speaker, could I interrupt the hon. member at this point? It might be helpful to us. Does the hon. member think the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should comment on the reputation or otherwise of an organization like the strange one that is the subject matter of the motion of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher)?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would say to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that my personal opinion would be that they should not, and I can only say that this particular response was given at a time when the hon. gentlemen who now form the government were not responsible for giving-


Douglas Mason Fisher: On that point, Mr. Speaker, surely the parliamentary secretary is not suggesting that this is not a direct answer from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? He is surely not introducing the response of the former government? The answer is that the R.C.M.P. has knowledge of the objectives of the Alert Service and has co-operated with this service, as it does with any reputable news media. In other words, the relationship I am interested in is that between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a reputable news media.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this really gets into the question of the underlying basis for the answers given in the house. I am suggesting this is the responsibility of the government. The government is generally responsible, as members of the hon. member's party have pointed out from time to time, for the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If the particular activity happens to be that of giving an answer to a question in this house, I suggest there is a responsibility in the government.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member is not doubting the accuracy of this reply?
5210	HOUSE OF
Alert Service Correspondence with R.C.M.P.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not raising that question at all; I am merely replying to the question raised by my hon. friend from Royal.
I would point out that to allow this particular motion to pass, and to recognize the right of an hon. member to compel the government, on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to disclose the particular correspondence which it may have with an individual, or further information that may come to it from whatever source-whatever the nature of that source, as I said before-would inhibit the police in carrying out their obligations.
I would like to refer more particularly to that matter. I think the first and most obvious reason why this should not be done is that if it became public knowledge-and it soon would-that information of this kind could be compelled to be produced in this chamber, such information might very well be cut off from sources anonymous, and from named people who write, thinking they are dealing in confidence with the R.C.M.P. Then the general conclusion would have to be that the information could not be supplied to the R.C.M.P. in this way. This very valuable source of information in carrying out their duties would be cut off.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but I ask him another question. He is not assuming I am interested in the information that comes from the Alert Service to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is he? If he is, I would like to make it very clear to him that my intention is to get the information that has gone from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the Alert Service; that is all. I do not care what came back from the Alert Service; I want to know whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police gave anything to the Alert Service. So there is no question, really, of there being interference with the information that may be coming to the R.C.M.P.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would not accept the distinction which the hon. member is trying to draw. He says, "I only want one side of the correspondence". I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that while this would perhaps not be as revealing as submitting all the correspondence, it certainly would have the inhibiting effect to which I referred earlier. If one were to make available by way of notice of motion for the production of papers particular information which might be referred to in correspondence coming back from the force to the particular individual, it would be entirely possible for as much damage to be done as if the whole correspondence was revealed.
I would point out that it has been established for a long time in this house that correspondence or proceedings of the Royal


Canadian Mounted Police in connection with investigations-and investigations in this case would include particular investigations and correspondence they might have in their general investigative function-are privileged and should not be revealed either in answer to questions or in response to notices of motions for the production of papers.
I would refer the house to a number of citations in Hansard where this question has been raised and the privilege has been recognized. In 1939, in Hansard at page 1669, the Hon. Ernest Lapointe, the then minister of justice, revealed that certain charges which had been made had been further investigated, but he refused to disclose any further information as to the nature of those investigations or what was revealed, in view of the fact that it would be contrary to the public interest to do so. If I might, Mr. Speaker, I would refer particularly to a statement made in this house by the former minister of justice, the former hon. member for Kamloops who was replying to a colleague of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), namely the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). This will be found in Hansard for July 8, 1958, at page 2047. The question raised by the hon. member was as follows;
Does the R.C.M.P. maintain any files or dossiers on members of parliament?
The second part of the question was:
If so, upon which members of the present parliament are such files or dossiers maintained?
The reply of the minister of justice at that time was as follows:
All Royal Canadian Mounted Police files on individuals are confidential and many are secret. One of the primary duties of all those responsible for such files is to respect and preserve the confidential or secret nature of their contents.
It will be appreciated also that a large number of such files are started by reports, statements or knowledge of activities coming to the attention of responsible members of the police which they are bound to investigate in the course of their duties. The follow-up on such reports in many cases reveals no necessity for further action, yet there is still a file. This means that many files will be in existence under the names of individuals against whom there is nothing of a substantial, let alone a criminal, nature.
I would point out that what the former minister of justice said on that occasion applied directly to the contents of those files, namely the correspondence both to and from the R.C.M.P., which may have related to allegations about individuals, allegations about organizations, or information generally which may have been of assistance to the police in their investigative activities. The minister of justice at that time pointed out a second and, I would submit, substantial reason why information of this kind could not be made available in the house on notices

Alert Service Correspondence with R.C.M.P.
of motions for the production of papers. He referred to the fact that particular individuals, perfectly innocent individuals, may well be prejudiced by putting on the public record correspondence to and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police relating to them. We could even reach the point where statements about a particular individual, as one assumes happens very often, which are sent to the R.C.M.P. with malicious intent, are made public, and the individual may be entirely innocent of the charge or the allegation that is made. Subsequent investigation, as the minister pointed out in that particular case, may well indicate that there is no substance at all in the rumour. But if the production of that correspondence had been compelled in the house, we would have the situation where the individual would be prejudiced by having an allegation put on the public record, and no amount of denial could help to eradicate a certain amount of suspicion or a certain amount of prejudice-


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the parliamentary secretary a question? Did he not read an alleged statement by the deputy commissioner in charge of the branch which contained statements about a certain union? As a matter of fact, it is a union to which X believe the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Byrne) is proud to belong? Given a statement of this kind by the commissioner, given this kind of connection between the Alert Service and the R.C.M.P. which has been acknowledged by the R.C.M.P., what is likely to be so terrible in terms of general consequences about either answering the questions I put to the minister or letting me have the correspondence? Surely, there is a wrong being done the other way.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not think that follows at all. I have no reason to believe either that the statement was or that it was not accurate. I know there has from time to time been considerable criticism of, I believe it was, the Canadian intelligence service as well as the Alert Service, to which he has now made reference. I do not know whether that statement was accurate or not, but I think that statement would only be made by a responsible official such as the gentleman who is now in charge of the R.C.M.P., after full investigation of the validity of the facts upon which it is based. I suggest there is a broad distinction between a situation where the police have investigated a particular situation and established the validity of the facts, and the situation where some malicious individual may write in to the R.C.M.P. raising charges against a perfectly innocent individual and thereby causing prejudice to him.
I refer to the fact that it has been substantially accepted in this house for many years that the documentation and, in fact, the investigative activities of the police generally should not be gone into either by questions or the production of papers. I would refer hon. members to Hansard of April 28, 1952, at page 1646, in connection with a notice of motion for the production of papers brought by the former leader of the hon. gentleman, the former member for Rosetown-Biggar, Mr. Coldwell. This was a notice of motion by the hon. gentleman in connection with certain investigations which had been carried on by the R.C.M.P. under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. The then minister of justice, the Hon. Stuart Garson took the position that it would be against the public interest to make public the particular documents required. He went on to say:
The reasons for the taking of this position will be obvious to anyone who gives the matter thought. Not only are the police investigators instructed to ascertain ail the relevant facts, but they are encouraged to submit to their superior officers their own theories and their own hypotheses as to what interpretations might be drawn from these facts in further investigation into the matter. They are encouraged to suggest further lines of inquiry. They are encouraged, and indeed instructed, in the case of an investigation into a crime, to suggest in strictest confidence all those whom they regard as possible suspects, however slight may be their own reasons for suspecting these other persons, in order that their superior officers to whom these confidential reports are made may, by considering these confidential reports along with other confidential reports received from other investigating officers, draw conclusions as to what further investigations may be necessary, or even ultimate conclusions as to guilt and the identity of the guilty party or parties.
The various debates to which I have referred on this particular question make it abundantly clear that it could only have the effect of inhibiting the activities of the R.C.M.P. in the discharge of its legitimate police duty.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is what is being done.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The disclosure of this would not only have the effect of inhibiting this police function but it could also result in a prejudicial effect on particular individuals who might be referred to in correspondence of this type. It is for this reason I feel that all hon. members should oppose the passing of this motion and it is in this connection that I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he might fall in line with precedents and withdraw his motion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will withdraw the motion as soon as the parliamentary secretary gives me some answer that is satisfactory to the two questions I raised, the two possible questions.
5212	HOUSE OF
Alert Service Correspondence with R.C.M.P.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I pointed out to the hon. member that I cannot from my own personal knowledge answer that particular question. I also pointed out to him that as a general principle it would not be desirable to submit the material to the type of crossexamination which might be involved in questions of that kind.


Mr. Scott:: Would the hon. gentleman permit one further question? Would he undertake to familiarize himself with the correspondence and give the hon. member for Port Arthur his answer on another day? We could adjourn the debate in the interval?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am prepared to consider that suggestion but I feel on the basis of general principle it would not be desirable for me to set a precedent, or for hon. members to set a precedent, which would require someone in my position to go back and examine a document, to speak to the police about this, and come back to the house with excerpts from it or conclusions or statements made on it. I would go on the general principle that it would be against the public interest for this particular statement to be produced in parliament.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I just wish to make a few comments in connection with this motion. I should like first of all to say that the question of discretion as to what if any information in the files of the mounted police is made available, should be left to the Minister of Justice and the R.C.M.P. I realize the hon. member for Port Arthur has raised a somewhat novel point. He wants one way correspondence to be given without necessarily the replies. Yet I think it is the old case of being unable to confirm or deny that certain information exists because, in such confirmation or denial, important admissions might be made.
I will admit that during the last year there have been certain apparent shortcomings in the security system of the R.C.M.P. These have been shown in several cases which have been brought before the house. I think such shortcomings are natural under a system such as ours and under the system under which the R.C.M.P. operate. They do not operate in a world of facts. They operate in a world of suggestion, conclusion and even inference, which is repugnant to a good many of our basic concepts. Yet when it comes down to a fine point we have to accept this system as preferable to having no proper security, or insufficient security in this country. There is a very fine line between what can be revealed and what cannot be admitted, and that line we cannot here undertake to


define. I believe that definition must be left in the hands of that authority.
In this particular case I would expect the R.C.M.P. would not give the information requested by the hon. member. In all conscience I would not expect them to do so. I believe that what the hon. member is getting at is that the R.C.M.P. may be using this agency in order to get certain names put before the public, which it cannot do itself.


Douglas Mason Fisher: And which it will not give to us.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: And which it will not give to anyone, and for which it will not accept responsibility because it is based on this very realm of suspicion, of consequential facts of evidence gathered up, which is not always conclusive. If this is the case, and we can only speculate about it, I would not expect the mounted police to admit it, nor would I expect they would deny it. I do not know how we could expect an answer to this particular question. We must, of course, always be alert and see that individual cases of hardship and of unjust suspicion must be cleared up, which in our free society can be followed up, so that the names of certain innocent individuals who are suspected are cleared. These are cases of recognized publications. I know of one which the hon. member referred to, a publication called "Northern Neighbours". It happens to be published in the community in which I reside, and it is no secret that it is a communist publication. Neither is it any secret that it is published in my area, and I must admit I get a lot of letters about it. Nevertheless I do not suppose that even if the mounted police were asked about this publication they would include it in a list. I have no hesitation in stating here that this is a communist newspaper, is accepted as such, and is in fact published under the sponsorship of the communist party of Canada. I do not think it is an illegal publication; if it were illegal it would not be published. Nevertheless I feel we cannot go into this situation by expecting an answer, which would open the door to a good many more. I sympathize with the objective of the hon. member in keeping alert-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I just ask a question. Would the hon. member condone the activity of the R.C.M.P. in providing an agency such as this, which it calls reputable, with a list of subversive organizations for publication while at the same time the R.C.M.P., through the Minister of Justice, refuses to acknowledge that there really is such a list or that it should

Supply-External Affairs
be given to members of parliament? This	SUPPLY
hardly seems to me to be the way a democracy should function.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, I would not condone that at all, if that be the case. I would not think it a proper use of this particular organization or of the services of the mounted police if that were so. Unfortunately, I do not feel that we can expect them to admit or deny it.


Mr. Barnett:: Would the hon. member who has just taken his seat permit me to ask him a question. The question which comes to my mind is whether he would agree that we should be able to know whether or not the R.C.M.P. is giving information to a voluntary organization which it is not prepared to give to the members of this house. It seems to me that is the nub of the question which is being asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). It has nothing to do, in my submission, either with the argument advanced by the last speaker or by the parliamentary secretary. I think this is an important question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Perhaps we are trying to do indirectly what could not be done directly. If the question: "What organizations are considered communist-dominated, and what publications are so classed?" were put on the order paper, I do not suppose it would be answered.


Douglas Mason Fisher: For the information of the hon. member I might tell him that I have put such a question on the order paper for a number of years, and the response of the government is always that it is not their policy to do this. More than one minister of justice has given this same reply; also the parliamentary secretary has this afternoon confirmed it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In reply to the last three questions-I am not going to talk the motion out -the overriding consideration in this situation must be the security of the nation. I do not think we can direct the R.C.M.P. as to how they operate. If they choose to operate in this manner, then I do not think we can prevent it. For example, if we asked the C.I.A. either to acknowledge or deny that they had anything to do with the flying of explosives into Cuba by the two Canadians who were recently arrested there, I do not think they would do so, and I certainly would not expect them to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Shall I call it six o'clock? I must advise the house that the hour for consideration of private members' business has expired. Before I call it six o'clock may we revert to committee and resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 1. Departmental administration, $7,648,800.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, at the time of adjournment of this discussion I was dealing with the question of admission to the organization of American states. I am not going to say any more on that point except to refer to a pamphlet issued by the Canadian-American committee entitled "Canada and the Organization of American States". The minister, of course, is thoroughly conversant with this pamphlet in which the arguments both pro and con are given.
In summary, the arguments in favour of membership are that Canada would play a constructive part in international diplomacy in the western hemisphere and have closer trading and economic relations. Both these arguments are cogent ones. As already stated, during our period in office we greatly extended the field of our relationship with these countries in the western hemisphere. We realize, as all hon. members realize, that we are indeed in the western hemisphere and that the interests of the countries within that hemisphere are our interests.
On the other hand, the arguments cited against are first, as already pointed out, that Canada would be placed in an awkward position. Then there is the political argument that the commonwealth connection weighs against full Canadian participation. There is the argument that membership would be costly and a heavy burden. We would also find ourselves involved politically in every disagreement, difficulty or revolution in central or South America. In the organization a decision is binding on all if it is supported by two thirds of the members, but consent to use armed forces is not governed by the same majority vote. The cumulative effect of the demand that we participate in insurrection, revolution, rebellion or other internal difficulty is something that we in Canada should not assume unless there are advantages far outweighing the potential difficulties that caused us to delay and to defer taking action. The

Supply-External Affairs same course has been followed by the present government, despite the views expressed by the minister and by the Prime Minister.
I referred to the Prime Minister earlier. There is one quotation I think I should place on the record, a statement made by him on April 27, 1961. He said that he thought the only piece of advice he had given to the minister was, to use his words as found on page 4085 of Hansard:
-sympathetic consideration should be given by the minister now to something which he seemed to be considering very sympathetically a year or so ago, the problem of Canadian association with the organization of American states.
Now, sir, what I intend to do is deal with several subjects, endeavouring to follow as closely as I can the order in which the minister presented his argument when he dealt with Canada's membership in the various organizations and then with Canada's responsibilities. He mentioned, among other things, that I would have some knowledge of the situation in Yemen. He pointed out that Canada had a representative group under the United Nations in that distracted country. He did not go into any detail regarding the position of the United Arab Republic, which placed some 30,000 men in that country to uphold the revolutionary government that took over, nor did he deal with the resolutions of the United Nations in that connection. He did express the view that it would not be very long, as I understood him, before this Yemen problem would be solved. The solution, of course, would require the removal of these troops. Personally, I do not believe there is any possibility of the removal of any substantial portion of the troops of the United Arab Republic from Yemen this year or even next. Therefore, consideration will have to be given to additional members being recruited, through the United Nations, for the observation unit there.
I feel I should now pass to a personal matter having to do with a visit I made during the month of September to the United Arab Republic and also to Israel. I want to say immediately that it was my first visit to the United Arab Republic. The respect and regard for Canadians in that country is heartwarming. I had made available to me an aircraft to take me all over that country. I met not only the prime minister but the foreign minister, who is an old friend of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Fawzi. I had a long talk with President Nasser. The hospitality and warm consideration shown to me and to my wife, on behalf of Canada, was heart-warming. We saw evidence of the dramatic building of a nation. We saw a great desert in which vast improvements have taken place, one of which is the
[Mr. Dief enbaker.J

construction of the Aswan dam. When it is finished, it will provide the last source of water for that vast country and it will mean that only 4 per cent of the entire area will be cultivatable. The only hope that they have of this desert blooming as the rose is that ultimately solar power may be used to produce water for the soil from the sea.
I visited the United Nations emergency force. The commanding officer, an Indian, was one of the most striking men I have ever met, Major General P. S. Gyani. I visited the Canadian corps and saw there something of the contribution that Canada has made. Out of a force of 5,100 on the Gaza strip, one fifth are Canadians.
I realize that some will not agree with the view I am about to express. President Nasser impresses me as a man with tremendous capacity and ability, dedicated to the building of his country. While from time to time he makes speeches that are inflammatory against Israel, I believe that the attitude of the leaders in Egypt and in Israel has greatly ameliorated the bitterness of a few years ago. Prophecy is one of the most dangerous pursuits in which one in politics can indulge, but on the basis of discussions with the president and other representatives of the United Arab Republic, I do not believe that they have in contemplation the launching of any attack against Israel.
Now then, the government is one that practises state trading, a kind of totalitarian socialism. It decries communism and at the same time it has close relationships with those who are communist. Marked changes have taken place in the past few years. Education has been widely extended in the desire to raise standards, and this gives one the impression President Nasser is a leader with an ambition in life to restore something of the ancient grandeur of his country, which had one of the earliest civilizations. At the same time he seeks to maintain the peace.
Following my visit to Egypt for a week, I went to Israel. This was my second visit there and the changes in 10 years are beyond words to describe. The discoveries, the archaeological excavations, have established beyond peradventure that the Old Testament is in fact not only a book of faith but a true book of history. Practically everything in the Old Testament that was regarded by the agnostic as being fairy tale has been proven, in the light of 10 years' excavations, to be fact.
I was received by the president and met the prime minister, the minister of foreign affairs and other members of the cabinet. I met David Ben-Gurion who spoke in glowing terms of Canada and referred to several hon. gentlemen opposite, two of whom are before me at the moment-the Secretary of State for

External Affairs and the Minister of Justice- in a way that would have warmed their hearts. He the warrior, dreamer, idealist and statesman is now retired and belongs to that exclusive club of ex-prime ministers.
I again saw something of the awful refugee problem, and I spoke with all these leaders. Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago I would not have made the suggestion I am now about to make, and I make it because I have met with the leaders of both these countries. While the Arab world has always strongly held the view that Israel should never have been created as a state, while they contend that the Balfour declaration of 1917 was one that ought not to have been made, and while they have refused at all times to meet with representatives of the Israeli government, I think there is a change of attitude in both these countries, and a recognition of the fact that Israel is there to stay and wants to live in peace with its neighbours.
Without peace Israel cannot achieve the greatness of her destiny. I have already spoken of the international force, UNEF, I decry no one else's contribution to the setting up of that force, but I do point out that in January 1956 I suggested an international force be set up to protect and ensure the boundaries between Israel and her neighbours. It was not regarded as a serious suggestion, but it was adopted later that year.
That force is not strong enough to maintain the peace. It is not intended to do that. It is there for the purpose of observation, with a minimum of security assured. The difficulty between Israel and the Arab states is one of the potential dangers in the world today, and I think if it were possible to get representatives of the U.A.R. and other Arab states to meet with representatives of Israel in discussion, there might well be a possibility of achieving a degree of agreement which has been wanting since 1948. The boundary and refugee problems may be nearer solution than could have been hoped for even two years ago, and it should not be forgotten that Canada has a high reputation in these countries.
In his speech last January the Secretary of State for External Affairs said we should look at the radar screen, as it were, of world affairs and determine on some definite courses to be taken by Canada. I am now following that suggestion. Canada, without ulterior or selfish purpose, is not suspect by either side, and it must be remembered there can never be a solution of any problem if those who disagree cannot come together. But 18 feet of carpet between opposition and government does not constitute isolation one from the other. No government is unaffected by the arguments advanced
Supply-External Affairs by the opposition. No opposition is unaffected by the stands taken by the government, no matter how in the course of discussion we may disagree with them.
In Canada, Jews and Arabs live in amity, and I suggest that Canada should now take preliminary steps to sound out the Arab nations and Israel, with a view to bringing together representatives of these nations in Canada to discuss their problems and difficulties, so that peace with understanding and justice may be brought to the Middle East. I think that action at this time would prove of beneficial result, and there can be no harm done if there is failure the first time in endeavours made in that direction.
I now pass on to the commonwealth, one of the unique institutions to which we belong. I felt the minister treated it very lightly with two or three sentences, and then went on to other matters. I am not going to discuss the commonwealth this evening, except to say that so long as Canada remains within the commonwealth, so long as there is that binding union, that magnetic influence east and west and over all the world, so long as that continues then we in Canada are assured of maintaining our independent existence.
From time to time I hear people speaking about what the results would be if we were to join the United States. I simply point out that all the guaranteed rights of bicultural-ism, education, and so on, would no longer exist; and they only exist because of the action of an imperial parliament far removed from this country which passed legislation generations ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Many who come to our country have no concept of what this means in their first years in Canada. They have said of the commonwealth, "What is it? It has no seal; it is not held together by the sword; it has a few preferential trade rights; in general it has a common parliamentary tradition"-and that is disappearing-"but what is there?" It is undefinable; I have never been able to understand its meaning. I have sat in a prime ministers' conference, with the prime minister of the United Kingdom as the chairman and the rest of us around a table, of different colours, of different races, of almost all the religions of men. We are able to agree on the larger things that affect mankind. While there are disagreements between countries like India and Pakistan, no one in the commonwealth family believes the day will ever come when there will be war between them. In other words, the commonwealth knows what peace means, and the commonwealth knows how to

Supply-External Affairs achieve peace among people, without regard to the differences of colour and race. That being so, I think when we are expanding aid and technical assistance we ought to give foremost consideration to raising standards within the commonwealth and giving countries within the commonwealth an opportunity to raise themselves.
They talk about Britain as a colonial power. She was a colonial power in 1914, when only 10 per cent of the people of the then empire had freedom. Today the figure is about 96 per cent. They have all grades and varieties of government, every level of economic development. I think it would be a forward step for the strengthening of the commonwealth and the cause of peace if we had set up within the commonwealth a commonwealth loan and assistance organization, financed by all the countries of the commonwealth that have achieved freedom, for the benefit of those who have become members within the last three years or so and those who will become members in the years ahead. I would like to see action taken so that the commonwealth prime ministers conferences, which after all are of the essence in binding the commonwealth together, would meet from time to time in various parts of the commonwealth-not in rotation, but with a major portion of the meetings being held in London and with meetings held from time to time in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other countries of the commonwealth, so that we would all get to know each other better.
Having referred to the commonwealth, Mr. Chairman, I now come to our relations with the United States. I am not going to go over the ground that was covered on the day of the tragedy. I am going to speak of the new President. All of us heard him yesterday. He is a great parliamentarian, a man who, with his forceful simplicity, was able to catch the imagination of mankind in a 25-minute speech. The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the continuance of the dialogue between Canada and the United States. I would have had a lot more to say on this if this debate had taken place a week or so ago. I am going to refrain from doing that on this occasion. But I do say, that the more general the dialogue and the more continuous the peregrinations in the last few months, the more accelerated the difficulties between our countries. I think that instead of this travelling back and forth, a little more diplomacy and less showmanship would be more effective. I also point out that it was said in January, 1963, that we were going to suffer because of the anti-Americanism of the government; that there would be a great withdrawal of investment funds in Canada. At no


time did the previous government complain about investment in Canada. What it said was that all investment in our country, welcome as it was, should be designed to benefit Canada's destiny. In other words, if investment became an immigrant into our country, it should be such that would adopt Canadianism when it reached here.
Things were going to change, Mr. Chairman; the dialogue was going to bring about tremendous results. What happened? I am not going to repeat what has been said in connection with the budget, but I am going to point out that the dominion bureau of statistics quarterly report issued on November 26 shows that capital coming into Canada through sales of Canadian securities to foreigners amounted to $98 million in the third quarter of 1963; that is the period July, August and September. This is the period in which this government, then in office for several months, said there was going to be an investment attraction to Canada under the new diplomacy. What is the record? In the second quarter-that is, April, May and June -the amount was $391 million. In the first quarter of 1963 it was $410 million. In the fourth quarter of 1962 it was $386 million, an average of about $390 million for those three quarters. This government takes over, and there is a falling away in United States investment in our country of approximately $300 million in a period of three months. I point this out as evidence that this government in its dialogues seems to be engaged in a monologue. I do not intend to say more, except that this followed the action of a government which was going to open a new stage of Canadian-United States relations. Yet the last three months has seen the lowest figure in a period-and here I am speaking from memory-covering some eight quarterly returns. This is something which deserves attention and it is one which places the mark of Cain on the tinkering which has gone on by this government in its relations with the United States-a kind of tinkering which is described by the government as dialogue. A withering of our investment in that manner and in that proportion spells difficulty for this nation.
Our attitude is this: Companies investing in Canada should be required to obey the laws of Canada. At the time of the Cuban crisis-and I am not going to deal with that this evening, but events have proved we were right in the attitude we took in October of 1962-the contention of the United States was that because they had decided they were not going to deal with Cuba, we could not deal with Cuba in non-strategic materials. We took the stand that Canada would determine its own policies without direction. In so far

as investment is concerned in those areas of the Northwest Territories controlled by this nation, we had the law changed so that none but Canadians could take out mining licences, licences for oil and the like. If there was development, 50 per cent had to be made available to Canadians. It was said at that time that this would kill United States investment in Canada. As a matter of fact, there was a tremendous expansion of investment in those areas. I ask the government to give an explanation for this document, issued only two days ago, a document which disposes of all the froth of the argument that the present government has the answers in Canadian-United States relations.
I turn to the other organization in which we have membership, the United Nations. The minister paid a most eloquent tribute to the United Nations, and rightly so. He told us about the development which has taken place, about the expansion which has been witnessed; how all Canadians had hoped this institution would be all-embracing. I am not sure what the membership is today. I believe it is around 112. I hear someone say it is 111. Well, it was not all-embracing to begin with. I was in San Francisco in a humble capacity in 1945. No one could have dreamed that that body would have the membership it has today, and there will be further increases. It is an amazing institution. It is 18 years of age. The league of nations died at 16 years of age. At 18 one goes through a bewildering change. The United Nations is doing the same. There are some problems in connection with it, and the minister has mentioned them, including the need of action to require member nations to make their contributions. The hon. gentleman dealt with that matter at length. I know what he is trying to achieve. It is a preposterous proposition, that because a nation is strong and powerful it can say: I belong to the club but I won't pay the membership fees. That is what it amounts to. It amounts to saying: I want to be a member and I want all the privileges, but I want somebody else to pay. It is all right if you can do that, but it will not, in the United Nations, assure the preservation of that body.
I notice the minister did not deal with a matter he raised outside the House of Commons-an increase in the membership of the security council. That is desirable. It is necessary so that representation may be secured for the many groups of nations in Africa, in Asia and in other parts of the world. That is the ideal. But it cannot be achieved without the consent of the U.S.S.R. and there is every evidence, if the information I have is correct, that it would impose a veto. The question of seats in the United Nations is one which my
Supply-External Affairs hon. friend from Oxford will deal with at length, from the vast experience he has had of that body. I do not intend to say more, except that we in Canada should make clear our view that nations should be required to pay their dues.
The United Nations has brought about the end of many serious difficulties. I do not intend to read out the list I have here, but for those who are interested, the Canadian foundation for education in world law has an article in the current issue of its journal entitled "Peace in Our Time". It shows the number of wars and revolutions in all parts of the world since 1945, and it is an amazing list. Some of us fail to realize, sometimes, that while we have lived in peace, among a vast proportion of the nations on the earth there have been wars throughout this period of time. And there would have been more, but for the United Nations.
I feel that while it might be arguable that when the cold war softens we ought not to bring up matters which could be provocative, we should do more than just enunciate in the House of Commons our belief in non-discrimination and in the right of self-determination. I feel that the present government should continue what this party endeavoured to bring about, namely support of the members of the United Nations for a resolution calling on the U.S.S.R. to give to the subjugated peoples under its control or the control of its satellites the right to determine for themselves their future course. We think in this regard of the subjugation of people in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and the Ukraine; we also think of Latvia and other countries of the Baltic. I heard Khrushchev say that he believed in self-determination, that with him this was a basic principle. Because of the overwhelming number of foreign races who are members of the United Nations today, colonialism is not regarded as colonialism if only the right white race is involved.
It is hard to get support from those of the coloured race, the minister will agree, to join in a resolution against the U.S.S.R. for its tyranny over the people of Europe and elsewhere. Last year and the year before we endeavoured to bring about such a resolution, but we did not have the general support we had hoped for. At the NATO conference in Paris in December of 1957 I was able to secure the inclusion of a term in a resolution calling upon the U.S.S.R. to assure the peoples under its control their right to determine their own destiny. I should like to see a strong stand taken in that connection.
There is something more I find rather difficult to understand. The minister dealt in grandiloquent terms with the question of

Supply-External Affairs racial non-discrimination. In view of that I find it difficult to understand why the Canadian vote was not cast in the third committee of the United Nations in favour of a resolution against discrimination. But, no, Canada abstained. The hon. member for Winnipeg South announced our abstention. The excuse given was that some constitutional principle in Canada would be infringed.
I have this resolution before me, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to read a portion of it to show the kind of resolution from which we abstained. I would ask why the government of Canada abstained. The resolution says, in part:
The general assembly,
Considering that the United Nations declaration on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination provides that the United Nations, the specialized agencies, states and non-governmental organizations should do all in their power to ensure the abolition of all forms of discrimination based on race, colour or ethnic origin,
Considering the great importance of the speedy implementation of this declaration in order to liquidate all forms of racial discrimination as soon as possible,
Considering it essential that, as a step towards the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, the declaration should be made known throughout the world,
1.	Requests that all states shall undertake all necessary measures in order to implement fully, faithfully and without delay the principles contained in the United Nations declaration on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
The reason was, so it was said, because of article 9 of the resolution, which says:
1.	All propaganda and organizations based on ideas or theories of the superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin with a view to justifying or promoting racial discrimination in any form shall be severely condemned.
2.	All incitement to or acts of violence, whether by individuals or organizations, against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin shall be considered an offence against society and punishable under law.
3.	In order to put into effect the purposes and principles of the present declaration, all states shall take immediate and positive measures, including legislative and other measures, to prosecute and/or outlaw organizations which promote racial discrimination or incite to or use violence for purposes of discrimination based on race, colour or ethnic origin.
Canada abstained from voting and as a result got a black eye. The vote finally came up in the assembly. The question was also raised in this house, as I recall it, and the excuse, as I say, was that some constitutional principle was at stake. After a lot of argument in the United Nations someone finally suggested that a few words should be added, and in the passage which reads-
-to prosecute and/or outlaw organizations which promote racial discrimination-

-they added the three words "or incite to" so that it read:
-to prosecute and/or outlaw organizations which promote or incite to racial discrimination.
Then Canada voted in favour of the resolution, as did all the nations. I cannot understand why Canada abstained in the committee on a matter which is inherent in our constitution. This principle is inherent not only in our bill of rights, but it is one inherent in the stand taken by the commonwealth at the prime ministers' conference, and is now accepted throughout the commonwealth. It is true that two or three weeks afterwards, following some contemplation and the addition of those words, which are to say the least meaningless, there was a change of attitude. But I should like the minister to explain by what variety of aberration did Canada's representatives give to Canada internationally an image contrary to the basic principles of this country, namely freedom from discrimination. The Christian Science Monitor of November 22 has this to say:
The United States, indeed the entire western bloc, has just averted by a semantic eyelash a major collision with that two thirds of the world which is non-white.
Both the house and the country have the right to know why Canada took this stand. I received three or four letters from India, from Pakistan, from one country in Africa, asking me why Canada abstained on this question of non-discrimination. I am glad they took a second view of this, but it will take a long time to eradicate the effect of Canada, with regard to a resolution that commands the support of Canadians as a whole and would commend itself to all Canadians, abstaining on the basis of a comma or the absence of one or two words.
Mention was made by the minister of peacekeeping machinery. He did not go as far as he has gone on previous occasions in that connection. He has argued in the past that the United Nations should have a permanent force, but he did not go that far today. He spoke of improving the peacekeeping machinery of the United Nations. That is all to the good; but I do hope that before Canada arrives at any decision to support the setting up of an international United Nations force, parliament will have the opportunity of discussing it.
I am not speaking about these peacekeeping forces at all. When we were in office we designated one infantry battalion for service under the United Nations flag, and although Canada has since taken part in peacekeeping operations, the unit has never been used or called for. While the minister and the Prime

Minister go about speaking about the necessity of this force under United Nations control, we have to go outside the House of Commons to find out what the situation is. Today the Minister of National Defence spoke in Toronto.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are all for this force. There are tremendous difficulties in the way. If you set up a body under the United Nations, is it going to be recruited only from the small nations? Are you going to recruit Britishers or Americans or Russians? When you form this force, does it take its direction from the United Nations regardless of the feelings of the respective nations whose forces are used? How often in the last few years it has been found difficult, if not impossible, to use Canadians in certain areas because Canadians are white and the coloured races do not want white armed forces from the United Nations.
Suppose the kind of United Nations force contemplated by the minister and the Prime Minister is set up. What happens? Suppose Canada says: We do not want to be at war with nation A. Must the members of the force from Canada take the direction of the United Nations rather than that of their own nation? One has only to ask the question to realize, with conditions of nationalism being what they are today, the impossibility of setting up such a force. Again I say that does not deny peacekeeping machinery, but it does deny the setting up of such a force powerful enough to act under the direction of the United Nations.
I said a moment ago that we had to find out outside the house what the situation is. As found on page 12 of the speech delivered to the Empire club of Toronto today by the Minister of National Defence, the minister said:
Neither the secretary general nor any major power group within the United Nations has shown any enthusiasm for such a permanent force.
That may be the reason the minister did not press it today; but for the last two or three months the airwaves have been filled by the public statements of the minister and the Prime Minister on the dedication of this country to the setting up of such a force.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Would my right hon. friend permit me to say to him that I have listened with interest to what he has been saying. I do not take issue with what he has said. If there was evidence in the United Nations at the present time that a United Nations police force could be set up, this government would certainly give support to that idea but, as my right hon. friend knows, at the present time there is not the 28902-5-332
Supply-External Affairs disposition to give support to such an idea and we have been trying to achieve it within a more limited sphere.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a very interesting observation because I want to refer now to what the Minister of National Defence said as to the proper course when he spoke today. He went on to say:
It would appear then that the most'satisfactory solution is to have well balanced, broadly trained forces to draw from as required.
That just shows the cleavage between ministers in the government.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: There is no cleavage.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that the hon. gentleman always finds difficulty in seeing that the antithesis to something is not the same. I point out that the minister has quite frankly admitted that if the other nations would favour such a force Canada would then be in the van along with them; but the other nations are not going to have it, so my earlier request that parliament should have the opportunity to examine the matter fully before such a force comes into effect is surplusage.
One tries to follow in the sequence taken by the minister the various matters he discussed. Without a prepared script, but simply anticipating what might be considered to be important, I have endeavoured to place before the house as objectively as possible the views of the opposition. We share with the government-no party has a monopoly in this regard-the desire that the objective, the dedication and the first consideration of all of us shall and must be peace with justice, a world under law, a world in which each nation will regard itself as a keeper of all other nations.
In external affairs we try at all times to maintain an essential unity. That unity will be maintained by the opposition whenever questions of external affairs come before the house. However, when one considers that the Hon. Howard Green for three long years, in the face of contemptuous ridicule, pursued the objective of ending nuclear tests as a preliminary to the wider field of ultimate disarmament, I am sure no one will object to my saying that, despite the outcome of the election, he has the satisfaction of knowing that he builded better than he dreamed.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, we in this party welcome the opportunity presented by the introduction of the estimates of this department to take advantage of the wide-ranging debate on Canada's role in international affairs. I, too, would like to congratulate the minister, who seems temporarily at least to have left the chamber, on

Supply-External Affairs his masterly review ol world affairs. I must admit, however, I should have liked to hear something a little more definite about Canada's role and Canada's views on concrete international questions. I suspect other members would have liked to hear a little more definite information, too. I was reminded, Mr. Chairman, by his speech of what was once described as the two worst lines of English poetry ever written. They were written by Dr. Samuel Johnson, and he opened the poem with these words:
Let observation with extensive view
Survey mankind from China to Peru.
This seemed to me to be a fairly good description of the minister's speech. He spoke eloquently, for example, of the dangers of the isolation of a great country such as China. He told us, if I correctly heard his words, that it was not too soon for the west to rethink its relationship with China. I wish that he and his government had had the courage to announce official recognition of the existing regime in China, which is a fact of life whether or not we like it. If he had done so, Mr. Chairman, he would have given some substance to the generalities which he gave us in his speech.
The minister's observations-I see he is here now

about O.A.S. were, I thought, a beautiful example of his own inimitable style. He told us that the question of Canada's relationship with O.A.S. was under active review but that no conclusion whatever must be drawn as to whether he and his government favoured Canada's joining the organization, and that his answer to that question would be, maybe yes and maybe no. I think that is a rather typical example of the style of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In a remarkable speech made at American University in Washington on June 10 of this year, the late President Kennedy called upon his nation to reassess their position towards the cold war. I should like to refer briefly, Mr. Chairman, to some of the things that were said by the president on that occasion because I believe that they are extremely relevant to this particular debate. On that occasion, he said he had chosen a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and truth is too rarely appreciated. He said this was the most important topic on earth, peace. He spoke of peace, he said, because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense, he said, where great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the last war. He referred to peace as the necessary rational end of rational men. He spoke of the dangerous belief that peace is impossible; the belief

that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. He did not refer, he said, to absolute concepts of universal peace and good will.
I ask the house to note these words, and I quote:
Let us focus instead on a more practical, a more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions-on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace-no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process-a way of solving problems.
I make no apology, Mr. Chairman, for quoting at length the words of the late president. It seems to me that it is within the framework of this approach that we in this house can most usefully discuss in this debate on the estimates on external affairs the part which Canada can play in the supremely important task of our generation, which is the building of a world community. That part will not consist of magic formulas or withdrawals from the harsh facts of life, but in steady support for concrete actions and effective agreements looking towards the evolution of an effective international order.
The members of all parties in this house agree about the importance of this objective, and will agree about many of the means required to achieve it. I, on behalf of my party, will emphasize those aspects of our international policies in which we believe that a new approach is required and in which we believe Canada lags at the present time.
First of all, we believe, as other members in the house no doubt do, that Canada must give its fullest support to the United Nations and its agencies. We believe that we should do all we can to advance the interests of the United Nations, for example-and this was discussed by the minister-by placing a contingent of Canadian troops permanently at the disposal of the United Nations secretariat. We believe we can assist other like-minded countries to make available to the United Nations a force which would be at least a step towards the rule of law throughout the world. I welcome what the minister said in this regard, and I sincerely hope that his words will be followed by actions. I know there are difficulties, but I do not see that these difficulties should prevent us from genuinely making available a force of this sort to the United Nations.
We believe that the present easing of tension between the east and the west, which has been symbolized by the test ban treaty, should be used for further steps forward. I have just returned, as have other members of

the house, from a trip or visit-I do not use another word which I have seen used in the press-to Europe, during which we saw the massive array of military power with which each side in the cold war confronts the other. It is true that this massive confrontation of power creates, by reason of its deterrent effect, a sort of uneasy stability. It is true also, however, that while Germany remains divided and Berlin remains a democratic island behind the iron curtain, no assurance of final pacification in this key section of the world is possible. This is the reason that we, in this party, urge serious consideration of a demilitarized zone in Europe and the mutual withdrawal of nuclear striking power and other weapons as a step towards the eventual disbandment of opposing military blocs in Europe.
A companion step which might have great psychological value would be the negotiation of a non-aggression pact between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries. No one who has visited Europe and who has spoken to the leaders of the European countries thinks that the demilitarization of central Europe is an easy task, or one that will be accomplished overnight. It involves the preservation of balances and it involves a step by step approach. But we believe Canadian policies within the alliance should be directed to actively encouraging within Europe those who do not take a rigid stand and are prepared to start now on the road towards building eventual mutual confidence, which is essential for lasting peace if this important area is to be secure. But, Mr. Chairman, it is our view that the major areas of instability throughout the world are not in Europe, where the balance of nuclear power makes war of any sort an insane gamble on either side. The danger of instability throughout the world lies rather in Asia, in Africa and South America, where the tremendous revolutions of our times are creating new states and also new stresses.
Peace cannot be secured until the striking inequalities between rich and poor nations are reduced. Today as we see it-and it is true-the danger of conflict arises out of the cold war and the menace of communism; but this menace does not arise entirely from the massive military power of the Soviet union, real though that is, because it is effectively balanced by the equal and more massive power of the western alliance. It arises rather from the power of communism to exploit the urgent desire of the poverty stricken two thirds of the world to raise their living standards, even if this appears to require the acceptance of the coercive methods of communism. That is the
Supply-External Affairs real danger to the world, and that is the danger to which we should be paying more attention.
Social and political changes are pressing forward in the world today with increasing force. The big question is whether or not these forces will be channelled into the mould of communism, with its suppression of the individual, or whether these changes will find their expression within the framework of democratic systems which concern themselves with the rights and the worth of the individual. We believe a generous and effective international plan, on the same scale of generosity as the Marshall plan, which would enable countries such as India to take off on the way to expanding and self-sustaining economies, would be a contribution to defence and security just as important, if not more important, than the contribution to traditional methods of defence.
It does not seem to me that we in this house, in this country, or in the western world have begun to take this problem seriously. Only recently we had the opportunity to hear Mrs. Myrdal, a distinguished Swedish ambassador, talking to us about Sweden. She said that Sweden, with an average annual income of $2,000 per year, proposes during the next 10 years to increase its national income by 5 per cent per year, which would mean that in 20 years the average income would exceed $4,000 per year.
Most of the western democracies, although many of them lack the political and economic wisdom of the Swedes, are aiming at similar objectives, which they will achieve with varying degrees of success, as no doubt we shall in Canada, but take the contrast with India. Mrs. Myrdal pointed out to us that India, despite its high level of potential skill, and its plans for an expanded economy and a measure of international economic aid, is only able to increase its average annual income of $100 by approximately 1 per cent per annum, which would achieve a level of $120 per annum in 20 years. Therefore this grave disparity which now exists is accelerating at a tremendous pace.
We say it is necessary to plan internationally for an abundant world. It is necessary to make an effort on a scale far greater than we have done so far. This matter was discussed by the United Nations general assembly at its fifteenth session in 1962. The assembly expressed its hope that the flow of international assistance and capital to developing countries would be increased substantially, so as to reach as soon as possible

Supply-External Affairs approximately 1 per cent of the combined national incomes of the economically advanced countries.
I am aware, as of course are all hon. members, that on November 14 the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced an increase in the Canadian contributions to economic aid. This proposed increase, which is to come into effect in 1964-65, brings the Canadian contribution to $190 million a year, a good deal of it in the form of loans; but I would point out to the committee this will be less than half of the 1 per cent which the United Nations has suggested as a reasonable standard. We believe that even with this announced increase there remains a gross imbalance between Canada's contribution to economic aid and the sum of roughly $1.5 billion which Canada is spending annually on defence.
Our party, the New Democratic party, has been quite specific on this matter. We have committed ourselves to increasing economic aid to 2 per cent of the gross national income, roughly $800 million a year, more than four times the figure proposed by this government, and yet I point out less than half the amount we are currently spending, and have been for many years, on more traditional forms of defence.
I would like to point out to the committee that a halfhearted attempt to solve this problem of world poverty and to meet the urgent physical needs of the vast majority of the human race, is just not good enough. If we are to preserve freedom we must recapture the spirit of purpose and compassion. There is no doubt that we have the physical resources, but what we lack is the vision and the will to use them. I, and this party for which I am speaking, would like to see Canada lead and not lag in this field.
While I am speaking on the United Nations and the economic welfare of the world, I want to refer to a subject which sometimes people think it is tactless or wrong to mention. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to tell us some time what stand Canada is taking in the United Nations, or anywhere else, to assist underdeveloped countries in the problem of population control. It is high time we stopped being mealy-mouthed about this issue and recognized that unrestricted population growth means that every effort to increase the standards of human living throughout the world and to abolish poverty will be frustrated. I think there is an international obligation on well developed countries to help other countries faced with this problem to do something about it.

I now want to turn to another problem. I believe it is absolutely essential that our defence policy be brought into harmony with our international policy. I know this is not a debate on defence policy, but the two are intimately linked. Our role in the world, which we express through our Department of External Affairs, must be supported by a posture of defence undertaken through the department of defence. Mr. Chairman, I might tell hon. members that the words "posture of defence" are something I picked up in my experience in the committee on defence.
We in this party believe, as I think most hon. members do, that our own security lies in the closest co-operation with those to whom we are linked by geography and history. In other words, we believe in the unity and the strength of the western alliance, but within this alliance Canada can play a more constructive and independent role. She can equip herself to carry out tasks that larger nations cannot do. Canada can seek a role which does not merely supplement what our allies can do well enough without us. There is no need for us to add to the forces of the type of which we already have a superfluity. We can undertake a role within the alliance, what has been expressed as the role of fire extinguisher or peacekeeper, which others in the alliance cannot do, or for a variety of reasons cannot do well.
I propose to conclude my remarks by making a serious complaint; nevertheless I hope it will be a constructive one. To me it is absolutely scandalous that neither in the last parliament nor in this session of this parliament has the committee on external affairs met, or been called to meet. I find this extremely strange under the present regime, because the Prime Minister, when he was secretary of state for external affairs and also when he was under secretary of state for external affairs, played a considerable part in seeking to enlarge the scope and the vitality of the parliamentary committee on external affairs. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is it now the view of the government that interest in international affairs should be confined to a few departmental experts, or do they believe that the Canadian parliament should be concerned with these matters?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. gentleman, I hope we can set up the external affairs committee tomorrow morning, and sit next week. I share my hon. friend's desire to have this done.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I hope the future actions of the minister and his government will not belie his words as much as his past actions have in

this connection. It is pointed out to me, Mr. Chairman, that tomorrow will be the 100th day of this session, and I think we all hope the session is on the wane. I suggest it just is not good enough, in the type of world in which we live, not to have a committee on external affairs meeting until the 100th day of the session-if we are going to meet tomorrow morning, and I am not too certain of that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with my hon. friend.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The minister says he agrees with me. He is in a position to do something about it, if he agrees with me. It seems to me that the regular meeting of the committee on external affairs is essential if members of parliament are to participate in the formulation of Canada's international policy and if they are to be able to interpret adequately to the Canadian people policies on international affairs. It has been suggested to me, and no doubt to other members of this committee, that when Canadian parliamentary representatives go abroad they sometimes have to take a back seat when international issues are being seriously discussed. If this is so-and I believe it is so, from what I have heard-I am quite sure it is not because of any natural deficiency of understanding on the part of Canadians or Canadian parliamentarians. I believe it is because the government has made too little effort to acquaint members of parliament with the problems of international affairs. I suggest that the failure to call the committee on external affairs into being is a symptom of this attitude.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues will no doubt wish to contribute to this debate, enlarge on some of the points I have made and raise others. I would like to conclude by telling the committee that we in this party seek, as I am sure all other members do, to contribute all that we can in hard thinking, intelligent planning and effective criticism to the strategy of peace, upon which the survival of all Canadians, and indeed of all humanity, depends.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, on rising to speak in this debate tonight I would first like to congratulate the minister upon the speech he made this afternoon, particularly on his flow of words and beautiful language in dealing with the subject that no doubt is nearest to his heart. We in Canada-and I could not help thinking about this, this afternoon as I listened to the minister's speech-must be more concerned, as Canadians, with specifics as they relate to our role in world affairs.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs gave us the chance to turn for a while from the domestic issues that so often engross us
Supply-External Affairs and look at ourselves, not simply as a country living unto itself but as a member of a world family of nations with certain duties and responsibilities, not simply to our own citizens but to others in many other parts of the world with whom we must maintain relationships. It has been my personal privilege and experience to spend some 17 years living and working amongst peoples of other lands, not at the level of the foreign diplomat but down at the level where people actually live. As a result of this experience I have become keenly aware of and am most interested in the affairs that take place in the world, their relationship to us and our responsibilities in regard to them. I regret that there is apparently so little interest in world affairs on the part of so many of our members, as is evidenced by the number of empty seats in the chamber. I do not think any one of us can deny the fact that we live in a world in which no man can consider himself alone; no man is an island unto himself, as it has been said. Yet so many of us as members of parliament do not seem to be interested enough in what is going on in the world as it relates to us to even concern ourselves with debates and discussions on this topic. I would remind the government of the fact that members of the government owe a greater responsibility to their Secretary of State for External Affairs than is indicated by the small number of members now sitting in the benches on the other side of the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I would join the previous speaker in saying that I think one of our greatest shortcomings-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I point out to my hon. friend, since he has referred to the fact that many members are absent from the chamber, that there is a cabinet meeting being held tonight in connection with matters having to do with the proceedings of the federal-provincial conference. This is an important meeting.


Robert Norman Thompson: I thank the minister very much and I acknowledge the truth of what he has said. But the attendance in the chamber was not any better this afternoon, and certainly there ought to be more members present who are not participants in cabinet meetings tonight. I join the previous speaker in saying that I think one of the greatest shortcomings in the activities of this house is the fact that the committee on external affairs has not yet been set up. One of the things I looked forward to in coming to parliament was the opportunity and privilege of taking part in the proceedings and discussions of

Supply-External Affairs this committee. However, I have yet to be informed that such a meeting has ever been held or the committee has ever been established in any active way during this parliament or the last one.
I agree with the statement made by the hon. member to the effect that every one of our delegates on every one of the committees assigned to some foreign mission should be briefed very thoroughly and carefully in the matters that concern their appointment to these committees. Certainly, as we take part in international discussions we owe it to ourselves and to our friends to be just a little more concerned with and better informed on these matters.
As we push forward into this fascinating era of change, of which we are a part, one fact strikes me forcibly. That is, that man's increasing control over nature has given him a freedom and power in his actions that he has never before known. This increasing freedom and power in turn poses a moral challenge to mankind in the realm of behaviour such as he has never before known. We no longer regard warfare between nations as some glorified entertainment and adventure in the spirit of the middle ages. We cannot even regard gunboat diplomacy as a moral duty in bringing world enlightenment in the spirit of the colonial era. It is an odd commentary in this atomic age that that which is most likely to bring peace on earth and the cultivation of Christian virtues such as charity, integrity, patience and humility between nations of the world in the 1960's is not the pious moralizing of those who wish to act solely from principle. It is the sober assessment of the risks that go with any other kind of conduct in a world where the major powers have their hands perpetually on a nuclear hair-trigger. In considering this subject I think it is up to us to see that Canada indicates her full share of these virtues. In my experience I have often seen situations which have made me aware of the fact that Canada is held in much higher regard by our friends abroad than we are willing to admit and to demonstrate by our actions.
I was interested, today, to read in the Montreal Gazette that a visitor from Scotland, the Earl of Dundee, had made a long range prediction in Montreal that Canada might one day be a more powerful and influential force in the world than the United States. This might be wishful thinking on the part of someone who has perhaps a better impression of what we are than we have ourselves, yet there is a certain amount of truth in it. I also received a letter today from a Canadian school teacher who took a year off from her work and went to Australia. I had an opportunity to read her letter during


the supper hour. She told me that, though very often she had been taken for an American because of her mannerisms and speech, immediately people learned she was from Canada there was a new expression of friendship on their faces. This applied not only during her stay in Australia but in the other countries through which she travelled. I have seen this happen over and over again, and it is something which has always perplexed me. How is it that we, as Canadians, enjoy so much good will among our friends across the world when, as a nation, we have actually done so little to deserve it? Perhaps it is because Canadians in their own pioneering way have gone out to accept opportunities to help their fellowmen, without a lot of show and publicity. The fact remains that we do enjoy a great deal of good will in the world and I am confident this has come about because of Canadian individuals, not because of anything which the Canadian nation has done.
If we could only understand this, I believe the prediction yesterday by this visitor who came to us from Britain might become something not far from the truth and that Canada might indeed be a more influential nation in the world than it is today-possibly more influential than the United States. We certainly do not suffer from the handicap under which many of our friends in other countries labour. We are not associated with a legacy of economic or colonial imperialism. In these circumstances we can make friends easier and our work does not give rise to those doubts and suspicions which so often fall on other nationals. But I am disappointed that we in Canada are not doing more to take advantage of this favourable position.
In my brief remarks tonight I should like to review our foreign policy as it affects four main areas with which we are associated. First, I should like to refer to the American hemisphere. We cannot think about our relations with our neighbours in this area without being mindful of the tragedy which hit the United States last week, in the cruel assassination of President Kennedy. Perhaps no world leader has had more world vision and backed it up with more dynamic action than did the late president. We feel very keenly, particularly right here in the American hemisphere, the loss of this leader in world affairs. It has been reassuring to us to hear the new President affirm his determination to go forward with the policies initiated by the late President Kennedy. It has been particularly welcome news to hear him say that action, rather than mere words, is needed now to tackle the question of civil rights in the United States. I think we can take a lesson

from this in Canada. There is no reason why Canada should not be giving leadership in this area as well.
Living, as we do, in the shadow of the United States we sometimes think there is not very much we can offer in the way of leadership, so we follow along and adopt the attitude "me, too". I believe it is possible at this time for Canada to give leadership and direction, even to the United States, in regard to various aspects of foreign policy, certainly with regard to Central and South America.
I began to think this afternoon that the minister would not even refer to Latin America. Then, just before the close of his speech, he did mention the subject. I was disappointed that there was not more positive intention indicated in those parts of his speech which related to the situation in that area. He said the government was watching discussions which are now taking place within the organization of American states. He also said he thought public opinion was more favourable to Canada's taking a more active part in the affairs of that organization. I think that is sheer dilly-dallying. I am convinced we should be getting into the organization of American states, not just sitting back and watching what is taking place but carrying our own responsibility. How can we offer to be a good neighbour if we are not willing to show at least a neighbourly attitude? After all, the cost of friendship is friendliness. We do not show friendliness if we simply sit back in an armchair waiting for a more convenient time to take action.
As we sit here in Ottawa tonight it is worth remembering that Cuba, the West Indies and Central America are all closer to us than many of the extremities of our own nation. It is also worth remembering that in defiance of the Monroe doctrine which has kept American shores free from outside interference for a century and a half, Cuba is now a satellite of the Soviet union, pro-communist fronts are strong in most of the Latin American republics, and the United States alliance for progress has yet to get off the ground. I noticed a news report today which indicated that Haiti had been infiltrated by Cuban agents, and that it will not be long before there is more serious trouble in that country. We all know what is happening in British Guiana, in Venezuela, Bolivia, Colombia and Peru. In these circumstances we should not be waiting for the lid to blow off the kettle; we should be trying to do something about the situation while there is time. We, in Canada, cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend these problems do not exist.
It was good to hear the minister say last week there would be increased aid to some of these countries and that the Caribbean
Supply-External Affairs islands, in particular, are to receive increased help. Here we have a group of islands whose whole affection looks toward Canada. These islanders expect Canada to do something to help them. I know this very well, because I am intimately acquainted with the area. Yet we have made such a little effort. We could, in fact, go in with a reasonable amount of assistance-something which we are completely capable of-and make a total effort which would leave its impact and achieve some results.
It is true, of course, that the amount of money poured into an area is not the only criterion of assistance. One of the greatest paradoxes in this postwar world is that the billions and billions of dollars of gift money from the United States has in so many instances failed to win friends or influence people. All too often it has caused suspicion and many times enmity. We do not have to sit back and think that, because we do not have the billions of dollars to give away, there is no other way to indicate friendship and demonstrate our intentions to be of assistance. In one important respect I believe we are in a position to help more than the United States, and that is in the realm of people. Canada with its strong and valued French Canadian background has people of Latin background, but yet who have the experience of our modern form of government and productive techniques who could be immensely helpful in making this concept of an alliance for progress work in the Latin American countries.
I have been greatly impressed by news reports in the last few days concerning a group of 70 Latin Americans now in Canada with a production called "El Condor", the story of how communist activities in the universities of Peru were beaten down by a new concept on the part of students who were looking for something but who before could not find it. Here we have Latin Americans coming to Canada and trying to help us in our problems. How much more could our own French Canadian people be spearheading the attack as far as friendship and development is concerned in the Latin American world. The Latin American situation is serious and is growing progressively worse. I believe the government would be failing to carry out its mandate if it did not take a greater part in the development of intercourse with Latin America immediately, not at some time in the future.
The second direction in which I would wish to turn our thoughts is to the commonwealth. I should like to congratulate the minister on the steps he has taken to stress the importance of this body in the security council of the United Nations. I should like
5226	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs to join with others who have commented on the value of the commonwealth in this day and age. I do not think the commonwealth of nations is something to be placed in the same category as the British empire, because I believe that if this community of nations, not tied together by treaties or formal bonds, yet having a greater base for understanding and unity than any group of nations, could get into high gear on the economic front and in friendly diplomacy, it could have a tremendous role to play in current affairs at this time.
We live in an age of machines and mechanical organizations. Many of our international institutions such as the United Nations and subsidiary bodies reflect this thought. Often enough we forget the power of something which has not been manufactured but which has grown, the power of something that is an organism, not just an organization. We forget that a concrete sidewalk can be cracked by a mushroom growing underneath it, as well as by a compressed air drill. We seem to be at a loss, not knowing how to organize the commonwealth in order to get results.
The point is that the commonwealth, however, is already here in that it is a living institution and as such does not need organizing. What it does need is to be set a task. Let it recognize its task, and as the experience of wartime has proven, every part will respond to meet the challenge as a whole. I have been in practically all of the countries of the commonwealth, if not all of them, and I have found that bond of affection and understanding which is difficult to explain. But it is that something which stands as one of our great potentials. In the commonwealth there are 700 million people. If we take both the developed parts and the undeveloped parts of the commonwealth we have, on the one hand, one of the greatest sources of productivity giving the things people need to live on, and on the other hand one of the greatest market areas in the world.
Therefore I suggest that we might use the commonwealth to this advantage. We do not need elaborate conferences; all we need is common thinking among commonwealth nations about the problems of ignorance, poverty, hunger and disease that plague the less developed nations of this world, and perhaps a common agreement to allocate different spheres of responsibility for foreign aid and assistance between the commonwealth nations.
To do this it is said that we need money. How can we trade if we do not have money? If there were 100 cattle in a field without pasture, and there was another field across


the road where there was good pasture but no cattle, it would not take too long for the two farmers to get together for their mutual benefit. There is no reason at all why such a policy could not effectively be put to work in our commonwealth of nations. This could reach out to other friendly nations as well, because in this commonwealth of nations the friendship that forms its basic foundation along with a democratic form of government common to most, would immediately include other friendly nations of similar background, once they saw this thing begin to work. I believe we can work out between ourselves common policies of economic self-help, common exchange policies which can greatly help the trade difficulties of commonwealth nations and supply the goods and services we need.
At the Ottawa conference of 1932 the foundations of the preferential tariff arrangements were laid which made the commonwealth a great trading entity. I feel that Ottawa in 1963 could have some very useful things to say about international exchange arrangements and the supply of raw materials between member nations. It would be a tremendous thing for the secretary of state, one of the most sound actions he could take, if he took the initiative to bring together another commonwealth conference in Ottawa. It would prove that the commonwealth could be something of an international force, not to the exclusion of other states but as an example to the rest of the world. Economic considerations led Britain to wish to abandon the commonwealth for the sake of the common market area. At the same time, Britain is the heart and centre of 700 million people with the richest endowment of natural resources of any trading bloc in the world. I say that something must be wrong with our understanding of the commonwealth and its potential when this happens. I do not think we should be content to see Britain slough off her commonwealth connections so lightly. And she would not if our attitude were different. Only a few months ago a senior official in the British government said to me: "If we could be convinced that Canada would take the lead in doing something to make the commonwealth work, we would be the first to swing in behind her". I think that was meant very seriously. I believe he was thinking back to the days when Britain did make such an offer towards the development of a commonwealth free trade area, but we in Canada turned our backs on it.
Third, I should like to spend a few moments on Canada's relationship with the communist countries. I believe our government deserves praise for its part in promoting the test ban treaty signed in Moscow in August of this

year. Perhaps it was not such a very big thing, but it at least moves us toward the objective which I think all sane people in the world want, which certainly we in Canada want, namely peace. I believe we could take the lead and when there is a crack in the wall which divides the world Canada should be the first to put her hands through. Everything we can do to continue discussion and negotiation is commendable, and certainly this test ban treaty must be included in that classification. Provided adequate safeguards can be assured, world disarmament one step at a time seems the only hope for the world's future.
This past year has seen a great increase in our trading relationships with the Soviet union. Within limits this has been most useful to our economy, but there are two matters that I think are worth mentioning in this regard. The first is that we have not yet devised any adequate method of two way trade between communist countries and Canada, and trade to have any permanent effect or usefulness must be a two way agreement. Therefore, although our agricultural industry is happy that we have found a useful market for our wheat, the problem remains of the economic consequence of what imports might do in return. No nation-certainly Canada cannot-can expect to continue trading where there is no two way opportunity to make that trade effective and permanent.
Second, we must be sure that we are not simply providing the raw materials with which communist countries are buying influence, through re-export, directly or indirectly, to other nations of the world and in many cases to people who want to stay with us in the friendly neighbourhood of western nations dedicated to free government and free opportunity for human beings. Trade cannot be divorced from its political effects, and while one aspect of our economy benefits; what is going to happen to the other aspects of our economy if we cannot develop a logical two way trade pattern? Let us be careful that the trade we carry on with our communist neighbours is not trade that we should have carried on directly with the underdeveloped nations of the world.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has mentioned the possibility of recognition of red China. I believe that no nation in the world should be excluded from the negotiating table, if it is possible for it to be included. But I remember the incidents that led to my going to Africa in the first place. It was because a stronger nation had invaded a smaller nation, raped that country, obliterated its educated people and wiped out without mercy those who wanted to retain their free way of 28902-5-333
Supply-External Affairs living. Some in this house tonight were at the league of nations when this matter came to a head in 1934, 1935 and 1936, and to the shame of the western countries we turned our backs on the little country of Ethiopia. Yes, it was only a country of 15 million or 20 million people who were not very well educated, who had not made any mark upon the world, who did not carry any influence in world affairs. But we turned our backs on these people and it remains, and will remain as long as history is written, a black mark for the western world.
As long as the recognition of red China means the obliteration of 11 million people who want to live in freedom on the island of Taiwan, then that recognition cannot be justified. As soon as red China will recognize a two China policy, it seems to me it will then be for the betterment of the world that red China be admitted to the conference tables. As we have watched red China in recent months it is apparent she is determined by whatever means to go out and accomplish her objective.
I think it should be indicative to us of what the true face of communism is, at a time when there is sorrow over the death of President Kennedy, a sorrow shared in most of the countries of the world. Communist China has taken this particular occasion to let loose a new tirade of abuse against the United States of America. The saying is that "he must have a long spoon who would sup with the devil". As the government invites communist nations to our dinner table, let us be a little careful that we do not get hurt. No matter how Mr. Khrushchev may smile, Marxism as it is expressed in communism remains a creed that believes in revolution and the overthrow of democratic government, and "dialectic" is best translated from the vocabulary of communism into common English by the slang expression "doublecross".
Finally, I should like to look at what I believe is one of our major opportunities and responsibilities in this ever shrinking world, the emerging nations. These include the new nations of Africa, also being courted at this time by the Soviet union, and some commonwealth and Latin America countries as well. I know the eastern horn of Africa very well. I have travelled in almost every area there. I have been greatly disturbed by the fact that this same Khrushchev, who pretends peace to us at the present time and has adopted a new attitude of peaceful coexistence, has been successful in making the Somali republic the arsenal and jumping off point for Soviet aims and ambitions in the continent of Africa.
We must be concerned with these emerging countries the world over. This is a difficult

Supply-External Affairs time for both us and them. The era of colonialism is ended. Yet colonialism had its purpose. It brought law and order, it . trained primitive peoples, it brought education and the chance of a higher way of life to the areas that it administered. The need for the benefits that colonialism brought still remains. Yet no longer can they be imposed by force. They must be given in good will. This is something that is very difficult indeed for many of the former imperial powers to do, even though they want to do it. On the other hand, it is something that we Canadians, citizens of a nation that was once a colony, certainly can and should be doing. Again, the contribution that we can make is not just in the form of money and materials. I believe that the contribution that we can make in the form, for instance, of technical assistance and education is very large indeed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. gentleman but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you very much. I will hasten to bring my remarks to a close quickly. This is so, whether it is a matter of Canada sending educationists abroad or accepting increasing numbers of foreign students here. In this way we can render a very definite service. During the supper hour tonight I was speaking on the telephone to a man who knows the West Indies area of the Caribbean very well. He was talking about a Canadian who went to one of the islands in the Caribbean as a teacher training director, and said that he had reports from at least a dozen people about the wonderful job this man was doing, not just in his classes in training teachers but as a good will ambassador of what Canada represents and what Canada wants to be.
I am reminded of the newly created organization that had its birth in the capital city of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, only a few months ago. It was through the efforts of Emperor Haile Selassie, who was in our midst only a few weeks ago, that this organization came into being. I do not think we in Canada have any idea whatsoever of the important part this organization can play in the peaceful development of Africa. When the crisis developed between Algeria and Morocco a few weeks ago we saw this organization play its part in bringing peace to a troubled area, not through the influence of foreigners but through the influence of Africans themselves.
I look back on my own experience in Africa. I think one of the most fruitful aspects of the years I spent over there was not so much what I did there but the fact that I was able to direct to Canada a large number of students who are now trained and qualified and

are taking their place in their own countries. One of these men was the key man at the peacemakers' table a few weeks ago in the dispute between Morocco and Algeria.
In this connection, there are several matters I wish to raise. First of all, I hope it will be possible for the government to provide increased funds to enable Canadian students, young people, to travel overseas for service there. It does not take a great deal of money for this project. The cost of paying one's way on such a mission is, for students, frequently prohibitive; yet these people are here and willing to go. The good will that can be spread by such ambassadors at the local level is incalculable. I suggest the government consider allotting a portion of its increase in external aid funds for this purpose.
The second matter has to do with the bringing of foreign students to Canadian educational institutions. This does not involve thousands of students, because it is far more practical to educate African students in Africa if the educational facilities are available. In many countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as other developing areas of the world, there are not sufficient educational institutions, at least not in the field of higher learning. Canada has had a highly successful program in this field, with a very low failure rate. The program was initiated by the Department of Trade and Commerce some 13 years ago and now it is handled through external aid in the Department of External Affairs. Perhaps that is where it belongs. Some 600 students per year are now under instruction in Canadian educational institutions today, many of them through private aid, but the program is obviously capable of generating great good will and being of immense help to the countries concerned. Certainly, we can accommodate not just 600 but 6,000 if this were made financially possible.
At the present time, however, this program under the Department of External Affairs appears to be restricting the number of applicants because of a shortage of personnel at the administrative level in the department itself, and this in spite of the recommendation of the organization and classification branch of the civil service commission in September, 1959 and again in April, 1960. At the executive level, in the same service, we appear to have the odd sight of two directors of technical assistance sitting in the same chair with the same qualifications and duties; both, one presumes, drawing substantial salaries and both, one also presumes, getting in each other's way. I believe the minister could well look into this matter to see if this program, which is capable of such good

service, could be put into more shipshape order as more funds are made available.
I should like to mention another point in this regard, and it is simply expressed in the statement that the greatest enemy of peace today in the world, in my opinion, is hunger. We, in Canada, could well be the food basket of the world. Somehow, and soon, it is imperative that we direct our own trade policies in such a way that we can go out and make these tremendous reserves of food potential for those who are dying because they do not have them today. Then, we should back that up with our technical know-how in order to assist these people to raise more food in their own countries. The communist countries are in trouble because, under that system, they cannot increase their production sufficiently to meet the demands of their own people. This proves to us that the centralization of authority in government is certainly not the answer to all our problems. On the other hand we, in the private enterprise system, boast that we can produce all we need and much more, but at the same time we fail because we do not have the means of distribution. What is the end result going to be, if the failure of communists on one hand and the capitalists on the other ends in a dead heat, one because they cannot produce and the other because they cannot distribute? Then, what kind of world are we going to have when both have failed? This is something about which we ought to be thinking.
There is one more point in this regard, and that is that behind all these programs for aid and assistance there must be a sincere attitude of friendship and a willingness to help people less fortunate than ourselves. As I mentioned before, the price of friendship is friendliness. If we cannot be motivated by the desire to help others, then none of these things will be of much use. This is a responsibility not only of the people out in commerce, not only of the people in our educational institutions and in our professions but of politicians as well. If we were more concerned about it, then perhaps the seats in this house would be better filled than it is at the present time.
External affairs is not a subject that can be treated in a vacuum. Almost inevitably, it spills over into matters of trade and defence, and well it should. Nevertheless it is one of the most important areas of government, as we look at Canada's place on the world scene. I hope that the remarks I have made will give the government some thoughts from outside of itself as to the policies Canada should be following in this rapidly changing international situation. Certainly none of these
28902-5-333J
Supply-External Affairs things about which we talk in connection with external affairs could come to pass in any effective way until our defence policies, our trade policies and our external affairs policies move in a parallel direction towards a common objective. I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as one who has a greater opportunity than any Canadian today, not through just suave words or voluminous words, but to do something, bring about action to get the attention not only of Canadians but also of the people of the world.
I am reminded of a little story that I came across just a few months ago. Perhaps just to sum this whole thing up about which we are talking in connection with external affairs, I might share it with you. A father cut up a map of the world to make a jig-saw puzzle for his son. He was very surprised at the speed with which his son completed the puzzle. He asked his son how he did this and the reply was that there was a man on the back of the jig saw puzzle. He said, "I put the man straight and the world came out right".


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) express his views on the foreign policy of Canada and on the part played by his departmental estimates in this regard.
I listened to him very closely and what struck me-and, I suppose, several other members-was the expression of his good intentions. But even though he gave us to understand that he was well intentioned, we must consider the estimates which will be made available to him.
From a financial point of view, the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are 17 times less than those of the Department of National Defence. I feel that this is minimizing somewhat the part that our Department of External Affairs must play in the world. Nobody denies that Canada must play a very important part in the world.
In fact, those who have had the opportunity to^ go abroad and meet other parliamentarians, to discuss with them, in short to get acquainted with their economic, political and social problems, have realized that most of them consider Canada as a young and rich country which at the present time enjoys a fine reputation.
Mr. Chairman, during a recent trip to Paris,
I noted that all the member countries of NATO, except Canada, had their flags flying in front of the NATO international office. And yet our country, which will soon be celebrating its centennial and has an important part to play on the international scene, cannot do

Supply-External Affairs likewise for obvious reasons. Even if Canada is a young country, it still remains that it is one hundred years old and that it has a most important role to play in international affairs.
In fact, it is not so much population that counts but the expanse of territory. Vancouver is further removed from Halifax than Paris or Germany are from Canada. Our country has a population of 18 million whereas Belgium which is only 150 square miles in area, has 9 million inhabitants, that is about half our population.
What conclusion can one draw from those facts, Mr. Chairman? The conclusion that Canada is a young and vast country which should set for the world an example of peace and prosperity.	_
Mr. Chairman, it would be beneficial if the Secretary of State for External Affairs could represent Canada as a country which has everything and which at the same time is a prosperous one, for if we take into account the number of unemployed in this country, the people of other countries cannot help but think that Canada is not so prosperous after all.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should first review our national monetary policy, in order to give the example to the other countries of the world which are now seeking solutions to the problem of surpluses, while others try to solve that of hunger.
Some time ago, we welcomed the news that an agreement had been signed on the suspension of nuclear tests.
I have here the report tabled by our previous secretary of state for external affairs at the United Nations. At page 8 of that report, he said that nuclear tests were most dangerous from a health point of view.
The second complete report of the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation is quite clear on that point when it says:
Since there are no other effective methods to prevent the harmful effects of the spread of radioactive contamination caused by nuclear explosions, the permanent suspension of nuclear tests would be beneficial to present and future human generations.
That is what the request for investigation by the secretary general of the United Nations implies.
It is, on the other hand, unfortunate that this country should have included nuclear arms in its national defence policy. Canada might have played a peaceful and prosperous part among the countries of the world.
Let us take a look at Switzerland: there we have a country which has always remained aloof from war, which never had to rebuild what it had built before; anyway, when visiting countries which have been devastated by

war, a very different situation can be seen. We may, therefore, conclude that those things are hardly helpful.
I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs should dispose of the tremendous sums which were to be appropriated for nuclear arms, to enable him to carry out all the good intentions expressed this afternoon, because there is no lack of good intentions, but of the necessary funds to carry them out.
We favour disarmament, which normally should result from an agreement to abandon nuclear tests, in the publication External Affairs, of September 1962, I read, on page 269, the following, under the title "Economic and social consequences of disarmament":
A report on the economic and social consequences of disarmament was published by the United Nations Organization in February 1962. It had been prepared by an advisory group appointed by the secretary general, following a resolution moved by Pakistan, which was carried on December 15, 1960, and this report will be discussed at the seventeenth session of the general assembly.
The advisory group was made up of experts coming from the following countries: United States, France, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Poland, Sudan, Czechoslovakia, U.S.S.R. and Venezuela. Chosen by the secretary general, the experts submitted their suggestions in their own name. The advisory group held two meetings, the first one in Geneva, in August 1961, and the second, in the U.N. building, in New York, from January 23 to February 16 of the current year.
Here is the unanimous conclusion reached by the group:
The achievement of a general and complete disarmament would be an incommensurate blessing for the whole human race.
You can see that group decided in favour of disarmament after the signing of the test ban treaty.
In the same article, it is said a little further:
It is estimated that the world spends about $120 billion yearly for military purposes at the present time. That amount represents at least two thirds of the total national revenues in all underdeveloped countries. About 85 per cent of this total is spent by seven countries: U.S.S.R., United States, Great Britain, France, German Federal Republic, Chinese People's Republic and Canada.
Canada is among the seven countries that spend most for military purposes.
To go further than the previous speakers, may I add that Canada should restrict herself to a pacific part and show the whole world that despite her small population in relation to her territory, she is really prosperous and able to help underdeveloped countries of South America, by maintaining trade relations with them, while correcting her unfavourable trade balance.
Canada ought to set an example for mankind, which is looking for peace in the world and prosperity for all nations.

Supply-External Affairs


Mr. Maiheson:: Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago the Hon. Adlai Stevenson, addressing a United Nations day rally in Dallas memorial stadium was booed, spat upon, and hit on the head with a couple of card placards saying "Down with the United Nations." At that meeting he gave a carefully prepared address, but this important figure of the United Nations and of the United States, who to some extent has represented America to the world, was harassed and attacked by people who were against the idea of international involvement. Of course, during these last few days we have had in our minds the memory of a president who epitomized to the world the good, world citizen. President Kennedy, in his inaugural address on January 21, 1961 said:
My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are the citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you.
We in Canada, responding to this challenge, should think right now of our relationship with the rest of the world. During the last six months, Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege to be in 11 countries. I believe, as speakers before me have indicated, that there is perhaps no people in the world with more opportunity to participate fully and generously in world events. Of necessity, those speeches that have preceded mine have tended to be general in character, covering the wide scene. I would like to limit myself, in the time that is available, to one particular aspect of external affairs. I am referring to foreign aid. A few weeks ago I was in Skoplje. X had an opportunity to see first hand most of the devastated streets of that city.
I believe I am correct in saying that over
16,000	people were then living in tents. Skoplje, an ancient Macedonian city that goes back several hundred years before Christ and represents an ancient and honourable civilization in that part of the world, would have been fractured and shattered for all time except for a process of great international assistance. The most important resolution passed by the 52nd interparliamentary conference, which took place in Belgrade, was one wherein every delegate of the 60 nations represented, both iron curtain and free countries, resolved to go back to their parliaments and recommend that substantial international aid be given for the reconstruction of Skoplje.
I do not want to dwell on this subject at any length, but I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I know has been
concerned about this matter, will regard this as a great opportunity for Canada to make a significant and permanent contribution to an ancient and proud city that has known something of the ravages of the Turks, the Byzantians, the Romans and the Huns. There is one country in the world that might exercise some sort of pressure on Yugoslavia, and that is the Soviet union. Notwithstanding their ideological sympathies, the Yugoslavs tend to look to countries outside and beyond the Soviet union for the kind of understanding they are not likely to find in their own local environment. I think this is a unique opportunity for Canada to make herself known there, and a contribution of perhaps $2 million-if I might suggest that figure- for some kind of permanent building that would always have the name "Canada" upon it would be the sort of thing that honourably would bear our image for ever in that part of the world.
May I pass on to an aspect of foreign aid that I think is even more important in the long run. I have been interested for some time in precisely what Canada has been doing in the area of foreign aid. I have placed on the order paper a number of questions on this matter and have received from the ministry a number of answers. At page 1486 of Hansard for June 24 last there is an answer from the department with respect to Canada's contribution in external aid expressed as a percentage of Canada's gross national product. I might point out to the committee that in the year 1960 it was .20 per cent; in 1962 it was down to .18 per cent. Perhaps one would not be able to judge what this means unless it were compared with the contribution of other countries. On October 14, 1963,
I put another question on the order paper which asked the extent of our contribution in comparison with the countries of NATO Europe, and NATO North America. I should like to put the answer on the record. This is based on the gross national product of each country during the year 1961: Belgium .86 per cent; Canada .19 per cent; Denmark .12 per cent; France 1.70 per cent; Germany .83 per cent; Italy .21 per cent; Japan .48 per cent; the Netherlands .62 per cent; Norway .21 per cent; Portugal 1.24 per cent; the United Kingdom .66 per cent; the United States .73 per cent. Then, expressing the same thing in another way, on November 13, 1963, I received an answer with respect to aid to development.
The answer of November 13, 1963 told us what in the last year of record was the per capita contribution in foreign aid to underdeveloped countries from members of the organization for economic co-operation and

Supply-External Affairs development. These figures show aid for development expressed in American dollars. They relate to the year 1962: France $20.93- that is per person; the United States of America $19.17;	Germany-that is, the
federal republic-$7.75; the United Kingdom $7.80; Canada $2.66. Mr. Chairman, the Globe and Mail of October 7, 1963 says:
Canada is still one of the black sheep of the western world in the proportion of national wealth devoted to foreign aid. Even on the most favourable basis of calculation, we are channelling into aid programs only about one third of 1 per cent of our gross national product, or approximately $135 million a year. Of the 20 countries in the organization for economic co-operation and development, only Denmark rates lower than Canada in the provision of aid.
They conclude their editorial comment by saying:
Mr. Martin should fight hard the good fight for increased foreign aid in the knowledge that he has public opinion behind him.
I feel, with great sincerity, that this is one area at which we must take a very close look.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Neil Alexander Matheson: Of course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the basis of comparison the same?


Neil Alexander Matheson: No. I am sure that is a very proper and appropriate comment, Mr. Chairman. I have had an assurance from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that some countries are taking advantage of other kinds of contribution which we, in our circumstances, do not include.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Portugal, for example.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Yes, and France. But, no matter on what basis we make the comparison, our contribution is not nearly good enough. I have put similar questions on the order paper relating to defence, because I am one of those who feel very strongly that the contribution we make to our alliances is something that runs parallel, to some extent, to the matter of foreign aid. We are not even making a very substantial contribution in the matter of defence, in comparison with some of our more important allies. I think this is of critical importance. May I, though, address these remarks to an area in which I think we could make a very sizeable and important contribution. When one considers the conclusions reached by Barbara Ward and others who have studied this subject over the years, it is evident that a great many of these foreign aid programs are not achieving the results intended. The population explosion in some countries is such that no matter what is done

by way of foreign aid little can be accomplished to bring large benefit to the people. Perhaps other means will have to be adopted to accumulate capital so that people may move to a higher plateau of progress. Certainly, there are other areas where great work can be accomplished if there is concentration. Barbara Ward says:
For three hundred years the white race has enjoyed a dominant position in the world. Its members were able to stamp their prejudices across the face of the globe because they were, in fact, on top.
When we think of the recent tragic happenings in Dallas and of other unfortunate incidents to which reference has been made by distinguished members of this house it occurs to me that perhaps Canada has a moral responsibility as well as a political interest in becoming involved in these great racial problems of the world. Where would it be possible to do this? Many who are authorities on this subject say the one place in the world where we could hope to make the greatest contribution is in the Caribbean area.


Mr. Byrne:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not know that while he was away attending a conference we did increase our foreign aid by $70 million?


Neil Alexander Matheson: I was happy to read that. I read that, I think, in two foreign newspapers.
May I refer to a comment by Dr. Doris Johnson. She says:
Canada is missing out in the Caribbean. This country ought to be in the forefront in providing aid for the Caribbean area. Russia has been very active assisting underdeveloped countries and I would like to see Canada's Colombo plan extended to cover educational improvements in this hemisphere.
I am aware of what Canada is doing in respect to the Colombo plan. With respect to the West Indies assistance program, the ministry has been good enough to supply answers in detail with respect to people, places and work done. I am aware of what is being done with respect to the special commonwealth Africa aid program, the commonwealth technical assistance program, the program of educational assistance for independent French speaking African states, and, in a slightly different category, the commonwealth scholarship and fellowship program. But there is one area which would respond more rapidly than any other to a sharp increase in our aid program, and that is the Caribbean. I believe there is a necessity for Canada to bring about a special relationship with our commonwealth neighbours in the West Indies, an association which would be as close and as helpful as any kind of political union. I am not talking about federation. I am talking about involvement-about intimate personal

engagement in the Caribbean area. This is one of the most volatile parts of the world. Taking the long view, it is an area where we could do most to prevent disorder in the future, in addition to the more important object of uplifting mankind.
We believe poverty is obsolete. We believe a country as wealthy as our own, with a population of 20 million people, could look to our friends in that part of the world and, without being patronizing or superior, make a substantial and important contribution to their welfare. I believe Canada should make a determined, all-out, concentrated effort in the field of education and technical assistance in the Caribbean. The West Indies should be our show window, the place where we test out and demonstrate to ourselves and others our faith and good intentions towards all the peoples of the world.
It can be contended, as many columnists suggest, that the correct way to participate in foreign aid programs is by concentration. We have made mistakes in Canada in the past; in defence, for example, by developing certain types of weapons and not seeing that development through to completion. They were good ideas but we did not go at them hard enough. I am suggesting we should really go as far as may be necessary, not on the basis of planning one, two or three years ahead but in terms of a decade of development. There is a strong case to be made out in favour of specialization. Men with broad experience, men such as Paul Hoffman of the United Nations special fund, Eugene Black of the world bank and our own Nik Cavell have told us that there should be at least a few demonstrations of concentrated efforts of aid.
I am not unmindful of the fact that in the past we have been interested in multilateral programs and that we are still interested in these programs, many of which are connected with agencies of the United Nations. At the same time, there must be special bilateral arrangements with respect to aid. These are our brothers, our commonwealth friends, and if there is any people to whom they may reasonably look for close association and friendship, it is surely to the people of Canada. Each impact we can make will reinforce the effect of the rest. What we need is a new approach with respect to education and investment, new means of production and technical assistance at all levels. I am trying to be specific because it seems to me we have heard the leaders of our parties dealing with the subject only in general terms. Whether or not there is such a thing as an "ugly Canadian" I do not know, but it is clear that with respect to the Caribbean we are not "ugly Canadians". These people are ready for devel-
Supply-External Affairs opment to take place. Many of them are highly educated. Many of them have been educated in the United Kingdom and others are graduates of our own schools and colleges. Economists like W. W. Rostow, who was one of the late President Kennedy's chief policy advisers, and Arthur Lewis, a West Indian who has been Paul Hoffman's right hand man, have described the factors which tell whether a people is ready or not for development. Nearly all the qualifications they mention in their theoretical studies can be found in concentration in various parts of the West Indies.
Our country and the West Indies are bound together by close historical and trading associations. May I touch on the question of selfinterest? The Caribbean area is one where we have a strong mutual trading interest and advantage. I do not think we need always think in Canada in terms of a cash contribution. I believe-and I throw this out as a suggestion to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-that we could make a most valuable contribution based upon the elite federal services we have-the wealth of experience and advice at the government's disposal in the fields of fisheries, oceanography, mines and technical surveys, finance, trade and commerce, health and welfare, and so on. We have built up this knowledge and expertise over the hundred years of our history and all this accumulated skill which is now available to us could be placed at the disposal of our friends in the Caribbean. Some of our experts could, for example, be given leave-six months a year, so that they could put some of their talents to use in the Caribbean area where they are greatly needed.
What about strategic considerations? Well, here is a part of the world which is bounded by revolution, disease, and hunger. Some of those who spoke before me talked about the organization of American states and the complex political and economic conditions underlying that organization. I do not think there is an area closer to us, or one which calls for more immediate consideration, than the area of which I have been speaking. This could become a splendid economic, social and political laboratory. Dr. Philip Sherlock, principal of the University of the West Indies said: "The people of the West Indies come in every colour except blue". In these wonderful islands, so close to us, we find Asiatics, Caucasians, Negroes and every type of mankind. Let us dare to get involved. It is not as if it would introduce into our country the serious problems which would result from integration, or such as have preoccupied those unfortunate people in Dallas, Texas. Would it take too much imagination to believe that in

Supply-External Affairs this mechanistic age we could fly employees of Canadian factories, who could go off for three weeks in a year, perhaps, and spend some time in the Windward isles or in the Leeward isles or down in some of those obscure and beautiful and not too expensive places?
I know several universities in Canada which have been enriched by the addition of Caribbean students. Some of our greatest athletes who have competed in the Olympics have come from the Caribbean. Harry Belafonte, for whom I have much admiration, says in the United Church Observer for November of this year:
The struggle of the Negro people in America today is part of a very much larger struggle. The dignity and integrity of the whole human race, especially of the colored peoples all over the earth, are involved. Nothing is more gratifying than to come to a place like Canada which has had historical association with the struggle of the Negro people in America. From early days of the abolition of slavery, over many years, you have shown support for the struggle of the Negro people of America.
This is not an embittered man, but one who has known great success. He continues:
It is true that you are removed from the vicious faces of the white supremist forces that exist in America: it is true that your children are not being whipped in the streets with hoses. It is true that your children are not being put into the segregated and vicious prisons of the south to be beaten; it is true that lynchings are not directly a part of the Canadian scene. But I dare to say that human right and human responsibility is as much yours as it is ours.
There are many subjects one could touch on in the field of external affairs, but there is still a little time available and many people wish to contribute to the debate. It is a fact, as one of my distinguished predecessors tonight has said, that at the moment there is an appalling imbalance between what the world is contributing to defence and what it is contributing to foreign aid and social and economic improvements of underdeveloped people. I am not suggesting that our contribution to defence is too high. Indeed, I earnestly wonder whether we are pulling our full weight in that direction. But certainly in the direction of foreign aid there is no question but that we have been very much on the low side and we must make substantial and important changes for the future.
I should like to conclude with the final paragraph of the last speech President Kennedy prepared only a few days ago. He said:
We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility-that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint-and that we may achieve for our time and for all time the ancient vision of peace on earth, goodwill towards men. That must always be our goal-and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength.

That is not a matter on which there is any division in this house. In every political party there are people who have made noteworthy contributions in the discussions of external affairs; some, indeed, have spoken today. I know that my political leader is a man who believes mightily in this cause, and now is the time to get down to specifics and prove this in a noble and grand way.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, it is rather a pity that the original plan of having the defence estimates discussed tomorrow is not to be carried out, because the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and the estimates of the Department of National Defence are, by their very nature, intimately related. After all, defence policy is really dependent on foreign policy, and for this reason changes in one affect the other. Recently we have noticed certain changes of policy in the Department of National Defence, such as the scrapping of the frigate program. There has been a great deal of talk in the press and other authoritative sources that further extensive cuts in defence equipment are being contemplated. This can only indicate one thing, and that is that our foreign policy, presumably in the field of NATO, is going to be altered as well. However, more of that in a moment.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out very well, apart from the general objectives of peace and good relations with other countries of the world, and of course protecting our national sovereignty, our foreign policy is based on four cornerstones-our relationship with NATO, with the United Nations, with the commonwealth, and our special relationship with the United States of America.
First, with respect to NATO. Year by year we have heard that a crisis exists in NATO. This year is no exception. Year by year the need of Canada for the North Atlantic treaty alliance has proven to be inescapable. NATO is Canada's principal alliance. Indeed, it is the principal alliance of all its members, including the United States, and for 15 years NATO has proven to be the shield of the west.
What is the nature of the present crisis? The London Economist for November 9 last said that basically the present crisis of confidence inside the alliance stems from a whispering campaign in France and in Germany against the willingness of the United States to shoulder a burden in the alliance commensurate with its power. The same magazine goes on to say that it is nonsense to imagine that the United States, because of its own difficulties or because of dissatisfaction with its allies, is going to pull out.
No United States speech in recent times was awaited with greater interest and read

with greater care by the allies of the United States than yesterday's speech to congress by President Johnson. That speech contained the general affirmation of the United States to "keep its commitments". Naturally the new president concerned himself immediately with domestic affairs. He dislikes NATO, but this omission cannot be given undue significance. There are voices in the United States, notably that of Senator Goldwater, that argue for building American strength at home rather than abroad. The members of NATO must think constantly about the provision and deployment of the armed forces at the service of the alliance. Canada has honoured her NATO commitments in the past and we hope Canada will continue to honour them in the future.
As I have already mentioned, the scrapping of the frigate program and certain other information we read in the press, which one cannot help but feel may have come from authoritative sources, leads one to wonder whether our commitments in this regard are going to be carried out. The planning of military requirements must be a task undertaken jointly by all members of the alliance. This is not something imposed upon the alliance by one or two members. Last May when NATO met in Ottawa the task assigned to the permanent organization in Paris was to study NATO's requirements and the sources available. This task has not, as yet, been completed.
I see the Minister of National Defence has now returned to the house. He addressed the Empire club in Toronto today and spoke on the subject of military strategy. This statement, I understand, was part of his speech, referring to the NATO ministerial meeting which we had here last May, in which he said that they would recall the decision taken, that the council undertake a comprehensive review of the interrelated questions of strategy, forces requirements and the resources available to meet them, in order to achieve a satisfactory balance between nuclear and conventional arms.
This is a very far reaching, sweeping program. Its implications, indeed ramifications, affect the whole scope and structure of western military capacity. Yet I recall, Mr. Chairman, that this happened at the NATO meeting at which, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, nothing was to be decided. This review to which I referred a moment ago was one for which we should have waited before bringing nuclear weapons on to Canadian soil. The result now seems to be that military policy is in some sort of nuclear strait-j acket, with all the eggs in one basket, so to speak. I suppose this may be why the frigates were cancelled. We could not afford both.
Supply-External Affairs
The next cornerstone of our foreign policy to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred is the United Nations. I should like to say immediately that I had the pleasure of visiting the United Nations recently as an observer for a while and having conversations with a number of the delegates there. What I heard there certainly indicated to me that the acquiring by Canada of nuclear warheads for the Bomarcs did not do this country a great deal of good, so far as the United Nations is concerned.
Nothing has been said publicly about this matter, at least not when I was there, but one certainly heard about it privately. It is the old story, that fitting nuclear warheads on the Bomarcs, considering what use they may be and their purpose, something like bows and arrows in the military context, was of very dubious value and was far outweighed by the loss of our influence at the United Nations in certain circumstances. It was said to me, "I see your government has now joined the nuclear club", and regardless of how one might argue that we really had not joined the nuclear club, that is what people elsewhere believe.
Another point about the United Nations to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has referred has to do with peacekeeping machinery. The Prime Minister also dealt with this in his address to the United Nations. This is a very excellent thing and something that I think we are all in favour of. As was suggested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his remarks this afternoon, plans are at present in the state of formulation as to what type of peacekeeping machinery we might have.
There are some suggestions I should like to make on the basis of my experience at the United Nations and I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will take them into consideration. Apart from the military commitments and the types of military forces that might be required, there are certain civilian facilities-I will not use the word "forces"-that might be planned now and kept on file with the secretary general. For instance, every emergency situation that arises in the world is different from the previous one. Just as the Congo was different from the Middle East, so may the next situation be entirely different. The political situation may be different. The geographical situation may be totally different. The type of United Nations personnel that may be required in such a situation can only be determined by the circumstances as the situation arises. However, a certain amount of planning can still be done in advance in order to have on hand certain types of civilian personnel that may

Supply-External Affairs be required in such an emergency. The countries concerned could submit lists of personnel with certain qualifications which could be kept on file with the secretary general as a sort of continuation of the experts bank which was introduced and accepted by the general assembly a couple of years ago.
As to military forces, each country could very well submit to the secretary general a list of military forces which they would be willing to contribute at a moment's notice, should an emergency arise. When an emergency does arise the secretary general would not be faced with the situation of having to telephone one country that he might consider suitable, asking that country, "Can you contribute items a, b and c," and having that country say, "We do not know; we will let you know in a week". Valuable time is lost in an emergency situation. If the various countries concerned that have contributed in the past, and some others, would supply the secretary general with lists of military equipment and personnel they could provide at a moment's notice, the secretary general, should an emergency situation arise, could look at the lists of Canada, Brazil and Sweden, for example, and see that they were prepared to contribute certain things that would be suitable. Thus valuable time could be saved.
I realize full well that, in view of certain problems the secretary general has with the Soviet union and France about paying for these operations, it might well be that it would cause the secretary general some embarrassment to have such lists deposited with him formally, and it might well be that some sort of semi or quasi-United Nations organization could be formed which would not be directly a part of the United Nations but which could make these arrangements. The president of this organization could keep lists which he could give to the secretary general, if necessary.
These are just some of the questions that will have to be considered by the government and by other governments concerned. I hope that the government pursues this matter. I understand they are going to be doing so and I wish them well because I think it is a very valuable type of work.
The next point is the question of our relationships with the commonwealth. The Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned how active the government was in supporting the commonwealth and referred to the great heritage and the fine relationships. I am glad to hear that, but I think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs might have gone a little farther and told us just what we are going to do to try to promote this situation


further. In the military field we have heard suggestions that we should have military forces available or in training to help the United Nations; but what about the commonwealth?
Last year India was attacked by China and eventually we were able to send some military equipment. India is still threatened, and what about the new state of Malaysia? It is certainly threatened by Indonesia. If something happens in either of these places, what are we going to do? Are we going to send equipment or troops, or both, to help our partners in the commonwealth?
I would hope this matter could be clarified and some idea given as to what we are going to do. I realize that each situation is different and may have to be decided according to the circumstances at the time, but I think it should be made clear to us in this debate what the intentions of the government are in this respect. Are we going to help our commonwealth brothers if they are attacked, or are we going to stand by? If we do help them, are we going to give them equipment only or equipment and men, and to what extent? These are things that I think will have to be considered very carefully.
Foreign policy, of course, should be very flexible and should keep up with the times and circumstances. In this regard it has been pointed out that the People's Republic of China is apparently intent on pursuing her aggressive course in the world. While it is quite true that the Soviet union apparently has decided to follow another course and perhaps try to achieve her objectives by other than military methods, the People's Republic of China has not. Since it seems to me that at the moment there is at least some lessening of tension between the Soviet bloc and the west I would suggest, in view of the behaviour of China, that perhaps we should direct our attention more to the Pacific at the moment. I would hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his colleagues would give very careful consideration to whether or not we should possibly become involved in some alliance in the Pacific. I think this matter should be looked into at the present time. In view of the lessening of tension between the west and the Soviet union and the constant pressure and increase of tension in the eastern part of the world, I think this is something which must be given the most careful consideration, if it has not already been given such consideration. There is no use trying to form alliances and make arrangements after the trouble starts. These things should be foreseen and the arrangements made in advance. I know that China is away across the Pacific, but today distance does not mean very much. I know that

Malaysia and India are far away also, but I think these things must be taken into consideration.
Then, there is the question of the extension of credit to the Soviet union and other iron curtain countries. In the last few years Canada has been very fortunate in trading with the Soviet union, red China and with other satellite nations of the Soviet union. This has been a very good thing for Canada. It has greatly helped our economy. There is no question about that. It has done another thing, in that it has done a great deal to break down the barriers which existed between the Soviet bloc and the western group. Trade is a great help in this regard. Certainly when I recall that payments had to be made in fairly short *order on the sales to China, the use of this foreign exchange may well have had a practical advantage in addition, inasmuch as China could not then use this foreign exchange for the purchase of war materials or for sending additional propaganda to South America. However, not only Canada but Britain and Germany have followed a course of issuing extensive credit to the Soviet union and related countries.
Recently in Paris I believe the United States suggested that these credits should not be extended past five years. As I understand it, this suggestion was met very coolly. It would not affect Canada anyway, as I understand it-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do I understand my friend to say that the United States recommended that credits be extended beyond five years?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No, not more than five years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In accordance with the Berne convention.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This suggestion was not too well received by the other countries, chiefly Britain and Germany, whom it would most affect. Now, I just mention this fact in passing. While I have pointed out that the advantages of trading with the communist nations are very great, I feel if there is going to be any extension in the future of credits to these countries, we should very carefully look into the long range results. Are we, in fact, by doing this, cutting down the credit that we could extend to the underdeveloped countries, which perhaps need them more? By extending these extensive credits to the Soviet union and related countries, are we perhaps permitting them to extend credits, a sort of chain reaction so to speak, to certain underdeveloped countries that they wish to penetrate politically? I think this is something that should be looked into carefully. I have no doubt it will be. I just mention it at this time
Supply-External Affairs in passing, because we do not want to be blinded by the very favourable results we have had from the trade up to now. We do not want to find out later, to our horror, that a number of things were happening that we did not realize. An example of this is the sale of scrap metal to Japan in 1938, about which we were very happy; but then later a lot of people had it thrown back at them at Hong Kong.
The last thing I should like to mention this evening is the threat to Canada's seat on the security council at the United Nations. This is a rather complex subject, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the committee will bear with me if I give one or two words of background material, because this is a type of thing that is not readily understood elsewhere than in the United Nations. After 1945, when there were approximately 48 countries in the United Nations, a gentleman's agreement was made concerning the non-permanent seats on the security council. As perhaps most people know, there are 11 seats on this council, five of which are permanent, namely the Soviet union, the United States, Britain, France and China. The other six are the non-permanent seats and members are elected, three at a time, for a two-year term.
Until recently, this so-called gentleman's agreement has been carried out. Under that agreement, the six non-permanent seats were divided as follows: The Latin American group of countries have two of them; the western European bloc-everything works in blocs of countries at the United Nations-one seat; eastern European countries, one seat-those are the Soviet bloc countries-the Middle East, one seat, those were the Arab countries generally, and the commonwealth, one seat. Since 1955 the membership of the United Nations has expanded to 111. As I recall-and that was the first year I was there-the present Secretary of State for External Affairs did a very good job at that time in making a package deal to bring in a number of new countries. After that, with the increase of the new countries in Asia and Africa, pressure became very great on the other countries to provide adequate representation on the security council to the new Afro-Asian countries.
The obvious thing was to expand the membership. However, the Soviet union has made it quite clear within the last week I understand, that it will veto any expansion of the security council until China has been admitted. As a result of the increased voting power of the new Asian and African countries, as I say, something has to give. Apparently what is going to give is the commonwealth seat. The projected arrangement which is being discussed, I understand, at the present

Supply-External Affairs time in New York is that the six seats would be divided as follows: Two to the Latin American countries; one to west Europe; one-half seat-that would be a one-year term- to eastern Europe, and to the Asian and African delegations, two and a half seats. As I have said, this half seat means a one-year term instead of a two-year term. The commonwealth seat would be eliminated.
I know this question has been brought up in this house on many occasions this session. Just recently, on November 20, the Prime Minister replied, as follows, to a question of mine in this regard, as reported on page 4963 of Hansard:
The principal aim of the Canadian delegation in these talks, and at meetings of the commonwealth group, has been to emphasize the importance of retaining the commonwealth seat. Pressure for enlargement has developed-
The first sentence I read is the cogent one. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the government has given up hope of retaining the commonwealth seat. I realize there has been very great pressure, and this seat may have to go. I recognize it is difficult and the pressure from the Asian and African countries is very great. Since they cannot enlarge the council, the redistribution of seats seems to be the alternative. I understand there have been suggestions made that since the commonwealth seat is going to go, Canada might find a seat with the Latin American countries or with the western European countries with whom we are dealing. Perhaps that has to be, I do not know. While I recognize the difficulties in connection with this problem, so far as I can see there has been no active, constructive work done at the United Nations to try to retain the commonwealth seat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit an interjection? I am sure he would not want this suggestion to go unnoticed. There is great activity in this connection at the United Nations, and has been now for some time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs say that. However, I was at the United Nations for some time, and I am not exactly unfamiliar with it, but that certainly was not my impression at all. I was going to suggest to the minister-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: There are some things one does not discuss on the hilltops, as my hon. friend knows.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I beg your pardon?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I was just observing that there are some matters that can be best handled without giving too much public attention to them.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am quite aware of that, and I have a number of acquaintances at the United Nations, who are not associated with the Canadian delegation, and from whom I was able to gather some of this information. I am naturally aware that these things are being discussed on all sides and I have tried to point out to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I know what he is up against in this matter. But instead of assuming the commonwealth seat is going to go, why not get out and do a real selling job? The Secretary of State for External Affairs did a wonderful job in 1955, against almost impossible odds, in bringing in all these new countries-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Chairman, I do not make the assumption the commonwealth seat is going to go, and I do not expect that will be the result in the immediate period to which my hon. friend is directing my attention.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is that immediate period?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Well, within a foreseeable period.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am very glad to hear this. It is my understanding this matter is going to be settled before the end of the present assembly, unless things have changed very much in the last 10 days or so. But some arrangement has to be made and I understand that is what the intention is.
If it is not possible to retain the commonwealth seat, under present circumstances we will not get a seat until the security council is enlarged by Russian permission. We cannot get a seat unless we go in with Latin America. They have 20 members and have two seats, and this would mean we would not have one for 10 or 11 years, which is not commensurate with the contribution we make to the United Nations. If we go in with the western European nations, there are about 14 of them and they have only one seat, which would mean we would have less chance still.
However, there is another course of action which the Secretary of State for External Affairs could follow. I hope he is right in his forecast; but if the commonwealth seat should go, then Australia is out in the cold, New Zealand is out in the cold and Canada is out in the cold. But there are also other countries such as Israel, Cyprus, and perhaps South Africa after its policy changes, and all these countries might be included in a block.

Perhaps we might get another group formed, before the security council is extended, which would be granted half a seat, or rather a seat on a one year term. After all, Canada and New Zealand territorially control a large amount of the resources of this planet, and I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have a pretty good case to sell in this regard.
I see my time is almost up, but in conclusion I would like to refer to a remark made by the minister. If I heard him correctly, he said there was no disposition in the United Nations at the present time to set up machinery for peacekeeping forces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I said was that there were not enough members in the United Nations who would subscribe at the present time to the proposition that there should be established a United Nations police force.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps that was a misunderstanding of mine. As I now understand him, he was not referring to some peacekeeping machinery, but to a peace force.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No, a police force.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Oh, a police force-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Which Canada would of course support.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As I understand it, the difference being between some sort of peacekeeping machinery, where lists of forces would be filed, and some sort of permanent police force, which is quite another thing. That clarifies it, so with that I conclude my remarks.


Mr. Haidasz:: I do not wish to hold up the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, but in view of the fact that this week end in Toronto a national convention coinciding with the tenth anniversary of the founding of the Canadian association of Polish expolitical prisoners will take place, I have been asked by representatives of that organization to raise my voice in this chamber and express my sympathy for their cause.
As hon. members know, there is draft legislation pending before the West German parliament providing compensation for victims of nazi persecution. This new draft of the German indemnification laws will be subject to scrutiny by both the upper and lower houses, and may therefore undergo changes before final adoption. I hope the appropriate officials of the Department of External Affairs, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will examine this draft legislation in order to determine whether and to what extent Canadian interests may be affected, and in what
Business of the House way they can protect the interests of Canadian citizens, now resident in Canada, who were victims of nazi persecution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I most certainly will examine it, and I may say I have been doing so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I see there are just a couple of minutes left and I had not intended to speak this evening. A number of us hope to have the opportunity to speak later, but I do want to support the remarks of the previous speaker with respect to the question of the victims of nazi persecution who are now Canadian citizens. I have had a number of them visit me in my office, and I have received documents from Bonn which clearly indicate that their just claims have not by any means been satisfied to date.
I raised the question in the house a week or so ago, and the Prime Minister was good enough to prepare a statement on the matter. In fact we understand that the government is keeping an eye on this situation, but I do urge that every effort be made to see these persons receive the fullest compensation. There are quite a number of them who have been entirely overlooked, whose claims under present law are not considered valid, and if the Canadian government does not take a fairly strong stand many of us in this group, and other members in the house, are afraid justice will not be done.
Time is running out, and I understand they are going to change the law in Germany. There is some question of amending it in a manner that will have some effect on the claims of the persons we are concerned with. I suggest this is an appropriate time for the Canadian government to use its influence with the government in West Germany, to make strong representations on behalf of these Canadian citizens so that the law, as amended, will include them and their valid and, in some cases, quite substantial claims.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being 10.30 p.m., shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if the acting house leader would confirm the arrangements for tomorrow and let us know what might happen on Monday?


Mr. Cardin:: Tomorrow it is proposed the house will take up interim supply, and when that is finished it is proposed to go on with the estimates of the Department of Mines

Business of the House and Technical Surveys. If they are completed before five o'clock, then the estimates of the Department of Public Works would be taken. At seven o'clock the Department of Industry is due to be taken up, and if that is completed before 10.30, then the Department of Public Works would be called upon again.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nothing for Monday?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: For Monday it will be announced tomorrow night.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty four minutes before eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.