1964-08-10

Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended at this time to make a statement on the critical events in Cyprus during the past few days. My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition was kind enough to indicate to me that he proposed to move the adjournment of the house in order to discuss the situation in Cyprus. I have discussed this matter with him from the point of view of procedure, and he concurs that I might at that time, if his motion is accepted, make the report that I would otherwise have made on motions with regard to the events of the last few days on that island. This is on the understanding, of course, that I would not on that account be denied the right to participate in the debate which would have been initiated by his motion. If this were the understanding of the house I think this might be a satisfactory way of dealing with the subject, which admittedly is of the greatest importance.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has set forth the circumstances, and certainly I would be the first to agree that after he makes a preliminary statement he would not be precluded from participating in the debate, provided the motion I intend to make is accepted by Your Honour.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PENSIONS


Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies, in English and in French, of the white paper on the Canada pension plan.


Some hon. Members:: At last.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread and general interest in the document
the Minister of National Health and Welfare has just tabled, I wonder whether it could be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of white paper above referred to, see appendix.]



FINANCE


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members may recall that on June 17 I made a report to the house regarding studies of the international monetary system and the position of the Canadian government. At that time I referred to a joint statement that would be issued by the ministers of ten countries later in the summer, at the same time that the annual report of the international monetary fund was released.
This joint ministerial statement was released at noon today in the capitals of the ten countries concerned, including Canada, together with a more detailed annex prepared by officials. I would like to table the joint ministerial statement and the annex, together with the relevant sections of the annual report of the international monetary fund. I shall hope to make another statement on the substance of these matters after the annual meeting of the international monetary fund, which takes place early next month.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Pritlie: 1.	What was the cost of operating the English language radio network of the C.B.C. in 1963?
2.	What amounts of money were received from the sale of advertising time on this network?
3.	What was the cost of operating the French language radio network of the C.B.C. in 1963?
4.	What amounts of money were received for the sale of advertising time on this network?

Questions


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Expenditures net of depreciation, $15,789,000.
2.	Gross advertising revenue, $1,542,000.
3.	Expenditures net of depreciation, $5,367,000.
4.	Gross advertising revenue, $1,154,000.


CANADIAN S.I.U. MEMBERS AT U.S. SCHOOL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Have members of the S.I.U. in Canada been sent to a school in the U.S. operated jointly by the S.I.U., the American shipping industry and the U.S. government to learn about matters such as financial management, contract interpretations, union democracy, etc., as reported in the Financial Times of June 22, 1964, and, if so, has the government approved of such a decision?
2.	Has the government any information to the effect that there is such a school and, if so, where is this school situated, by whom is it operated, how long has it been in existence, and who are its directors?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1. The government has not been called upon to take any action with respect to this matter.
2. None, other than that in addition to the jointly operated trade school for seamen, there is a program operated by the S.I.U. itself.


AMENDMENT OF ARDA AGREEMENTS
Mr. Mariineau: 1.	Does the government intend to amend the agreements with the provinces under ARDA and, if so, what are the proposed amendments?
2.	Does the government intend to transfer to the provinces the entire administration of the act?
3.	In the province of Quebec (a) how many rural development plans have been established and approved (b) what regions are affected by those plans and (c) of what nature is the proposed development in each case?
4.	With regard to each plan, what is the authorized amount of the federal contribution and of the provincial contributions?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1. While it is intended to make changes in these agreements with the provinces, discussions with provincial authorities have not yet been completed.
2. No.
3 and 4. The answer to question No. 1,344 made an order for return on July 27, 1964 provides the information requested.


consumers' advisory council


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the consumers' advisory council been appointed yet?
2.	If so, what are the names of the members of this council, and what are their backgrounds and experience?
3.	What are the functions and duties of the consumers' advisory council?
4.	What authority do they have, and to whom do they report?
5.	Will their reports be made public?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes.
2. Dr. M. Pernarowski, associate professor, faculty of pharmacy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. is a well recognized authority in the field of drugs and is interested in consumer problems.
Mrs. B. P. Marliss, Edmonton, Alberta, has done outstanding work on behalf of the Jewish women of Canada and has worked a great deal in consumer and women's organizations.
Dr. Edith Rowles, professor, college of home economics, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, has been very interested in women's institutes and 4H clubs and has had a great deal to do with the consumer division of the food and drug directorate and with consumer problems.
Mrs. W. Gilbert Weir, Winnipeg, Manitoba, is a member of the consumers association of Canada and has been otherwise interested in consumers' problems.
Dr. Barbara A. McLaren, dean, faculty of food sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, has worked closely over the years with the Department of National Health and Welfare on problems of nutrition.
Mrs. A. F. W. Plumptre, national president, consumers association of Canada, Ottawa, has devoted a great deal of time to consumer education and consumer wants. She is the outstanding person in this country in consumer activities. Her knowledge will be invaluable to this council.
Mrs. A. H. Zimmerman, Ottawa, is vice president of the Ottawa welfare council, a governor of Carleton University and a member of the board of children's aid society, she is a biochemist, has a vast knowledge of the welfare field and has always taken a prominent part in consumer activities.
Madame J. F. Pilon, Boucherville, Quebec, is a graduate of Laval University in science and is a part time lecturer in the Montreal diet dispensary and a consultant for the dairy food service bureau in Montreal. She is a


past president of the Montreal home economics society, has worked with the consumers association of Canada for many years and is a Quebec vice president of this organization.
Miss Huguette Plamondon, Montreal, Quebec, is the Quebec vice president of the Canadian Labour Congress and the field representative of the united packing-house food and allied workers union.
Madame Antonio Paradis, Ancienne Lorette, Quebec, has been interested in consumer work and in 1961 was vice president of the Mont-morency-Portneuf regional federation of the cercle des fermieres.
Madame Therese Casgrain, Montreal, Quebec, for many years, Madame Casgrain has been active in women's organizations in Quebec and was for some time a member of the dominion council of health.
Miss H. R. Neilson, director, school of household science, Macdonald college, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, has a broad knowledge of the field of foods and has served with the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. She has had four years war service and is a Member of the British Empire.
Mrs. V. W. G. Wilson, Montreal, Quebec, has worked a great deal with consumer organizations across Canada and is the past president of the Quebec English branch of the consumers association of Canada. She has had much to do with the home economics association, the consumers association of Canada and the Montreal council of women.
Miss Theresa McNeil, extension department, St. Francis Xavier University, Sydney, Nova Scotia, in her position with the extension department of this university has worked constantly with consumers over the years and has contributed a great deal to these organizations.
Mrs. John C. Crosbie, St. John's, Newfoundland has worked with consumer groups and women's organizations in Newfoundland for several years and is interested in food and drug problems.
3.	(a) To consider and advise the minister on such questions relating to the operation and administration of the Food and Drugs Act and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act as she may refer to the committee; and (b) to give consideration and advice to the minister on such matters relating to the operation of the Food and Drugs Act and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act from the point of view of consumer interest as the committee shall see fit.
Questions
4.	The committee was established with the approval of cabinet and will report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare through the deputy minister of national health.
5.	It is unlikely that the reports to the minister will be made public as a matter of routine but there may be occasions when certain matters are made public.


LEASING OF SPACE, BOURQUE BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Before communicating the intention to lease space in the Bourque memorial building in Ottawa prior to commencement of construction of such building, did the Department of Public Works ascertain whether the persons with whom they were negotiating in fact were the registered owners of the northeast comer of King Edward avenue and Rideau street?
2.	If so (a) in what name was the property registered when negotiations were being conducted (b) when did such persons acquire ownership (c) who were the persons who conducted the negotiations (d) did such persons have a solicitor and, if so, what was his name?
3.	If not (a) upon what principle did the department enter into negotiations to lease a building to be built in the future upon property which the prospective landlord did not own (b) is this "normal" practice of the department (c) why is this practice adopted?
4.	What architect drew the plans for this building?
5.	Did he have any assistance or co-operation from the Department of Public Works in preparing the plans and, if so, what precisely was the nature of such assistance or co-operation and during what months or other periods of time was such assistance or co-operation rendered?
6.	Was any solicitor, not employed in government service, retained by the government of Canada to assist in any way in respect of the government's actions regarding this building and, if so, what was his name and what duties did he perform?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes. The present owners of the Bourque memorial building advised the department that they were not the registered owners but that they controlled the property through options to purchase.
2.	(a) The names of the registered owners were not ascertained, at that time, (b) the present owners of the Bourque memorial building acquired ownership of the site on December 20, 1963 (c) Mr. E. Bourque conducted the negotiations on behalf of the present owners of the Bourque memorial building. (d) Mr. Robert Chevrier was introduced as solicitor for the owners.
3.	As the prospective landlord had an option on the property his right to its future use was not questioned. His development plans as shown by architectural drawings and outline

Questions
specifications indicated that he proposed to erect a building parts of which were suitable for crown purposes and as the terms of a lease were favourable, negotiations proceeded, (b) It is normal practice to negotiate with the person or persons who control the property on which the department desires rights, (c) To acquire the desired rights.
4.	G. E. Bemi and Associates, architects.
5.	No, but information to indicate the location and nature of the partitioning etc. required to suit the building to crown occupancy was given to the landlord so that the premises under lease could be prepared for that use.
6.	Yes. Mr. John D. Richard, barrister, was appointed May 19, 1964, to certify the title of the property.


LEASE OP SPACE IN BOURQUE BUILDING, OTTAWA   DISCUSSIONS WITH SOLICITORS
Mr. Aiken: 1.	With what solicitor or solicitors did the deputy minister of public works, the chief of legal services in the Department of Public Works or other officers of the Department of Public Works discuss the leasing of space in the city of Ottawa, by Immeubles Laurentien Realties Co. Limited?
2.	On what dates were such discussions held and to what purpose?
Hon. J. P. Deschaieleis (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Mr. Robert Chevrier.
2. Discussions were held on or about November 15, 1963, for the purpose of settling all the terms and conditions of the agreement to be entered into between Laurentien Realties Company Limited and the government of Canada.


* CHARTER OF &quot;CANUCK TRADER&quot;
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Under what circumstances and for what reasons did the government charter the Canuck Trader to replace the Eskimo on the summer supply runs to the Arctic as reported in the London Free Press of July 15, 1964?
2.	Who are its owners?
3.	To what trade union does the crew belong?
4.	Is the Canuck Trader capable of navigating through ice fields and is it equipped for Arctic duties; if so, what is this equipment?
5.	How long does the charter run?
6.	Was this charter put out for publio tender and, if not, for what reason?
7.	What is the government's policy on the chartering of vessels for summer Arctic supply runs?
8.	Are there any other vessels which have been chartered by the government for Arctic supply runs during the last 15 months and, if so (a) what ships are they (b) what is their registry (c) who are the owners?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The
contract for the use of the vessel Eskimo having expired, two proposals from possible suppliers were evaluated and the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder.
2.	Canuk Lines Limited, Montreal.
3.	The department is not aware of any specific union arrangements.
4.	The Canuk Trader is not built to icebreaking or ice strengthened standards but has successfully operated in the Arctic as far north as the Arctic circle during the past four years.
5.	One round trip to Resolute Bay.
6.	Answered by (1) above.
7.	Normally the department proceeds by tender call on an annual basis as required, although in some cases the contracts have been awarded for three years where certainty of supply and stability of rates were involved.
8.	The following are vessels presently on charter to the department this summer:
Vessel
M.V. J. Edouard Simard M.V. Jos. Simard M.V. Willowbranch S.S. Federal Pioneer M.V. Charny M.V. Sea Transport
Owner	Registry
Branch Lines	Ltd.	Sorel,	P.Q.Branch Lines	Ltd.	Sorel,	P.Q.Branch Lines	Ltd.	Sorel,	P.Q.Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. Ltd. Montreal, P.Q. The Charterers-Clarke Steamship Co. Ltd. Montreal, P.Q. Hall Corporation Ltd.	Toronto, Ont.


WHARF REPAIRS, WALLACE, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to effect repairs to the old section of the wharf at Wallace, Nova Scotia and, if so, will these tenders be effected as the result of a public tender or by invitation bids?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the repairs and when will the repairs be effected?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. An item for repairs to the approach section of the wharf at Wallace will be considered for the department's 1965-66 estimates. On the basis of present cost estimates, public tenders would be called for the work.
2. The estimated cost of these repairs is $40,000. The work is proposed for next summer, subject to the item being approved.


* BILINGUAL ELEVATOR OPERATORS, CENTRE BLOCK
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Under what authority did the Minister of Public Works issue his order that elevator operators in the centre block of the parliament buildings shall hereafter be bilingual?
2.	What authority or custom gives the minister the right to set policy on hiring within the parliament buildings?
3.	What tests of bilingualism are to be applied in such employment?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Under the authority of the Public Works Act which assigns to the minister the management, charge and direction of the public buildings and the heating, maintenance and keeping in repair of the government buildings at the seat of government.
2.	The minister has supplied the staff to operate the elevators in the parliament buildings for over 40 years at least.
3.	Elevator operators would be required to satisfy the department that they can understand and reply in both languages during the course of their duties as elevator operators. May I add that this policy will apply to future appointments.


PARENT, QUE.  REMOVAL EXPENSES OF RADAR STATION EMPLOYEES
Mr. Laprise: Has the Department of Labour taken steps to ensure that Parent district (Quebec) be declared a designated area in order that removal expenses may be paid to persons who are not covered by the regulations of the Department of National Defence and who are compelled to work in another locality following the closing of the radar station?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Parent district falls largely within the La Tuque local office area of the national employment service and is a designated development area. Accordingly, new industry is eligible for the capital depreciation incentives which apply to designated areas. There is however no provision for the payment of removal expenses to persons in designated development areas. Such provision is available only for areas where there is an exceptionally large labour surplus. There has been no request for this type of assistance from the Parent district.


GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF DC-8 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Maiher: Does the government plan to purchase one or possibly two DC-8 aircraft for the use of government officials and other persons during official visits and, if so, what is the estimated cost of these aircraft?
Questions


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisler of National Defence):: The provision of adequate air transport facilities is a matter under consideration by the government and any decision in this regard would be a question of government policy to be announced in the usual manner.


ARDA AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	Has the government completed negotiations with each of the ten provinces for renewal of the "Master" ARDA agreement?
2.	How many of these agreements have been
signed?
3.	Are any changes contemplated in these agreements?
4.	What were the percentages of the federal contribution under the old agreement for each of the
provinces?
5.	What are the percentages of the federal contribution proposed for each of the provinces under the new agreement?


Bruce Silas Beer: 1. No.
2.	None.
3.	Yes, a number of changes are contemplated.
4.	The percentages of the federal contribution under the old agreement for each of the provinces are as follows:
Percentages
Newfoundland	3.2
Prince Edward Island	2.7
Nova Scotia	6.5
New Brunswick	6.6
Quebec	20.9
Ontario	22.0
Manitoba	7.1
Saskatchewan	12.7
Alberta	11.1
British Columbia	7.2
5.	The allocation of proposed percentages of the federal contribution under the new agreement has not yet been negotiated with the provinces.


ASSISTANCE FOR FLOUR MILL EMPLOYEES, SASKATOON
Mrs. Jones: 1.	Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce received a letter from the united packing house workers of America, district 10 of Saskatoon, expressing their vital concern that every effort be made toward negotiating contracts providing that a proportion of the export wheat sold on long term credit be milled flour?
2.	What steps can the minister announce which will help alleviate the problem facing flour mill employees in Saskatoon?

Orders for Returns


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes, I have received the letter referred to, and I have already replied to it.
2. Competition for wheat markets is extremely keen and under these conditions it would not be appropriate for Canada to attempt to force a country to purchase flour instead of wheat just because credit facilities had been extended. Most of these countries already have adequate milling facilities of their own.
There have been many countries in recent years, former customers for Canada's flour, who have undertaken the construction of their own mills. There is nothing that Canada can do to halt this trend, except to ensure that our wheat finds a market in such countries, and this we are doing. Such construction has, however, reduced the level of Canadian flour exports and intensified world competition for remaining flour markets.
The government and the officials of my department take every opportunity to draw to the attention of potential foreign buyers the quality and character of Canadian flour. In the recent long term agreements signed with the U.S.S.R., Bulgaria and Hungary, during the 1963-64 crop year, buyers agreed to the option of taking wheat over the next three years in the form of grain, or in the form of flour.
As reported in the house on Tuesday, July 28, (see Hansard page 6063) I had a delegation from the millers association meet with me in my office to review the outlook for the industry and examine the possibility of providing flour to underdeveloped countries through foreign aid. It is, however, not likely that there will be foreign orders for flour of the same magnitude as last year. Nevertheless, the government continues to extend a maximum effort to increase flour sales abroad.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the number and location of (a) military (b) air force (c) naval establishments shut down or reduced in operation in the past 12 months?
2.	What is the number and location of each of the above proposed to be removed from service in the next 12 months?
Return tabled.


CHARTER SERVICE BY ONTARIO CENTRAL AIRLINES LTD.
Mr. Fisher: Has any federal government agency such as the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration made any arrangements for charter service by Ontario Central Airlines Limited since April 22, 1963 and, if so (a) what was the purpose and cost of such service (b) do any federal cabinet ministers representing a constituency in Ontario hold shares in the said company and, if so, which ministers?
Return tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and without going into any arguments at this moment, I wish to make a motion seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr).
I ask leave to move the adjournment of this house under the provisions of standing order 26 in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the most recent turn of events in Cyprus which seriously threatens the peace of the world and gravely endangers the solidarity of the NATO alliance, and also places in a critical situation our Canadian contingent with the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus because of the vagueness of the terms of reference for that force and the lack of the authority necessary for it to act effectively.
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) r
Mr. Speaker, the government desires to support this motion, which deals with a matter of extreme importance and, indeed, urgency. Because of the delicacy and indeed the dangers of the situation alluded to by my right hon. friend, I know that all hon. members will wish to deal with the question with a special sense of responsibility. This applies particularly, of course, to the spokesmen for the government, who will be bound on this occasion not only by the limits of security but will also say nothing, as I am sure all hon. members would wish, which would prejudice the success of the United Nations operations or the very delicate negotiations which are now going on at the United Nations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we too feel that the terms of this motion come

within standing order 26, and we hope Your Honour will allow it.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we likewise join in this request. We believe the international situation is such that it must be brought in the fullest possible detail to the attention of this house.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we are glad to support the request of the other parties for an opportunity to discuss the problem of Cyprus.
Everyone will recall that when the resolution asking for the sending of a Canadian contingent to Cyprus was brought before the house, hon. members were not given the time and the opportunity to study and analyse thoroughly the question of Canada's participation in the Cyprus operation. Members of our party especially had considered that such a matter had been decided too hurriedly.
The adoption of this motion will enable us to examine the question more thoroughly.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario, has asked leave to move the adjournment of the house under the provisions of standing order No. 26 in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the most recent turn of events in Cyprus which seriously threatens the peace of the world and gravely endangers the solidarity of the NATO alliance, and also places in a critical situation our Canadian contingent with the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus because of the vagueness of the terms of reference for that force and lack of the authority necessary for it to act effectively.
In my opinion this meets all the requirements of standing order No. 26 with regard to the urgency of debate. I therefore put the motion as follows:
That this house do now adjourn.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on motions I propose to take advantage of the initiative of my right hon. friend to make a report to the house in connection with the critical events which began on Friday last on Cyprus.
The situation in Cyprus began to deteriorate rapidly on August 6 apparently as the result of a Greek Cypriot drive to close off the access to the sea and reinforcements from
Cyprus Crisis
Turkey for the Turkish-Cypriot community in the Mansoura-Kokkina area of northwest Cyprus. Incidentally, in that area Canadian UN troops have not participated. They are located in another area. In this particular instance the contingent of Sweden played a notable part.
As has been the case now for some months, and of course since the most recent developments, the government has been in close touch with events in Cyprus, with developments at the United Nations, with the action taken by the NATO council, with developments in Ankara and Athens and, of course, particularly with our United States and United Kingdom friends.
The Canadian high commissioner in Nicosia has reported fully on the events as they took place in Cyprus, and I am in receipt of a report from him as of two hours ago. I may say that he has been in constant touch with the government of Cyprus during these and other days.
On August 9 a message was delivered to Archbishop Makarios from the Prime Minister of Canada expressing concern at the developments which were taking place, and urging that the fighting on the island cease and that use be made of the United Nations forces to supervise a cease fire.
We are also, of course, in close touch with the United Nations authorities in respect of the Canadian force on the island. My colleague the Minister of National Defence has taken all necessary steps, as he announced yesterday, to ensure that the Canadian troops are prepared for any contingency; but, as he said, any decision in that regard is one that rests with the United Nations. Action with respect to the deployment of our troops would, of course, follow decisions by the United Nations.
Our ambassador in that body has been in close contact with the secretary general himself and with senior United Nations officials, and I spoke this morning by telephone with the secretary general. The security council met on the night of August 8 and later passed a resolution, the text of which I should like to table now, appealing for a cease fire. A further meeting of the security council was called for today at the instance of two of the parties, but 1 understand the government of Greece has withdrawn its application for this meeting. It is not now probable that a meeting will take place today. A further meeting of the security council may possibly take place tomorrow.

Cyprus Crisis
I attach the greatest importance to the effectiveness of action by the security council, bringing to bear as it does the pressure of world opinion in favour of immediate action to prevent further violence on Cyprus. I am sure the house will share with me the view that if it were not for the fact that the security council met and that there was a United Nations which made such action possible, the events of the last two days might not have taken the more favourable turn that has since developed.
Naturally I have likewise been in touch with members of the NATO council, because two of the countries involved are members of the alliance. Yesterday the Prime Minister telephoned the President of the United States and he later had a further call on behalf of the President from the secretary of state. I myself had a conversation later in the afternoon with Mr. Rusk.
The Canadian charge d'affaires in Athens was received by the foreign minister of Greece on August 9, and here in Ottawa I asked the ambassador for Greece and the Turkish charge d'affaires to come and see me. I made known to them Canadian views with regard to this situation and asked both of them to urge on their governments the need to take every precaution to avoid a continuation of the hostilities that had begun. Although I had sent a message to the foreign ministers of Greece and Turkey, 1 thought it well to supplement this by conversations with the heads of their missions in Ottawa.
Also on Friday I addressed a message to the foreign minister of Turkey asking him in the name of the government of Canada to take every step to cause a cessation of hostilities, and particularly to hold back the air force operations of his government. I added to that a call yesterday directly to Ankara to Mr. Erkin, the foreign minister, explaining our concern at the way in which the situation was developing.
Throughout this crisis we have, of course, been in constant touch with the United States and the United Kingdom as well as the authorities of other governments. On a number of occasions we have been in close consultation with the state department of the United States, directly and through our ambassador in Washington. As I mentioned, this was supplemented by the important call that the Prime Minister made to the President. We have exchanged information with the president of Mexico and with the prime ministers of Nigeria and India.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
I also spoke to the French ambassador in Ottawa and addressed a message, as foreign minister for Canada, to the French foreign minister. The United Arab Republic ambassador called on me on Sunday. This morning I was in close touch again with the Canadian missions concerned. I have also had the advice of Mr. Barrette, the Canadian ambassador to Greece, who is in Ottawa and will shortly be returning to his post in Athens.
The reason for our concern is obvious to the house. The continuation of hostilities in Cyprus could have the gravest consequences for the effectiveness of the United Nations and its peace keeping and mediation roles. The solidarity of NATO as a defence alliance is also being strained. It can be understood, therefore, that the government has felt obliged, particularly in view of the large contingent of Canadian soldiers now serving on the island, to make certain that we were at all times fully informed about the situation and that our views, as the crisis developed, were made known quickly and effectively.
We have had three major objectives during these negotiations; to help in bringing a halt to the hostilities that have so far taken place; to preserve and if necessary strengthen the authority of the United Nations to assist in resolving the crisis, and to prevent the spread of the conflict, keeping in mind all the while the need for action which would, if possible, lead toward a longer term solution of the pressures which produced the crises.
Yesterday afternoon the security council accepted a resolution, put forward by the United States and supported by the United Kingdom, asking for a cease fire. The spokesman for the government of Turkey accepted this resolution, as did the representative of Greece and, with some reservation, the government of Archbishop Makarios. There is a cease fire on the island as of the last moment when I had a chance for a full report. A formal acceptance by the Greek Cypriot government of the cease fire has been received by the secretary general; and while the formal acceptance of the cease fire has not yet been received from the government of Turkey I was advised, just before coming into the house, by the United Nations that this was expected momentarily.
Mr. Speaker, no effort was spared by the government of Canada during these past few days to support strongly action that was being taken in many capitals of the world to avoid the possibility of a war or an extension of the conflict that had already begun on the island of Cyprus. I need not empha-

size our concern in the matter, a concern I know is shared by every member of the house and by everyone in Canada. It is a concern that arises not only because we want to see peace on the island, and not only because we believe the United Nations has an important role to play, but because we realize that an expansion of the war in that particular theatre would have the gravest consequences for the peace of the world.
It is with this thought in mind that I make this preliminary report on the efforts of the government during the past few days with regard to this critical situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I begin by associating myself with the sentiments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the need of everything being done that our country can do, that the United Nations can do, that members of NATO and of the commonwealth can do to bring about a cease fire on the island of Cyprus, and ultimately by mediation to bring about a settlement of the differences that have caused so much internecine strife in the past few months.
The minister has set out in some detail what the government of Canada has endeavoured to do in recent days to bring about a solution of this problem. When events like this grave and dangerous to the peace of the world take place governments have resting on them grave responsibilities. Recently I read a book "The Last Ten Days", dealing with the ten days prior to August 4, 1914, from which one can only conclude that if the nations then in disagreement had pressed forward their efforts toward peace, instead of more or less surrendering to what many regarded as inevitable, the first great world war might have been avoided. We meet today in circumstances serious to the preservation of peace, serious because of their danger to the potential spread of war.
Unless a solution of the problem in Cyprus is attained we face a weakening of the United Nations as a world organization. We face as well the undermining or at least the weakening of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an organization that rests its eastern flank upon the assurance that Turkey and Greece shall, as members of that organization, carry out their responsibilities. Indeed, without them NATO could scarcely survive.
We hope there will be a cease fire that will be effective. The minister has advised that since passage of the resolution of the United Nations security council on Saturday
Cyprus Crisis
there has been no resumption of attacks by Turkish forces, and that there is relative quiet on the island.
The basic problems as I see them today are these; to bring a check to the increasing hostility between the Turks and the Greeks and, also of great importance, to prevent the communists from exploiting this critical situation in Cyprus to their own ends. I do not intend to say anything which would indicate any division of opinion in this house among its members, or anything which would weaken the unity of our country at this time. We are placed in a position where the situation in Cyprus challenges, as I said a moment ago, the unity of NATO and the continuance in strength of the United Nations.
However, I do wish to refer to one matter which has been raised on more than one occasion in this house by Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and that is the question of the empowering of our troops as members of the United Nations force to discharge the responsibilities which were placed upon them. The question has been asked in all parts of the western world, how has it come about that the United Nations has not been able to bring an end to the continued hostilities on this island? Is it because for reasons which have not yet been explained the power of the United Nations force was not that requisite to discharge those responsibilities?
Over the week end various influential world newspapers have dealt with these questions and I think, generally speaking, the viewpoint has been that of the New York Times as expressed in yesterday's edition:
Three months to the day after the British began patrolling Cyprus, the United Nations force, with a strong British contingent, went into operation.
It has been tied down to restrictions, without the authority of search and disarm, and able to move about only with the permission of the Greek Cypriots. Often under fire from both sides, some of the Scandinavian contingents have threatened to leave unless they are given some authority.
Over and over again this point is driven home, the need for the force under the United Nations to have an authority which it has not possessed heretofore.
I have before me pages from Hansard which record from week to week the raising of this point by the official opposition. Too often, I am sorry to say, it was brushed aside. You will recall, sir, that I stated on one occasion that 4,000 Greek troops had landed surreptitiously upon the island of Cyprus; that the United Nations force was almost emasculated by lack of power to prevent landings, lack of power to disarm and, above all, by

Cyprus Crisis
lack of power to move freely. I could quote numerous occasions upon which this has been referred to, but I will restrict myself to one or two. On June 9 I asked whether there was any imminent danger of an outbreak of war. I also asked:
Has the Canadian government, as a government which has made a great contribution to Cyprus in the peace keeping force, made clear to President Makarios its strong feelings at his reported statement-and I am going to keep within the limits of parliamentary speech-that he would be calling upon the U.S.S.R., or would welcome the U.S.S.R., to settle a matter which is particularly dangerous at this time?
The answer given by the minister of defence was uncertain. In general it was the answer given again by the minister on the same day when he stated "The department has tried to take all possible contingencies into consideration".
On June 26 I again raised this question and again the government's answer was uncertain. I do not want to say it was evasive, but if I were to use that expression it would describe the degree to which parliament was denied information. It was on July 2 that I referred to the Greek troops landing. The minister's answer on that occasion was:
I cannot say whether the press reports mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition are exactly in accordance with the facts. There are reasons for believing, however, that there have been importations of one kind or another. Beyond that I do not wish to go at this time.
On July 3, when this question was again raised, the minister had this to say:
The hon. gentlemen-
-he was referring to me-
-yesterday gave a figure of some 4,000. X could find no justification whatever for that figure. The information I already have obviously implies that there have been importations of arms and of bodies, and we have taken strong exception to this.
Again there was uncertainty. However, if importations were taking place clandestinely, as was subsequently established, surely that was the time to have heeded the views of the opposition, in the interests of Canadian troops serving in the United Nations force, that they should be empowered to prevent such things taking place.
On July 7, in reply to a further question, the minister expressed the same view:
We have studied the allegation and the figure mentioned. This question has been investigated by the United Nations itself. The United Nations authorities do not agree with the figure.
All these answers would indicate that the figures I placed before the house-and I do not place these matters before this house
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
loosely in my position of responsibility-had exaggerated the danger created and the number of people landed in Cyprus from Greece. Subsequent events have certainly upheld these fears about the perilous situation created by the troops which did, in fact, infiltrate.
So, on it went. Week after week questions which we asked in this regard were brushed aside. On July 13 I again referred to some 4,000 Greek troops clandestinely landed in Cyprus, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
With regard to the first part of the question there are, as I said last week, different assessments of the infiltrations, and these are now being examined by the United Nations. Until such time as the final assessment has been made I think it is not desirable that I should go beyond what I have already indicated in the house.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that this was a matter serious and dangerous to the preservation of peace there and, more particularly as a Canadian, detrimental to the discharge by the Canadian United Nations [DOT] forces of their responsibility. We had more than an academic interest. I am not sure of the figures, but on the basis of the best computation I can make this country has expended $75 million to $90 million on peace keeping operations and the like since the United Nations was set up. This is far and beyond the contribution that could be expected under normal circumstances from a country of Canada's population; far and beyond what would have been anticipated as our share of the forces in Cyprus. Eleven hundred men were provided. When forces in those numbers are provided there is a responsibility on the part of the government, representing all the people of Canada, to assure that those forces shall not have their efforts rendered nugatory by the people in Cyprus.
So throughout the picture the answer was generally the same, "All is well. There is no reason to become aroused. Peace, to all intents and purposes, has been established in Cyprus". Again, with regard to requests that were made for the enlargement of the powers of the force, the same answers were given. Finally on July 23 I said, among other things:
Some weeks ago it was suggested by members of the opposition that rules should be promulgated which would empower the United Nations force in Cyprus to prevent what has actually occurred since, namely incursions by troops from outside the country.
Then I went on to ask whether new rules would be established. Again the answer was,

in effect, "All is well. Be not disturbed; the government is giving the fullest attention to these matters. Phone calls are being made, statesmen in other countries are being interviewed". Those actions, estimable as they are, do not provide the power to a United Nations force to discharge its responsibilities. Now we find that, in part due to the failure to insist on extending the powers of the United Nations forces, several thousand men have infiltrated the island. There was the attack the other day by the Turkish air force from without; justified by Turkey on the ground that it was an operation to preserve the Turkish minority. This would not have taken place, as I see it, if the United Nations force had had the authority to act. But here we have forces supplied by Canada, the expenses paid by Canada-an extraordinarily good force, the Royal 22nd, with a proud tradition-as helpless as if they were non-existent because they lack the power to act. That is not overstating it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is overstating it.


John George Diefenbaker: The Scandinavian countries made it perfectly clear that they were not going to have their forces pushed around and placed in peril. They threatened that they were going to leave unless powers were given to their forces to carry out the mandate they had received.
I would like to have further information. The minister is going to speak again, and I would like him to take the house into his confidence. There is no question of security here. I do not want to see security in any way invaded, but there is no question of security in answering this question. Why were these extra powers not granted? They were asked for by the various forces. Why were they not granted? For too long we have simply been lulled into a false sense of security regarding this matter by explanations, by words of self praise by the government. The time has come now to give this house the facts. I repeat what I said earlier. We joined with the government in complete unity to bring about the dispatch of this force. We want the government to assure that the force Canada sent and has there shall have the necessary power to do that for which it was sent and for which we as Canadians pay.
The Minister of National Defence went to Cyprus. He went; he saw; he returned. But the house received nothing but a general summary of the situation, no more than the country received last night when the minister
Cyprus Crisis
appeared on television. We want information; not information that in any way will undermine security, but information that will remove the smokescreen of silence with which we have been faced throughout the past three months.
The Minister of National Defence smiles. I would ask any hon. member in this house to read the records of Hansard. His smiles do not appear there; if they did, there would at least be some information that has not been vouchsafed to the house up to the present time. His statement last night, if I took it down correctly, has become almost a shibboleth; the words were "All eventualities have been taken into account". That is what we have heard for the past three months. That is the type of answer that we in this house have received after questioning, but we have not had that information to which we are entitled and which I hope on this occasion we will get.
What a terrible situation it is, involving our two allies, Greece and Turkey. I think the house as a whole will commend Prime Minister Papandreou of Greece for his outspoken statement the other day when he reminded Archbishop Makarios of the need of preserving and maintaining the peace. They are our two allies. Can we dare permit them to fight one another with weapons supplied to strengthen defence against communist aggression? That is how serious is the problem.
What can we do now, Mr. Speaker? It is not for me on this occasion to suggest alternatives; that is too late. But in addition to the fact that the United Nations forces have not the necessary authority, I believe it can be said that their numbers are also too small. I suggest that some of the other nations in the United Nations, even now, make available further troops. If up to three weeks ago the number which infiltrated was 4,000 in addition to the forces already in the island, 7,000 United Nations troops are insufficient to carry out their responsibilities to end the ground fighting and to keep both sides from strengthening themselves with arms and trained men imported into the country.
What has been done in that connection? We should like to have the necessary information. As I said at the beginning, the danger to the peace of the world which would be occasioned by two of our leading allies going to war would be frightful in its import with regard to the hope of containing communism.
What of the United Nations? Is it becoming weaker? Within the last few days the U.S.S.R. has indicated, through Mr. Khrushchev, that if

Cyprus Crisis
the U.S.S.R. is required to pay its assessments it will withdraw from the United Nations. That I do not believe. I think that is the usual bluff, similar to that which he endeavoured to practise over the Berlin wall. But if perchance it is not, where will the United Nations be if it adopts or permits two standards, one for the powerful and the other for the rest of the United Nations? I think what is happening today is a great challenge and threat to the peace keeping capacity of the United Nations. The United Nations force in Cyprus dare not fail. I have seen references to the possibility that the Canadian contingent might be withdrawn. Such a withdrawal would be one of the major defeats of the United Nations-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -and it would take years for that organization to recover. In saying that I again emphasize the fact that just setting up United Nations forces and giving them a name and a blue beret will not keep the peace. There must be an authority given by the UN to enable that force properly to carry out its responsibilities.
The next thing, as I see it-and, as I would have expected, the government has acted in this regard-is to expedite the mediation of the immediate differences in order to bring about a cease fire which will be one in fact as in name. The next difficulty will be-this is the larger one-to reach a long time solution acceptable to Greece and to Turkey and to the people of Cyprus. In this regard, sir, many alternatives have been offered. The meetings in Geneva have as yet, as far as the members of this house know, achieved little or nothing. Makarios is not represented there, as I understand it. Unless he is represented any tentative arrangements have no effect.
All of this is looking into the future. Our immediate responsibility is to do our part to assure an end to strife on the island. It is hard for a Canadian to understand how on such a small island it is possible to develop such bitterness as exists between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots. Certainly the constitution that was accepted by them, in light of the events since its adoption, has proven itself inoperative. We have heard, Mr. Speaker, a lot about constitutions in our country, but I am sure none of us would like to see a constitution adopted under which a minority of 20 per cent can determine by its veto what shall be the laws of the country. The minority must be protected and assured

of its rights so long as the constitution is in effect. The minority must not be subject to being stricken down by the majority. The minority must not be permitted to be thirsted into submission, as is alleged by the residents of one of the major towns in the northwestern part of Cyprus. They can be protected only by a United Nations force that is a force in fact as well as in name.
We as Canadians sent our forces to preserve the peace, and to emasculate them by denying them the power to do so has been proven unjustified by events. Even now I impress on the government the need for doing everything it can do, which it has denied has been necessary for three long months; namely, to place this United Nations force in a position where it can do that which it is required to do, and do it effectively. We can trust our forces not to act in a belligerent manner even though they have these extra powers. We cannot trust them to be able to do their job unless they have the tools. Give them the tools and they will do it.
That has been the request from the opposition for all these months. Now in the light of events we can only say that whatever the obstacles may have been to giving them that power, they should be removed and it should be made clear to the United Nations that Canada, willing and desiring to help in the course of international peace, does not approve of placing her forces in a position of vulnerability without the power to act when it is necessary to do so.
I cannot conceive of any hope for peace in Cyprus, in sending out troops as a police force, yet wearing blinkers so they cannot see what is going on. They are denied the opportunity of moving in the places where their authority is being undermined. The situation is as simple as that.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by expressing the hope that this house will continue to give its support to peace keeping operations in the interests of world peace. Canadians are beginning to ask this question. Why should we as Canadians take unto ourselves not only the provision of the forces but the payment of the forces, yet when it comes to giving them the normal authority they should have, it is not given. We want this force to carry out its responsibilities. We do not want our forces subjected to the humiliation of being pushed around because they lack the authority to do those things that are necessary. Above all we want them to have that freedom of movement which we are informed they have but in fact they have not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in his opening remarks the Leader of the Opposition said that in times like these governments carry grave responsibilities. Of this we are all aware. I think it might also be said that during a week end such as we have just had the government in what it has tried to do has acted not just on its own behalf, not just on behalf of the party that happens to be in power, but on behalf of Canada as a whole. Likewise, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition in precipitating this debate this afternoon did so in order that parliament as a whole might speak with respect to this very important question.
It is my hope that when this debate is over, however long it may last, its main note will turn out to be that Canada strongly supports what the United Nations is doing in trying to achieve peace in Cyprus and in so doing to save the peace of the world. It is inevitable that in a debate such as this questions will be asked, some of them critical. I hope those questions will be answered. It is inevitable that criticisms will be expressed but, as I have already said, I hope that the crowning note of this debate will be one of Canada's support for the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, throughout yesterday the people of this country, in common with people throughout the world, were concerned lest we be engulfed in the flames of a third world war. We were very alarmed when one of the bulletins during the day used that very phrase as coming from the mouth of Archbishop Maka-rios. We are, of course, relieved that the tension seems to have subsided a bit, and I think it is well for us to remind ourselves of the outstanding fact of the situation which surely is this. The reason the tension has subsided, the reason this crisis has not already broken into a world war, is that the United Nations has been able to deal with the situation. It has been able to do so two ways. On the one hand it has had its peace keeping force, whatever its limitations may have been, on the island of Cyprus since last March. Even though that force may have been too small to cope with the much larger numbers of armed persons on the island, whether regulars or guerrillas, and even though it may not have had the kind of authority the Leader of the Opposition feels it should have had, I suggest that its presence there during the months since March of this year has played a part in preventing the outbreak of the kind of hostilities that could have flared into a world war.
The other way in which the United Nations has been able to deal with this situation, as has already been referred to by the Secretary
Cyprus Crisis
of State for External Affairs, has arisen from the fact that the security council has been in
session.
Mr. Speaker, we are often disappointed at the slowness of progress in achieving the peace of the world. We are often disappointed in the United Nations, but I think it has to be said that every time a threat of war does arise that it is a tremendous thrill to be able to turn on the radio or the television and see representatives of the potential antagonists sitting around a table, perhaps calling each other names but, nevertheless, discussing the matter before war breaks out. I think we can take pride as members of the human race in that we have made at least this much progress and do have the United Nations in existence to deal with situations of this kind.
It does seem to me that as Canadians we should be very proud of the fact that we are participating in both of these aspects of the United Nations activities in the present crisis. We have our men in the peace keeping force in Cyprus and although we are not at the moment a member of the security council of the United Nations we have our permanent representative there and, as has been reported to us today, our government officials have been keeping in close touch with the situation.
I think that in any assessment of this situation we should be conscious of how difficult the operation in Cyprus is. We knew that before we agreed on March 13 to send our troops as part of the United Nations peace keeping force. I appreciate the feelings of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) when he speaks of the fact, as he spelled it out in his motion, that he feels the forces there do not have sufficient authority to act effectively. But I suggest we should also remind ourselves of the fact that it was necessary to get the consent of the government of Cyprus in order to place the United Nations peace keeping forces on that island. If the United Nations had to engage in a certain amount of bargaining as to what the terms of reference would be to get the forces on the island, let us be grateful we have got them there. If the United Nations had held out for terms of reference to which the government of Cyprus would not agree and as a result had had to choose between shooting its way on to the island or not going there at all, I suggest that by now the crises we have had might well have flared into full scale war.
I urge that we appreciate the difficulties involved in this whole operation. Peace keep-

Cyprus Crisis
ing is something different from war itself. The troops that one sends into a peace keeping operation must of necessity have different terms of reference, and this whole situation is quite different, for example, from the United Nations effort in Korea a few years ago. While I agree that every effort should he made to get the United Nations to win, if possible, the most effective terms of reference for the peace keeping force in Cyprus, I do feel that we should not be indulging today in a castigation of the United Nations for having failed to get the kind of terms of reference that some people feel they should have. That is the reason I sounded the note I did at the beginning of my remarks. My feeling is that the world is grateful that the United Nations has been able to do as much as it has, and I think that the word today from Canada's parliament should be one of support for the world organization.
The Leader of the Opposition said something else today with which, like his words which I quoted earlier, I am in complete agreement. He said with respect to the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus that it dare not fail. He is absolutely right. This peace keeping operation must succeed. What is involved in this peace keeping operation is not only the achievement of a real cease fire on the island of Cyprus and hence the avoidance of world war at this time, but also the success of the whole idea of peace keeping operations on the part of nations of the world on a collective basis.
We Canadians have a right to be proud of the part we have played in just about all the peace keeping operations of the United Nations and I think we have a right to be proud of the part we have played in Cyprus. I agree that other nations should have joined with us. I agree that the amount of the cost we are called upon to pay is disproportionate. But, Mr. Speaker, if others were not prepared to share the burden, if it had to be borne by Canada, this is a chapter in our history of which we can be proud. We tend to boast of the glories of our history in one war after another in the past. I suggest that operations of this kind that are aimed at turning the threat of war into peace, that are aimed at finding ways to maintain the peace of the world, are the kind of operations of which we can be most proud.
So, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the opportunity for this debate which has been provided by the motion made by the Leader of the Opposition. We were happy to agree to the suggestion that the Secretary of State for 
External Affairs (Mr. Martin) might be permitted to make an initial statement and that later he might answer the questions put to him. We trust he will take advantage of that opportunity. But when all is said and done it is our hope that on behalf of the Canadian people Canada's parliament will say today: We rejoice in what the United Nations has been able to do in the past few months, we rejoice in what it was able to do over the week end, and we pledge to that world organization our full and wholehearted support.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the unanimous opinion of all members of the house that the situation in Cyprus is most critical. Not only is it critical as far as peace on that island and relationships between Turkey and Greece are concerned, it is also critical in relation to peace in the Middle East and in the entire world. Therefore it is good that at this time we should have the opportunity to discuss the situation in Cyprus in more detail than would otherwise be allowed and, indeed, the whole position of the United Nations and peace keeping arrangements throughout the world.
I think it is also the general opinion of most members of the house that the United Nations is far from that ideal organization we would like to see in view of the over-all world picture. I along with others have often been very critical of the United Nations and the part it can play effectively in maintaining peace and permitting the peaceful development throughout the world to go forward as it should. However, as I have watched the situation in Cyprus right up to the present time I believe we must admit that the cease fire arranged yesterday was arranged only because the United Nations was in existence. No one else could have done it and I admit that any cease fire permitting more satisfactory negotiations for a permanent peace can only be brought about through the United Nations. Perhaps even the United Nations will not be able to do it, but certainly no other organization has any chance of doing it. Therefore in this situation I believe it is essential for us to maintain the same vigilant and diligent attitude toward events on Cyprus but at the same time recognize facts as they are, principal among these being that the United Nations deserves and must have our support now.
The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has been very critical of the fact that the United Nations really does not

have any teeth and thus does not have any authority to take effective action to keep events from happening such as have happened in the last few days. But we must realize that the United Nations cannot force itself upon anybody. A peace keeping operation of the United Nations, such as we are presently participating in, can only take place with the assent of those responsible for government in the areas concerned.
We all admit that our troops are handicapped in doing the job they would like to do and as it should be done, but the reason they do not have the authority is not due to the United Nations. It is because the government of Cyprus has refused to give them this authority or let them assume it. Unless you move a United Nations force in by sheer force of arms which, after all, is not the function of a peace keeping force, there is no alternative but for it to operate on the basis which the force on Cyprus is operating.
The leader of the official opposition has also been rather critical of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), and I do not intend to plead the latter's case in any way at all. In fact, for a number of months after he assumed office I found myself wondering why he never got up and really got going on some of the things he used to talk about, and which Canada has an opportunity to do. But in relation to this instance concerning Cyprus it seems to me everything that was possible to do has been done. In fact, as I read the press and hear the reports from overseas, it seems that it was due to the leadership Canada gave that as much was done as has been done.
We can turn our minds back to March 13. If it had not been for the insistence of Canada, if the United Nations had not been prodded into action, if forceful action had not been taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself in going to New York and attending the United Nations, the peace keeping force would not have been brought into existence and we would be in the middle of a war right now. While we have regrets about the difficult situation in which our peace keeping soldiers find themselves, let us remember that if it had not been for the initiative Canada took in seeing to it that the peace keeping forces got over there, we might well be in the middle of a world war. In fact the ultimatum Turkey gave on that eventful Thursday morning, March 12, which resulted in the precipitation of definite United Nations action, was a point far closer to war than most of us
Cyprus Crisis
recall or may have been aware of at the time. I am sure if our forces had not gone over, even though their authority was limited, that ultimatum would have been acted upon and would have brought us into a far greater crisis than we are in at present.
Something else which is essential in a situation such as we face today, a situation we could well face at any time in southeast Asia, and which could even blow up in Africa, is that we must maintain as cooperative an attitude as possible in these matters, in order that we can present a united front and not let partisan things come between our own image and the force which we can contribute in playing that special role which is Canada's in situations like this.
Therefore I feel that even though the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not given us all the information we would have liked to have, in many cases it has been because he has been unable to give it, or because it has not been in the best interests of what the United Nations has been trying to do. I have found myself very frustrated during the last three or four weeks when we became aware that the Greek Cypriots were moving military equipment into Cyprus and that a build-up for deliberate military action was taking place. Yet I found myself having to agree with many of the statements that were given in this house, simply because there was no other action that could be taken, short of armed intervention.
I also believe we tend to lose sight of the fact that for the past three weeks at least negotiations have been going on in Geneva, and that behind the scenes all possible action has been taken. It is not only the United Nations mediator who has played a leading part in these negotiations, but also the representatives of the two nations that can have positive influence in the situation, Great Britain and the United States. I am speaking of Lord Hood and Dean Acheson.
We must not minimize the critical situation that confronts us, but at the same time I am sure all of us admit that the United Nations has done as effective a job as it could have on Cyprus, under what are probably the most difficult circumstances it has ever had to face in trying to set up a peace keeping operation. We must also face facts as they relate to the situation in Cyprus itself.
I find some reason for optimism today in this situation in that Russia, in replying to Turkey regarding the alleged attacks by its air force yesterday, has taken upon itself, to

Cyprus Crisis
warn Makarios himself and the Greek Cypriot government of what might happen if they continue on as they have been doing. Likewise it is of some encouragement to note that the Greek government has not given its wholehearted support to the Greek Cypriot government on the island, as it might well have done.
Today we have learned that for the past week or so no arms or military equipment have arrived on Cyprus from Greece. One of the things Greece must answer for is the fact that it had a very major hand in permitting 3,000 or 4,000 people to land on Cyprus several weeks ago, a point which was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. But in this immediate instance at least, Greece is realizing there is a limit beyond which she cannot go unless she becomes swamped in a world war from which she could not benefit, due to the superior military might of Turkey and the attitude other NATO countries would be bound to take if such a conflagration should actually arise.
This brings us back once more to Cyprus, and I think the focal point of the current problem there is this man Makarios, Archbishop Makarios, who is to blame for what has been taking place in Cyprus, and the fact that the United Nations forces there do not have any more authority than what they have presently is something that must be laid right at his feet.
One of the disturbing elements that centre around the leader of the Greek Cypriot government is the type of men with whom he has surrounded himself. One of these is the young man, Nicos Sampson, a former guerilla gunner, who has great influence on policy so far as the government is concerned. Another is General George Grivas, who commanded the Greek Cypriot guerillas in the fighting that took place in the days prior to independence. Just what part Grivas is playing and what connections he had, or still maintains, with the Greek government, and what he is doing in Cyprus, are questions which I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will propose to the United Nations as being important to determine.
Another man who I think is very dangerous-and this brings us to another aspect of the Cyprus situation-is Dr. Vasos Lys-sarides, a medical doctor who is probably the most radical of all the political extremists on the island, a professed communist and a member of the communist group in the Cyprus house of representatives. Unless people such

as these have pressure brought to bear upon them so that they realize the danger they are creating by their extremist attitude there cannot be any hope of a permanent solution in Cyprus short of intervention by force. I am sure that in the negotiations which have been going on in the past few weeks all these things have been taken into consideration. On the other hand, we are now reaching a point where the cease fire which was arranged yesterday could blow up at any moment and we might find ourselves in extreme difficulties in consequence.
I take a certain amount of confidence in statements such as the one made by the former commander of the United Nations force, General Gyani, when he said the United Nations had done the maximum possible. He said this some weeks ago when he turned over the command of the United Nations force to his successor. 1 think it is essential we should realize, also, that in this Cyprus situation there are other forces at play, besides those inherent in the difficult situation on the island itself. I am not sure whether or not this has been verified, but certainly much of the military equipment which has poured into Cyprus in the last few days has not originated in Greece but has originated in other countries in the Middle East which, for their own advantage, are playing this situation up with all the political opportunism of which they are capable.
We have no alternative but to admit that we have given the United Nations peace keeping machinery one of the most difficult assignments it has ever undertaken. We are facing a situation which is more explosive and more threatening to world peace than even the situation in southeast Asia. At this time the only hope we have of maintaining a cease fire and reaching some kind of settlement is through the United Nations. I would assure the secretary of state, therefore, as he continues to play an aggressive role in this affair, that he has our support. I do so because I think he is aware of what is involved in these problems, and also because I believe there is no alternative. So, though we wish to be kept informed to the fullest possible extent, we are bound to agree that those who have the responsibility in this situation must be trusted to use their best intelligence and act in all cases with integrity.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, today, the newspapers as well as radio and t.v. brought us news about the crisis in Cyprus. We were told that American-built

Turkish jet aircraft which formed part of the NATO forces' establishment were attacking Cyprus. In addition, we were informed that Greek jet aircraft, also American-built, were getting ready to defend the Greek Cypriots against United States-made jets belonging to Turkey. At the same time, the possibility was mentioned that an American squadron might take up position between the two groups with American-built United States aircraft, still against troops or planes which are part of NATO.
I believe it would be a good thing to start asking ourselves questions about the weapons used to wage war or spread trouble in that area: Greece, Turkey and Cyprus.
It is all very well and perhaps admirable for an American delegate to the UN to call for a cease fire but, in my opinion, the United States should first stop providing weapons to those who open fire; that might be the best way to obtain a cease fire.
There are questions which should be asked concerning the trouble in that part of the world. Mention is being made of the powers of the forces, including the Canadian forces, which are operating in Cyprus under the United Nations. But now, in Cyprus, we see armed fighters, and guerillas. The United Nations troops cannot even disarm them. New weapons are even permitted to come into Cyprus. In that case, what is the United Nations peace force doing in Cyprus if it cannot even disarm the fighters.
No government in the world would accept that within the limits of its territory, there be armed troops and guerillas without trying to disarm them. And yet Archbishop Makarios' Cypriot government is refused the right to do so. At this time, on Cyprus there are, guerillas and rebel troops. The government is attempting to disarm them. Archbishop Makarios' elected government is a democratic government like any government in the world or rather, like many other governments in the world. The government, representing the interests and the majority of the people, is not to have even the privilege of disarming guerillas and rebel troops on its own territory.
When the Cyprus elected government attempts to disarm rebels and guerrillas on its own territory, another country, Turkey, sends airplanes to drop bombs over Cyprus. That is beyond me.
When there were United Nations troops in the Congo, there was also the government of Katanga headed by Mr. Tshombe, a government elected by the people and also a democratic government, but which did not 20220-417
Cyprus Crisis
comply with the decisions of the central authority. That did not prevent the United Nations troops from taking up arms to help the central government to bring to reason another regional government, that of Mr. Tshombe. Then the United Nations forces acted.
Today, in Cyprus, it is not a question of a government which has armed forces, but a question of rebel bands, armed individuals united to fight the duly elected authority. And the United Nations forces are not doing any-think to help the existing government to restore peace on that island.
It is enough to make one wonder what is going on. When the same thing happens in Canada-when a band of rebels start throwing bombs and blowing up mail boxes and buildings, the government immediately calls all the armed forces, the R.C.M.P., the provincial police, the city police. No time is lost in rendering those rebels harmless by putting them behind bars. But when the same thing happens in Cyprus, nothing is done. You are not entitled to disarm the rebels and, not only that, the chief of the Cyprus government is blamed for trying to do it. The United Nations troops are not allowed to do it.
You will surely agree with me that such a situation is not altogether normal. The Cyprus government is not to be allowed to take the means required to prevent the rebels from killing and looting. The Cypriot government is not to take steps to establish peace. United Nations troops are sent to Cyprus without the authority to restore peace in that country. On the contrary, the leader of the government is even blamed when he takes measures in order to restore peace in his country. There is surely something abnormal in that part of the world.
However, the situation exists, and it is essential to understand it fully. If the people are not satisfied with the present government, they only have to vote against it. No election is expected in the near future, but in the meantime, it is the existing authority in Cyprus. If the United Nations want to send a peace keeping force to Cyprus, it must be to help the government of Cyprus so long as it behaves properly. If the authority misbehaves, it is up to the Cypriots to see to it; but in this case, most Cypriots support the government in office.
However, that problem is found in other countries. That problem exists not only in Cyprus but in the United States, our southern neighbour. In Cyprus, there is a problem between Greek and Turkish Cypriots; in the

Cyprus Crisis
United States, it is between whites and blacks. We witnessed similar happenings right at our borders when armed bands went through cities during the night, sacking and looting. The police restored order. The same problem exists in Belgium between Walloons and Flemish, just as that quarrel between whites and blacks in the United States. Ireland went through the same thing and today there is Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. A solution was found.
History repeats itself continuously. The problem exists since we have been trying to pile up various ethnic groups in one country. It has never worked out. A solution must be found.
Several solutions may come up. First of all, it is inhuman and pagan to say: Let them fight against one another and when there are no more on one side, there will be peace for the other. It is a solution but certainly not the right one.
Another solution would be to try and convince the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to come to terms and reach a sort of friendly understanding. Is it possible to persuade them? Those who are familiar with the situation may have made efforts along that line but, up until now, they have not been successful.
A third solution would be to partition the island, each group being restricted to a designated territory. That might solve the problem and then again it might not.
At any rate, it is not by letting things go on like this or by using a peace force which cannot move and which is powerless that the problem will be solved. On the contrary, appropriate steps must be taken to settle that conflict. It is not by providing weapons or by allowing the infiltration of men and weapons that the problem will be settled.
Mr. Speaker, we must get to the core of the situation. There are solutions to the problem. An identical problem has been settled between the state of Israel and the United Arab Republic. A peace force was sent over there and, today, there are fewer incidents; United Nations efforts have been successful. So, why not do likewise in Cyprus?
Today, war is taking place because of failure to take the means necessary to prevent it. The situation is getting worse all the time. Therefore, proper steps should be taken and Canada should no longer be asked if it could supply weapons, equipment and money. For what purpose? To twiddle our thumbs in Cyprus? To be prohibited from doing anything?
[Mr. GrSgoireJ
The government should take the necessary steps to settle the problem or our troops should be withdrawn from the island. Let us take appropriate measures to settle the problem and cease to act as mere spectators witnessing a fight between airplanes which, on both sides, are made in the United States.
Let us take required means or let us withdraw. At least, they would cease laughing at us, as it is the case in Cyprus at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the right hon. gentleman that I think his initiative today has been a useful one. I want him to know that I believe we are all agreed in the common purpose that attends the operation of the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus. I welcome the criticisms that have been made, which I believe are largely the product of understandable frustration in this very difficult situation. I may be pardoned, perhaps, as the minister who has had the closest association with this problem for some months now, along with my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), if I say that I myself have not been free from some of the frustrations, and certainly some of the anxieties, which we all share.
I have stated a number of times in this house that it would not be helpful, in my judgment, for me as the Secretary of State for External Affairs to assess blame in the developing situation in Cyprus. Canada has no special interests in the eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus is a fellow member of the commonwealth, now wracked by a bitter communal dispute. Greece and Turkey are our NATO allies and both enjoy strategic positions on NATO's southeast flank. A falling out between them is much to be regretted. In so far as Cyprus is concerned I hope there can be a closer understanding between these two countries.
The Canadian contingent, as I see it, in this island can only be helpful in maintaining peace if the people there believe that Canada is there for one purpose only, and that is, as a member of the United Nations force, to assist in preserving order or something approximating order. That is why, among other reasons, it has not been possible for me from time to time in answer to questions in this house-and I do not complain about this-to give the kind of response which may have been sought, anticipated or desired. I have had to bear in mind a number of considerations. One of them certainly was that

nothing I would say should in any way cause any harm to come to any member of the Canadian force in the United Nations body or, for that matter, to the United Nations force as a whole. While it is not always possible for a foreign minister to explain the reasons for the generality of his language or for what may seem to be an evasion, I hope in the time I have held this difficult assignment I have given increasing evidence of my desire to be as objective in the prosecution of this task as I possibly can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: While I do not propose to take sides on particular aspects of this dispute, that being the general responsibility that is left with the mediator under the security council resolution of March 4, I should think we would generally agree that there must be, in any settlement that ensues, certain basic elements. These would, I am sure, include a more workable constitutional arrangement than that set out in the 1961 constitution of Cyprus; suitable guarantees for the Turkish minority in such fields as language, education, religion and the administration of justice; and an arrangement which might go some way to meet Turkey's concern that the situation in Cyprus should not develop in such way as to present a threat to its security. These are considerations which I am sure those engaged in negotiations in the United Nations and elsewhere will bear in mind. I am sure they will be considered elementary in the very difficult assignment which the distinguished Finnish diplomat is carrying out as the mediator. He has exclusive authority to provide a solution under the terms of the security council resolution.
Canada has participated, Mr. Speaker, in every peace keeping force established by the United Nations, but one. Canada is also taking part in the three international control commissions in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos. We have, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, an enviable reputation in this area, one which reflects not the point of view of any political party in this house but the consensus of the Canadian parliament, and I believe, that of the people of this country.
We may ask ourselves the question: Why did we agree to participate in this difficult operation? Why did the United Nations intervene in Cyprus, an island of 600,000 people made up of two communities, the Turkish Cypriot community comprising roughly 20 20220-417J
Cyprus Crisis
per cent of the population, and the Greek Cypriot community representing the majority? Both have deep attachments, both historically and at present, to two NATO countries, Greece and Turkey. Why should Canada join in trying to provide stability and peace on this little island? This is a question which many people in these days of difficulty have asked themselves. Our response has been given in the speech of the right hon. gentleman and in those made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). I also well remember that, in the speech which the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) made several months ago when this force was established, we found the raison d'etre for our participation in the United Nations force in Cyprus.


Mr. Churchill:: What is that reason?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reason was, as the hon. gentleman for Lapointe said, because it was felt that in this interdependent period there was no other way of providing for peace except through the collective effort of the United Nations. While he did not reaffirm that today, his statement on that occasion is one which I think he would still want to maintain.
Now, Mr. Speaker, why did we intervene at that time? It was because there was an appeal from the parties, admittedly on different grounds. There was an appeal from Greece, Turkey and even the government of Cyprus to the United Nations for assistance in restoring peace in Cyprus between the warring communities. There was also a threat of Turkish invasion. The United Kingdom sought urgent United Nations assistance. Its troop resources were overstrained and under severe pressure in trying to keep the peace. It will be remembered that last January there was talk of a commonwealth peace force for Cyprus. There was discussion of a NATO peace force for Cyprus. We in Canada took the position, as we told the British prime minister and his foreign minister when they were here, that while we regarded our responsibilities both to the commonwealth and to NATO as vital, in the event of a peace keeping force for Cyprus we believed that there must in any event be some link with the United Nations, and we made it clear we would prefer a United Nations operation.
What, Mr. Speaker, was the alternative at that time? The alternative was an intensification of the intercommunal strife and probably

Cyprus Crisis
Turkish invasion, followed by Greek intervention and widening hostilities in the eastern Mediterranean. The United Nations in the face of this had an obligation to try to maintain the peace, even though the financial resources of the United Nations, I regret to say, are sadly limited. However a number of countries, believing in international peace machinery- and Canada was among these-agreed to form a United Nations force long before one was established, and others agreed to help to finance it. I well remember on March 12 being in the city of London fulfilling a speaking engagement and receiving a call from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), suggesting that I should go at once to the United Nations and confer with the secretary general. We had, three weeks previously, given an indication of our willingness to participate in an international peace force, but no progress was being made with the formation of such a body. There would be no international force merely with Canada and one of the coguarantor countries participating. There would have to be at least one other country. No other country had at that point come forward to indicate its willingness to participate in the peace force.
Then while I was engaged in conferring with the secretary general I received a message, which clearly indicated that, but for the action taken by this parliament the next day, and but for the agreements made that night, we might well have had a war in this particular sector. That is why I find it difficult from time to time to understand the criticisms-I am not speaking of this house-which are levelled at the decision of the United Nations to intervene in the way it has through this peace keeping operation on the island of Cyprus.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are many facets in this whole problem. First of all, there is the fact that while this is a peace keeping operation involving the United Nations, it has very important implications for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is our main defensive arrangement in this interdependent nuclear world. We know perfectly well that if there were to be any serious involvement between Turkey and Greece, two countries in the alliance representing this Mediterranean area, it would be a very serious matter for NATO itself, let alone for the peace of the world. It was because of this that the government instructed me to take an active role at the NATO ministerial meeting, impressing upon Greece and Turkey our concern at their involvement, under-

standing, as we did, the reasons why each of them would feel they had some special relationship with one of the two communities on the island.
I would recall to this house, the statement by the secretary of state for the United States, Mr. Rusk, when during that meeting, as later reported and confirmed by him when he said that war between Turkey and Greece in this matter was unthinkable for NATO. No more solemn words I think could have been uttered by the secretary of state for the United States on this particular occasion.
After this meeting we were able to get assurances from these two countries that they would exercise every moderating influence they could on their two communities in Cyprus. The secretary general of NATO, then Mr. Stikker, was assigned the responsibility of a watching brief over the situation. Somewhat later, it will be recalled, the situation began to deteriorate causing the President of the United States to ask the prime minister of Greece, Mr. Papandreou, and Mr. Inonu, head of the government of Turkey, to come to Washington and discuss the matter with him. At that time the government, because of its concern for any involvement by these two countries, accepted my recommendation that I should see both Mr. Papandreou and Mr. Inonu. I again renewed the plea, and then with a special reason, that they should exercise every care and moderation so as not to exacerbate a situation involving not only the peace of Cyprus, and the integrity and unity of NATO, but one which could very well set in motion a chain of events that could have destructive and dangerous global consequences.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question for clarification? Could he include in his report the approximate times when these meetings occurred which were of such great importance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The second meeting was about a month after the NATO ministerial meeting.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What was the date of that meeting?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
John George Diefenbaker: What does the hon. gentleman mean by "one quarter"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I refer to a buildup from one of the countries.


John George Diefenbaker: From which one?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already indicated the name of the country.
I refer to this incident to show that we felt it was our obligation to inform the secretary general of the situation, and that we had reasons to believe that notwithstanding denials there was a build-up of arms and of soldiers contrary to the spirit and the agreement, or the consensus we had reached elsewhere, in respect to the involvement of these two countries. I may give an example of a difficulty in which I found myself in that regard. At that moment it was suggested in a foreign press that I had indicated there was a build-up, and the suggestion was made in one country or the other that Canada took a prejudiced position with regard to either Greece or Turkey. I think I have been able to satisfy the governments of Greece and Turkey that, notwithstanding what we felt we had to say about this build-up, this could not in any way be interpreted as meaning we favoured one side or another, or that we were proposing any particular solution, because we were not.
Just to show the position facing the government I was greatly concerned for some time that this allegation of partisanship would be
Cyprus Crisis
reflected in the treatment that would be accorded to the Canadian contingent in Cyprus and to the United Nations force in general. I sincerely hope it is now clear that the position we felt we had to take in warning of the build-up has not and will not in any way prejudice the position of our men or the United Nations force itself.
Some will say, what has the United Nations force done? The question could be asked concerning almost any peace keeping operation. What did the United Nations force do in Gaza? What has it done in the Congo? What is it doing in Yemen? What is it doing in Kashmir? I think it is clear that, first of all, if the force had not been established we might have been faced then with an invasion and the possibility of a war, which might well have expanded and engulfed us all.
I do not want to minimize the serious situation which has arisen in Cyprus or the difficulties with which the United Nations force has been faced in carrying out its assignments. I think the record clearly shows, and in this I support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus has made a contribution of great value to the maintenance of stability on the island and to world peace. I remind this house of what Colonel Amy, the Canadian contingent commander, said yesterday that the Swedish contingent was at that very moment saving the lives of hundreds of people in the Man-soura-Kokkina area in the northwest portion of Cyprus, just as Canadians in other days since the force was established have saved human lives on the island.
I may tell the house that if the United Nations were now to give any indication of intention to withdraw there would be the strongest pressure, I am sure, on the part of the three governments involved urging that this would be a regrettable and undesirable course of action.
When the United Nations force in Cyprus was established in March there was, as I say, a very real risk of Turkish invasion and this risk reoccurred a few weeks later. I am not exaggerating when I say that the presence of the United Nations force in Cyprus during the last few months has been one of the factors in reducing a real risk of international war in the eastern Mediterranean that would have shattered the peace, struck a blow to the United Nations and done irreparable harm to NATO.
The United Nations peace keeping effort has likewise during these four months pre-

Cyprus Crisis
vented the resumption of intercommunal hostilities and bloodshed on a wide scale. There was considerable destruction and death over the past few days, but during the period since the force was established, fighting has been only sporadic. As a result the number of fatalities has been lower than was the case before. There have been many incidents, of course, but until the last few days these have been of a relatively minor nature. Even in the most recent outbreak of fighting in the Kokkina-Mansoura area the United Nations peace keeping force has played a valuable role in arranging for cease fires in many localities-I am not speaking now about the general cease fire-and in the evacuation of women and children from the port of Man-soura. Were it not for the presence of the United Nations peace keeping forces in Cyprus, I venture to predict that the hostilities would not have been confined to one area as they have been in effect, but that the whole of Cyprus itself might be aflame today.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question? Is he in a position to advise the house whether or not there was an air raid today on Cyprus by the Greek air force? Has he any word in that connection and would he let the house know?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This morning it was rumoured-this situation has been the source of many rumours-that there had been another Turkish air raid, notwithstanding the passage of the cease fire resolution in the security council. This was denied by the government of Turkey. It is significant that although the government of Greece had joined with the government of Cyprus in asking for a meeting of the security council, the government of Greece has withdrawn its request on the ground that it was satisfied with the explanation. While there has been some sporadic fighting on the island, referred to as not of a serious character, to the best of the information that has come to me, as of the time I began to speak, this rumour was inaccurate.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Would the minister accept another question on that point? Has the minister any information that the government of Turkey has lodged a strong protest with the government of Greece over an alleged raid by the Greek air force on Kokkina?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not catch the question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Has the minister any information whether or not the government of Turkey

has lodged a very strong protest with the Greek government as at noon today over an alleged raid by the Greek air force on the town of Kokkina?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was no raid. The Greek air force did apparently fly over the island and over this particular area. I believe a protest was lodged by the government of Turkey.
There were a number of questions asked, proper questions, and it is my responsibility to answer them. First of all, it was asked in this debate, and it has also been implied in questions from time to time: Why was the force not given greater power than was given to it as a result of the decision of the security council on the 13th of March? First of all, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, the United Nations has no authority to go and impose itself in any country. We have not reached that stage of international acceptance where the United Nations can automatically assume jurisdiction within the sphere of authority of any particular country. Article II (7) of the charter of the United Nations presupposes that the United Nations is a body of sovereign states. So the United Nations, in this instance as in others, could enter into the peace keeping operation in Cyprus only with the consent of and on terms agreed to by the sovereign power, which is the government of Cyprus headed by Archbishop Makarios.
When the secretary general of the United Nations entered into negotiations with regard to the force he had to meet in part conditions laid down by the government of Cyprus. This accounts in some respects for the limited authority given the United Nations force. But I want to say that generally speaking the authority given the force in Cyprus is comparable to the authority given the forces in the very difficult Congo operation which lasted four years.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was no disarming of the population in the Congo, except in one case where there was an insurrection in the province of Katanga. In those desperate days the United Nations did authorize the use of force designed to disarm the special gendarmerie of Katanga province. But throughout the whole operation the United Nations did not seek to disarm, not because this was not in itself a good thing to do but because the United Nations force in the Congo, while larger than that in Cyprus, was not sufficiently large to enable it

to do everything which perfection might have demanded.
When the United Nations forces went into Cyprus there were 40,000 people there with arms. That was the fact. Mr. Hugh Foot, the former governor of Cyprus, has said that he was not able under the British regime to maintain peace on the island with some 30,000 armed personnel.
The secretary general of the UN is responsible for the authority of the UN force on Cyprus and not this parliament. I say that because once this parliament commits its troops to the United Nations, as it has done, the responsibility, subject to consultation, is one that rests with the secretary general of the United Nations. I may say that I have not only argued about this matter with the secretary general but I have discussed it with General Gyani in Geneva, and with the other participating countries. Some have said: Can we not negotiate for further powers, but these could not be obtained in part because it was not possible to get the agreement of the government of Cyprus.
The right hon. gentleman says, and quite properly-I am not criticizing him-that this force is too small. In one sense this is true. If there had been a larger United Nations force on the island on Friday afternoon I am sure that the United Nations might have been able to take strong paramilitary or police action. But the force is under 7,000. The force, under the very terms of agreement with the sovereign power, is limited to 7,000. Even if we wanted to increase it, there is no way by which that force can be increased except with the consent of the authority in charge of the government of the island.
That is a situation that is not unique to Cyprus. It prevailed in every other peace keeping operation. Let us not forget that the relatively successful UN peace keeping operation in the Gaza strip was fraught with all kinds of difficulties when it was established ten years ago. It is now acclaimed by the U.A.R., by Israel and by everyone, but let us not forget the difficulties when it was established. Its numbers were limited, just as are the numbers of the United Nations forces in so many of these peace keeping operations.
We would have liked to see many countries participate in the Cyprus force. Some other countries were prepared to come in. Two other European countries were prepared to come in and participate in this force, but they could not because there were objections by the gov-
Cyprus Crisis
emment of the island; and then some countries could not pay their way. One Latin American country-


John George Diefenbaker: Which were those two countries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were Norway and Holland, and the other country I am thinking of was Brazil. In the case of the latter country its financial situation was such, it was argued, that it could not pay its way, as Canada and Ireland are doing. So we had a double block, the reluctance or the refusal of the sovereign power to accept some countries and the reluctance of the sovereign power to increase some of the terms of reference of the force.
I welcome the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman, and I may say it is one that has greatly interested the Prime Minister to see if it is not possible to expand the force if necessary and if the developing situation on the island warrants this. But there again we will be subject to the limitations that arise in a negotiation between one authority that has the power and another that is prepared to render its services, as is the United Nations in this case.
Then someone asks, "Why has the United Nations force not ended the war in Cyprus?" This was one of the questions put forward today, perhaps rhetorically. Well, this is asking a United Nations body to do something no one has been able to do in the course of human history. I hope the time will come when, on the international level, there will be an authority that will enable peace and order to be kept, just as it is being kept today within our respective countries.
There has been a suggestion that from time to time I did not answer some questions, and I think in some instances this is true, but I did this not because I did not want to take this house into my confidence, but because I felt there were proper reasons for taking that particular course. Some information has not been given to parliament, but I say to my hon. friends-not because I am looking for sympathy; I am not; that this is a heavy responsibility which I unreservedly accept. I know I have the good will of the house. There is no parliament of any participating country that has had as much discussion- the record will show this-and has received as much information on this subject as has been the case following interrogations and responses in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Cyprus Crisis


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend quite rightly asked why are we in Canada spending $75 million-if that is the correct figure-on peace keeping. It is a large sum of money; but I have no hesitation, and I am sure my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) would join with me, in justifying this kind of expenditure on the part of the Canadian people for the establishment of peaceful conditions in our time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so that there will be no mistake about that, it was asked not in the form of a question as if to indicate I had views to the contrary. When we were in office we followed that course in the fullest assistance in the Congo, which was given full approval by the house. I asked, having contributed that amount of money to peace keeping, should we not have some say in regard to the powers to be exercised by the troops which we furnish?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to create the impression that my right hon. friend did not agree with these expenditures. Of course the fact that he did not pull our troops out of the Gaza strip or out of other peace keeping operations is certainly an answer in itself; but I put the question rhetorically, and I am putting it rhetorically to the Canadian people. I say this is an expense that I am sure we do not regret having accepted. Some day the judgment of our contemporaries and of those who follow will not be disadvantageous to the reputation of present day Canada for having undertaken this particular responsibility.
My right hon. friend says that because we have taken this action, surely we are entitled to some say, and of course we are. I have made this known to the secretary general from time to time, and he has never failed to acknowledge our right to make suggestions to him. I can tell my right hon. friend and members of the house that there have been continuous consultations with the secretary general, with his officers, both those on the 38th floor of the United Nations building, and with his commander and his colleagues in Cyprus itself, in which we put forward our views on particular courses of action.
It is asked, why did we ourselves undertake to pay the full cost of a peace keeping operation in Cyprus? If we had not done that there would not likely have been any peace keeping force in Cyprus. That is the reason.

On March 12 when I discussed this matter with the secretary general, he said "I have no money", and I told him, as the cabinet had instructed me to say, "If there is an international force we will bear our share of the cost." We did this as a means of getting the force into being.
I know that this reflects sadly on the state of the United Nations, but this bankrupt position is not as a result of any position that Canada has taken. We have a different regard for our responsibilities under the charter of the United Nations, which we signed in San Francisco with the Soviet union and every other one of the original members of the United Nations organization.
We agreed to pay the airlift for the Cyprus force ourselves. We agreed to pay the other expenses of the peace keeping operation. Other countries, except Ireland, felt it necessary to receive financial assistance out of the voluntary fund created as a result of the generosity of the United Kingdom, the United States, West Germany and a few other countries. So we have paid our way in this operation because there was no other way out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I apologize for interrupting the minister but I must advise him his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not wish to take advantage; I will finish very shortly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Has the
hon. gentleman permission to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you. The right hon. gentleman mentioned the position taken by the government of Sweden. Sweden, he said, was not going to be pushed around; it had written a letter through its foreign minister to the secretary general expressing the view that in the light of the inflexible attitude of the archbishop, consideration should be given to the position of the force in Cyprus. I can say that when I saw this in the newspapers, I was concerned. I later learned the reason why the government of Sweden took this position. It was not because the government of Sweden believed we should withdraw from this operation; it was not because the government of Sweden believed that it should withdraw unilaterally. I can assure the house that there will be no action taken concerning the force except as a result of consultation with all the other members, and that

the decision will be a collective one and it will be announced by the United Nations.
But I join with the right hon. gentleman in saying that because of the nature of this assignment we are not thinking in these negative terms. We are thinking in positive terms about what the United Nations may do, in addition to what it has already done, in a difficult situation. And, may I say, at the very time when people were talking about withdrawal from this force the Irish government announced a decision to send 400 more men to join the force on Cyprus. That is the way by which we will ultimately, I am sure, co-operate to build up strong UN peace keeping machinery to localize conflicts and prevent the intervention of other nations and, as a result of such intervention, unsettled situations.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman say that Sweden did not threaten to withdraw unless the powers of the force were increased so that it would have the right of freedom of movement and certain other powers, and did not Sweden also state that without these powers it was quite impossible for a peace force to operate effectively?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can say positively that the government of Sweden did not intend by its letter in any way to withdraw. It did urge, as we had urged, that the secretary general should ascertain if it were not possible for the force to get greater powers. But there was no intention, as the government of that country has since confirmed to me, to withdraw in the way which was suggested. Nor was there any intention on the part of any country supporting the peace force to do so.
Before concluding, I simply want to say that when I began I could not confirm whether or not the government of Turkey had accepted the cease fire resolution of yesterday. Turkey has now, through its permanent representative confirmed acceptance of the cease fire.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: According to the best information available there is no serious fighting on the island now. It is not likely there will be any meeting of the security council today.
Before resuming my seat I want to say that Canada enjoys, not because of any particular political point of view, a reputation for being faithful to its UN obligations. I remember when the Prime Minister and I were visiting 20220-418
Cyprus Crisis
General de Gaulle and his foreign minister, the president of that country referred to Canada's idealism and said: "You are idealists". He said that in a complimentary way.
I think it is true that we in the new world do have a point of view which is not always subscribed to by others with a longer history and, in many ways, a greater experience and possibly on that account deeper sophistication in international affairs. But I do believe I reflect not only the temper and mood of this house but the conviction and attitude of most Canadians when I say we recognize in this interdependent nuclear age the futility of war. This forces upon us, now, more than ever, the conviction that justice on the international plane cannot be meted out by an aggrieved nation or its friends. We recall the words of Mr. Justice Holmes when he described how justice had finally established itself in individual communities-how the community "bought off vengeance". That is what we are now engaged in doing-buying off vengeance-so that the international community can assert its authority to dispense justice and to keep the peace.
We must judge Cyprus not by the difficulties of Cyprus, not by the inadequacies of its terms of reference but in the light of a much bigger process of which it is merely a part. There is UNEF. There is the United Nations observation group in Lebanon, our experience in the international control commission in Indochina and the other peace keeping operations in which we have played a part. And now there is Cyprus. These are all parts of a necessary foundation for further peace keeping efforts which will have to be undertaken and in which we shall have to participate-efforts which will cause us anguish but which are essential to the establishment, ultimately, of the rule of law among the nations. That is the reason, that is the justification which must attend our examination of this problem.
We have been lucky thus far in Cyprus. One Finnish soldier has lost his life. We have lost one soldier as a result of an automobile accident. So far, the members of our force have avoided the kind of situations which we have all feared. I hope and trust our contingent will be able to return intact. I would remind this house what we said when we decided to accept the recommendation of the Prime Minister to join in the establishment of this force. The right hon. gentleman pointed out from his experience as head of the government that we must not assume that this was an easy task, to be undertaken

Cyprus Crisis
without risk. Then there are the words of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) who said:
I want to say in passing this motion neither we in this house nor the Canadian people ought to have any illusions about what we are doing. I think we have to recognize that we are assuming a hazardous, thankless and discouraging task. We have to be prepared for a long and difficult assignment in which lives may be lost.
I am happy to say that so far this has not been the case. Then he continued:
Moreover, the role we play may be an unpopular one. Nobody ever made friends by interfering in a family fight. I hope we recognize that this will be an arduous and a dangerous task and that we ought not to go into it without weighing all its aspects. We should go into it with our eyes open and our resolve high.
We did go into this matter with our eyes open. We knew what the risks were. We know what the stakes are. And I say, as one Canadian who has given a lot of his time to the public life of this country: Our soldiers could not be more honourably employed than in working for peace.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may be permitted to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question before the debate continues? I think it is a very important matter, with which he did not deal in his reply although I expected him to do so. I refer to the letter sent by Archbishop Makarios to the secretary general of the United Nations last Thursday night wherein it is stated that the president of Cyprus said the United Nations forces on the island ought to have access to all areas. I am wondering whether any progress has been made on this matter, since the president has indicated he is willing to accept that concept.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend because I meant to table today this correspondence, and I now do so. The first letter of the archbishop, dated July 27, represented, as I stated here and elsewhere and as did the secretary general, a failure to comply with the terms of the basic exchange of notes between the secretary general and the archbishop. A week ago the archbishop did acknowledge in some respects the right of the United Nations force to freedom of movement. However, there was a qualification that I do not think yet fully complies with the original exchange of notes. The government of Cyprus insists that with regard to certain secret

installations, these may be examined by the head of the UN force, General Thimayya, the distinguished Indian soldier, in company with a member of the government of Cyprus. In the view of the Canadian government this is not in complete compliance with the exchange of notes. We have indicated this to the secretary general and our high commissioner in Nicosia has likewise passed on this view to the archbishop.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? I was interested in his saying that there were 40,000 men under arms when the United Nations peace keeping force went into Cyprus. Did the Canadian government have any idea as to how many of these 40,000 were forces from the mainland of Greece and how many were from the mainland of Turkey? There have been rumours in the press that both Turkey and Greece had a right under the constitution, or something or other, to keep a certain number of armed forces on the island? Is this correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I said was that at the time the force was established there were some 40,000 Greek and Turkish Cypriots who had arms. I may have said "under arms", but I meant to say "who had arms". My colleague says that I did say "who had arms". Since that time, as we know and as I indeed charged, there have been importations of army regulars and of arms, contrary to the consensus in NATO and contrary to the general terms provided for in the security council resolution of March 4. These importations were referred to yesterday in specific numbers in the security council by one of the delegates, and I believe the figures given were correct.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) reminds me that my hon. friend asked another question. Under the treaty between Turkey and Greece the Turkish government is entitled to have in Cyprus 650 armed men, and the Greek Cypriots 950.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The Turkish government are allowed to have that number there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The treaty gives Greece and Turkey the right to station in Cyprus contingents in the numbers of 950 and 650 men respectively.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Nine hundred and fifty Greeks?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nine hundred and fifty Greeks and 650 Turks.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be in the interests of this house if the Secretary of State for External Affairs could give us some idea why this was provided for and why we did not anticipate that, when trouble began between the two groups of nationals on the island, their respective mother countries would come to their aid and we would be caught between two fires. My main interest is in why there was such a provision in the treaty in the first place. Of course, I am not blaming the minister; he did not make this treaty.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will accept my responsibility, Mr. Speaker, but I am certainly not going to accept responsibility for that treaty.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am not holding the minister responsible.


Mr.  W. B. Nesbill@Oxford: Mr. Speaker,
there are a few questions I would like to put to the minister. I will try to make these remarks as brief as I can. In the minister's remarks and in his reply, as I recall it he said the government was aware that there had been a build-up going on in Cyprus for some time. What the minister did not tell us, if I heard him correctly, was how long this build-up had been going on. There have certainly been rumours in the press since about the middle of June that for a period of about six weeks or so this build-up had been going on. I am sure the government must have had information to this effect, although for quite understandable reasons, when asked about this in the house the minister was rather evasive. I am not blaming him for that; I can understand, having had some experience in these matters, that he had to be, under the circumstances.
I was wondering whether the minister could tell us now for how long the government had been aware and had definite information of a secret nature as to how long this build-up had been going on, and whether they had any details of the kind of troops, materials and supplies that have been going into Cyprus, presumably in this instance from Greece. In addition to that, when this buildup was going on did the secretary general and/or any of the countries such as Canada who were supplying troops to Cyprus put extra pressure on the archbishop to try and dissuade him from carrying on this activity? If any pressure was applied, to what extent was 20220-4184
Cyprus Crisis
it applied? How many representations were made? Did the secretary general of the United Nations make representations, and how many times? Did the Canadian government make any representations to the archbishop? Did they make any to the government of Greece; and if so, on how many occasions? It would seem to me that if the government was aware of this heavy build-up of arms taking place in Cyprus, it would be the sheerest folly not to have made every possible representation to put pressure on both Greece and Turkey to live up to the terms of the treaty.
That is one thing I would like to ask the minister. The next thing is with regard to the present attitude of the president of Cyprus, the archbishop. Now that events have taken the course they have and there is now a cease fire, if I heard the minister correctly a moment ago he said the archbishop was still not complying completely with the terms of the United Nations resolution with regard to freedom of movement. I would hope that now it may be possible to put pretty strong pressure on the archbishop and his government in Cyprus to allow the United Nations the fullest freedom of movement, because if another outburst such as we had over the week end is to be prevented, United Nations troops are going to have to be able to do their job more thoroughly and more completely than in the past. I suppose everyone, including the secretary general, was hopeful that there would not be a blow-up, but when arms build-ups have gone on at the rate they have for the past six or seven weeks it must have been evident that something was going to happen. While I realize that everybody was probably hoping against hope it would not happen, it did.
To prevent a recurrence I think that the greatest possible pressure should be put on the archbishop to allow the UN forces complete freedom of movement so that they can carry out their duties. I would hope that the government of Greece, which has certainly been very moderate in its attitude in the present crisis and as helpful as it can be, could be persuaded to put some pretty strong pressure on the archbishop. Without spending any great length of time on the various viewpoints concerning the attitude and behavior of the archbishop, I think that everyone is in agreement that a great deal of blame, if not all of it, for the present situation can be laid right at his doorstep. If he expects the United Nations to try and keep peace on the island, he should be prepared if he really wants peace to allow the United

Cyprus Crisis
Nations forces to carry out their duties according to the terms of the resolution. Now that the trouble is over, we hope permanently, I think, as I have already said, the greatest possible pressure should be put on the archbishop by the secretary general, by Canada and by the other participating countries, and 1 also hope that Greece will do likewise, to try and prevent any more future manoeu-vrings and schemings by that gentleman.
When the debate took place in this house some months ago and this house unanimously decided to send the force to Cyprus, the Leader of the Opposition raised a question concerning the advisability of establishing an advisory committee to assist the secretary general, as was done in the case of the Congo intervention. Apparently that was not done in this case. I recall asking a question about this of the Secretary of State for External Affairs a couple of weeks ago, when he was giving evidence in the committee on external affairs, and his answer was that the secretary general did not wish to have an advisory committee as he did not want to institutionalize that sort of thing. That may have been one reason and perhaps there were others; whether or not the minister can tell us what they were, I do not know. But that in itself, to my mind, does not seem a very satisfactory answer-that because we did it in one case we do not want to institutionalize it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I pointed out to my hon. friend, there is a consultative arrangement which was set up for the reasons I have given.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I agree. Obviously there must be consultation; I think anyone would agree with that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But I said consultative arrangement, for the reason I told my hon. friend.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes. I realize there are some consultative arrangements, as the minister said, but a committee of that type was used to advise on the Congo operation, which everyone now seems to claim was not so difficult. I sat in on a good many of its meetings and I can assure those who say that Cyprus is more difficult than the Congo situation that the Congo was quite difficult enough. We had 15 or 16 representatives sitting around a table discussing this matter at the same time as a great many disputes between themselves were also going on.
One reason I would think that the minister might be able to persuade the secretary general that it might not be such a bad idea to

have a more formal type of advisory committee is that various countries are supplying troops-Canada, Sweden, Ireland. They would, of course, be on the committee, and I do not think it would be too bad an idea if Greece, Turkey and Cyprus were also represented. When people are absent sometimes misunderstandings take place, and it might be possible at such a meeting to put a little greater pressure on some, or one, of the parties concerned. I recall some of the incidents which took place when the Congo operation was going on. The advisory committee met and it was often possible for representatives to put direct pressure on some of the members of the committee, as well as make suggestions. I think some more formal arrangement might be advisable in this case. It certainly would not hurt to try it. You would have all the parties sitting round the table and I think it would be pretty helpful at times.
Another matter is this. The secretary general, who is placed in a very awkward and delicate position from time to time in carrying out and interpreting these resolutions, could get advice from the parties, which might be very helpful. Certainly that was the case in the Congo situation, where the secretary general, the late Dag Hammarskjold, had some pretty sensitive problems to face and decisions to carry out. On such occasions he would ask the advice of the committee, which could be called at a moment's notice, and was on a great many occasions. Very often the suggestions which were offered, while not always accepted by the secretary general, provided him with quite a number of answers and took quite a lot of the burden off his shoulders. I would think it might be very helpful, particularly after the incidents of this last week end, if a somewhat more formal consultative arrangement were made, such as setting up such a committee, which would include on it Greece, Turkey and Cyprus as well as the countries providing troops.
I think these are all the matters I wish to bring up at this time, Mr. Speaker. The minister and others have pretty well covered most points, and I hope that the minister will be able to make some suitable reply.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, a most interesting and important discussion has been generated by this motion. Many useful and interesting thoughts have been presented to the house. I listened with great pleasure to all the foregoing speeches and, I may say, particularly to the last part of the utterances of my old friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. AUGUST 10. 1964
Martin). I should like to say to him that while there may be times when we question the effectiveness of his actions, we never question the sincerity of his internationalism.
We have passed through a disturbing, indeed frightening, week end, another one of these crises to which we in our time have become all too prone, if not immune. It followed upon, and was indeed coincident with, another dangerous situation in southeast Asia. We were on the brink of problems the vastness of which perhaps we do not like to explore. There were involved friendly powers, if not to each other at least to us, and the prospect of great power involvements. With the thought of that last dreadful step which we knew was not far away we were all disturbed. Had things become much worse, that grim type of involvement might have been presented to us.
This present issue is very disturbing to Canada because it involves some of the fundamental cornerstones in our foreign policy. I think no one has mentioned the commonwealth-and Cyprus is, after all, a member of the commonwealth. We have discussed the effects of this situation upon NATO, and we have spent a great deal of time discussing that other vital cornerstone of our policy, the United Nations. Canada, as has been said, has been a good and true member, a charter member, a loyal member and an active member of that organization. The record of this body is so much better and more honourable than that of the league of nations that we can have some justifiable pride in the developing pattern of our internationalism. The minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) were right to point out that our loyalty to the UN transcends partisan politics. We Canadians, at our best, are truly bipartisan in our attitude toward foreign policy. We can all rejoice today that the United Nations is in the picture.
I remember having the opportunity of sitting in the security council chamber-although Canada was not a member of the security council in those terrifying days over Cuba-and I recall how thankful I was that there was still one way out, the next to last arena for settling disputes which can become so explosive they can be no longer handled.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak very briefly in respect of a reassessment of the United Nations. I think it is wise, as has been done today, to look at the organization which we so much admire and serve so well. Is the United Nations being weakened? We must never allow the United Nations to become one
Cyprus Crisis
of those bodies of fulsome adulation, like the musical banks of Butler which everybody loved and admired, but an institution in which few people placed their faith. We must be analytical and critical. We must make an appraisal which is realistic. I think it is very important, and I say this despite the loquacious eloquence of the minister, that we examine the situation carefully to find out whether or not the peace keeping force is clothed with ample authority. This has been the constant thread of inquiry through all the past weeks and months. I think one can say, without being overly critical, without being an alarmist and without oversimplifying the problem, that much of the difficulty which occurred over the week end stemmed from the fact that the force was inhibited and unable to discharge properly, fully and meaningfully the obligations which should be put upon it. When the United Nations forces was restrained even from observation, let alone prohibitive action, trouble resulted. As the Montreal Gazette in an interesting editorial said, the force went there, not as a fighting force, but when it ceased to be even a supervisory force this great difficulty arose.
We remember how reports came in about thousands of troop landings at a time when the United Nations force apparently and literally was restrained from observing this terrible development. I think the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was right when he spoke very clearly and candidly, and the Montreal Gazette stated the same thing this morning, that the danger of war would never be removed so long as the matter is left in Archbishop Makarios' hands. With all our desire to be impartial and refrain from even suggesting something which might hurt someone, I support the hon. member in that stand.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) suggested that even now more men may be needed. The minister has told us about all his advocacies all over the world, and I am sure he is a skilled and, if not a succinct advocate, at least a persuasive one. I hope that he will continue to press for more participation by more countries. It is a shocking thing that so few countries were prepared to act in this most important, dangerous and explosive situation. I think also that we must press for clearcut terms of reference. I think if anyone looks back over the records of this house and at the answers given by the minister, he will not describe

Cyprus Crisis
the terms of reference as clearcut, however else one may describe them.
1 have listened very carefully to the very sound and reasonable statements of the minister in respect to the use of force, and I note what he said about the sovereignty of the nation involved. This involved the old concept of international relations, that the rockbed of national sovereignty is something that underlies the whole of international activity. Despite all that, it is a shocking situation when the United Nations force is not even able to observe participation and interference by an outside power. We are now aware that thousands of men were landed in this very disturbing and explosive area and that this occurred without let or hindrance or even observation. There were many days of doubt and denial with rumours rampant but not confirmed. We now know how the balance has been altered and how the situation has become more difficult. Indeed the situation in respect of our own men there, if not precarious, is at least close to it, yet the military representatives of the world body, although not at the vital spot, were there on the island.
Mr. Speaker, we have reached a stage in United Nations development where Canada can speak with authority in respect of the field of peace keeping operations, and at a time when something more is required than that which was given to previous peace keeping groups. Perhaps the time has come to require sufficient strength to restrain warlike overtures of the indigenous armed population, and certainly to prevent the infiltration of those whose intentions are of a warlike nature. How in the world can we expect the Turkish government to be anything but uneasy in view of the reports of additional troops in what the minister has described as "another quarter"? We hope the present breathing space will be sustained-and even at this moment news reports in this regard are confusing-so that not only the immediate mediation, which is so essential, will go forward in fact as in name, but that the long range settlement can be pursued; because that is the other arm of the whole United Nations operation. We do not see the picture clearly or fully if we concentrate only on a military or paramilitary operation.
It is a difficult task that has been assigned to the mediator. Heaven knows that this is a land whose history has many indicators of the kind of trouble which people in Cyprus are undergoing today. History, geography and

facts of world power are things which make the situation in Cyprus extremely difficult and troublesome.
It is a lot easier to desire settlement than to attain it. It is so simple for people to talk about the transmigration of population and moving people here and there, but it is not so easy to enforce these things. We know the constitutional problem. We know the problems facing the NATO alliance and we can perhaps visualize some of the deep emotional feelings that must grip some of these people living daily in the presence of danger, death, hostility, hatred, threats from beyond, and viewed by the outside world as an explosive area which could bring about a holocaust too terrible to contemplate. We are proud of the role of the Canadians there. Canada can be tremendously proud of what it has done in this field. We feel that our men can do their part. But I ask the minister as he has been asked before: Out of his own convictions, recalling that he is the representative of a country which, without immodesty, we can say has done great things in this field, will he not ask for greater authority for this group so that these things will not recur, so that the men wearing the badge of the United Nations will not be shunted off out of sight when dangerous things are going on and when activities with a warlike potential are taking place in the dead of night? He can from a position of great strength continue his argumentation. He has told us he has done so. So he should, and so he should continue with greater vigour. I am confident that the people of the country and certainly the great majority of members of the house will be behind him.
The problem in its acute stage may pass. The headlines may shift to Viet Nam tomorrow and to Berlin the next day, but we all know that the kernel of trouble, is still there. The problem of Cyprus will confront us for a long time. The minister was right in reminding us that we entered into this situation not lightly but with a state of high seriousness in undertaking such a grave step. We must carry on. Whether the people of Cyprus should be removed to their homelands is a matter beyond our discussion today, but they must surely be removed from that deadly daily peril which faces them, and Cyprus itself must be removed as a peril to peace which faces us, which threatens all of us. Through the actions of a stronger United Nations force surely something can

be done so that we will not be faced again with more brinkmanship, more last minute appeals, more hurried telephone calls but will have a force there which will move gradually toward stability at least, if not settlement.
So I would urge the minister to be more outgoing in his reports to the house. He has had an indication today of how the house is behind him in his best efforts. So I say to him: Be more vigorous with your colleagues in the international organization, because you know where the house stands on this matter. We wish him well in his endeavours. We offer these suggestions to him in the hope they will not make his position difficult, nor ours, nor our forces', but that they may strengthen the arm of peace as it is extended through the United Nations.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss the subject that has been raised this afternoon through special motion under standing order 26 in order to bring up what I think are three very important matters in relation to external affairs and Canada's involvement in the United Nations. I think it has been made fairly obvious by the debate this afternoon that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the government have almost the unanimous consent of members of the house for the actions that Canada has taken recently and in fact for a long time with respect to peace keeping operations in which we have been called upon to take part throughout the world.
There is one point I should like to raise, and in doing so it is not my intention to try to embarrass the government or the minister or to try to put questions to him that would be difficult to answer. At the same time, however, I believe the people of Canada generally are very apprehensive about what this crisis may do to unity within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I believe that all members of the house and most Canadians have come to regard NATO as the bulwark standing against the expansion of communism in Europe and for that matter in most of the rest of the world.
When we see two very important members of NATO in a dispute, this has the effect in my opinion of undermining to some extent at least the confidence that Canadians have placed in this great and useful military alliance. I do not wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be placed in the position where he has to try to apologize or take
Cyprus Crisis
sides against either one of these two members of NATO, but nevertheless we realize that Greece and Turkey do in fact represent that portion of the NATO alliance covering southern Europe. Therefore if there is to be a great deal of difficulty in that area certainly it will weaken one of the most important positions that NATO has been defending against the expansion of communism.
We realize, as do all Canadians, that the whole purpose of NATO in holding back this expansion is coming into question. As I said, I do not wish to put the minister in an embarrassing position, but at this time there must be a great deal of soul searching going on in NATO respecting the supplying of arms to these two countries. So far as the purpose for which arms and aid have been supplied to both Greece and Turkey, we are assured that both these countries are fulfilling their responsibilities and obligations within NATO, but at the same time I am certain there is apprehension with regard to whether or not some of these arms are now being used for a purpose other than that for which they were supplied.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member but because of the importance of this matter may I point out to him that the supply of equipment by Canada to either of these two countries under the NATO mutual assistance program was suspended when the United Nations Cyprus operation began.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed that fact out to the house several weeks ago. Nevertheless we know that since NATO came into being both these countries have been supplied with a lot of military equipment, and we are a bit apprehensive about what use may be made of it now. For the future I believe that from time to time the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other members of the government should make statements respecting the activities of NATO, so as to assure the Canadian people that this organization's purpose is not eroded as a result of the events of the last few weeks. As I have pointed out, it has always been looked upon as the western alliance for the defence of the free world.
We expect the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government to follow up as rapidly as possible that which was contained in the letter or note from President Makarios to the secretary general of the United Nations last Thursday night. Until that note was received most of us did not

Cyprus Crisis
know this was the view he would take. Certainly I know of no other time when he indicated his willingness to give free access to United Nations forces.
I have not had time to examine the documents tabled a few minutes ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but from press reports it seems there is a disposition on the part of the president of Cyprus to give additional freedom of movement to the UN force, even though this may fall short of complete freedom of movement. Here is another situation where we will have to accept a little rather than all which is asked, and I would urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his representatives to state their willingness to accept some improvement in the activities and freedom of movement of the peace keeping force.
Last Friday I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) if he would give the house a statement respecting the duties, authority, and I even included the limitations on our Canadian forces in Cyprus, so that we and the Canadian people could be assured they would not be placed in indefensible and awkward positions. Here again I realize the delicacy of the situation. I realize it may not be possible to give specific answers, but the ministers should realize there is some apprehension on the part of Canadians regarding the position of our troops, should the situation deteriorate again.
On one or two occasions the Minister of National Defence has informed the house that his department has worked out some program for speedy evacuation of our forces, if necessary. There may be other details, concerning what the government would do in an emergency, that he cannot divulge, but it would be assuring to the people of Canada to know our troops were not going to be caught in an impossible situation.
In conclusion, I have brought up these three matters because 1 think they are important. I do not expect immediate and complete replies but they are matters concerning which I have had some discussion, and have received some correspondence. They are questions the Canadian people are wondering about, and our people at home have a right to as much information as it is possible to give.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians were very disturbed over the week end at the events taking place in Cyprus, and very fearful as to what the results might be. Because of this

I think an airing of the matter in the house is desirable at this time.
I am afraid that this afternoon we have had much expression of wishful thinking and of self-deception as to the effectiveness of the United Nations in Cyprus, and of its future effectiveness if the present terms of reference of the force are unchanged. I should like to make it very clear that I am not criticizing the United Nations intervention in Cyprus. Very much the reverse: I think it was a case in which the United Nations had to do everything possible to prevent what has seemed to be, for a considerable length of time, the germ of war developing as a result of the situation on the island.
I was glad Canada sent a force to take part in the peace keeping operation on Cyprus. However I criticize the effectiveness of the operation because the powers granted were not sufficient to enable the force to do the job it should do and must do if peace is to be preserved. I believe this country, the other countries concerned in the operation, as well as the members of NATO and other powers should apply pressure to see that the United Nations peace keeping force's powers are increased.
There is no use in trying to deceive ourselves that the cease fire has come about primarily as a result of the efforts of the United Nations. It has come about because the Turkish aircraft attack and the destruction it caused gave the Greek Cypriots a great deal of reason for pause in the attacks which they had been making on Kokkina and some of the other Turkish villages and enclaves. Had that not taken place I myself am very doubtful what would be the situation now so far as those attacks on Turkish villages and enclaves are concerned. What we want to see is a situation which will ensure that a repetition of that type of attack cannot take place. There is no question but that the risks inherent in the Cyprus operation, the risks to NATO and world peace, are too great to allow any country to stand back and not do everything possible to ensure a conflagration does not ensue.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated that the United Nations force was limited in its numbers and limited in its powers because of the necessity to get agreement from the government of Cyprus on both the size of the force and the powers it could exercise. I would submit that at the present time in view of the fact that the Greek Cypriot government has sought unilaterally to tear up the agreement entered into govern-

ing the constitutional situation in Cyprus- an agreement endorsed by Britain, Greece and Turkey-we need hardly be limited to what one might call the niceties of international custom and allow them to stand in the way of sufficient powers being given to the United Nations force in Cyprus to enable it to discharge its peace keeping responsibilities effectively. To do anything else would, in my view, be to do less than we should be doing. It would seem to me that if the NATO countries in particular, who have a particular stake in this situation, along with most of the countries of the United Nations were prepared to say to the Greek Cypriot government that the United Nations force must be increased and given greater powers, this aim could be accomplished.
Turning to another aspect of the situation I should like the Secretary of State for External Affairs to tell us exactly what is the position of the Canadian forces at the present time. Are they still disposed between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot forces, for the most part, or are they assembled in one defensible area in which they would be relatively safe in the event of a full-scale conflagration breaking out? I think, too, we should be told something more definite in connection with the evacuation plans which the minister stated over television last night existed. I think we should be told what these plans are, and told the situation in which it is envisaged they would be put into effect. As I understand it, R.C.A.F. Yukons are on the alert to fly over and pick up personnel fairly quickly. I presume the landing fields over there are safe and would continue to be safe, being in the British enclave. These are matters upon which the Canadian people would like to be assured. Then again, in the event of an evacuation, what is the situation with regard to the equipment which had to be sent over by sea? The giving of these details would not, I think, result for one moment in the impression getting abroad that Canada intended to withdraw her contingent.
As the minister has said, we are committed to this United Nations peace keeping operation, and we are prepared to keep our forces there on that mission. I think the Canadian people should be told, at least in general terms, of the plans which exist for evacuating our forces in the event of a catastrophe which we all hope will not take place, and I think this could be done without any risk or difficulty whatever.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I was
not able to be present in the chamber during
Cyprus Crisis
part of this debate and I hope, therefore, that what I have to say will not prove to be repetitious. I have heard no one make any reference so far in the discussion to the activities of the U.S.S.R. in the context of this Cyprus situation.
If the reports which appeared in the press and over the radio are correct, it would seem that the U.S.S.R. was invited by Archbishop Makarios to intervene in this dispute. Assuming the correctness of further reports to the effect that the Soviet union has given no indication of doing so, it would not be inappropriate I think to make some reference to the restraint with which the Soviet union is, apparently, approaching this situation.
Many of us have been disappointed and- speaking for myself-highly critical of the lack of interest shown by the Soviet union so far in the peace keeping operations of the United Nations, as well as by its failure to assume financial responsibility in this connection. In the circumstances, in the light of the situation historically occupied by Russia, during the pre-Soviet days, the fact that they are unwilling to intervene at the present time, though they may have been tempted to do so, is something which should not go unnoticed in this house. Indeed I think there should be some appreciation of the restraint which has been shown.
We could of course discuss at length the relationship between this lack of interest and the power of destruction which lies in the hands of various nations in the world at the present time. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is prepared to comment on this aspect of the matter, or not. Whatever the reason, it seems to me that the restraint which is being shown is an indication of the direction in which the world is moving, and that there would appear to be at least partial acceptance of responsibility by the U.S.S.R. as a member of the United Nations. I feel sure that in another era, in comparable circumstances, Russian forces might already be moving en masse to intervene in this situation and we in this house, and Canada generally have some reason to be thankful that this is apparently not the case at the present time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The importance of this debate has already been recognized by the hon. members who have spoken and by the interest shown by the House of Commons earlier, resulting in the general agreement that time be given for a discussion of this particular subject.

Cyprus Crisis
We are living in a tempestuous century. Fifty years ago, 30,000 Canadian troops were being collected at Valcartier camp ready for dispatch overseas for the first world war. Since that time we have known scarcely any period in which we have been free from war or threat of war of one sort or another. Last week end we were on a nervous edge again for fear of an outbreak of war in Cyprus which might spread and become a third world conflict. In fact, during the course of this very year, 1964, we have heard nothing, week by week, except reports of threatened war in one part of the world or another. Consequently it is not surprising that the House of Commons should wish to discuss, in particular, the situation in Cyprus and in general Canada's participation in United Nations peace keeping arrangements.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) permitted himself to use an expression which he might regret. He was talking about the pride we could show in our peace keeping operations and he said we boast about our history and activities in war. I do not know that anybody boasts about Canada's participation in warfare. I think, rightfully, that as a nation we can take pride in the fact that when freedom has been threatened during this century, Canada has responded and has made the sacrifices essential to maintain that freedom. It is not boastfulness; but surely we are entitled to take pride in the fact that a nation of 8 million people participated right from the very first in the first great war, and a nation of 12 million people participated right from the very first in the second world war, and was not at all reluctant to play its part in Korea. Similarly, in the United Nations peace keeping operations Canada has been in the forefront, with the general approval of parliament and of the Canadian people. Steadily we are setting an example to the world of what needs to be done in order that peace may be maintained. By our actions in the past we have shown that we do not as a nation shrink from the fatal step of war and the sacrifice involved there. Also, during this period we are not shrinking from playing our part in attempts to prevent the outbreak of another world war.
This particular international crisis has, I think, shocked the Canadian people. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) said, it is one small area of the world, an island inhabited by 600,000 people, and to think that one small place like that could be the source of trouble for the entire

world tends to shock people when they think about it. Others have mentioned our dismay that the NATO alliance be endangered by a quarrel arising between two highly respected and important members of that alliance. As a member of that alliance ourselves, we have nothing but regret for the fact that Greece and Turkey are engaged in a dispute over the situation in Cyprus. Also, people are naturally somewhat dismayed to think-and we in the House of Commons share this dismay-that five months of a peace keeping operation in Cyprus has not yet resulted in a settlement, nor in the hope of an early settlement. This is very disturbing, because when we on March 13 agreed unanimously to play an active part in a peace keeping operation in Cyprus under the United Nations, we entertained the hope that within three months a settlement might be arrived at; we entertained the hope that with the appointment of a political mediator the trouble would die down and cease. Yet we are now in the fifth month, our force has been promised for the second three months' period, and this situation may drift on and on.
As was mentioned on March 13 and was repeated today, who could have imagined that eight years after the setting up of the peace keeping operation in the Gaza strip we would be on the job there without a solution in sight. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the burden of that particular operation should have been borne all these eight years by Canada. It is not that we object to playing our part in any of these operations, but there is the old fashioned method of taking turns. Why are not other nations engaged in doing a spell of duty in the Gaza strip?
Another reason for our asking for a debate on this issue today is the somewhat less than satisfactory method of attempting to get information over the last five months. I have been looking at the index of Hansard for the end of June; I have not the index of July. There are over 80 lines of entry under the heading "Cyprus" in that index, with quite a number of subheadings following those items; so I would say there have been at least 100 questions asked with regard to our activities in Cyprus. Although answers to questions asked on orders of the day are helpful as we go along, it is impossible to get a complete answer by that method. Earlier we did ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to allot another day for a debate on the subject of external affairs; that was some time ago, and it did not materialize. Today we are having an opportunity to discuss at some

length our peace keeping operation in Cyprus, to express our point of view, to get from the Secretary of State for External Affairs some of the answers and to make evident the attitude of the House of Commons to this particular operation.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, just before the supper hour I was dealing with the inadequacy of the question period on orders of the day to get full information on a subject as important and as complicated as the Cyprus situation. It is not only that the period for questioning is inadequate; some of the answers have not been very satisfactory. I would just give four examples of just how difficult it is to get the information that we require.
On March 13, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was speaking on this subject, he dealt with the cost in these words, as reported at page 915 of Hansard:
The estimate... of the total costs for three months, including a one-way air lift, is about $2,600,000.
I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the cost on July 28, and I was asking only for information because the last purpose I would have in mind was to embarrass the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He seemed to be a bit embarrassed that day in answering my question, but he did reply as reported at page 6063 of Hansard:
I think the total cost of Canada's participation, including the airlift, would be around $24 million for the year.
Then we got, along with others, into a bit of an argument as to whether that was gross or net, and no satisfactory answer really was given. So I would ask, what is the cost of our intervention in the Cyprus affair?
When the supplementary estimates were put in front of us, I asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) privately under what items I would find the cost of the Cyprus expedition. He referred me to three items in the supplementary estimates where those costs are included in other costs of the navy, the army and the air force. I think that when a special operation such as this is carried on and requires a supplementary estimate, it would be helpful to the house if
Cyprus Crisis
the supplementary estimate were segregated from the rest so that we know exactly where we stand. I think it is important for us and for the people who generally support our activities in the United Nations, so that other countries who are active, as we are, and those which are inactive will have some knowledge of what Canada's financial contribution is to an exercise such as this.
Another example of an inadequate answer concerned the problem of freedom of movement, about which we have been talking today. On July 28, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked about that matter, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked him this question, as reported at page 6060 of Hansard:
How long ago was it since freedom of movement was first denied United Nations forces, particularly the Canadian force?
This is the answer which the minister gave:
Freedom of access was denied about a week ago.
Then I will skip a phrase and the minister goes on:
-but generally speaking there has been no position taken against freedom of movement, which is one of the essential terms of the agreement based on the understanding between the secretary general of the United Nations and the government of Cyprus.
Later he went on to say:
I would not agree that the United Nations force, by its very presence, is unable to discharge the responsibility which it has assumed. Undoubtedly the denial of freedom of movement impairs its full opportunity to carry out its mandate.
I do not consider that to be a satisfactory answer to questions concerning freedom of movement, because with restricted movement how can the force perform its function at all?
Then on July 31 the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked about the situation concerning the ports through which aid has been coming in, and his answer, as reported at page 6217, is as follows:
The president of Turkey wrote to the secretary general about a week ago. With regard to the letter of Archbishop Makarios, he also indicates that the United Nations should undertake to supervise not only ports in Cyprus but ports outside that might be considered a source of such shipments.
That is, shipments of arms into the country.
Our view is that there is some merit in this proposal.
I am not sure we have heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether that has been followed up at all. I would have thought from a military point of view that the United Nations peace keeping

Cyprus Crisis
force should have had right from the very-first supervision over the ports of Cyprus. Yet all along we have been hearing about people being landed, arms and munitions being landed, and they can come in only through the ports. The secretary of state I would not say showed indifference to the idea, but all he said was that "our view is that there is some merit in this proposal". Why did he not follow it up with the sternest of admonitions to the authorities at the United Nations and ask permission for our force to take action in the ports?
Then earlier this afternoon when the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) was speaking he questioned the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) about the subject of withdrawal, to which I hope we will get an answer tonight. He was careful to say that having plans for a withdrawal does not mean that panic has ensued or that there is any intention of withdrawing, but that all which is required is a careful plan in case of some emergency.
On March 23 the Minister of National Defence was asked by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) about this matter, and his reply, as reported at page 1354 of Hansard, was as follows:
May I say again that I hope and expect that it will not-
That is, that there will be no withdrawal. He goes on:
-but 1 am sure our armed forces have demonstrated their ability to be prepared for an emergency and to carry out assignments with noteworthy efficiency and praiseworthy effectiveness.
I challenge anybody to get from that answer anything that relates to the military situation which would prevail in the event of an emergency and our force was withdrawn.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) this afternoon asked several direct questions, one of which was to this effect: If withdrawal has to take place do we have a protected airfield from which that withdrawal can be made? How is such a withdrawal to be carried out? Is a withdrawal to be effected by air transport or by ship and what will happen to the military supplies that accompany our force?
I should like to know whether any military appreciation was made of the situation at the time a decision was reached to send Canadians to participate in the United Nations force in Cyprus. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has indicated that at the time the force was dis-
IMr. Churchill.]
patched 40,000 Cypriot people were in possession of arms. What was the military appreciation under those circumstances? Was it considered feasible that a force of 7,000 soldiers from several nations could maintain peace on that island? I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the British, who had 30,000 troops there at that time, thought this was too difficult an operation for them. Was the military appreciation, if any was made, to the effect that a peace keeping force of 7,000 men would be adequate under the circumstances?
Since the month of March we have heard repeated stories in respect of the landing of additional arms and equipment on the island. How many thousand Cypriots, either Greek or Turkish, are now in possession of military weapons? Under these circumstances what can be accomplished by a small United Nations force of 7,000 men? The Turkish ambassador said in a statement he made over the radio that 7,000 regular troops from Greece were now on the island. Week by week the position of the United Nations force has become more difficult. I think we are entitled to know exactly what progress is being made, and what is the situation in respect of our own men. In listening to answers to questions asked in this house during the last five months I have gained the impression that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has taken the view that very little must be said, in case the situation becomes worse. However, each week he has made a statement to the effect that things are becoming a little better, yet each week we have received news of further atrocities on the island, culminating this week end in authentic reports of attacks by Turkish airplanes. What progress has been made during the five months that this peace keeping force has been in operation?
On April 30 the Secretary of State for External Affairs tabled a report of the secretary general presented to the United Nations. This report has been reprinted at page 2805 of Hansard. There are ten objectives of a comprehensive program of action for the United Nations force on Cyprus listed in what the secretary general refers to as an annex to his report. He lists also nine interim suggestions for action while some of the other main objectives are being attained. It seems to me the Secretary of State for External Affairs today should have gone through the list of objectives and interim aims as set out on April 30 indicating which ones, if any, have been achieved.

I should like to list a few of these main and interim objectives. The first is:
The task of UN force, as given in the security council resolution of March 4, is to use its best efforts towards the following objectives: (A) to prevent a recurrence of fighting;-
Has that been accomplished?
-	(B) to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order;-
Has law and order been restored?
-	(C) to contribute to a return to normal conditions.
Have normal conditions been restored in that country? There is another list of suggested objectives, the first being:
Achievement of freedom of movement on all roads in Cyprus-
Achievement of freedom of movement for all communities within the whole town of Nicosia-
Progressive evacuation and removal of all fortified positions held by Greek and Turkish Cypriots-
The progressive disarming of all civilians other than the regular police gendarmerie and the Cyprus army by the Cypriot government and the Turkish community.
The arrangement of security measures and other necessary conditions to facilitate return to normal conditions and particularly of economic activity.
I have read just some of these objectives. Have any of them been achieved?
In respect of the interim proposals, have any of the following been achieved?
The removal of emplacements, fortifications and trenches in selected areas of Nicosia-
Has that taken place?
A determined effort in selected areas of Nicosia to re-establish normality by returning to their homes, under UN security guarantee, refugees, as, for example, those from Hamed Mandres to Omor-phita who would not... carry arms-
The institution of the procedures for inquiry into every serious instance of shooting, especially when casualties occur,-
The elaboration of a plan for the reintegration... of the Turkish Cypriot policemen into the Cyprus police force,-
An appraisal of the possibility of establishing in certain areas Cypriot Greek-Turkish-UNFICYP joint patrols as a means of restoring confidence-
I have just read a few of the main and interim suggestions as listed, in respect of which I think we should have been given a report. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has not gone through that list, or given us any real hope for the future.
I should like to refer to two other things in respect of which I would like to have further information. The first has been referred to earlier and deals with the fact that, as the minister has stated earlier, once a force has been committed to the United Nations, authority rests with the United Nations
Cyprus Crisis
and not with the nation providing the force. This is a situation which has disturbed me, and I refer to the lack of effective control by the home government over those forces. I did not think we had sufficient control over our troops on the Gaza strip, and that situation has existed for over eight years. Fortunately no serious incident has occurred there! I was disturbed when we undertook our action in the Congo, but was reassured by the then minister of national defence, General Pearkes, that our signallers who carried only small arms would not be placed further forward than brigade headquarters. Under those circumstances I thought perhaps their safety would be reasonably assured, because signallers cannot carry out their work while at the same time having to post guards and worry about their security.
Nevertheless in the extremely dangerous Congo situation I never felt satisfied in my own mind that we had anything like the control over our forces there that we should have had. In Cyprus the situation is repeated. Our forces are detached from the Canadian army and placed under the command of United Nations officers and we have no control. This is not a criticism of participation in United Nations operations, but I do not think we should be starry eyed about the matter.
Committing men to military operations is a responsibility that parliament undertakes when the government makes a decision, but the safety of these people rests with the government of the country and with parliament. It seems to me that simply to detach them and place them under United Nations control is not sufficient security for our forces. So far we have been lucky in my opinion, but any study of military operations shows that mistakes can be made by high command as well as by junior ranks, and mistakes could be made in one of these operations by the high command.
In many instances we are not familiar with the people who are placed in charge of United Nations forces. We get an account of their military experience. We have confidence that a careful choice has been made. But this does not remove responsibility from the government of Canada or from parliament for the safety and security of our own forces. Using the fairly substantial lessons that we have had over a period of quite a number of years, I think that in the future we should make some provision for better control over our forces which may be detached for these special duties.

Cyprus Crisis
The Cyprus situation is in many respects even more difficult than the Congo operation and certainly much more than the Gaza strip. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out on March 13 when he was discussing this subject, this operation really involves the intervention of a United Nations force in what is almost a civil war in Cyprus. That puts the United Nations forces in a somewhat different position from what they have been in before. The Leader of the Opposition, although approving of the dispatch of our troops, sounded a very proper note of warning with regard to this aspect because it is one thing to be a peace keeping force establishing a cordon sanitaire along the boundary between two nations and an entirely different thing to be a United Nations force right in the middle of a populace that is torn by internal troubles. There will be some effect, of course, on a government of a country that is having such internal troubles with a United Nations force within its borders.
The Cyprus operation is of such seriousness that I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) should reexamine the position of our Canadian troops there so that if we are involved in another similar operation we will be assured of better control over our forces. We might easily have very heavy casualties. It might happen through ineffective control within the United Nations forces. All of that would be unknown to us. We simply have to take it on faith that the United Nations force is going to be an effective military organization run on the best military lines. How do we know that will happen? I think we should be prepared to draw certain lessons from our activities in Cyprus and in other United Nations peace keeping operations.
I was interested in seeing in the Christian Science Monitor of August 4 last an article dealing with stand-by forces for the United Nations. In that article mention is made of the proposal of the Scandinavian states, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, to set up separate military forces to be kept in readiness for United Nations service. It is rather strange- I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will take note of this-that there is no mention in that article in this very responsible and reputable newspaper of Canada's contribution in the way of stand-by forces for the United Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had the same
reaction.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are we not the first
country-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -to designate forces for that purpose?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was done in 1958 or 1959.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Queen's Own were chosen.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope the minister will draw to the attention of the Christian Science Monitor this lapse from its normally good reporting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was the date of the article?


Gordon Minto Churchill: August 4, 1964. I hope he will point out to that eminent newspaper that Canada has been right in the forefront of this activity. He might also mention that it was under the leadership of the former prime minister, now Leader of the Opposition, that the first Canadian forces were earmarked for United Nations service.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to do that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That article directed my attention to the July issue of Foreign Affairs in which there is an article by Per Haekkerup, foreign minister of Denmark. He is dealing with the problem of Scandinavian forces for the United Nations and I think is away ahead of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this proposal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In many ways, I am sure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He discusses the way in which forces may be provided for the United Nations and I should like to draw attention to five statements of policy that he lays down. Briefly, the first one is that "the force shall assist only in peace keeping operations". The second is that "a lawfully adopted UN decision is required for the Scandinavian countries to make the earmarked forces available". We are familiar with that arrangement. The third is that "the country in which the forces are to be used shall have accepted the UN operation and our participation in it". In other words there must be an invitation from the country which requires assistance. I will deal with the fourth point later. The fifth is that "the force will be placed under the exclusive control of the United Nations". This is the

point I have just been questioning because of the lack of control by the nation that assigns its armed forces for this purpose. The fourth point is of very great interest in connection with what I have been saying and is put in these words:
UN requests can be complied with only after an independent appraisal of the general situation. This implies that the action proposed in the given circumstances must be acceptable to the governments of the Scandinavian countries. This may sound very restrictive and it does, in fact, imply a limitation. It means that the United Nations will not have the right automatically to draw on the Scandinavian stand-by force. But it should be borne in mind that in the final analysis it is a question of asking 4,000 young men to risk their lives for a cause which, being an international issue, affects their own countries only indirectly. A democratic government must make sure that the people understand and support its actions. That is why we have found it necessary to make this reservation.
In deciding whether a UN request should be complied with, all relevant circumstances-including national military security considerations-will be taken into account. As far as Denmark and Norway are concerned, we shall also bear in mind our obligations toward our allies.
But there can be no doubt that our basic attitude to any such requests will be a very positive one, in keeping with the general lines of our foreign policy in which support of the United Nations iorms a decisive element.
I think we would agree with most of that, but I do note the emphasis of the foreign minister of Denmark on the fact that their force, earmarked for use with the United Nations, might comprise 4,000 young men who would be asked to risk their lives for a cause, and that is what we are asking our young men to do when they are assigned to a United Nations force. There is a risk of life involved and I am concerned that completely adequate steps be taken before any such commitment is made, to ensure that their lives will not be uselessly endangered.
Coming back to what I said some time ago, that is why I am asking did the Secretary of State for External Affairs receive a military appraisal of the situation in Cyprus from the Minister of National Defence? Has he received a subsequent military appraisal of the situation from the minister? If not, from whence does he get his information as to the effectiveness of our force and its security? Who supplies the military appreciation? What does a battalion of infantry do under present circumstances, where war is perhaps imminent in that country? Is it able to provide adequate protection? If it is forced from one position to another, what is its base? Has it a base of operation at which it can defend
Cyprus Crisis
itself, and if necessary make a suitable withdrawal?
We hope none of this happens. We hope the peace keeping activities of the United Nations force in Cyprus will be effective. We hope a political settlement will be discovered by those conducting the negotiations, but all contingencies must be provided for, and this house is entitled to a precise statement from the Minister of National Defence or from the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the safety of our troops. We have not had that yet and I hope the Minister of National Defence will give us the information tonight.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I consider that in the interests of world peace Canada has to continue to play its part in similar operations, which we call peace keeping operations. At the same time we must maintain our military strength in case it is required for war. We cannot simply train our forces for peace keeping operations alone. They must first be trained to fight. This other is in addition to their capabilities as fighting troops. I hope we do not lose sight of the fact that the purpose of national defence arrangements is to provide for the safety of one's own country. You sometimes provide for that safety by serving abroad. That is what our troops are doing in these far flung expeditions in various parts of the world.
We are naturally in support of activities of this nature, but I think it is only right that at times we should be a bit critical of the lack of information we have been getting. We have a right to examine the nature of our commitment and its cost, and we are certainly obliged to assure ourselves, in the interests of our country, that our troops are adequately prepared for any emergency and that their safety is not placed in jeopardy.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I feel every member of the house is grateful to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition for having moved this motion to adjourn the house to discuss this matter of such vital importance to Canadians and to the world as a whole. I commend the government and other parties in the house for having given unanimous consent to the debate. Unanimity in the house is such a rarity that it is really appreciated.
This debate has cleared the air. Those on the opposition side have expressed their opinions, and some were opinions of experts in military affairs. I propose to speak as an ordinary common man, and I for one appre-

Cyprus Crisis
ciate the minister giving us all the information he could. We share with him the feelings of emotion he had while giving us his report this afternoon. We commend him for carrying on his diplomatic activities in this delicate situation in such a way that Canada gave no appearance of taking sides in the struggle on Cyprus.
We are concerned, with him, as to what happens with these two links in the chain of NATO, that chain which has held back the communist invasion of Europe, which has saved democracy in Europe. A weakening of one link is important, but the weakening of two links would practically destroy NATO. Therefore we share the minister's concern that the chain remain strong and intact.
Canada answered the call first when the idea of a peace keeping force for Cyprus was propounded. One may wonder why. Was it to show off? Was it because we are so loyal to NATO and the United Nations, or was it because we were carried away by the successes we had in peace keeping operations in other parts of the world?
We were successful in the Congo, but we may have forgotten that the United Nations peace keeping force to the Congo went into a tribal area where the tribes were undisciplined, unarmed, and in many cases illiterate. We see now what is happening there after the United Nations forces have been removed. There is internal strife; war is in the offing, and there is another problem for the United Nations.
Canada participated successfully in the Gaza strip venture, and in other activities, and I think we were carried away when it came to the Cyprus operation. I think we deceived ourselves by the very fact that this flare-up was on a small island which has a population of 600,000. A force of 7,000 was organized, practically the same size as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who in Canada keep peace and order for almost 20 million people. It looked like a venture that was going to be harmless, and it seemed as though our boys would be back home in one or two months, at the outside three months, having seen a large part of the world and having done a good job.
According to present appearances, this is not so. I am not accusing the government. I am not accusing the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence. But I feel there was a duty upon them to have told this house that our boys were being sent to an island where 40,000 men had arms-whether they were actually

under arms, or possessed arms, is splitting hairs; I believe that by this time Premier Makarios has mobilized them and that there are 40,000 men under arms. I do not think any particular attention was paid to that. It was not stressed, anyway. I do not think any emphasis was placed on the fact that this so-called independent sovereign state of Cyprus, a member of the commonwealth, sovereign in every respect, had on its soil a contingent of 650 armed men from mainland Turkey, or that likewise there were 950 armed men there from Greece. I think if these things had been divulged and if proper emphasis had been placed upon them we might have understood that we were sending our boys, to use a memorable phrase from "The Charge of the Light Brigade", "into the mouth of hell" rather than on a holiday, or on a peace keeping mission. Worse than that, we were sending them with an authority less than some of our municipal police have in our municipalities out west.
Anyone-he does not have to be an expert in diplomacy, or military affairs, or international affairs, or any other affairs-could tell that Greece and Turkey, under the guise of sending replacements or under the guise of provisioning their respective contingents on the island, would be stirring up trouble, creating difficulties and encouraging their own compatriots to take whatever action they thought best. Probably the secretary general of the United Nations felt that by sending in this peace keeping force, small as it was, the Turkish and Greek Cypriots would be so impressed that they would be paralysed with fear.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) that the force was a small one. I doubt whether in present circumstances increasing it tenfold would do any good. But I will come to that later. Anyway, the feeling was that the Cypriots, both Greek and Turkish, would be paralysed with fear. And probably they were for a brief period of time. But as weeks went by, this peace keeping force had to shuttle back and forth from point to point, putting out small conflagrations which kept arising between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots, incited no doubt by the contingents which were there from Greece and Turkey. In the meantime we learned from the press that Archbishop Makarios as prime minister had declared mobilization. So those 40,000 men who had arms were, no doubt, put under arms and are fully mobilized. And these men have had their training, if not in the immediate past, then in the past two or three

years, in their struggle for what they thought was independence. Then, fighting broke out between the Turkish and the Greek Cypriots. I believe it was a fight between the Turks and the Greeks. As a consequence, just a couple of days ago the Turkish air force bombarded the northwest portion of Cyprus creating havoc, destroying property and probably destroying some military posts while at the same time causing death, as well as injury to civilians both men and women to the extent that Premier Makarios was disturbed. Meanwhile, the United Nations peace keeping force, so we were told by the press and over the radio on Saturday night, particularly the Canadians, were packing their bags ready to sail home should the necessity arise.
Now this house is happy, and I think the whole nation is happy to have received a report over the press, television and radio, confirmed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that a cease fire has been established as a result of diplomatic efforts. I do not minimize the efforts of the hon. gentleman, his colleagues in the government and everyone else concerned, including the security council. But how long will this state of affairs last? Along with every other member of this house, I pray that it does last. But I venture to say it will only last if Turkey and Greece will it so-not Archbishop Makarios nor his vice-premier, because if anyone says that Archbishop Makarios is acting under constituted authority, he is wrong. According to the constitution, silly as it is, provision is made for one-fifth of the population to have a veto power, and whatever orders or proclamations the archbishop has made on behalf of the Cyprus government are without any legal status since they were not approved by the Turkish minority. I still say that this cease fire in Cyprus will last only as long as Greece and Turkey want it to last.
I think the security council, the great powers, the little powers and Canada itself should exert all the pressure they possibly can upon these two links in the NATO chain to hold to the terms of this cease fire and to assist the security council or the commission of 14 which drew up the constitution for this unhappy island to draw up a new constitution. The constitution which presently exists should be scrapped because, as I indicated, there is a most ridiculous provision in it whereby a minority has the power of veto. That is impossible. It would be impossible in this house and it is impossible in any nation. Second, I feel that the Secretary of
Cyprus Crisis
State for External Affairs should suggest to those who have greater influence over Greece and Turkey that these Greek and Turkish contingents should be removed from the island of Cyprus. This must happen if Cyprus is to remain a sovereign and independent state.
As long as they are stationed there, there is going to be no peace even, as I have said, if the peace keeping force there is increased. A new constitution should be drawn up. Far be it from us, at this distance and not knowing the conditions there, not knowing the historical background which it is necessary to know, to suggest the form of the constitution. But I have pointed out two ridiculous provisions, and I believe everyone in this house will agree with me that these two ridiculous provisions have led to the situation as it is on the island today.
The third thing that should be attempted is the disbanding of Makarios' army. That might be difficult, but the United Nations have had more difficult tasks. If the Turks do likewise, only then will 7,000 men of the United Nations peace keeping force be able to keep the peace. Without these changes, Mr. Speaker, as an ordinary man with no expert knowledge, I feel there will be no peace; at least, no permanent peace. Without these changes we must take steps to ask the United Nations to release our force and let the boys come back home, because they cannot serve any useful purpose. It is true that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said they have saved lives. I presume he means in connection with casualties suffered from the Turkish bombings and from flare-ups between the Turks and the Greeks. But that is not what the Canadian people understood was the purpose of sending this force there; we understood they were to be in the capacity of policemen-and if a police officer has no authority to intervene between two antagonists and use force if necessary to stop an unnecessary fight, his presence is absolutely useless.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there is very little I can add to the very full report given the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) this afternoon. Nevertheless there are one or two points relating to the military aspects of the operation upon which I should like to comment briefly.
It is the responsibility of a military organization to anticipate to the fullest extent possible demands which may be made on its resources and to be prepared to meet those

Cyprus Crisis
demands. In accordance with, this responsibility the Department of National Defence anticipated that the rapidly deteriorating situation in Cyprus might require United Nations or other intervention involving a Canadian component. When this house took its decision on March 13 we were well prepared to act. That same day our advance party was dispatched to Cyprus, where it arrived the following day. Movement staffs and R.C.A.F. slip crews departed in two aircraft on March 14; troop airlift began the following day, March 15, and was completed on March 22; Her Majesty's Canadian ship Bonaventure departed Halifax March 18 and arrived at Famagusta March 30, carrying 95 personnel, 54 vehicles and 92 tons of cargo. The whole force was moved smoothly and quickly without incident, and its organization reflects great credit on our land, sea and air forces.
I might also say it was Canada's willingness and ability to send an advance party on March 13, together with the initiatives taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which catalyzed the formation of the United Nations force, thereby removing the immediate threat of outbreak of hostilities existing at that time. The harmonious teamwork between the departments of external affairs and defence is a matter of gratification.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether or not he had at that time a military appreciation. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is of course he did. We were well aware of the facts as they existed at that time. We knew that almost every able-bodied Cypriot carried a rifle; we knew that it would be impossible for the small force envisaged by the United Nations to fight its way on to the island, and that it could only be useful if it went there in a peace keeping role with the active cooperation of the Cypriots themselves. It was on this basis that the force was formed. It was on the basis of the terms of reference which were agreed between the United Nations and the government of Cyprus that the force was formed and went forward.
In respect of the organization of the force, the command structure in Cyprus is organized into two zones and three districts. The zones are under Canadian and Swedish command. Two of the districts are under United Kingdom command and the third is under Finnish command. Headquarters, Nicosia zone, is commanded by Brigadier A. J. Tedlie, D.S.O., C.D., and the Canadian component on
[Mr. Hellyer.l
his staff consists of 19 officers and 137 other ranks. The Canadian contingent which serves in the Nicosia zone is commanded by E. A. C. Amy, D.S.O., O.B.E., M.C., C.D., and consists of the headquarters Canadian contingent, United Nations force in Cyprus; the 1st battalion of the Royal 22nd regiment, less one company; reconnaissance squadron, Royal Canadian Dragoons, and an administrative support group. The total strength of the contingent at June 29 was 82 officers and 1,021 other ranks. In addition, six officers and nine other ranks are employed at the headquarters of the United Nations force. The total strength of Canadians in Cyprus at June 29 was 88 officers and 1,030 other ranks. The force is supported by an R.C.A.F. flight each week from Canada. The job that has been done by the force and by the Canadian contingent in particular is, I think, little short of magnificent under the circumstances. I cannot praise it too highly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There have been many times when the force has avoided bloodshed. How many, I cannot say; but too many to catalogue. There have been many times when lives have been saved. There have been many times when the immediate and effective intervention of the force has prevented an outbreak of major violence. This is the reason the force was established and the reason it was sent there. It has, in addition, performed numerous other tasks. It has supervised the harvesting of the crops. Whether the harvest was for a Greek Cypriot community or a Turkish Cypriot community, in either event the force has accompanied the harvesters into the fields and supervised the taking of the crops. This has been a very valuable service to the island and to both communities there.
In addition, the force has been able to restore a certain degree of normalcy in some areas. Arrangements have been made to permit the flow of citizens from one community through the lines of the other in order to perform certain useful work. All these very important tasks are in accord with the mandate that was given the force at the time it was established and sent there to do its work. I may say that the young men of our contingent are excellent ambassadors for Canada. I do not know when I have been so impressed with a body of men, young soldiers of 18, 19, 20, 21 years of age showing the maturity and common sense and

good judgment which you would expect from people much older in years.
One of the incidents which I should like to relate-and this is true-is this. One of our deployments in a most difficult area is directly between the outposts of the two Greek and Turkish communities. Periodically firing would commence between the two outposts, and a young corporal 21 years of age would pick up the phone and say: "Now, you cut that out". And they did. It may be a strange kind of war, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our young men have been very effective and you would be most proud of them if you had the opportunity to see them operating as effectively as they do under these very difficult circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had better send that boy home. We could use him in this house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes. It is just not true to say, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) said in the House of Commons this afternoon, that the force is as helpless as if it were non-existent. The powers given the force may be too limited, but they were the best which could be arranged. I think this is essentially a thing for us to remember, that had there been no agreement there would have been no force, and the bloodshed would have continued. The agreement which was reached was the best which could be determined at the time the force was set up.
The deployment of the forces in Cyprus, however, is a peace keeping deployment, not a military deployment, and it depends for its effectiveness on the active co-operation of the local authorities. More recently violations of the status quo have made the situation much more difficult. In these circumstances Canada has taken every possible initiative. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a well deserved tribute to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). No one has worked more assiduously, shown more initiative or put more effort into the determination of a reconciliation of the situation in that troubled island than my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has been untiring in what he has done, and I should like to say to my hon. friend from Winnipeg South, or South Centre-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Your friend is Winnipeg South; I am your enemy.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would say to my hon. friend for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that in respect to supervision of ports, in that case too the Secretary of State for External
Cyprus Crisis
Affairs has taken the matter up with the United Nations. He did not neglect to do his duty in that regard. Anyone who knows the Secretary of State for External Affairs well, as I do, knows that he would have done it, and I quote, "with the sternest of admonitions". Notwithstanding the best efforts the problem is still not yet solved. Meanwhile, the usefulness of the United Nations force remains while further effort is made to effect a settlement.
The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) suggested that a consultative or advisory committee, including the representatives of contributing countries and of Greece, Turkey and Cyprus, might be helpful in advising the secretary general on the problems faced by the United Nations force. He recalled that a similar committee had been established for the United Nations force in the Congo.
I think these points might be put on the record. When the United Nations force in Cyprus was established the United Nations secretary general considered that, initially at least, he would wish to consult individually with contributing countries and with the parties directly concerned, and he has been regularly following this practice. Second, the situation facing the United Nations in Cyprus is different in important respects from that which faced the organization in the Congo. A procedure which is suitable for an operation in one country does not always work for an operation in another. In Cyprus there are special circumstances which make the UN operation particularly delicate, and an advisory committee therefore, with the membership suggested by the hon. member for Oxford, would probably be less flexible and satisfactory than the secretary general's present policy of consulting countries individually. Consultations on a future settlement for Cyprus with the leaders of the two communities and the Greek and Turkish governments have, of course, been carried out by the UN mediator in accordance with the March 4 resolution of the security council.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) has raised the question as to the position of Canadian troops in the event of another serious crisis. He argues, and I agree, that the Canadian people are entitled to some assurance that our forces will not be put in an indefensible position. His concern is shared by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) and others.
In order to allay fears I should like to say something about our contingency plan. I am sure hon. members appreciate the delicacy of

Cyprus Crisis
the subject. The United Nations force, including our contingent, was sent to Cyprus-and I quote from part of the security council resolution of March 4-"in the interests of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and as necessary to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order". It is therefore not consistent with the purposes to which the force was formed to talk about withdrawal.
However, from a directly military point of view those directly responsible for the security of our forces would be remiss in their duty if they did not give adequate forethought to the effects of a possible emergency. In this connection it was appreciated from the outset that a solution to the Cyprus situation would not be easy. It was also appreciated that under certain circumstances a situation might arise which would make it impossible for the force to perform a useful function. I therefore asked the chief of staff to prepare a plan which could be capable of implementation in the event of a crisis. This was for some considerable length of time a very well kept secret. In June I discussed the situation with our commander in Cyprus and as a result certain modifications were worked out designed to increase the effectiveness of the plan and to correlate it with the situation as applied to the whole United Nations force. I am satisfied that sufficient provision has been made to cope with any situation which is likely to arise. For obvious reasons it would be unwise to give details of contingency plans.
However on one rather important point I should like to reassure the hon. member for Calgary North. Whereas some of our troops are deployed in peace keeping positions in the Kyrenia area, authority has been delegated to the UN commander to alter the deployment and regroup the force in company positions if developing circumstances should warrant such action. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) told the house, "the situation in Cyprus is difficult; we knew that before we sent our troops there on March 13".
Two points should be made perfectly clear. First, there is no intention of withdrawing our contingent of United Nations force from Cyprus. Second, should an emergency arise, however, which would make the continued operation of the force impractical, adequate plans are available to cope with that kind of situation.

I should like to reiterate the belief that there remains an essential task to be performed. Notwithstanding events of the last few days there is still hope that a settlement may be reached. Negotiations continue at Geneva and there has been a disposition to work toward a solution.
It may well be that some change in the authority of the United Nations force will be required if a settlement is to be applied. General Thimayya, as hon. gentlemen know, is reporting to the secretary general tonight, and I believe that his report is to be discussed at a security council meeting tomorrow. He may indeed have some suggestions in this regard. There have been changes in directives from time to time and there may be further changes in the future. When I returned from Cyprus I expressed the opinion that broader powers might be required if a solution was imposed. Nothing that has happened in the meantime has changed my view.
First, however, a solution must be agreed which will have the support of the powers involved. Once that has been done, if it can be, the role of the United Nations force in the application of the settlement will be selfapparent. It would not be feasible, I am sure, for national governments to retain day to day control of their forces as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). With his extensive military experience I am sure he will be the first to realize that it would be chaotic and utterly impossible if the force commander was required to consult each member government in advance of each move.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister permit a question at this point?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not suggest day to day control, but if in an emergency a Canadian force commander is called upon to perform some task which he considers militarily unsound, would he have the opportunity of recourse to the home government? I am not referring to day to day control, but recourse in special circumstances.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, of course a commander would have that recourse. I would not expect such an occurrence to materialize, but we have constant communications with our commander there and I am sure if he was ordered to do something which was so irrational that he, as a military commander could not accept, it would become necessary for a national government to consider uni-

lateral action. 1 think I cover that situation in my next point. I understand from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that this situation occurred in Korea.
Contingents once committed must be placed under the control of the United Nations and its commander, or withdrawn. There is no effective midway course. If a situation such as that described by the hon. gentleman were to occur, then that would be the time the national government would consider whether or not in the national interest the force should be withdrawn from the United Nations command.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? I should like to know whether the phase the minister has just been describing has been discussed with the United Nations authorities and that this is their understanding and that under certain circumstances communications would take place with the country supplying the troops which at that stage might say: No, we are not going to carry out your command. Has that point been thoroughly discussed and understood by the United Nations authorities, who have been given authority over Canadian troops in Cyprus?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think such a problem could arise in any conflict. I think the position is a sound one, that we commit our force on the basis that we have confidence in the United Nations and its commander. If the time should arise that there is a loss in confidence, that would be the time when unilateral national action would be considered.


David Vaughan Pugh: Will the minister now answer the question? Has this been thoroughly discussed and understood by United Nations authorities?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think this is the type of situation that is well understood by everyone, Mr. Speaker, except by my hon. friend.


David Vaughan Pugh: Has the situation been discussed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not stating that suggestions should not be made through appropriate channels.
We affirmed the principle of unified command, which is essential to a successful operation. The United Nations force has performed its task well in spite of formidable odds, and the Canadian contingent has performed magnificently and deserves the wholehearted support of the Canadian people and of this house in a most difficult but critically important task.
Cyprus Crisis


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped the minister's remarks would make it unnecessary for me to speak, but there are certain points he did not cover, and others I think he has glossed over. I therefore, hope with some brief remarks to dispose of some of the questions that remain unanswered.
The situation today, five months after the initial debate which led to the resolution for Canada to offer its forces to the United Nations, if it was not overshadowed by the tragedy of hundreds of innocent lives lost during the attacks of this week end, does provide us with an opportunity of reviewing that which has happened in respect of this Cyprus force. I think everyone will agree that this force was created by way of an experiment. The United Nations is still feeling its way in this regard. There is no set type of peace keeping operation. This is a unique situation in that there was an invitation on the part of the government of Cyprus rather than forces outside it being involved initially. There was no aggression from a force outside of Cyprus. The whole operation is being carried out in an attempt to keep down an insipient civil war between intercommunal forces within the country.
We know difficulties exist within the framework of security forces. There is always a grave difficulty in respect of international bodies in that they tend to become top heavy. Each party feels it should have the appropriate number of majors, colonels and brigadiers. This involves the old business of a lot of chiefs and not too many Indians. Such a body becomes somewhat unwieldy. As a result of the information I have received in respect of Cyprus I rather suspect that such is the case there. It has been the case in other areas, including the Congo and the Middle East. This is a difficulty inherent to this type of operation. We must learn a lesson in this respect from the Cyprus situation, and attempt to work out this rather top heavy structure.
We must be sure we have capable field commanders, and that is not always the case. I thought the minister was rather naive when he indicated we committed our Canadian troops with the knowledge that we had a competent field commander. If my memory serves me correctly parliament did not know who was going to be the United Nations force commander at the time this resolution was before us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes we did.

Cyprus Crisis


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I find this a little difficult to understand because Canada took the initiative, and if Canada had not taken the initiative there would not have been a security force.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I just point out to my hon. friend that the night before the force was established I was told who the commander would be, if the force was established.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister now tells me that immediately prior to the decision by this house to establish such a force he knew the identity of the field commander; but that is not always the case. I rather think that under the circumstances it was a little odd, in that if Canada had not taken the initiative there would not have been field forces, and how then could you have had a commander? Perhaps a name had been suggested. In any event, I will leave that point.
I am also concerned about the nature and quality of the troops sent to do this job. Frankly, are the troops properly trained for the job they are to do? We take our most battle trained unit, supposedly our most highly honed unit and send it off, not to do battle but on a peace keeping mission, really a police or provost type of job. My colleague from Ontario says that the minister emphasized that these troops have overseen the harvesting of the crops.
I am not detracting at all from the unit that was sent but I am wondering whether under the circumstances it was the best unit to send. If another emergency had arisen meanwhile where we had needed a battle trained unit, our best one was already committed. The minister knew ahead of time what the role of our forces was going to be and what was going to be permitted, so why send these particular troops?
I raise that question because I feel that a different type of troops could be sent to do this type of job. We have spoken of the difficulties, and this afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) indicated that he was somewhat concerned and uneasy about the terms of reference finding them rather limiting. I am sure the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) feels even more concerned about them because I am certain that the sense of frustration of our Canadian troops in Cyprus has been communicated to him. If it has not, then I certainly am aware of it because for seven weeks now our troops have known that both the Greeks and the Turks have been sin


reptitiously beefing up their forces by slipping in regularly trained troops, and our troops have been powerless to stop it. This is the Achilles heel of the whole operation.
It is all very well to supervise thq harvesting of crops and other rather more peaceful activities. However, when the purpose is to keep the peace and you can see potential enemies arming and are powerless to stop it, surely to goodness it can be realized just how frustrating the job is. Let me give the minister an example of frustration. The house will excuse me for making a personal reference. In 1945 I was a prisoner of war in a camp that had an assortment of some 50,000 officers, air force and army, United States, British, South African, Australian and what have you. When liberation came the German camp authorities fled and the American troops that had liberated the camp went on as they were fighting an S.S. division. Immediately there was an exodus from the camp. People scrounged wire cutters from field troops. Others just climbed the wire and over they went with, I suppose, a feeling of freedom. They were a great nuisance to the field commanders and unfortunately there were some regrettable incidents.
There were some U.S.S.R. troops and others who were feeling a little dry, I suppose, and they got hold of some local spirits. Frankly, the situation got rather chaotic until the American force commander indicated to the camp seniors that everybody would have to remain inside the camp or else we would be faced with the rather unseemly prospect of American military police being stationed in the guard boxes to guard allied, including American, officers and keep them within the compound.
So a camp guard was organized and it was the lot of the junior officers to man the guard 24 hours a day. At that time I was a lieutenant and therefore it became my lot on two occasions to man the guard. There were always people wanting to get beyond the wire. They still had wire cutters. They would cut the wire and get out. There were also people on the outside trying to get in. Certainly the group of Soviet prisoners of war was of some concern to us because they had got hold of arms. We did not have arms and the Russians would return at all hours rather inebriated and we did not know what they were going to do. I remember how frustrated and useless I felt, as did almost all of those who were perimeter guards, because of the orders we were given. Those orders were to this effect: Officers on guard duty will not be armed. In

the event that personnel attempt to get out of camp or to come into camp they will be dissuaded from doing so by the guard officers using their personalities. At two o'clock in the morning, Mr. Speaker, in a mist next to a water filled ditch you are glad, when four or five Soviet troops approach you with rifles, that they are just happy and not belligerent because just your personality is of little use against a rifle.
This was the feeling of frustration we had and this is the feeling of frustration that the United Nations troops, not only the Canadians, have in Cyprus. I would have had a lot to say about the bona fides of the Cypriot government. Since it could not keep the peace itself and agreed to the entry of United Nations forces I would have thought that the least one could expect was that it would act in a bona fide way; but such is not the case. We simply have to read the editorial in this morning's Gazette in which the following statement attributed to Archbishop Makarios is quoted:
Where requirements of absolute security on matters of state defence and security are involved, it is not possible to permit entry of UN patrols.
What utter nonsense to have to face such a stand. This is the biggest possible umbrella for all sorts of clandestine activities, and that is precisely what is being done. There has not been the necessary bona fides on the part of the Cypriot government. In so far as the other two governments, Greece and Turkey, are concerned, naturally they have fallen short of the bona fides that we would have liked in this matter because both sides did bring in troops. I have seen reports that President Makarios has 15,000 trained troops under arms. They were not bringing lollipops ashore from the convoys that were reported. These men are prepared. Certainly no one in the house would advocate the withdrawal of the Canadian troops under the present circumstances. This would spell the death knell of United Nations peace keeping forces and the whole philosophy of such efforts. But surely to goodness we now see what has been done under the arrangements that have existed for the past five months.
What is necessary? If they wish to avoid war the members of the United Nations must see to the strengthening of the United Nations forces. There we have another problem. Here in Canada we have concluded a three month period. We are now almost at the end of the second three month period, all at Canada's cost. We are not complaining about that, but
Cyprus Crisis
how long is this going to last? It is quite conceivable that this might last for a year or 18 months.
If we are to strengthen the forces, at whose expense will this be done? Is this going to be a regularly constituted force under the United Nations? The United Nations has just had a very sobering experience in the Congo. It may be that the nations of the world love to pay lipservice to peace, but are not prepared to pay the shot. I believe the sincerity of their desire for world peace is measured precisely by their performance. Unfortunately some have been woefully weak. Some have gone to the other end of the pendulum by refusing to pay.
Canada, as well as the others involved in this particular peace keeping enterprise, must press for an extension of the terms of reference. It must press not only directly through the United Nations upon Archbishop Makarios, but through its allies so that we may mount an offensive of public opinion on Archbishop Makarios whereby he can have no alternative but to agree that the appropriate terms of reference for a strong peace keeping effort be made available to the United Nations troops. In my opinion this is where we must concentrate our efforts, and perhaps the tragic events of this last week end will help to mount this offensive of public opinion so that President Makarios will have to accept these forces not on the terms-well, I could go into similes but they might be thought to be slanderous, so I will not go into them.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, there are still some unresolved questions. We may have been starry eyed five months ago when we were rushing blithely off like a knight errant in shining armour but we have now had one or two tumbles into wayside puddles. The armour is no longer so shiny and we know the road is long and rough.
I hope we can give encouragement to our troops by getting them an extension of their terms of reference, certainly to disarm and to watch the ports so that this stockpiling of arms will be discontinued. I just cannot conceive of any peace keeping or police type of activity where, if you discover people with clandestine arms you leave them in their possession, one where you do nothing at all unless they fire at you and then you fire back. But you do not take away their arms. This is certainly the height of unreality and I hope we can get our troops out of this rather unsatisfactory position.

Cyprus Crisis


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) has stated that an appreciation was made of this situation in Cyprus before troops were committed, and has been done again since then. I take it that all the factors have been studied, that as a result we have perceived an intention in our objective, and that we know precisely from a military point of view how we are going to carry out that intention.
From what the minister has said, I disagree that our appreciation has been complete; but before going into that matter may I say Canada has always been ready, willing and able at all times, during war and also in her peace keeping activities through the United Nations. We have had many men of ability who have proved themselves to a very great extent indeed, but that has always been when the role or object is known, and known in detail. All down the line we Canadians have had a great deal of pride in all phases of our military forces, and with justification; but this is a little different.
The situation in Cyprus at the moment is not out of hand but it is extremely volatile. It is a situation which could break into a war, however limited, and no doubt tonight all over Canada wives, children and relatives are wondering to what extent the Canadian forces are committed. They cannot help but wonder because their boys are over there on a mission, and that mission, so we understand, is a police force of sorts, peace keeping in essence.
When, then, does that role change, or when might it change? This is where I differ from the Minister of National Defence. Frankly I think he was running off at the mouth at times; he was merely saying a whole bunch of words, because he said if things get a little difficult we will come back to Canada and find out here what is to be done. What I want to impress upon the minister is the volatile nature of the situation over there, and what might happen when Canadians, among others forming that peace keeping force, may be involved over and above their peace keeping role. To my mind this is of tremendous importance.
If the minister thinks that if trouble breaks out he can then come back to Canada and say, "What are we going to do?" I can tell him he is going to be too late altogether. I want to know, and I hope some Liberals want to know, what is Canada's role and how far we are implicated if trouble breaks out? If trouble breaks out can our commander on the 
spot take certain definite steps or must he ask one of two things-what does the United Nations say to do, or what does my country say to do?
In making his little speech tonight the minister said that if the commander disagrees with the role given to him at a time of stress, and under duress, he can then come back to Canada. Holy Christmas. Does the minister not understand that when a war is on you do not have time to do these things? The minister shakes his head to indicate he did not say that, but I can correct Hansard as well as he can and I know exactly what he said because I jotted it down at the time. If the role appears too difficult, the commander can come back to Canada. What utter balderdash.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are right. I did not say it. You did.


David Vaughan Pugh: The minister says he did not say it. Already he is backtracking. Let me say to him, despite the laughter from the Liberal benches, that Canadian troops are over there under fire and subject to being killed at the present time, and if this situation gets a little worse, what are those troops under the Canadian commander going to do? The minister did say he could raise the matter with Canada. I tell the minister that time in a volatile situation does not permit reference to anyone. Canadians may be involved. We have asked questions repeatedly in this house for the last number of months. We have addressed them to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of National Defence. Always the answer has been: Look, this subject is a little touchy; we cannot answer it.
What will happen if war breaks out over there? May I finish with one question? Suppose Canada, under United Nations command, does reply in kind, in self-defence, and people are killed when shots are fired; precisely what is Canada's position? Is Canada involved in a war? What are the United Nations instructions in this regard?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Before we proceed to the orders of the day I wish to take the time of the house for a few minutes, largely because of a message which has come in and which I should like to place on record.
Before I do that, may I express my appreciation of the initiative of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in bringing about this discussion on such an important subject, and of the level on which the dis-

cussion has been conducted. We have learned, I think, through this debate that there are members on the other side who certainly appreciate and understand the difficulties and the dangers we are facing in our participation in United Nations activities of this kind. It was said by one hon. member that last March we, and the government, may have entered upon this undertaking in a spirit of knight errantry and easy idealism without awareness of its dangers. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has had anything to do with international peace keeping operations at any time in the last 10 or 15 years is not likely to enter into an undertaking such as the Cyprus undertaking without an awareness of the danger and difficulties, let alone in any spirit of knight errantry. There is nothing more complicated or more difficult than operations of this kind, as we learned in the Suez crisis and as some of the hon. gentlemen opposite learned when they led Canadian participation in the Congo operation. Now there is the Cyprus operation which is, in some respects, the most difficult of all.
An understanding of these difficulties is certainly widespread in the house. Similarly, we on this side of the house share the feelings of impatience and, at times, of frustration which anyone must feel at the inability of an international force to achieve clear cut objectives in a way which is so often laid down when an undertaking is a national one. But we also know, with the responsibility of government, that it is not possible to achieve perfection in a matter of this kind. As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said, we are feeling our way; we are groping; we are going from stage to stage and we are trying, on the foundation we have laid, to build up a structure of peace keeping. It cannot be an easy or a quick undertaking and there are things we would have liked to see done in connection with the terms of reference, the directives, the operations and the authority given to the force, but which could not be done because of the necessity of reaching agreement with the United Nations, with the other governments concerned, and particularly with the government of the country in which the force has to operate.
Back in 1956 when we were trying to work out the terms of reference and orders for the United Nations emergency force in the Suez, we soon found that in order to operate in the area we had to achieve co-operation with the government, or the leader of the government, in the territory in which the force would operate. You cannot have clear cut objec-20220-419	.
Cyprus Crisis
tives and clearcut authority, because there has to be compromise. When the Congo force was set up its terms of reference were very much like those which govern the operations of the United Nations force in Cyprus-they were to use force only in self-defence, as is the case in Cyprus. But as the months went by it became clear that there had to be changes in the directive. Changes were made, but it took a good many months to bring them about and it was not done until conditions in the Congo made it essential that changes should be made. And there may have to be changes in connection with United Nations activities in Cyprus, and the crisis through which we have gone this week end may make the necessity for these changes more obvious to certain people than has been the case up to this moment. Sometimes you can do things under the impetus of fear that you cannot do under the stimulus of reason. So perhaps out of the crisis of the week end, if we can get through it without too much trouble-and things look a little better, now-we may be able to strengthen the position of the United Nations force in Cyprus.
Certainly this crisis has shown one thing clearly. It has shown that the United Nations, with all its weakness and imperfection, is indispensable in keeping the peace at times of crisis as well as between crises in a situation of this kind. If the United Nations had not moved in last March we might have been in a desperate situation in the eastern Mediterranean, and who knows how far the conflict might have extended? If the United Nations and the security council in particular had not been available over the week end, we do not know what might have happened. But it was there. It was able to take up the situation on Friday and Saturday and at least bring about a cease fire. This does not end the dispute, of course, but it has given us another chance to bring about an agreement and I hope the members of the United Nations will be able to take advantage of the opportunity which has now been afforded to them. The situation has eased, but the problem is not solved.
A message just came in which confirms the easing of the situation. It is a statement made by the secretary general on the Cyprus situation, and perhaps before we reach orders of the day I might be permitted to place it on the record. This is what U Thant has to say this evening:
The president of the security council on 9 August, pursuant to the wishes of the council, directed urgent appeals to the governments of Cyprus and Turkey to end their hostile activities by a cease-

Cyprus Crisis
fire. It is gratifying and encouraging that both governments have responded positively and without conditions. On the morning of 10 August the president of Cyprus informed the president of the security council by cable that "We shall respect the appeal of the security council for a cease-fire''; and addressed a similar cable to me.
That is, the secretary general;
In a letter to the president of the security council, received on the afternoon of the same day, the prime minister of Turkey stated that the government of Turkey "Has decided to stop immediately the action of the Turkish aircraft over the Mansoura-Kokkina region-"
The secretary general goes on;
"These decisions of the two governments now afford an opportunity for definitely ending fighting and relaxing tension in Cyprus, and it will be my purpose to take fullest possible advantage of this opportunity by exerting every effort toward constructive peace keeping arrangements in all areas of the island. In consequence, I have instructed the commander of the force to co-operate fully with all parties in making the cease-fire thoroughly effective and to take every initiative and to lend all assistance toward this end. I strongly appeal to the governments of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey and to the Turkish community of Cyprus to extend full co-operation and support to General Thimayya and to the United Nations force in Cyprus which he commands in their peace keeping efforts.
"I have also asked Mr. Galo Plaza, my special representative in Cyprus, to return there promptly and it is expected that he will do so by the end of the week."
This is encouraging as far as it goes. I know, from the discussion that has taken place today, that all members of the house will back the government, speaking for Canada, in this matter and in its endeavours to support the secretary general and the United Nations in all the efforts that can be made, not only to resolve this particular crisis but to bring a solution of the problem in Cyprus.
We in this country certainly have an interest in that island. We have an interest because Cyprus is a sister nation in the commonwealth of nations, and it might have been possible in other circumstances for the commonwealth to have done something to restore peace to that island, except that the two countries outside Cyprus most directly affected are not members of the commonwealth. We have an interest in this crisis as members of NATO, and it might have been possible in different circumstances for NATO to have intervened positively and constructively in this matter, except that the country most directly concerned, Cyprus, is not a member of NATO, and NATO intervention in the circumstances which existed might not have been the most effective way of removing suspicions and bringing about peace. We are

a member of the United Nations, and that is the source of our own participation in this operation.
Mr. Speaker, if this operation does not succeed, if this crisis had deteriorated into conflict-which I hope and believe now it will not-it would have been the end of NATO. It might also have been the end of the peace keeping activities and endeavours of the United Nations, which are beginning to show more signs of progress than we had any right to expect a year or two ago. So from every point of view this crisis over the week end was more than a crisis of peace or war in Cyprus; it was concerned with the building up of international security in the world. We in Canada have from the beginning of the United Nations played our full part in that effort, and we will continue to do so.
We had an even deeper interest than this. We had an interest in this crisis because, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I think it was, said this afternoon, we belong to the human race and a conflict in a small part of the world, in a small island in the Mediterranean, involving only a few hundred thousand people can, through the awful escalation of modern political and military activities, develop into global nuclear warfare. If that happens, then indeed we will find out whether we are going to belong to the human race very much longer. So from every point of view, as a member of NATO, as a member of the commonwealth, as a member of the United Nations and as a member of the human race, I think we in this house would all want to do anything we can to bring about peace and security in this Mediterrean island.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it is customary, Mr. Speaker, is it not, if the debate is concluded, to withraw?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the intention to seek the leave of the house to withdraw the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Diefenbaker) withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the day.



[Stage Direction]
CONGO; VIET NAM-SAFETY OF CANADIANS
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. It seems that we cannot leave him alone, but unfortunately there are critical international situations in other parts of the world as well. There are the situations in Viet Nam and in the Congo, which affect the safety and well-being of many Canadian nationals in those areas. Can the minister give us the assurance that our Canadian nationals in both these areas are being adequately taken care of?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to what I said on Friday about the situation in the Congo. I had reference at that time to a particular family, and our reports are that they have not come to any harm.
With regard to the situation in Viet Nam, as my hon. friend knows, since the events toward the end of last week there have been no further major incidents. From the notice of the question my hon. friend gave me, I think he wanted me to give an indication of the number of Canadians in Viet Nam. There are 12 members of the Department of External Affairs and 54 members of the Canadian armed forces in Viet Nam. There are no Canadians, apart from members of the international commission for supervision and control, in North Viet Nam. In South Viet Nam, in addition to the members of the commission, there are 123 Canadian citizens. These have informed the British embassy in Saigon of their residence in South Viet Nam, for purposes of possible evacuation if that should be decided upon.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister has a report on or can advise the house in regard to the attempted bombing of the Cuban freighter Maria Teresa in Montreal on Sunday. If the minister has not any information at the moment, perhaps he could report to the house tomorrow.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a report on this matter from the chairman of the national 20220-419J
Inquiries of the Ministry harbours board. Perhaps I might read a paragraph out of the report:
In view of warnings involving an earlier Cuban ship, two R.C.M.P. constables were in the vicinity of the vessel at the time of the explosion. The R.C.M.P. is investigating the matter. It is interesting to note that the New York office of United Press received news of the explosion from the Cuban Nationalist Association less than a quarter of an hour after it had taken place. The R.C.M.P. also found a letter in Spanish inside shed 10.
I do not think there will be many of us who will feel that this form of activity is conducive to any good.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the happening in Montreal harbour, which certainly constituted a threat to the safety, livelihood and lives of Canadian stevedores working in the area, and other Canadians, and in view of the fact that in a future case it could be a ship carrying munitions, does the department consider taking any action or making any representations to the United States government about this organization carrying on from New York?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being looked into from this point of view, and my colleague the Minister of Justice has informed me that an investigation is now proceeding. At this stage it is not possible to provide any further information.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of one reference in the previous question I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether ships for Cuba are loading ammunition in the port of Montreal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to say anything more at this time.



FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF UN FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he had yet received a copy of Archbishop Makarios' letter to the secretary general of the United Nations and whether he would table it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lethbridge called this to my attention today and it has been tabled.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the second letter, the one agreeing to limited freedom of access?



Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, July 29 and
the second one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Has the minister made any comment on the letter, and does he consider this is a satisfactory statement on the right of access for the United Nations force?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I did make a comment on that in my statement today. I said that it represented a very considerable advance but there was one point which I thought had yet to be explained fully.



POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER SALES TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfori-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's attention been directed to a dispatch in this morning's Le Devoir which says that Mr. Khrushchev had announced to the Russian people that this year's grain harvest was an exceedingly good one and there was no need for Russia to buy grain from Canada and other countries? If so, will this affect seriously our Canadian exports to that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I had seen a similar report in another newspaper and I have always said in this house that the Russians have to decide whether they will need any grain this year. If they do I think we will get our share of business. I have also said that whether or not the Russians buy wheat which we would like them to do, this will be a good export year.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise the house when he proposes to introduce his estimates setting up the arrangement for the board of broadcast governors to hear applications from CATV operators?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I imagine that estimate will not be brought down at all until the

next batch of supplementary estimates. The hon. member will have to ask the Minister of Finance to gaze into his crystal ball, but I imagine this will be some time late in the fall. In the meantime, as I indicated, any advice which is required in the cases now pending will be sought quite informally. [Later:]


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport with reference to cable television. The minister said with regard to applications for licences now that they would be treated quite informally. Does he mean that all applications will be heard in exactly the same manner as they were heard before the freeze was put on?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not precisely, no. In cases where there is reason to feel that there might conceivably be some seriously adverse financial effects upon television broadcasting an informal opinion on the point will be sought from the board of broadcast governors. But in every other respect they will be treated as they have in the past.


David Vaughan Pugh: A further supplementary question. Was not this procedure that which was carried on before last December 15? In other words, the rights of ordinary broadcasting stations are taken into consideration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe some years ago for a while the advice of the B.B.G. was sought. Then some question was raised by the B.B.G. itself about the propriety of doing this, and it discontinued giving this advice. It is now proposed to seek the advice on an informal basis until such time as parliament approves, if it does approve, the item in the estimates which I am proposing to recommend to the Minister of Finance be brought forward later in the year.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house what steps he intends to take to check the alarming rise in the cost of living index which reached 136.2 for last July? [Text]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend

may be referring to the increase in the cost of living index for July over June. I am sure he will remember that usually in this month there is a substantial increase, in this case almost all of it being attributable to increases in food costs. Anyone with any familiarity with the farming industry will know the reason for that at this time of year.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question. Does the minister not know that the main reason for the high cost of living this month was due to the cost of renting facilities?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The increase in the food index this month of 2.2 per cent accounted for the whole of the increase, or practically the whole of the increase.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance whether they have received any communication, either formally or informally, from the province of Alberta to the effect that that province might not participate in the student loans fund?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any. I will make inquiries of my colleague, but I believe the Minister of Finance has not received any communication either.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. Perhaps I might draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a dispatch in the Edmonton Journal for Friday, August 7, in which the minister of education stated that they likely would not be participating because loans under the Queen Elizabeth fund in that province were at a rate of 3J per cent whereas loans under the federal plan might be at 5J per cent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I expect to have the pleasure of seeing the premier of Alberta on Wednesday or Thursday and I will be glad to ask this question of him.



STUDENT LOANS-INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATION PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance, in view of some inquiries now being made by
Federal-Provincial Relations students as to what procedure should be followed in order to obtain a loan, whether his department has now ready any printed form of procedure to be taken by these students and, if not, when does he expect this will be available?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the house at the end of last week, and in a press release about a week before, it is not expected that the formal procedure will be ready in detail form throughout the country till about the end of August. In the meantime students will presumably feel free to apply to or to discuss the matter with the provincial loan boards or with the universities in which they hope to enrol or in which they are now enrolled. I am hoping to have a brochure prepared, as I said last week, covering the whole procedure, but this must await further discussions with the provincial authorities which are being called for a week today.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has received any report from the provincial premiers conference which has just concluded in Jasper, with particular reference to the discussion which the premiers had respecting various pension plans, making them portable, and so on, and whether or not this could be reconcilable, if I may repeat that term, with the Canada pension plan, the white paper which we received today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the premiers were talking about the portability of private plans, which is a quite different matter from those discussed in the white paper.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROVISION FOR REVISION OF FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND TAXATION PROVISION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, August 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-lll, to provide for the revision of certain fiscal arrangements with the provinces and to provide adjustments of fiscal arrangements and taxation provisions consequential upon the provision of youth allowances to parents resident in certain provinces-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
6632	HOUSE OF
Federal-Provincial Relations
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, after spending the whole day on the rather important, and to some of us rather obscure, problems in international affairs I rather hesitate to bring the committee of the whole house back to the question of domestic arrangements.
Several members of the committee who have already spoken on this item, or who spoke on second reading of the bill, pointed out the importance of equalization payments from a central government to various provincial governments in a federal state. It should be obvious, and I think it is to almost everyone, that this is necessary because in a federal state the economic pattern of the various parts making up that state is varied in ways that are very difficult to measure or even estimate. For example, the imposition of tariffs may have a different effect on one province than on another, yet all provinces, of course, submit to the turning over of this power to the central government for the common good.
Tariffs may tend to create a concentration of manufacturing in one part of the country. That has taken place in Canada. I hope, however, that the tendency which has existed since confederation until practically the present time for concentration of manufacturing in central Canada will be reversed and there will be perhaps not an actual dispersion of manufacturing but an increase in the number of manufacturing interests in the various provinces so there will be more equity and an opportunity of employment resulting from this development.
When you have a concentration of manufacturing in one area you naturally have a concentration of other businesses in these areas. I will cite one example. In my province I think it is almost impossible, if not impossible, to buy life insurance without the knowledge that the premium paid each year probably goes to Montreal, Toronto, Waterloo or one of the insurance centres of the country. I do not cite this example because I have an objection to this fact but to show that this does create a concentration of the management and wealth as well as the management and investment capital in certain areas and it is more likely to be invested in these areas than in the extremities of the country. There are an infinite number of other examples that one might cite.
Various members who have spoken in this debate have pointed out the necessity and good sense of equalization payments. I think the minister summed this up perhaps as well


as anyone, and I hope he does not object if I put on the record again what he said in this connection as reported on page 5182 of Hansard for July 7, 1964:
If the equalization system is inadequate, the poorer provinces will be unduly burdened in their attempt to maintain reasonable standards in the public services for which they are responsible; and if they fail to maintain a reasonable standard of essential services, the national interest is affected.
Having said that, I should add that the argument for the equalization of the standard taxes to the level of the top two provinces does not rest on grounds of fairness or broad national interest alone. The provincial origins of the incomes and accumulations of wealth upon which income tax and estate tax yields depend are often widespread and are rarely known with accuracy. This in itself would, I suggest, support the view that some portion of their yield ought to be equalized among the various provinces.
Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly agree with that sentiment, but would like to concern myself with the actions of the government and the minister in this regard as well as with their words. Before doing so I should like to state that there is another factor rarely brought to light, and that is that many of the provinces in the extremities of the country make a great indirect contribution to the national good because they form markets for much of the manufactured goods manufactured in central Canada. The converse is not true to the same extent. This is especially true of provinces such as Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland where imports, to use the word in the provincial sense, of practically all manufactured goods come from central Canada. Most of our exports are exported entirely out of the country, and I refer to fish, minerals and pulp and paper products. This tendency is true of Prince Edward Island, but perhaps to a lesser extent.
The commercial activities of these provinces make great contributions to the balance of our import and export account, and help to reduce an otherwise great problem in respect of the balance of payments, with which we are always struggling.
Professor James M. Buchanan of the University of Virginia in an article on "Federalism and Fiscal Equity" published in the September, 1950 issue of the American Economic Review had this to say:
The (equity) principle establishes a firm basis for the claim that the citizens of the low income states within a national economy possess the "right" that their states receive sums sufficient to enable these citizens to be placed in positions of fiscal equality with their equals in other states. A transfer viewed in this light is in no sense a gift or subsidy from the citizens of the more favoured regions.

That is a principle that is very sound indeed, and although it is made in the context of the United States, I feel it applies with equal force to Canada.
I am concerned, as is the government of Prince Edward Island, with the present situation in respect of that province. In other words, I am concerned with the results of the two recent provincial conferences. I think the minister knows that the government of Prince Edward Island was bitterly disappointed with the results. That is not to say there is not some advantage gained. There was some considerable advantage gained from the new additional grants. However, they are not as great relatively as was generally hoped.
I should like to quote briefly, if I may, from the brief which the premier of Prince Edward Island presented to the federal-provincial conference in this connection. He stated:
The province of Prince Edward Island is claiming the recognition of a right-the principle of fiscal equality. A return for the money our people are paying each year in the form of higher prices, due to the tariffs, etc. which have had the effect of protecting manufacturing in central Canada. This protection has contributed greatly to the continued industrial expansion in that area that brought with it a concentration of income and wealth that is earned in doing business with all parts of the country.
We are not asking for any privilege. We do not want any privilege. We are anxious to co-operate with the other provinces and with the federal authorities in examining and exploring our mutual problems and presenting our views on matters of great concern.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder whether I might ask the hon. gentleman a question. Is he aware that of the total amount of additional revenues that will be transferred or abated to the provinces for the fiscal year 1966-67 Prince Edward Island will receive $1,621,000? I have not worked it out on a per capita basis but it is certainly pretty high.


John Angus MacLean: I have worked it out and I am coming to that in just a moment. This is the nub of my argument. I might say in this connection that among the provinces Prince Edward Island in particular has exploited about as far it can in any reasonable way its own sources of taxation, because when you have a situation where the average income is lower than in other parts of the country you have a lesser tax base and the returns are bound to be less.
If I may take one field of provincial taxation as an example, let us consider the tax on gasoline. In Prince Edward Island it is
Federal-Provincial Relations 18 cents a gallon. There are only two other provinces with a gasoline tax higher, namely Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The other provinces have a gasoline tax as low as 12 or 13 cents in many cases. As a matter of fact, west of Ontario 14 cents a gallon is the highest provincial tax on gasoline.
I should like to illustrate this point further by showing that the abatement of the income tax or the opportunity of provinces that have a low average income to collect certain taxes is not of very great benefit to them. I cite one example which illustrates the unequal tax capacities of the provinces. A 10 per cent increase in personal income tax in Prince Edward Island would yield about 30 cents per capita compared with $1.50 per capita in Ontario. So there is a real problem in this connection.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that the basic economy of Prince Edward Island is founded on the agricultural industry and the fishing industry and both of these industries are low income industries in relation to most other industries in Canada. Per capita income is also lowered by the fact that the percentage of wage earners in Prince Edward Island is smaller than in other provinces. This is due to the fact that there is insufficient opportunity in the maritime provinces generally for young people. I am not blaming this government for that because the situation has existed for many years. A great number of our young people who come into the labour market are forced to go to other provinces to earn their living. This leaves an inordinately high percentage of old people and children. I do not have the statistics but I am quite sure that in Prince Edward Island the percentage of dependants to wage earners is for this reason higher than in any other province of Canada.
The situation which exists in the maritimes creates added burdens for the governments there because they must provide educational facilities, to cite only one example, for the young people who are growing up and who as soon as they finish their education, which is provided to them by the provincial government at very considerable expense, go somewhere else. They have to do so because of economic conditions and they are presented, as it were, as a gift to some other province. A young man or young lady fully educated at the expense of one province goes to another province where economic opportunities are greater and adds in every way to the welfare of the latter province by becoming a taxpayer

Federal-Provincial Relations there during the period of life when they are
most productive.
I will try to finish before 10.30, Mr. Chairman, but I will not guarantee it. The minister has referred to the seemingly large amount of money, $1,621,000 additional a year, that Prince Edward Island will receive by 1966-67. This is .6 per cent of the total increment which will be paid to all the provinces in that year. The population of Prince Edward Island is roughly .52 per cent of the total population of Canada so the province is just a little slice better off than if it had been done on a flat per capita basis right across the country.
To take other figures I would point out that for the year 1962-63 Prince Edward Island received .79 per cent of the total amount. I have forgotten what the exact amount is in the case of Prince Edward Island but it does not matter. In the year 1964-65 it will receive .63 per cent of the increment. In the year 1965-66 it will receive .61 per cent of the increment and in the year 1966-67 it will receive .60 of the increment. In all cases its percentage of the increment is less than what its percentage of the total formerly was.
I am not complaining about the fact that there is going to be an extra $1,621,000 for Prince Edward Island but I am complaining about the fact that every year Prince Edward Island is receiving a relatively smaller slice of the pie. No matter how you work it out, Prince Edward Island is not doing as well
on the division of the increment as it formerly did from the grants which were worked out by all the governments in the past and culminated in the total grants that were given to the various provinces in 1962-63. This is the point about which we complain.
I am also rather curious about the wide variation in the total amounts given to the provinces. For example, although Prince Edward Island by 1966-67 will receive this amount New Brunswick will receive over $11 million more and Quebec $107 million more. These provinces are not that many times larger than Prince Edward Island and relatively I do not think their problems are as great.
May I call it 10.30, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the acting house leader if he would let us know what main estimates will be taken up on Friday? We are familiar with the order of business for the other days of the week.


Mr. MacNaughl:: I regret, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to inform the house this evening which department will be considered on Friday. We will have that information tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
It being thirty two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to special order.


[Stage Direction]
Scope of the Plan
The Canada Pension Plan is designed to extend social insurance protection to people in retirement, to widows, orphans and the disabled. It will be a basic part of Canada's social security system.
In the resolution proposed in the House of Commons in July 1963, and the statement tabled at that time, the Government made known its objective for retirement pensions. This is to establish a contributory pension plan ensuring that, as soon as is possible in a fair and practical way, all Canadians will be able to look forward to retiring in security and with dignity.
In order that this major social advance should be effective for everyone, it is not enough to have adequate pension schemes available in all parts of the country. The pension arrangements across the country need to be of such a nature that they do not set up obstacles to the movement of people. The benefits have to be portable for people who change jobs and homes. Therefore the pension plan should be nation-wide in character.
In July 1963 the Government pointed out that "a full program of social insurance would provide benefits for survivors and disabled persons who have not reached an age at which benefit would normally be considered an old age pension. Doubts have been expressed whether such benefits are within federal jurisdiction under the existing provisions of the British North America Act. Certainly such programs as now exist for these people are provincially administered. This is, accordingly, a subject which requires full consultation and discussion. . .
After such consultation, agreement was reached with the provinces for an amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act, so that the federal Parliament can legislate for these supplementary benefits.
The Canada Pension Plan will provide pensions for widows and dependent children of contributors who die. Apart from workmen's compensation and veterans' pensions, only public assistance measures such as mothers' allowances have been available to aid survivors. Similarly, disabled people have hitherto depended on assistance programs, such 20220-420
as blind persons' allowances and allowances for the totally and permanently disabled. Under the Canada Pension Plan there will, for the first time, be social insurance protection against disability.
Federal-Provincial Co-operation
Our constitution provides that, while the Parliament of Canada may legislate about pensions, and now also about supplementary benefits, federal legislation shall not affect the operation of any present or future provincial legislation with respect to pensions.
The federal objective therefore can be achieved only in co-operation with the provinces. Pensions plans are of great interest to the provinces not only in themselves but also because of their implications for savings. All provinces have expressed views about pensions. The province of Ontario has legislation dealing with the regulation of private pension plans. The province of Quebec began developing a public pension plan in August 1963. And other provinces have shown natural concern to safeguard their rights of jurisdiction and to ensure that federal legislation is satisfactory to them in areas of mutual interest.
Having outlined its proposals in July 1963, the government has sought to develop its plans in consultation with the provinces and in ways which meet, as fully as practicable, the various viewpoints and interests of the provinces. To this end, pensions have been under discussion at four federal-provincial conferences in 1963-64, and there have been numerous consultations with provincial officials. The federal government entered into these consultations prepared to make adjustments to its proposals provided that the fundamental purposes of its pension plan were achieved and a number of modifications were made with a view to meeting suggestions put forward in those discussions.
It has been plain throughout that any province preferring to have its own plan would be free to do so. One province, Quebec, made this choice. The province of Ontario, whose legislation had provided for the compulsory extension of private plans and which was considering the possibility of a provincial plan, urged the view that the most important
[Stage Direction]
consideration was to establish a country-wide plan. All provinces endorsed this objective. When the proposals of the Quebec government were made known in April 1964, it fortunately appeared that the differences between the two sets of proposals were not too great to bridge. Accordingly, the two governments were able to agree that the sound way to launch so far reaching a social measure was to bring their plans together, so that they will provide common pension arrangements for all Canadians across the country.
The consultations and complex work of the past 12 months have succeeded in developing the plan outlined in this document. There has been no change in the objective or the fundamental features of the plan. Many of the details, also, are the same. But there are some important changes, the effects of which are:
(1)	The scale of pensions at the end of the transition period will be 25 % of earnings.
(2)	The first $600 a year of earnings will be exempt from contributions; in effect, this results in a graduated contribution rate which increases as the level of one's income rises, up to a ceiling of $5,000.
(3)	For people earning over $1,350 a year, the contribution rate will be higher, at the outset of the program, than the 1% previously proposed. The plan will therefore accumulate larger funds, which will be lent to the provinces.
(4)	Compulsory coverage has been broadened to include almost all employees and selfemployed people, employees must contribute on earnings over $600 a year, and self-employed people whose total earnings are $800 or more a year must contribute on their earnings over $600.
(5)	Any province administering such a plan will be asked to administer the federal pension provisions for employees under federal jurisdiction in that province. The one province proposing to follow this approach has agreed to do this.
(6)	The effective date of the plan will be January 1966 instead of 1965.
Main Features of the Pensions
The plan is comprehensive in the sense of covering as many people as is practicable. It is not intended to provide all the retirement income or survivors' income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the Government's view, should properly be left to personal savings and to private pension plans, subject in the latter case to such degree of supervision as the provinces may think appropriate. The 1963 Ontario legislation is the first example in Canada of an attempt at close supervision of private plans. Similar legislation has been proposed by the governments of Manitoba and Quebec.
The purpose of the Canada Pension Plan is to make reasonable minimum levels of income available at normal retirement ages, and to people who become disabled, and to the dependents of people who die. There will be scope for the continuation and extension of private pension plans to provide benefits over these minimum levels.
The present minimum provided in Canada is the old age security benefit of $75 a month from age 70, but many people are unable to go on earning until they reach age 70.
Adequate levels of pensions cannot be realistically achieved, in a country like Canada, simply by increasing the flat-rate pension. Living costs vary greatly between town and country, and between different regions of Canada. What people need, if either retirement or the death or disablement of the head of the family removes their regular income, is related in part to the level of earnings to which they have been accustomed.
The Canada Pension Plan will therefore provide a retirement pension related to the earnings on which people have contributed. The scale of this pension will rise during a ten year transitional period to a level of 25 per cent of these earnings.
The principal features of the benefits under the plan are:-
1.	An earnings-related pension will be available to contributors at any age between 65 and 70, provided they have retired from regular employment. At age 70, the pension will be available as of right, whether retired or not.
2.	The existing flat rate Old Age Security pension will also become available at any age between 65 and 70, according to the preference of the pensioner. But the amount of this pension will be graduated, depending on the age at which it starts, so that anyone who survives to the age of average life expectancy will receive about the same total payment, from the age he starts his pension to the time he dies, whatever starting age he chooses. This means that, compared with $75 a month from age 70, anyone who begins to take Old Age Security as soon as he or she is 65 will receive a pension of $51 a month (in addition, of course, to any earnings-related pension). The adjustment cost of making this

choice available will be financed by the existing rates of tax for Old Age Security.
3.	A pension will be paid to all widows caring for their dependent children and to others if they are widowed at age 35 or older. This pension will have two components: a fiat-rate pension, which at the outset will be $25 a month, and an earnings-related pension which will be 37J per cent of what the husband's retirement pension would have been. These amounts will be reduced for women without dependent children who are under 45 when their husbands die.
4.	A pension will be paid to disabled contributors. The flat rate pension in this case will also be $25. The earnings-related pension will be 75 per cent of what the retirement pension would have been.
5.	A flat rate benefit of $25 will be paid to orphans. It will be payable until they reach age 18, or to age 25 if attending school. Total payments to the children of one contributor cannot exceed the maximum retirement pension payable.
6.	A benefit will be paid when a contributor or a pensioner dies. This lump-sum payment will amount to six times the monthly retirement pension that could have been paid, but will not exceed $500 at the outset.
Timing
Collection of contributions will begin in January 1966. At that time the flat rate Old Age Security pension will become available to people who have reached age 69. Earnings-related retirement pensions will begin in January 1967. At this date, people will be able to draw pensions, both flat rate and earnings-related, at age 68. By 1970 both these pensions will be available at age 65. Widow's pensions, orphan's benefits, and death benefits will first be paid in January 1968, when contributions for two years will have been made. Pensions for disabled contributors and disabled widows and widowers will become payable in January 1971.
Until the plan is ten years old, the rates of the retirement pension will build up steadily. In 1967, after one year's contribution, the retirement pension will be 2.5 per cent of earnings, or $10.42 a month for anyone whose year's earnings were $5000 or more. For anyone retiring at age 67 or older in 1968, the pension will be 5 per cent of earnings, and so on until the top rate of 25 per cent of earnings is reached after ten years. This steady increase in the size of pensions payable each year is illustrated in Table I.
20220-mi
The Old Age Security pension will, of course, be available in addition to the new retirement pension.
The gradual build-up of pensions over a ten year period will not apply in the case of survivors' and disability pensions, which will be payable in full in 1968 and 1971 respectively.
Table I
MONTHLY RETIREMENT PENSION DURING EARLY YEARS OF THE PLAN (assuming consumer price index unchanged)
Average -monthly earnings	Monthly retirement pension payable at beginning of		
1968	1971	1976$	$	$	3100 	5.00	12.50	25.00200 	10.00	25.00	50.00300 	15.00	37.50	75.00400 	20.00	50.00	100.00416.67	20.83	52.08	104.17
Financing
Since the new pensions will be related to earnings, the Canada Pension Plan will be financed by contributions based on earnings. The first $600 of each person's annual earnings will be exempt from contributions. On earnings above that amount, and up to a ceiling which will initially be $5,000 a year, the employee will make a contribution of 1.8 per cent.
The effect of the exemption is that people with relatively low incomes will make a smaller contribution, for each dollar of pension to which they become entitled, than will people with higher incomes.
An employee earning $1,000 a year will contribute on $400; he will thus pay $7.20 a year, or 0.7 per cent of his total earnings. At the other extreme, a man earning $5,000 a year will make the maximum contribution of $79.20 a year, which is 1.6% of his earnings. On earnings of $3,600 a year the employee's contribution is 1.5 per cent of earnings.
In monthly figures, the employee contributions will be: earnings $100 a month, contribution 90 cents a month; earnings $200 a month, contribution $2.70 a month; earnings $300 a month, contribution $4.50 a month; earnings $400 a month, contribution $6.30 a month.
[Stage Direction]
Employers will make a matching contribution of 1.8% on employees' annual earnings between $600 and $5,000.
Self-employed people will pay the combined rate of 3.6%, on annual earnings between $600 and $5,000, provided that their total annual earnings are $800 or more.
Contributions will be deductible from income subject to tax, as for private pension plans. Contributions will not be required before the age of 18. They will stop when a benefit begins, which may be between 65 and 70, but in no case later than 70. Pensions will be taxable like other income.
The Canada Pension Plan will be entirely self-financing. That is, the contributions will cover the cost of benefits, including the cost of administration.
The revenues of the plan, over and above those needed for current operations, will be available for the use of the provinces; they will be divided in proportion to the amounts paid into the plan by contributors in each province. Provincial governments will thus have the right to use of the funds, provided they undertake to pay interest to the pension fund at a rate not less than the rate for long term federal borrowing. Any funds which a province does not wish to take up would be invested in federal government securities, but the principal assets of the fund will be obligations of provincial governments. It is estimated that the reserves in the federal fund will be more than $4 billion by the end of the first ten years.
Periodic actuarial reports on the anticipated revenues and expenditures of the pension fund will be published. The reports will be reviewed by an advisory committee which will be set up to report to the Government on the operation of the plan. The legislation will also require that special actuarial reports must be made to estimate the long term costs of any proposals to change the benefits or other major features of the plan.
RETIREMENT PENSIONS Calculation of Benefit
Pensions are to be 25 per cent of "what a man has been earning".
This obviously cannot mean what the pensioner earned in, say, the last year, or even few years, before beginning the pension. That would be very unfair to the man who suffered sickness or unemployment in the last few years before retirement. On the other hand, the pensioner cannot be allowed to pick the best year or few years of his earning
record; that would excessively favour the man whose earnings have been erratic.
The pension benefit will therefore be based on the man's average earnings from the effective date of the plan to the time when he starts to draw his pension. These earnings cannot, however, be used without adjustment. To do so would mean that, as the general level of earnings rises over the years, there would be a widening span between earnings recorded in the early years and those shortly before retirement. The pension benefits paid would therefore be a declining proportion of "what a man has been earning" shortly before retirement. Accordingly, for calculating pensions, earnings will be adjusted in line with changes in the general level of salaries and wages.
The ceiling for earnings under the Canada Pension Plan has been set at $5,000 for the first two years of the plan. During the rest of the transitional period, the ceiling will be adjusted upward if there are increases in the cost-of-living (measured by the consumer price index), but not by more than 2 per cent in any year. After the ten year transitional period has ended, a long term moving average of wages and salaries will be used to adjust the ceiling, because it is the most appropriate means of keeping pensions in line with earnings.
In the calculation of a man's average earnings, his wages or salary for, say, 1970 will be adjusted by the ratio between the average earnings ceilings in the three years before retirement and the ceiling for 1970. This will be done for each year for which he contributes. In this way, his past earnings will be re-valued to their current equivalent before his average earnings are calculated.
Under this formula, a man who in some years does not contribute to the plan will get a smaller pension than if he contributed all the time. However, it is important not to penalize people whose earnings in some years are abnormally low because of sickness and unemployment. This will be avoided, to a reasonable degree, by excluding a man's years of lowest earnings from the calculation of his average earnings. The permissible exclusion will be 10%. Also, for each year beyond 65 that a man continues to work, he will be able to exclude, from the calculation of his average earnings, an additional low year. This will provide an incentive to go on working after 65.
In considering the size of the pension available to a man on retirement, both the eam-ings-related and the Old Age Security pensions

must be taken into account. At existing wage and price levels, the total pension available in 1976 to a single person at age 70 will range from $75 to almost $180 monthly, as indicated in Table II.
Table II

[Stage Direction]
Monthly Pension Payable
Average	Earnings-	Old agemonthly	related	security	Combinedearnings	pension	pension	pension*	8	J	$nil	
nil	75	75.00100	
25.00	75	100.00150	
37.50	75	112.50200	
50.00	75	125.00250	
62.50	75	137.50300	
75.00	75	150.00350	
87.50	75	162.50400	
100.00	75	175.00416.67	
104.17	75	179.17
Adjustment for Increases in the Cost of Living
The formula described in the preceding section will ensure that a pension when it first becomes payable will be appropriate to current levels of earnings. Pensions being paid will be increased periodically if the level of prices rises. This applies to all pensions under the Canada Pension Plan-the earn-ings-related retirement pension, the disability pension, the widow's pension, and the orphan's benefit. They will be increased annually, if this is warranted by increases in the Consumer Price Index.
Small increases-less than 1 per cent- will not be taken into account; and in order to avoid excessive changes, the increase will never be more than 2 per cent from one year to the next. In any year when prices decline, pensions will not be reduced but subsequent increases will, of course, be slowed down as a result.
These adjustments will be made by using a pension index. The pension index for any year will be the Consumer Price Index for the 12 months ending the preceding June 30, revalued with the July 1965-June 1966 index as the base, except that the pension index will be allowed to rise by increments of not less than 1 per cent and not more than 2 per cent in any one year. If price changes indicate an increase of less than 1 per
cent in the pension index, it will remain unchanged for that year; if the increase indicated is more than 2 per cent, the pension index will be increased by only 2 per cent. In adjusting a man's pension for, say, 1980, the amount of the monthly pension payable to him in 1979 will be multiplied by the percentage increase in the pension index for 1980 over the pension index for 1979.
Adjustment for Age
In conjunction with the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan, the existing Old Age Security system will be adapted to make pensions available, by 1970, from age 65. Such benefits will be reduced by forty cents for each month between the date when the pension starts and the date of the pensioner's seventieth birthday. For anyone who takes his pension at the earliest opportunity, when he reaches 65, the pension received will be $51. The reduction at ages between 65 and 70 will be proportional to this.
The effect of this adjustment for age, when taken together with the gradual reduction in the age at which the Old Age Security pension will become available, is set forth in Table III.
Table III

[Stage Direction]
Age of pensioner	Year first payable	Monthly flat-rate pension payable
		$
70			75.00
69			70.20
68			65.40
67			60.60
66			55.80
65		.. 1970	51.00
There will be no retirement condition for this flat rate pension: a man may start drawing the appropriate rate of pension at any time between his sixty fifth and seventieth birthdays, whatever his other earnings. Once he elects to draw his pension he cannot go off pension for a while and then come back on at a higher rate.
At existing wage and price levels the total pension available in 1976 to a single person at age 65 will range from $51 to $155 monthly as indicated in Table IV.
[Stage Direction]
Table IV

[Stage Direction]
Monthly pension payable
Average _ monthly earnings	Earnings- related pension	Old age security-pension	Combined pension$	%	$	%nil	51	51.00ioo 	25.00	51	76.00150 	37.50	51	88.50200 	50.00	51	101.00250 	62.50	51	113.50300 	75.00	51	126.00350 	87.50	51	138.50400 	100.00	51	151.00416.67	104.17	51	155.17
Adjustment for Earnings After Retirement
The earnings-related benefit is designed for people who have retired from regular employment. It will not be adjusted according to the age of retirement. But some people may be partially retired and entitled to receive a partial pension. The test of retirement, for people under age 70, will be a test of earnings from work. Earnings will consist of all wages and salaries received from services rendered in the year, plus any net earnings from self-employment for the same year.
Deductions will be made from the benefit of a contributor under age 70 if his annual earnings exceed $900 a year, or a proportionate amount if he retires part way through the year. When earnings exceed $900 a year, but not $1,500, the total benefits for that year will be reduced by one half the excess.
When earnings exceed $1,500 a year, the benefits for that year will be reduced by $300 (which is one half the difference between $1,500 and $900) plus the earnings in excess of $1,500. These $900 and $1,500 limits will apply for the first few years of the program, but will be defined as percentages (18% and 30 % respectively) of the earnings ceiling. They will thus rise to reflect changes in the general levels of prices and earnings.

[Stage Direction]
The supplementary pensions, for widows, orphans and disabled contributors, have to meet situations fundamentally different from retirement pensions. The latter will normally be combined with the Old Age Security benefit, and it is the two together that make a modestly adequate income. Since this flatrate pension will not be available to people under 65, the supplementary pensions will include their own flat rate component. At the outset, this will be $25 a month. It will be adjustable, in the same way as other benefits provided under the contributory pension plan, in line with changes in the consumer price index.
This fiat-rate component means that the supplementary pensions are in a sense more generous, especially for lower income people, than the new retirement pensions. This is reasonable, because of the special needs of widows, orphans and disabled people. However, the $25 flat rate component is a good deal less than the Old Age Security available to retired people. The supplementary pensions would thus be too small to be helpful in the early years of the plan, if they were subject to the same ten year build-up as the retirement pensions. Instead, they will be paid in full from the time they are first available.
However, because of the substantial flat-rate component in these benefits, it is reasonable to require a minimum period of contribution as a condition of getting any benefit. All supplementary pensions will be dependent on contributions having been made for at least two years and for at least a third of the total number of years possible for the contributor. In addition, disability benefits will not be paid until the plan has been in operation for five years (i.e. until 1971).
Disability Pensions
A contributor will be regarded as disabled if an examination reveals a medically determinable impairment in which physical or mental disability is so severe and prolonged that he is unable to secure regular, substantially gainful employment. This does not mean he has to be completely helpless to qualify; it means he must be found unable to support himself by reason of his disability.
The disability pension will consist of a flat-rate component, initially $25 monthly, and an earnings-related component which will be 18.75 per cent of "what a man has been earning"-that is, 75 per cent of the retirement pension which would be payable to him The amount of this retirement pension will be calculated in the same way as outlined above, except that, instead of basing the pension on his earnings from the effective date of the plan to the date he retires or reaches 65, it will be based on his earnings to the date of disability.

The total disability pension thus available to a contributor will range from just over $25 to $103, as Table V shows. Both the flat rate and earnings related components will be increased in line with changes in the Consumer Price Index, as described on page 6639.
Table V

[Stage Direction]
Average adjusted monthly wage	Monthly Retire- ment pension	Disability pension $25 plus 75 p.c. of retirement pension%	%	$100 	. 25.00	43.75150 	. 37.50	53.13200 	50.00	62.50250 	. 62.50	71.88300 	75.00	81.25350 	87.50	90.63400 	100.00	100.00416.67	104.17	103.13
This pension will be paid to a contributor for as long as he continues to be disabled, up to age 65, but will cease on his death or recovery. At age 65 it will be replaced by the retirement pension.
Pensions for Widows Under Age 65
The widow of a contributor or pensioner who dies will be able to draw a pension from the plan if her husband had contributed for at least two years and for at least one third of the years in which he could have contributed.
In order to qualify for the pension, the widow herself must be age 35 or over, or must have dependent children in her care. Younger widows without children dependent on them can reasonably be expected to take up full time employment. Dependent children must be under age 18, unless they are continuing full time education.
A woman who is widowed at an age between 35 and 45, and has no dependent children, will receive the widow's pension reduced by 1/120 for each month of age by which she is short of age 45 in the month in which she is widowed. If a widow has dependent children but they reach age 18 before
she is 45, her pension will then be reduced to the same scale.
The full widow's pension-available to women widowed at age 45 or over, and to all widows with dependent children-will consist of a flat-rate component, starting initially at $25 monthly, and an earnings-related component equal to 37.5 per cent of the retirement pension payable to her deceased husband. The amount of the retirement pension payable to her husband will be based on his earnings to the date of his death, rather than on his earnings to the year in which he would have reached 65.
The amount of the widow's pension payable to a widow between the ages of 45 and 65, without dependent children, will thus range from just over $25, for the widow whose husband had minimal earnings, to $64 as indicated in Table VI.
A widow of any age who has dependent children will receive not only her own widow's pension but also the orphan's benefit on behalf of her children, as described in a following section. The amount of the total pension thus payable to such a widow will range from just over $50, for the widow with one child whose husband had minimal earnings, to $168 for the widow with five chidren whose husband had maximum earnings, as shown in Table VII.
Table VI

[Stage Direction]
Average adjusted monthly wage of husband	Husband's monthly retirement pension	Widow's monthly pension1$	%	$100 	. 25.00	34.38150 	. 37.50	39.06200 	. 50.00	43.75250 	. 62.50	48.44300 	. 75.00	53.12350 	. 87.50	57.81400 	. 100.00	62.50416.67	. 104.17	64.06
' $25 plus 37.5 per cent of husband's retirement pension. The widow's pension is reduced 10 per cent for each year by which she is under age 45 at date of her husband's death.
[Stage Direction]
Table VII
PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN (INCLUDING ORPHANS' BENEFITS)*
Monthly pension to widow with
Average adjusted monthly wage of husband	Retirement - pension of husband	One child	Two children	Three children	Four children	Five children$	$	$	$	$	$	$100 	25.00	59.38	84.38	109.38	134.38	138.55150 	37.50	64.06	89.06	114.06	139.06	143.23200 	50.00	68.75	93.75	118.75	143.75	147.92250 	62.50	73.44	98.44	123.44	148.44	152.61300 	75.00	78.12	103.12	128.12	153.12	157.29350 	87.50	82.81	107.81	132.81	157.81	161.98400 	100.00	87.50	112.50	137.50	162.50	166.67416.67 	104.17	89.06	114.06	139.06	164.06	168.23
1 Widow's pension equals $25 plus 37.5 per cent of husband's retirement pension. The benefit for each orphan is $25, up to a maximum for all orphans in a family of 25 per cent of average of Year's Maximum Contributory Earnings for the three years ending with that in which benefits are claimed.
Pensions for Widows Over Age 65
The widow's pension itself will be paid to a widow to age 65, unless she ceases to have dependent children in her care before passing age 35. It may continue after age 65, but between then and, at latest, age 70, there will be some change in her position. She will normally start to draw Old Age Security. When she does, she will give up the flat-rate component ($25, initially) of her widow's pension.
Furthermore, many widows will at age 65, or at latest at age 70, become entitled to a retirement pension based on their own earnings. In that event, the widow will be able to combine the two pensions to which she is entitled, in whichever of two ways is the better for her: (1) all of her own retirement pension plus 37i% of what her husband's retirement pension would have been; or (2) 60% of her own pension and 60% of her husband's. In both these cases the calculation of her husband's pension would take into account any years of zero earnings between the year of his death and the year in which he would have reached age 65.
In no case may the widow receive a combined pension which is greater than the maximum retirement pension payable to an individual contributor in that year.
It is anticipated that those widows who had little opportunity to build up retirement pensions of their own will continue to receive the basic widow's pension after age 65, and that women who become widows after age 65 will usually choose to receive 60 per cent of their own and their husband's pensions combined. However, widows who have built up substantial retirement pensions, whether or not they were entitled to the widow's pension before age 65, will probably choose to receive their own retirement pensions in full, augmented by 37.5 per cent of their husband's pensions, calculated as explained above. All widows of 65 or over will be entitled also to an Old Age Security pension, provided they meet the residence requirements.
Pensions for Disabled Widows and Widowers
From 1971 on, a disabled widow will be able to draw the full widow's pension. A widower will be able to draw a pension from the plan if he was disabled at the time of his wife's death.
For both widows and widowers, the pension will be $25 monthly plus 37.5 per cent of the retirement pension payable to the deceased spouse, based on the spouse's earnings from the effective date of the plan to the date of death.
Orphan's Benefit
An orphan's benefit will be paid for the child of a contributor who has died after con-

tributing for at least two years, and for at least one third of the years in which he could have contributed. Ordinarily the orphan's benefit will only be paid on the death of a child's father. However, if the mother was the main support of the family, the orphan's benefit will be payable on her death. To qualify for the benefit, the child must be under 18 on the death of his parent, or be still at school or university.
The amount of the orphan's benefit will at the outset be $25 a month, for each orphan in the family. It will be adjusted with changes in the cost of living. The total payment for the children of a contributor may not exceed the maximum possible pension for one contributor-that is, at the outset, $104.17. If more than one cheque has to be issued, the total monthly orphan's benefit for the family will be prorated among all the orphans.
Death Benefit
A lump-sum death benefit will be payable if the deceased person has contributed for at least two years, and for at least one-third of the years in which he could have contributed. In most cases, if the contributor is survived by his wife, the death benefit will be paid to her. Otherwise it will be payable to his estate.
The amount of the death benefit will be a sum equal to six times the monthly retirement benefit that could have been paid to the contributor in the month after his death, but not exceeding ten percent of the earnings ceiling for that year. That is, initially, the maximum will be $500. If the contributor dies before 65, the benefit will be based on his average earnings from the effective date of the plan to the month of his death.
Administration
The Department of National Health and Welfare will administer the Canada Pension Plan. The contributions under the plan will be collected by the Department of National Revenue. Employers will be responsible for deductions from their employees' earnings and will then remit these deductions monthly with their own contributions to that Department; self-employed persons will make payments direct to the Department.
The Department of National Health and Welfare will be responsible for the payment of benefits. The Department of National Revenue will report to the Department of National Health and Welfare the pensionable earnings so that the information can be credited to
each individual contributor's account. Contributors' records will be kept in a form which will permit identification according to the province in which contributions have been made over the years. The maintenance of the records and the calculation of benefits will be achieved through the use of modern data processing equipment. The Social Insurance Number, which has already been issued to-over 5 million people by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, will be extended to embrace all contributors under the Canada Pension Plan and used to facilitate the electronic recordkeeping.
The administration of the federal legislation will be co-ordinated with the administration of any provincial legislation providing a comparable plan. The province of Quebec-proposes to implement such a plan, and cooperative arrangements are being worked out so that people who at one time or another make contributions to both administrations have exactly the same rights and benefits as if they had contributed to only one plan.
The necessary provisions will be made for appeal procedures to ensure that contributors, beneficiaries and employers may have an impartial review of any disputes which may arise in relation to the program.
The proposed legislation will provide authority to work out reciprocal agreements with other countries, so that there may be portability of pensions for people who move-between countries.
Safeguards for the Provinces
The financial provisions of the Canada Pension Plan assure to the provinces a direct and important interest in its operation. This-properly reflects the constitutional position. The provinces have full jurisdiction to establish pension plans themselves, and Quebec proposes to do so. All the governments concerned recognize, however, that common jurisdiction should not be allowed to result in competition or conflict in pension arrangements.
Soundly-based federal-provincial co-operation depends on all provinces retaining, not only in theory but as a practical choice, the same rights that can be exercised now. The proposed federal legislation is being shaped to this purpose.
There will be safeguards to ensure that significant changes in the pension plan are made only after agreement with the provinces. Any amendments of substance, which-would affect benefits, contribution rates, or the size and management of the pension fund, will take effect only if they are consented to-
[Stage Direction]
by two thirds of the provinces having two thirds of the population of Canada. In the case of amendments which would alter the general level of benefits, the effective date of the change will be the first of January of the third year after the year in which notice is given to the provinces-that is, there will be a notice period of at least two years.
As a further safeguard of the position of the provinces, the federal legislation will provide that it would automatically become inoperative in a province which passed legislation establishing a provincial pension plan with a general level of benefits not less than that of the Canada Pension Plan or of any provincial plan already in operation. This would be contingent on the province giving at least two years' notice. In order that the province's right to establish its own plan may be effective, without the residents of the province losing the pension benefits they have already earned by their contributions, the federal plan would transfer to the province its fair share of the pension assets. In return, the province would assume the obligation to pay pensions to those who have contributed in that province.
With these provisions, the rights of the provinces will be safeguarded and the federal government believes that, on the necessasy foundation of mutual respect and consideration, federal and provincial authorities though-out Canada will be able to work together to establish and maintain satisfactory pension arrangements for all Canadians.
Relation to Other Retirement Plans
A helpful contribution to old age security has been made, particularly since World War II, by the private pension plans which, at last count (1960), covered more than 1,800,000 people in Canada. Not all of these plans, however, provide sizeable pensions, particularly for workers who did not join them early in life. Also, since an employee rarely has a right to full benefit from his employer's contribution if he moves to another job, private plans have operated as a growing restraint on the mobility of labour.
Several provinces are interested in lessening these and other problems connected with private pension plans, particularly by the establishment of rules for portability and solvency. These are important steps forward. However, such proposals for the compulsory supervision of private plans do not make possible retirement at an adequate standard for most people in their forties to sixties who have not been covered previously.
For those who retire in the next decade or two the Canada Pension Plan matures quickly to provide substantial retirement income. It will automatically provide complete portability of these pensions. Furthermore, it will provide a basic measure of "real" security, because people will be assured of pensions that are related to general earnings levels at the time they retire, and to the levels of prices during their retirement.
The plan has been designed to meet these needs of the Canadian people and at the same time to become the foundation of a pension system which, through the combination of private and governmental action, will be sound and satisfactory in the long run.
Some employers and employees will no doubt wish to revise existing pension plans in the light of their contributions to, and the benefits provided under, the Canada Pension Plan. The ten year transitional period means that such adjustments can be made carefully and gradually.
The adjustment of private pension plans cannot be prescribed through the Canada Pension Plan. Those responsible for each private pension plan will be free to decide whether or not they wish to make some modification in their plan. In plans where the contribution rates are relatively high, it may be decided that the over-all rate of employer-employee contributions should not be increased; in such cases the private plan's contribution rate might be reduced by the contribution required under the federal plan, and its benefits might be adjusted accordingly. In other cases, the private plan may remain entirely unchanged, with its benefits augmenting those available from the Canada Pension Plan.
As an alternative way of adjusting to the Canada plan, a private plan may simply pay the difference between the total retirement benefit it now provides and the benefit provided under the federal plan; the private contribution rates would then be reduced accordingly. Another possibility would be to adopt a benefit formula which makes different adjustments for earnings above and below the Canada Pension Plan ceiling.
Another approach may be adopted in private plans with early retirement ages. The private plan benefits might be accelerated so as to provide a level combined benefit beginning at, say age 60. The private plan would thus provide a higher pension between ages 60 and 65 than would normally be provided, offset by a lower-than-normal private pension from age 65 on. The difference would be

made up by the Canada Pension Plan payable at age 65.
The Canada Pension Plan will NOT take over or absorb reserves that have been built up by private pension plans. The Canada Pension Plan will NOT remove any rights to benefits already acquired under private plans. The integration of private plans with the public plan will NOT be compulsory.
The adjustment of private pension plans to a public program with graduated benefits does not appear to have been a deterrent to the growth of private plans in other countries. In the United States, for example, since the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance programme was established, there has continued to be a substantial growth in private pension plans. The number of employees in the United States covered by private pension plans, expressed as a percentage of the wage and salary workers in private industry, rose from 31 per cent in 1954 to 45 per cent in 1961.
Economic Implications
The Canada Pension Plan is a social security program which is realistically geared to the growth of the economy. Within a moderate transition period, people of average incomes will be assured a reasonable retirement pension, together with related social insurance protection for widows and children and people who become disabled. If our economy continues to grow in the way that it has been, with incomes rising both in money terms and in real value, people who make contributions now can be assured of pensions which will be appropriate to real income levels at the time they retire.
Related in this way to economic circumstances, the plan provides a level of pensions which is appropriate to a society that values the security and dignity of those whose working life is past or who suffer the major misfortune of death or disablement of the family breadwinner.
Protection beyond that level will remain a matter of individual choice. That is to say, the individual-in association in many cases with his employer-will remain responsible for the saving by which, as incomes rise, more and more people can afford to make further provision for themselves if they so desire.
In doing this, people help to provide the capital which a rich and growing country needs for its further economic development. This role of private pension plans, helping
to provide savings to finance investment, will continue to be of importance.
Fears are sometimes expressed as to the impact of social security measures on private saving. There is no evidence of adverse effects in the experience of Canada or of other countries at a broadly similar level of economic development. In Canada, the introduction of major social security programmes since the 1940s has not led to any declining trend in rates of saving.
The possible impact of the pension plan is, in any case, limited. It would be at its maximum if everyone-employee, employer and self-employed-paid the whole of his contribution to the plan out of money that he would otherwise have saved. In that event, and if there were no other adjustments at all, the plan would absorb in 1966 about 5 per cent of the total of personal and business saving. That will not happen, because in fact all the contributions will not be made out of savings. The point, however, is that even the biggest effect-an effect that in practice is impossible-would not be very large.
In the short run, there probably will be some diversion of personal business savings to public saving, but the adjustment in personal and business savings will be much less than 5 per cent. Moreover, the contributions collected will for many years exceed the pensions paid out, the fund accumulating the reserves. For a decade and more this public saving, through the plan, will continue to exceed any direct effect that the payment of contributions is likely to have on personal and business saving. Thus the effect of the introduction of the plan will probably be, for some years, to increase the total savings of the country.
In the long run, the public saving through the plan-that is, the net addition each year to the plan's reserves-will gradually diminish. (This happens, other things being equal, under any pension plan, public or private, as it matures.) The main effect of the plan will then be to transfer income from contributors -the working population-to retired and disabled people and to widows and orphans. Most of the recipients may be expected to spend the income. The money will be coming from people with a higher propensity to save. However, the existence of the basic pension plan may well in time greatly encourage the general idea of contributory pensions, and therefore lead to the extension of supplementary private plans. The further consequence of the introduction of the Canada Pension
664$
[Stage Direction]
Plan would then be a higher rate of personal savings than would otherwise take place.
These are examples of possible tendencies which may be at work. Over the next few decades, with a large growth of incomes, there are likely to be many changes in the pattern of saving. On balance, the pension plan may in the long run somewhat increase or somewhat decrease total savings. The direction of the effect will vary with a multitude of circumstances. What is certain is that the magnitude of the possible effect, in either direction, is not very great. Important though the plan is as a basic measure of social security, it is not on a scale which will have massive economic effects.
The most important predictable effect is the change that will occur in the capital market. Over the first ten years an average of about $400 million a year will become available to the provinces from the federal pension fund. The provinces will decide how this money will be used, but it is likely that they will employ it to finance social capital, such as schools and roads, and public utilities. These are the purposes for which provinces and municipalities have been borrowing since the war. The funds accumulated through the pension plan will thus be used largely for purposes which are among the most pressing and most important of all our needs for additional investment.
With the pension funds available to them, provincial governments will have correspondingly less need to borrow in the ordinary way, by selling securities to investors. What effect this will have upon the capital markets will depend to a considerable extent upon the changes which occur in business and personal savings. Whether or not these savings decline, one would expect that the capital markets would be inclined to direct a larger proportion of their funds toward
corporate and government of Canada securities, and less toward provincial and municipal securities. If aggregate saving, aside from the Canada Pension Plan, remains relatively unchanged, then it would be reasonable to expect that borrowing for business purposes in Canada would tend to be less costly and corporate and government borrowers would be less inclined to borrow in foreign markets.
The annual capital accumulation through the new pension funds must be compared with total national savings which are likely to average well over $10 billion a year over the next ten years. Whatever adjustments the capital markets must make, therefore, will be relatively moderate, compared with other adjustments-for example, because of movements of foreign investments-made in the past.
The conclusion of this analysis-that the financial effects of the pension plan will not be large-is fully supported by the experience of other countries. While a number of older systems date back to the late nineteenth century, the majority of pension programs were initiated in the decades immediately preceding or following the second world war. Most now relate the rates of pensions in some way to the pensioners' prior earnings. Both Great Britain and Sweden, which initially had flat-rate pensions analogous to our Old Age Security, in 1959 added graduated benefits.
With Canada's pension provision concentrated on the flat-rate pension plus assistance payments, our present expenditures on supporting the incomes of older people are smaller, proportionately, than the comparable outlays in such countries as Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the United States. This is shown, for the years 1959 to 1963, in Table VIII.
Table VIII

[Stage Direction]
Country
[Stage Direction]
1958-59
[Stage Direction]
1959-60
[Stage Direction]
1960-61
[Stage Direction]
1961-62
[Stage Direction]
1962-63
[Stage Direction]
New Zealand
[Stage Direction]
3.2
[Stage Direction]
3.7
[Stage Direction]
3.8
[Stage Direction]
3.7
[Stage Direction]
3.6
[Stage Direction]
Great Britain
[Stage Direction]
3.1
[Stage Direction]
3,2
[Stage Direction]
3.1
[Stage Direction]
3.3
[Stage Direction]
3.4
[Stage Direction]
United States
[Stage Direction]
2.3
[Stage Direction]
2.4
[Stage Direction]
2.6
[Stage Direction]
2.7
[Stage Direction]
2.7
[Stage Direction]
Australia
[Stage Direction]
2.0
[Stage Direction]
2.1
[Stage Direction]
2.1
[Stage Direction]
2.4
[Stage Direction]
2.3
[Stage Direction]
Canada
[Stage Direction]
1.9
[Stage Direction]
1.8
[Stage Direction]
1.8
[Stage Direction]
1.8
[Stage Direction]
2.0
[Stage Direction]
The pension plan will change this situation only gradually, because the new pensions are paid only as people retire after making contributions to the plan. By 1975, as the transition period for benefits ends, it is estimated that expenditures for retirement pensions under the plan will amount to about 0.3 per cent of gross national product. This addition to Canada's expenditures will still leave them smaller, relatively, than those of three of the other four countries in 1963.
Expenditures under the plan will, of course, continue to rise gradually after 1975, as more and more people retire with the new pensions. The same trend may be expected to operate, in some degree, in other countries. There is no reason why we should take the level of old-age provision in any other country as an exact model. But, because of trade competition, it is the course of economic prudence to avoid very large divergencies between the proportion of income which we devote to old-age and the proportion in other countries.
Fears are nevertheless sometimes expressed that a public pension plan will raise business costs, reduce business savings, and impair the competitive position of Canadian industry. In fact, the total contributions required under
the plan-by employers and employees- would represent in 1966 an addition of only about 2 per cent to total labour costs. During the past decade, average wages and salaries in Canada have risen by 3 to 4 per cent a year. These additional costs have been largely absorbed by rising productivity while Canadian prices have remained among the most stable, and the country's competitive position has strengthened.
In practice, the impact of pension contributions will not fall exclusively on costs. It will be distributed in various ways. In some cases, it will probably be offset by reduced contribution rates to those corporate pension plans which already provide high benefits. There will be some reduction in tax receipts, because the contributions are deductible. Some contributions may be paid out of personal income which would otherwise be spent or saved. Some business profits may be reduced. Some part of the cost may be paid in the end by consumers, because business may raise prices to offset the pension contributions. Whatever the relative weight of these various effects, no one of them will be heavy. The plan will provide to the people of Canada a continuing measure of security in a form well within the capacity of our economy.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, August 11, 1964