1964-05-22

UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to announce that on Tuesday, May 26, at ten o'clock in the morning a joint meeting of all hon. members of the Senate and the House of Commons will be held in this chamber in honour of the secretary general of the United Nations, His Excellency U Thant, who will deliver an address.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which concerns the honour and reputation of several hon. members of this house.
In view of the fact that these past few days the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) has been taking the liberty to make vague, incorrect and misleading statements which are spreading doubt and confusion about the intentions of several hon. members, I feel duty bound to straighten things out.
The hon. member for Three Rivers took the liberty to state that more Creditistes would be leaving the ranks of their party to join the Conservatives.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the Ralliement Creditistes, I want to make the following corrective statement: Not a single member of the Ralliement Creditistes has thought of joining the ranks of the Conservative party. On the contrary, none of them has considered leaving the ranks of the Ralliement.
Therefore, the hon. member for Three Rivers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt very much whether this is a question of privilege. Inasmuch as the hon. member has had an opportunity of making a statement I think we should now proceed with the business before the house.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Once again the hon. member for Three Rivers has tried to mislead and delude the Canadian people-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before deciding whether there is a question of privilege concerning the matter raised by the hon. member for Shefford, would it not be reasonable to hear his explanations and then you would be in a position to decide whether or not there is a question of privilege. This is why I humbly ask you to let the hon. member for Shefford complete his statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The reason the Chair came to this quick decision, if you want to call it that, is that if all hon. members were to comment on all the statements made by other hon. members outside the chamber we might be here for several years. It seems to me that the point has been made this morning, and I suggest to the hon. member that he leave it at that and that we get on with the business before the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote paragraph 1 of standing order 39, under which we are allowed to put questions to members other than ministers, if members of the house are concerned.
I should like to ask the hon. member for Three Rivers when other Social Crediters will join his party, and what their names are?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) that they need not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

Question of Privilege


Léon Balcer: -be worried, because we are not in the least interested in having them in our party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. After due consideration and advice, I am advised that any question under standing order 39 (1) must relate to the business before the house. Consequently the question as asked by the hon. member is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I beg your pardon if my question was out of order but that meant, neither more nor less, that desk changes were considered, and I thought that it could be of interest to the house, since the matter had been mentioned in the newspapers.


Mr. Lambert:: Keep quiet.


Gilles Grégoire: As a supplementary question, may I tell the hon. member that, as for not joining his ranks, the pleasure is ours.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this is the start of a very bad practice, and I certainly would not want to encourage it.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire):
That the question raised by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) to the effect that desk changes will soon be necessary in the house, be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to decide whether to accept this motion. First of all, no notice has been given, and two days' notice-48 hours-is required. In the second place, I have already ruled this morning that there was no question of privilege. In the circumstances I cannot go back on my decision; therefore I cannot accept this motion.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that what you hold in your hand is a two-day notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Notice, as the hon. member must know, must be in writing and be given in the proper way.
[Mr. Speaker.)



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put the following question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since some irresolution on the part of the government seriously jeopardizes the organization of the Montreal world fair, can the Prime Minister tell us when the cabinet will take a decision concerning the request made by the world fair corporation to grant tax allowances to the exhibiting companies?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the preamble of that question I cannot, of course accept; there has been no lack of decision at all with regard to the government and its relations with the world fair. I will look into the second part of the question.


Léon Balcer: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware that officials of the corporation have said that the government had promised a decision by May 9 and then by May 15, that May 15 would already be extremely late for such a decision, and that the future of the exhibition is threatened by this delay.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I told the hon. gentleman that I would be glad to look into the matter, but I can assure him that I have received no complaints of the kind he has indicated from any member of the corporation.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now tell the house the flag design he will be proposing to parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the design, as I said yesterday, will be in the resolution, and I should think in order to get the exact description before the house it would be advisable to wait until the resolution is presented. I know hon. members are interested in this matter. The hon. member for Lapointe told me that he might bring it up this morning, but in the circumstances I hope hon. members will feel that it

would be well to wait until the resolution is introduced, at which time the details will be revealed.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question. Did the Prime Minister tell newspapermen yesterday that if he were asked this question in the house he would immediately reveal the design?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I told newsmen that if I were asked this question I would do my best to deal with it. The question as it was put by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday made it impossible to deal with it in any other way than I did.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the right hon. Prime Minister would tell the house when the resolution will be brought before it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would hope, Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday or Thursday of next week.


George Clyde Nowlan: This week or next week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, we are past Wednesday and Thursday of this week.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Can he inform the house whether the cabinet meeting of a day or two ago on the flag question altered the design from three maple leaves to one?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the kind of question which makes it difficult to answer questions on the flag.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: As a
supplementary question to the Prime Minister, could he inform the house whether the Toronto Star had any prior knowledge as to the design of the flag, in view of the fact that they flew from their flagpole what they held out to the city of Toronto to be the new Canadian flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. So far as I am concerned the design of the flag as agreed to by the cabinet has been given out to nobody.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. A moment ago he referred to a resolution to be placed before the house. Is this intended to be a resolution preceding a bill, or is it intended to be a straight resolution adopting a flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should wait until the resolution is on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Coates: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has already stated that this type of legislation has never been presented to parliament before, and that a flag design has never been adopted, I feel this house should be made aware of the type of design that is going to be adopted, if in fact it is adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has he obtained the unanimous consent of his party, including that of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), to select a distinctive flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has obviously asked this question to conceal the lack of unanimity in his own party. [Translation]


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Could he assure the house that there will be no "pigeon" on the distinctive flag?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That would represent peace. SHIPPING



SUGGESTED CONFERENCE ON WATER LEVELS OF GREAT LAKES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on another subject. Has he received an invitation from the province of Ontario to attend a conference on water levels on the great lakes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, have we now to look to the provinces and the American states for leadership in this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. As the premier of Ontario himself recognized, as reported, in sending out the invitation to certain states and provinces, the responsibility in this matter is in the hands of the federal government in so far as any arrangements

Inquiries of the Ministry with any other country are concerned; and that, of course, is a correct statement of the position.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is there any action on the part of the federal government on its own initiative? I have been trying to get an answer to this question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of my hon. friend's interest in the matter I should inform him that the international joint commission, within the limits of its existing authority and conditions, is regulating levels and flows so as to make the best use of the available supplies of water. Within the next day or two the government expects to send to the United States government and to the provinces, recommendations for new authority for the commission, whose authority now extends only to lake Superior and lake Ontario. I believe the whole question of diversion from other watersheds is being considered and has been considered for some time by the international joint commission. But, of course, this is a long range project.
With respect to dredging for local emergencies-and we all know there are local emergencies-I expect to bring the details of this emergency dredging to the attention of the house next week.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I thank the Prime Minister.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Although the government has not been invited, does the government intend to send observers to the conference convened by Premier Robarts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Chapleau.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker in view of the fact that my seat is rather far from the Chair, and that it always takes a long time for us to be recognized during the orders of the day, my question has already been asked.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Would he outline briefly what methods of control are being used in connection with water levels on the great lakes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this would be difficult to do on the orders of the day but if my hon. friend will put his question on the order paper I will see that he gets the information.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. A few moments ago he referred to the group that is going to study water levels on the great lakes. Will the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources be invited so that he may conduct the necessary prayers?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
longshoremen's STRIKE
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour which I put to his parliamentary secretary yesterday. I am sorry the minister was not able to be here. In view of the serious situation in the longshoremen's dispute in St. John's, Newfoundland, is the minister prepared to take an active and personal interest in this matter to bring the two parties together?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have been taking an active and personal interest in the matter for some weeks now. The situation is that an experienced officer of the department in the Atlantic area has brought the parties together for intensive discussions, but as yet no resolution of the dispute has been possible. This officer is in contact with the parties with a view to establishing a situation that might bring the parties together and result in a settlement. We regard the matter as very serious, and are doing everything that we think will be helpful in the situation.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are the reports correct that another senior officer and others who are interested in this matter have failed to bring the two parties together?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The parties have been together for discussions, but they have not come together by way of a settlement. There have been joint meetings.


Michael Starr: When was the last joint meeting held in this connection?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not recall the exact date, but I think they met over the last week end. I will be glad to check and give the precise dates.



SAINT JOHN, N.B.-TRANSFER OF MANUFAC- TURING FIRM TO MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: have a question for the Minister of Labour in the absence of the Minister of Transport. In view of the closing of the national manufacturing concern of McAvity's in Saint John and its transfer to Montreal with all its facilities, resulting in a loss of more than 400 jobs, will the Atlantic development board immediately investigate and offer every assistance in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. gentleman put this question on the order paper.


Thomas Miller Bell: I give notice I will raise this matter on adjournment on Monday.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but before doing so may I say that I am sure all members will join with me in welcoming her back to the house. We are happy to see her in her seat oozing vim and vigour. In view of the particular interest of many Canadians in several subjects that come under the jurisdiction of her department, can she inform the house when we may expect her estimates to come before the house for consideration?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Shortly, Mr. Speaker.



SUGGESTED EXCHANGE OF PETROLEUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: I put
a question to the Prime Minister yesterday which is of concern to the west, and particularly to the petroleum industry. Is the article which appeared in the New York Times, reprinted in the Calgary Herald, to the effect that the government may stimulate trade in the petroleum industry with Soviet Russia, speculative or is there a basis in fact for it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I told my hon. friend I would look into that question and discuss it with the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Trade and Commerce, who returned to Ottawa only this morning. I will have something to say about it on Monday.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I should like to welcome the Minister of Justice back from his trip to the west. I hope he got a true sampling of public opinion which he will convey to his colleagues. In view of the atmosphere of harmony and togetherness which seems to be engendered by this issue of a national flag, I should like to ask him if he does not think this would be the appropriate time to attempt to secure the necessary provincial consent prior to the repatriation of our constitution, and thus make a real contribution toward national unity?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Since my hon. friend spoke about my trip to the west, I am pleased to report that there is a real atmosphere of harmony and togetherness in the Canadian family.
In so far as the repatriation of the constitution is concerned, he may be assured that the conference of the attorneys general, about which there has been some question, will be convened in due course.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr,
Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
I would like to know if, following the first death we have to deplore among the UN forces, the members of that force will have wider powers and be able to disarm members of both groups now fighting each other, so that we will not have to deplore more deaths.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question a few days ago but, on account of its importance, I will have the opportunity m a few minutes, when we discuss the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, to express our feelings and opinions about that matter.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker* may I ask a supplementary question?

Inquiries of the Ministry We learned that U Thant will be in Ottawa next week and will address the house, will hon. members be allowed to set forth their views on that matter at that time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am convinced we are all agreed that the secretary general of the United Nations should be given a good reception during his official visit in Canada. As Secretary of State for External Affairs, I will have the occasion, with the Prime Minister, to discuss this problem with U Thant;
I will be pleased to arrange the opportunity for the hon. member to meet the secretary general.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a
supplementary question. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs intend to request the secretary general of the United Nations, on behalf of the Canadian government, to extend his peace keeping operations to Canada when he visits here?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, I am sure, does not want to be frivolous about the visit of the secretary general of the United Nations. He is coming to Canada as an honoured guest and because he has admiration for the contribution this country is making, not only in national but international affairs.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a very important question to the Prime Minister. Does he approve of the appointment to the conference on the centennial of confederation of the wife of the Minister of Forestry, who is already an employee of the C.B.C. and who did not even take the trouble to attend the meeting held in Charlottetown last April 25 and 26?


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly this question is not exactly pressing and urgent.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I will raise the question after ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: In early April several questions were asked in connection with the mail robbery which took place in downtown Montreal on April 3.
I assured the house at the time that when investigations were further advanced I would make a statement.
Various estimates were given of the amount involved in the robbery. I stated at that time that the cash involved was somewhere between $600,000 and $800,000. As a result of an extended investigation it is now believed that the cash stolen amounted to $618,175, and other postal assets to $9,923. Stock certificates and bonds of the value of approximately $709,000, were also stolen at the time.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REPLIES FROM PROVINCES RESPECTING PARTICIPATION BY TERRITORIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Several weeks ago the house passed a motion for the production of the replies received from provincial premiers to the letter which the right hon. gentleman directed to them requesting their opinions as to the participation by the councils for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in federal-provincial conferences. Can the Prime Minister give some indication when those replies will be tabled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry they have not been tabled. I will look into the matter at once, because they should have been.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister give instructions to have the small arms returned to the sea cadets of the city of Red Deer? They were confiscated about a month ago.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I would be glad to take the question as notice.


CANADA COUNCIL
Guy Favreau: That the reports of the Canada Council for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1962 and March 31, 1963, tabled on October 10, 1962 and on July 11, 1963 respectively, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts in order to provide for a review thereof pursuant to section 23 of the Canada Council Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the public accounts, volumes I, II and III for the fiscal years ended March 31. 1962 and March 31, 1963, and the reports of the Auditor General thereon, tabled on January 21, 1963 and on February 19, 1964 respectively, together with the financial statements of the Canada Council for the fiscal years ended March 31. 1962 and March 31, 1963 and the reports of the Auditor General thereon, tabled on October 10, 1962 and on July 11, 1963 respectively, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. La-moureux in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the international organizations detailed in the estimates (part recoverable from those organizations) and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners (international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China), secretaries and staff by the governor in council: official hospitality; relief and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens abroad and their dependants and reimbursement of the United Kingdom for relief expenditures incurred by its diplomatic and consular posts on Canadian account (part recoverable); Canadian representation at international conferences; expenses of the third commonwealth education conference; a cultural relations and academic exchange program with the French community, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,836,300.
['Agreed.']
Paul Joseph James Martin: On November 28 last I made a full statement to the house on Cana-
Supply-External Affairs dian policy concerning a wide range of major international issues. Today I propose to concentrate on the most important developments that have taken place in the meantime in areas of primary concern to our country.
Since last November I have attended a number of important conferences and meetings including two ministerial meetings of the North Atlantic council, one in December of last year and one last week; the United Nations trade and development conference in Geneva in March, and a session of the 18 nation committee on disarmament. I also accompanied the Prime Minister on visits to France and the United States in January, and we received here in Ottawa in February the Prime Minister and the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom.
In one way or another all these meetings had to do with the three main developments which have characterized the last decade in international affairs, the continuing contest between the communist and non-communist world in both a military and an economic sense; the changing relationships which are taking place within both the communist and non-communist camps, and finally the adjustments which both groupings have been making in their relations within the so-called third world, the less developed and often non-aligned nations which now comprise more than two thirds of the United Nations.
These three main tides of development have brought with them such a host of new and unfamiliar problems that there has been an understandable, and perhaps inevitable, tendency to try to deal with them piecemeal and in separate compartments. Yet the obvious interrelationship of these major political trends should convince one that at some stage-and I do not pretend to know how or when-the means whereby we are endeavouring to cope with some of the major unresolved problems must be brought together. It is clear to me that when we in NATO decide on a particular size and structure of defence arrangements to cover a given future period, we must not only consider whether that structure is adequate to ensure our physical security but what impact it will have on what we are simultaneously trying to accomplish in the disarmament committee in Geneva, and how it might affect prospects for a settlement of European security problems. Again, when we contemplate the rash of local conflicts which have broken out in the Middle East, Africa and southeast Asia we should not, in our anxiety to contain them, overlook what we are trying to achieve in the United Nations and in

Supply-External Affairs the disarmament committee by way of more orderly and lasting international peace keeping machinery. In piecing together the parts of this complex puzzle I believe we are, during the next months and years, going to have to rethink a great deal of what has been our traditional policy.
I have just returned from the NATO ministerial meeting in The Hague, followed by a short visit to Germany. Together, these two visits were concerned with most of the fundamental issues in our contemporary international life, our relations with the communist world or worlds still being the dominant preoccupation. For years in NATO and in all the western capitals we have been speaking rather loosely about east-west relations. I think it is time we admitted that this shorthand phrase is no longer adequate. When we say "east-west relations" we imply that we are thinking in terms of a bipolar world, the communists and the rest of us. In fact today there is no longer one communist world and it is quite misleading to equate "east" with "communism". It is equally misleading to equate "west" with "the rest of us" or even with "NATO". What is actually happening is a more complicated form of competition than our old terminology suggests, a competition in which the Chinese communists are making a determined takeover bid for the communist leadership in Asia and Africa. We must think more of a four way relationship among the west, the Soviet communists, the Chinese communists and the non-aligned countries, instead of the old "east-west" terms.
If there is a pause or a detente in our relations with the Soviet union, based on what is really a common appreciation, since the Cuban confrontation, of the unacceptability of nuclear warfare-if this is true, we cannot pass the same verdict on our relations with the other communist world. For the Chinese, nuclear war is certainly unwanted but not unthinkable. Mao Tse-tung has pointed out that after the first world war there were 200 million communists and after the second, 900 million; so he predicts that after the third, communism will take over what remains of the world.
I know, sir, that apart from the Chinese communist invasions of Tibet and India and the troubles to which they are a party in southeast Asia, there is no reason to believe that the Chinese communists would deliberately allow their theories to push them over the brink. Their bark may, as we must hope, be worse than their bite. We have had

experience before-bitter experience-of madmen whose theories were explicit and public, but we were too rationalistic to believe that they meant what they said. I am not prone to believe that we face the same situation now, but there are similar dangers. It does not appear at present that the west's detente with Moscow extends to Peking, but we must continue to test the intentions of the Chinese communists, intentions little affected by Soviet views or aims, by all means at our disposal. In the meantime it would be premature and irresponsible to dismantle our defences, either materially or psychologically, even though for the time being we think that with the Soviet world western relations are showing some real though limited improvement.
This is the first time that as external minister, I have tried in this house to analyse our relations with the communists in this way. When the differences between Moscow and Peking first became apparent, there was a natural reluctance on the part of the west to attach too much importance to them lest the cleavage be short lived. While this was a prudent reaction at the time, we can now begin to draw a new balance sheet and get away from too exclusive a preoccupation with only one of the communist giants. They are clearly at odds with each other on national, historical and racial grounds, though as communists their differences find expression in ideological terminology. These differences, which have been coming into the open for perhaps four years, are obviously not a transient phenomenon.
It is impossible to say how deep the detente or the pause with the Soviet union will go or how penetrating it really is. In the meantime I think it should clearly be our intention to encourage this pause or detente while remembering that Soviet positions have not changed on most of the central issues which divide us, including the division of Germany, the cruel, special case of Berlin, and the fomenting of unrest throughout the non-communist world under the guise of liberation. Moreover, as we have recently noted in Ottawa as well as in other parts of the world, communist efforts to subvert individuals and groups in free countries, and to expand their power and influence by other means than war, have continued unabated despite the detente.
This kind of situation, of course, requires the most careful examination. Each week brings some new evidence that it is possible to modify the word "satellites" in describing

the relationship between the Soviet union and the countries of eastern Europe. This trend, of course, should not be exaggerated, but it is evident that, apart from foreign policy, and within certain limits, the eastern European countries are being allowed much more than ever before, to develop a brand of communism more in conformity with local conditions and the national characteristics of their peoples. Simultaneously the process of de-Stalinization has led to a considerable reduction in the physical control over the populations in these countries. Such trends are not easily reversed.
A final element to be kept in mind is that the communist countries are faced with substantial economic difficulties. Agriculture is clearly inefficient, and the planning and organization techniques of communist industry are passing through a period of revision. These developments present possibilities to the west for trade and for the opening of channels of communication which may help us to break down some of the barriers between the Soviet world and our own. Yet even if we should be able to make some really substantial progress toward an understanding, a modus vivendi, with the Soviet union and eastern Europe, there would still remain the ominous question mark of communist China.
The Prime Minister and I had the opportunity for a frank discussion about communist China with President de Gaulle and M. Couve de Murville, the French foreign minister, during our visit to Paris shortly before the French act of recognition. While we would have preferred that France had consulted her allies, it was apparent to us that her decision was taken after a careful weighing of all the circumstances as the government of that country saw them. I hope the decision of France to establish diplomatic relations with Peking will help to reduce communist China's continuing isolation. The isolation of the Soviet union between 1917 and the early 1930's is now recognized as having brought little benefit either to the west or to the Soviet union.
I do not wish to leave the impression that it is the west which is mainly responsible for Chinese isolation. In fact, since the communist Chinese took control of the mainland they have often appeared to be pursuing a deliberate policy of severing contacts with the west. They have also sought to impose conditions upon those who were otherwise prepared to enter into relations with them. It must be frankly admitted that the experiences of 20220-221J
Supply-External Affairs some governments which extended recognition and sought to establish diplomatic relations were not as happy as those countries might have hoped.
Realizing the dangers inherent in Chinese isolation, Canada has, like a number of other western nations, encouraged increased contacts in the commercial and cultural fields with China; and I think this policy has been wise and has met with success. Canadian trade with China continues at a relatively high level, and there are increased dealings between Canadian businessmen and the appropriate Chinese agencies. With a relaxation in the Chinese attitude, one Canadian newspaperman is now in mainland China, and there is the possibility of other correspondents being admitted. This could give our public greater first hand coverage of events and developments on the Chinese mainland.
As part of this new development we would be willing to receive an equivalent number of Chinese correspondents in Canada for the purpose of reporting-and I emphasize the word reporting-on the Canadian scene to their home audience. It is our hope that such reciprocal arrangements could in the long run help to reduce the distortions which in the past have proved so dangerous to relations between Peking and the western countries.
As far as the international position of communist China is concerned, there are no simple solutions in sight. At the United Nations, as my hon. friend sitting opposite me can confirm, Canada has opposed resolutions calling for the expulsion of nationalist Chinese representatives and their replacement by representatives from Peking, on the grounds that such resolutions make no provision for the right of the inhabitants of Formosa to self determination and appropriate international status. Canadian representatives at the United Nations have made clear the Canadian desire for an equitable solution which would deal adequately with the Formosa problem and at the same time bring mainland China into the mainstream of international affairs. This was the position taken by the chairman of the Canadian delegation, the present leader of the opposition in the other place, when he acted as head of the Canadian delegation to the general assembly of the United Nations in 1961. I also agree with what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said in the House of Commons on July 25, 1963:
I think a major challenge is presented to the nations of the western world today. Canada, the United States and other nations will have to take another look at our policy regarding communist

Supply-External Affairs
China. We will have to review our thinking. We will have to consider the problem, and it is a tremendous one, in the perspective of changing events, and particularly in view of this agreement; because unless it includes communist China -and I do not want to mention France in the same paragraph-and we are able to secure the adherence of communist China, the threat of nuclear war will hang over us to a degree that we can only anticipate with foreboding, horror and overwhelming fear.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether the minister could give me the reference to that quotation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry I did not give the page, but I will have it before I conclude. It was in the month of July, 1963.
Recent developments have revived interest in what could be described as a one China, one Formosa solution. To achieve such a solution would require above all the cooperation of the parties immediately concerned; but a practical and equitable solution along these lines has not so far proved acceptable either to Peking or to Taipei.
During the recent NATO meeting questions were asked in this house concerning my references in my statement before the council in The Hague to the realities we might face at the nineteenth session of the United Nations general assembly which might require some modification of the policy I have just described. The Prime Minister, in reply to a question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition, has already referred to one such reality, the possibility of a vote favourable to the seating of mainland China irrespective of Canada's stand on that issue.
Another possibility is that communist China might come so close to being seated by vote at this assembly as to foreshadow a decisive trend in that direction at the following assembly.
In that event, as I told the NATO council, the chances of a solution which would make provision in the United Nations for the future of Formosa and its inhabitants on a basis of self determination might disappear if we do not move from the present static position. We must remember that if communist China were seated, it would occupy not only the general assembly seat now held by nationalist China but the security council seat as well, a privilege which carries with it the right of veto over the admission of new members. A third issue we might face, if communist China were seated and Formosa automatically excluded, would be whether to recognize the Peking government or do as we did some years ago in the case of Outer
IMr. Martin (Essex East).]
Mongolia, sit beside them in the United Nations without according recognition to the regime.
These examples will make it clear to the committee that the extent, if any, of modifications in our position which we might wish to consider will not become apparent until we see what developments occur at the next United Nations general assembly, but surely there can be no excuse for our failing to consider this matter in good time when important changes in the tactical position at the United Nations have taken place.
In saying that Canada has no intention of doing anything that would add to the difficulties of our friends, as I said at NATO, I was simply recognizing the need for prior consultation with our friends before policy decisions are taken on important questions. Indeed, there is a NATO requirement for such consultation, and that is why I concluded my statement at The Hague on the China issue by urging close consultation in New York among NATO delegations on this matter before and during the forthcoming general assembly.
We are watching the situation closely and Canadian policy will be predicated on a number of factors. For example, the effect on the stability of countries in southeast Asia must be assessed with care, and particularly in the light of the current critical situation in Indochina. I shall refer to this new crisis in that area in a few minutes. Canada shares with other western countries the same basic interest in helping the developing countries of southeast Asia to maintain their independence and national identity. In addition we have a special interest in this area through our role in the international control commissions in Indochina.
It is against this background of our relations with the communist world that I would like to report on the NATO ministerial meeting which I attended in The Hague last week. The foreign ministers of the NATO countries have an opportunity each spring to review the international situation and the state of the alliance. We all realize that it is necessary to keep the nature of the threat under constant review so that the western response may be appropriate, not only in a military sense but, equally important, in ideas and policies. Therefore I firmly believe that it is not a sign of "disarray", as it is sometimes called, but of progress and sensible evolution that there are any thoughts in the western alliance as to how our countries should react to the

new opportunities as well as to the pitfalls presented by the current situation vis-a-vis the communists.
We have heard far too much about NATO being at a crossroads and suffering from various kinds of malaise. The fact is that the alliance is going through a healthy process of sorting out the different and often vigorously expressed ideas of its members on the state of the alliance and what should be done to bring it up to date. Would it be healthy if it were otherwise, if we were merely cling'-ing to the conceptions of the past and not trying to keep up with the times in a flexible way as befits free peoples?
At The Hague there was general agreement that in the next few years our main aim must be to ensure that NATO can meet the requirements of a world very different from when the alliance was founded. NATO has its old myths. Events are overtaking them rapidly and, if the alliance is to survive, we all must face the new realities. In the words of the Prime Minister at the NATO council in January, "We must learn to deal with the difficult job of peace making while maintaining the force necessary to deter war."
But I can say that all the members, all the foreign ministers representing the great powers and the others, are agreed upon the fundamentals of this alliance, which are that we intend to remain free; we intend to maintain our military strength in the absence of political settlements and controlled disarmament; we intend to contain communist aggression; we intend to remain firm in our dealings with the Soviet union, but willing to explore any road to political settlement provided it does not endanger our security.
There are different ideas on how to proceed in the future. What is needed in the alliance is more willingness on the part of those who want changes to propose them, and more willingness on the part of those who profess partnership to start practising it. If we are to adapt the alliance to changed conditions, there are certain goals which we believe are worth pursuing. First and foremost, so far as this country is concerned, we believe there must be increased emphasis on the transatlantic nature of the alliance. Any development within the alliance toward European or North American continentalism will be resisted by this country, I hope. We will never choose, I hope, between the two sides of the Atlantic, because we cannot; for our historic ties are with Europe while at the same time we are a North American country. Greater co-operation between the two sides of the Atlantic is to us the only sensible policy
Supply-External Affairs if the western alliance is to continue to evolve as a partnership of like minded nations.
Second, Europe today is vastly stronger than in 1949, and many European countries think, quite rightly, that they should play a larger role in the direction of the alliance politically and militarily. I am sure concrete proposals would accomplish this and these would be welcomed by all. I urged my colleagues at the meeting to let us have these proposals.


The Chairman:: Order. I regret having to bring to the attention of the committee that the minister's time has expired.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sure all of us in the committee wish to hear the minister's comments on the various aspects of world problems, and I am sure there would be no disagreement to allowing him to continue.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yet it accomplishes little to state the complaint without suggesting the remedy.
Finally, we need better consultation in the military as well as in the political and economic spheres. There have been enormous improvements in recent years and, as a result, the alliance is stronger today than in 1949. Because we now feel freer than before to go our own ways, there is an even greater need to tell each other what we are doing, and why.
I am afraid that that is now the situation. If we fail to do so, mistrust sets in and we lose sight of the fundamental reasons which keep us together and we become obsessed by our differences.
When the Prime Minister and I visited Paris last January we agreed that we would consult with France at the ministerial level. We found that President de Gaulle and his ministers shared our desire for a closer relationship. Although only a short time has elapsed since that visit, I believe I can already say with confidence that our conversations marked an important milestone in Canada's relations with France.
While I was at The Hague I met privately with the French foreign minister, M. Couve de Murville, as part of our continuing ministerial consultations. We talked not only about NATO matters and Cyprus but about more general international problems and about our developing bilateral programs in the cultural field. I am sure we will have an opportunity later to give an indication of the nature of these bilateral accords which were reached

Supply-External Affairs with France and in connection with which I was able to report some progress in my conversations with the French foreign minister who, I believe, and I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, is one of the great foreign ministers. Even when we do not agree with his views, they are worth trying to understand, for I am sure they represent much more than a purely nationalistic approach to the problems of Europe and the world. I am happy to see that this was confirmed by France herself in the warm reception which the government of France gave to the secretary general of the United Nations a few days ago in Paris.
In recent months Franco-Canadian programs have been set in motion which will result in closer educational and cultural links. Our investment relationships are also actively under study, and we are looking at a number of other fields in which there may be some possibility for mutually beneficial links-immigration, defence production, science, tourism and so on. Neither we nor the French expect to see spectacular changes overnight, but we are working to create a new atmosphere or a new structure in our relations.
I might add here that we in no way think of this new relationship as one of interest only to French speaking Canadians. May I quote what the Prime Minister said at our dinner last January in honour of Monsieur Pompidou, the French prime minister. I quote the Prime Minister of Canada:
In English speaking regions of Canada, there is a much greater interest in the French language and French culture, the role of which is being increasingly appreciated as an essential element in our nation. This development brings about, quite naturally, a renewal of interest which serves most appropriately our relations with France, and this, I can assure you, is not limited to the province of Quebec.. .The two governments are fully alive to the opportunities offered by the dynamic progress within the two countries.
I have spoken of our relations with France. Turning to the commonwealth, I might say that we look forward with pleasure to the holding of the third commonwealth education conference here in Ottawa from August 21 to September 4. It will be recalled that, as a result of the commonwealth trade and economic conference held in Montreal in 1958, a commonwealth education conference was held in Oxford in July of 1959. This meeting recommended the development of four types of commonwealth co-operation in education; the scholarship and fellowship plan, the training of teachers, the supply of

teachers, and technical education. Developments in all these fields were reviewed and new areas of co-operation examined at a second conference held in New Delhi in January, 1962.
Mr. Vincent Massey has agreed to accept the office of president of this meeting, and this is yet another example of his high sense of national duty and of the valuable contribution he has made to Canada. The Canadian government, provincial departments of education and the whole educational community are giving their full support to this important conference. The activities in the field of educational co-operation which will be discussed at the Ottawa meeting have already brought benefits to all commonwealth members, and provide an example of the constructive partnership for which the commonwealth stands.
I should like to say that much thought is being given these days in many places to the commonwealth. It is a unique institution, as we know, which has evolved along lines which are capable of promoting the interests of its members and the improvement of international understanding. Admittedly it faces problems which may test its adaptability and cohesion, but we have no doubt it will weather these storms. The prime ministers' conference in July will address itself to many of these problems. There will be a continuing search for methods to maintain its character and its purpose. It could be that the commonwealth education conference provides the kind of activity needed to realize these objectives, as we pointed out to Mr. Sandys, the secretary of state for commonweath relations, when he was here in Ottawa a few days ago.
At the end of The Hague meeting I accepted an invitation from the German foreign minister to go to Germany. No secretary of state for external affairs had visited Germany since the war, apart from attendance at a NATO ministerial meeting held in Bonn. It was thought that it would be desirable for me to pay a visit to this leading allied country at this time, a country which has so successfully constructed a modern democratic state on the ashes of nazi tyranny.
Our relations with the German federal republic are important. We have more trade with Germany than with any other European country, nearly $200 million more than with France, for example. There are in Canada now almost a million people of German origin, while we have in Germany, if we include the families of our soldiers and airmen, about 25,000 Canadians.

I therefore agreed to go from The Hague to spend some time with the German foreign minister, Mr. Gerhard Schroeder, in Bonn and to spend a day in West Berlin before returning home. I can say that Mr. Schroeder gave me a full and clear account of the thinking of his country on the great problem which must preoccupy all Germans so long as their country remains divided. That, of course, is the problem of German reunification. He said again, as his government has said countless times, that modern Germany has renounced the use of force as a means to attain its objectives. I said that the government of Canada understands and supports the Federal Republic of Germany in every peaceful effort to reunite its peoples through the exercise of their right of self determination in freedom.
I think there are many points of similarity in the Canadian and present German outlook on the future of Atlantic co-operation. Like us, they want to see European integration pursued within an Atlantic framework. Like us they want the Kennedy round to succeed and so contribute toward the liberalization of trade on a world wide basis.
I am glad, as I am sure the whole house will be, that we shall have an opportunity to welcome Chancellor Erhard and Mr. Schroeder here when they visit us from June 9 to June 11. Apart from the United States and Britain, Canada will be the first country outside the European common market that Dr. Erhard will have visited since he became chancellor. He has been here before and we look forward to seeing him again. Both the economic regeneration and the political transformation of modern democratic Germany owe much to the chancellor.
When I went to Berlin, I saw a different kind of evidence that Germany is not what it was when I last visited that country in 1936. As many of you who have been there know, there is not a single landmark left of whole aspects of the Berlin I had known. Much has been rebuilt, and there are impressive new industrial and urban developments. But as one gets to the frontier of freedom, where East and West Berlin meet, there are gaping reminders of Hitler's war. Through this area, formerly the heart of the city, runs the wall, that stark, horrible monument to the failure of a system. For if the communist system in the eastern zone had not failed so lamentably why would from 3,000 to 5,000 persons a week have tried, at the risk of their lives, to escape westward to freedom? From the boundary of West Berlin it is like looking at the outside
Supply-External Affairs of a great concentration camp. There are armed guards, machine guns, lookout towers, row upon row of barbed wire, tank traps, houses demolished or their boundary windows bricked up, railways and subways blocked and guarded, as if the life of that regime in the east depended upon stopping people at all costs from escaping to bear witness to conditions under communism.
The German problem, Mr. Chairman, is the centre of the European problem and certainly also of the relations of the west with communist countries. The solution of the German problem could open up a real understanding between east and west. It is important for a country like Canada to understand this problem, to understand the position of some of our NATO partners, to analyse our attitude and our assessment of the reactions of the Soviet union to any proposed solution.
I have dwelt principally on the relations between the west and the communist countries and within the western community itself. Both these preoccupations converge in the disarmament discussions being conducted in the 18 nation committee in Geneva. It is there that the four NATO nations, Britain, Canada, Italy and the United States, are in a sense, acting for their alliance partners in the continuing search for controlled disarmament and, in the meantime for any measures to ease international tension and avert the possibility of war by miscalculation or surprise attack. It is there, too, that both the communists and the non-communists feel the full weight and influence of the non-aligned nations as represented by eight of their number from all the continents.
While I was in Geneva at the end of March, I attended a session of the 18 nation disarmament committee and reaffirmed Canadian support for its activities. May I add, Mr. Chairman, the last time I had been in the room where that meeting took place was in 1938 when, with Mr. Lapointe, I had gone as one of the delegates from Canada to the last assembly of the league of nations. I could not help but think, as I sat in that room, of all that had happened since 1938, both in human and physical destruction in our world; I wondered whether our deliberations would lead to the beginning of a resurgence and of a new opportunity for mankind.
At that meeting I stressed the need to follow up the accomplishments of 1963 with further advances toward halting the arms race. While the negotiation of a treaty on general and complete disarmament is the main task of the committee, discussions over recent months

Supply-External Affairs lead to the conclusion that the way to general disarmament must be prepared by agreements on more limited collateral or pre-disarmament measures.
I therefore took the opportunity to state Canadian views on a number of measures which have been proposed. I expressed Canadian support for President Johnson's recent proposal for a verified freeze on the numbers and characteristics of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles. It is a proposal of particular interest to Canada because those long range weapons systems constitute the direct threat to North America. It is also consonant with our view that every effort should be made to arrest the ever growing qualitative and quantitative competitions in armament production. A verified freeze on strategic delivery vehicles would provide a practical means to that end. A halt in this most costly and potentially dangerous segment of the arms race would do a great deal to help us all find an agreed method to reverse the process and begin disarmament in earnest.
I welcomed also the proposal which has been made in differing form by both the United States and the Soviet union for a bomber bonfire. An early agreement to destroy some of the major means of delivering nuclear weapons would reassure a sometimes sceptical world that the great powers are really serious about disarmament. It would have the added advantage of ensuring that these aircraft, obsolescent perhaps by super-power standards but still potentially lethal, would not be disposed of to less militarily powerful states which might use them in a way which would aggravate regional disputes.
On the question of non-dissemination of nuclear weapons, I voiced continuing Canadian support for an agreement based on the terms of the well known Irish resolution of 1961 and for a comprehensive ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. I spoke in support of the progressive development of an international system of safeguards over the transfer of fissionable materials for peaceful uses. All these measures merit our continuing support as important elements in limiting the number of nuclear weapons in the world and the number of nations having independent national control of them.
I am satisfied, after watching the disarmament committee in action, that it can make real progress toward the solution of disarmament problems. Both the Prime Minister and I, at one time or another, have had an opportunity of sitting in disarmament committees, as have my hon. friends opposite, who will

understand what I am saying. I believe, however, one should be realistic in the appraisal that one makes. This committee has before it ample material for constructive negotiations when discussions are resumed on June 9. If the committee concentrates its efforts on these items which, taken singly or in some combination, offer good prospects of advance, it should be able to report to the next United Nations general assembly that we have moved a few steps further toward the goal of a disarmed and peaceful world.
An important advance, indeed the only one, in the field of disarmament since the turn of the year was, however, arranged outside the 18 nation committee. In unilateral but coordinated announcements the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Britain and Chairman Khrushchev indicated, on April 20, the intention of their governments to cut back production of fissionable material for weapons purposes. Although not identical in content or necessarily equivalent in their effect, the announced measures are nevertheless a further step in the direction of curbing the arms race and as such are welcomed by Canada. They could mark the beginning of a process which could eventually lead to a complete and verified cut-off in production of fissionable material for weapons purposes and to a substantial transfer of such material to peaceful uses.
Because the development and strengthening of peace keeping machinery have a direct relation to disarmament negotiations, I used at Geneva the example of Cyprus to illustrate the continuing need for strengthening the ability of the United Nations to undertake such operations while attempts are being made to work out general disarmament plans. The draft disarmament treaties of both the United States and the Soviet union include provisions for the development of international peace keeping methods which would take the place of national armed forces in a disarmed world. Cyprus and a number of other examples have, however, demonstrated that in the meantime we must be able to cope with a wide variety of situations by means of ad hoc peace keeping arrangements, the efficiency of which should and could be improved.
As the Prime Minister said on May 7, we are issuing invitations to a number of nations with experience in this field to attend an exploratory conference in Canada within the next few months. We are following up with detailed suggestions as to the pattern which such a joint examination of this problem might follow. Out of it we hope to obtain not

only improved methods by which those nations can prepare themselves for peace keeping service under the United Nations, but some concrete conclusions which could be made available to other interested states and which would perhaps encourage them to set up stand-by units within their national forces.
Speaking of the United Nations, I know I can say for all members of this house that we are looking forward to the visit on Monday and Tuesday next of the United Nations secretary general, U Thant, who will address the combined Houses of Parliament in this chamber on Tuesday morning. He will find us a nation dedicated to the charter of the United Nations, as has once again been demonstrated by Canada's contribution to the difficult peace keeping operation on the island of Cyprus.
I regret taking up all this time, Mr. Chairman, but I did feel that a comprehensive statement on these matters was due to the committee, and there are two matters of current interest upon which I cannot refrain from speaking, particularly in the light of the assurances I gave several times this week in answer to questions on orders of the day.
So much has been said in the house about Cyprus that I would not feel justified in entering into a detailed recapitulation of the United Nations operation there, either in respect of the peace force or the concurrent endeavours of the mediator. I would, however, like to give the house a brief account of how this matter was dealt with at the recent NATO meeting, where it became in fact one of the principal preoccupations of the assembled ministers.
I went to The Hague representing the only country at that meeting which is participating in the force-


Mr. Churchill:: What about Britain?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -although two days later the foreign minister of Denmark was able to announce that his country's forces had just arrived in Nicosia. And, of course, as the hon. gentleman says, the United Kingdom is a member of the force and is also a member of the NATO council. But the United Kingdom had a force on the island long before the United Nations force was established, and did an essential job in dealing with a most difficult situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And it is still the major component.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the major component, with some 2,700 troops, and it is bearing a heavy responsibility.
Supply-External Affairs
I went to The Hague convinced that advantage should be taken of that NATO meeting to impress upon the Greek and Turkish foreign ministers two points; first, the concern of all other members of the alliance over the weakening of the southeastern flank of NATO resulting from the deterioration in relations between these two countries because of Cyprus; and second, the need for these two countries to exercise restraint in their relations with each other as well as a moderating influence on the two communities in Cyprus in order that the peace keeping and political mediation of the United Nations might be facilitated.
I met separately with the foreign ministers of Greece and Turkey both before and during the meetings. I listened to their views and pointed out to them my grave concern. I can say that these preliminary and other discussions were very helpful in furthering mutual understanding of our various preoccupations.
Hon. members have already seen my references to relations between Greece and Turkey and to the Cyprus situation in the conference statement which the Prime Minister tabled on May 15. Other foreign ministers also expressed concern that the solidarity and strength of the alliance should not be prejudiced by a deterioration in relations between Greece and Turkey, and spoke in support of the United Nations operation there. I believe it will be a matter of pride to members of this house that practically every foreign minister who took part in the discussion referred to Canada's participation not only in peace keeping in Cyprus but in practically every other peace keeping operation under the auspices of the United Nations.
It was agreed after some discussion that the secretary general of NATO should keep in touch, pursuant to recommendations made by the committee of three in 1956, with Greece and Turkey in order to be available to assist in easing relations between these two allies. In effect the NATO secretary general has been given an informal watching brief over a situation affecting the relations of two member countries.
Because of our preoccupation with Cyprus, this was a valuable part of our meeting at The Hague from my point of view. I want to make it clear that there has been no infringement by NATO of United Nations responsibilities in Cyprus. Exclusive responsibility for restoring peace and promoting a political settlement in the island rests with the two Cypriot communities assisted by the United Nations force and the United Nations mediator. But a quite separate responsibility,

Supply-External Affairs which has now been recognized, rests on NATO to see to it that the actions of none of its members either weaken the alliance or render the task of the United Nations in Cyprus more difficult. War between Greece and Turkey is unthinkable-unthinkable for NATO and unthinkable, as I told the foreign ministers concerned and as others did, for the two countries themselves. I think the recent frank airing of this problem in the council gave all the members an opportunity to express their concern and to offer assistance to Greece and Turkey in restoring good relations, and thereby contributing also to an improvement in intercommunal relations in Cyprus.
Mr. Chairman, we are reading these days about a developing and critical situation in Indochina that concerns Canada. Although the Cyprus operation under the United Nations auspices has been a constant and urgent preoccupation over recent weeks, other peace keeping duties continue as we know to be discharged by our country. Some, such as the United Nations emergency force in Gaza and the observation mission in the Yemen, are going forward quietly. Another major operation, that in the Congo, is scheduled to be wound up next month, four years after its inauguration.
Of renewed importance, although outside United Nations auspices, are the truce supervision activities in which we are engaged in the three Indochina states of Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos. It is now almost ten years since this country undertook, at the request of the participants in the Geneva conference of 1954 on Indochina, to serve along with India and Poland in the three international supervisory commissions for these three Indochina nations. Indochina is once again in a state of crisis, and I believe I have the responsibility to explain the Canadian government's position with regard to some of the unfolding events in this area.
In South Viet Nam there is now a full scale civil war supplied, directed and inspired from communist North Viet Nam. This civil war runs the risk of becoming an international war, because the communists continue to encourage their communist fellows within South Viet Nam and to provide them with help in the form of strategic direction and infiltrated supplies of arms and trained personnel, while the United States for their part have responded to the requests of successive South Viet Namese governments for help in the form of training and equipment against this externally organized and supported insurgency.

Both the government of the United States and the government of South Viet Nam have made it clear that if the North Viet Nam government and its backers will cease to interfere in South Viet Nam, military aid from the United States will not be necessary. There is no question of any attempt by the south to take over the north, nor of the United States desiring to maintain bases in the south. What is required is for the communist north to abandon its policy of interfering in the south. Our delegation to the commission there reports to us as an independent body, and I am satisfied that the assessment made by Canada, on its own, represents the actual situation.
There have been suggestions that neutrality would be the best policy for Viet Nam. I would not disagree with this as a long term objective; we are already agreed that it is the desirable policy for Cambodia and Laos. But can there be any doubt that supporting a nominally neutralist South Viet Nam would, in present circumstances, make that territory become anything other than an early victim of communist subversion? I believe that genuine, viable neutrality for Viet Nam can become possible, but I think it will become possible only after the present insurgency is brought to an end.
The role of the commission on which Canada serves in this situation is very difficult. Yesterday in the security council Mr. Stevenson criticized the effectiveness of the commission. A large part of the original terms of reference of the commission has become a dead letter. But the commission has performed the useful function of examining South Viet Namese charges of subversion from the north, and has presented a special report to the co-chairmen of the 1954 Geneva conference stating its positive findings. It has not done as much as we would have thought necessary. In particular we have believed and proposed repeatedly that the consideration of cases of subversion should have been and should be more expeditious. In the critical situation obtaining in Viet Nam the commission's duty to point to breaches of the cease fire agreement becomes more rather than less urgent. We shall continue to press our commission colleagues to take the same view of the commission's duties as we do.
One unfortunate offshoot of the war in South Viet Nam has been a series of violent border incidents with Cambodia. South Viet Namese troops repeatedly cross the Cambodian border and we are told that they do so in hot pursuit of Viet Cong insurgents seeking to take refuge in Cambodia after operations in Viet

Nam. We in Canada-and I have made this clear before-support Cambodian neutrality and territorial integrity and therefore are doing what we can to try to find some way to bring these incursions to an end. Although this is not, strictly speaking, among the functions set out for the commission in Cambodia in the Geneva agreements, we have allowed it to be used to investigate such incidents and are ourselves trying to use it to see whether some more satisfactory arrangement can be made.
Yesterday Mr. Stevenson made a number of proposals in the security council in the course of the debate on the Cambodian complaints against Viet Nam. The proposals concerned various means by which the Cam-bodian-Viet Namese border might be insulated from the effects of the communist insurrection in Viet Nam. These proposals merit careful study. We have long felt that the Geneva framework for Cambodia was not designed to deal with situations that might arise along the frontier with Viet Nam. We should therefore welcome all suggestions that could lead to the lowering of tension on the frontier between these two countries. Whether they are related to the Geneva framework or not is of less importance than their possible efficacy in correcting a dangerous situation. I am sure that when we discuss the problems of these countries it is not easy for us to recognize the extent to which we in this interdependent world, whether we like it or not, are obliged in our own interests, as well as in the interests of world peace, to find that these matters are of vital concern to us.
Laos is also the unfortunate victim of the confrontation between communist and noncommunist forces. An attempt was made at Geneva in 1962 to bring about conditions which would permit Laos to be united, independent and neutral. My hon. friend the former secretary of state for external affairs attended the conference in 1962 when we were brought in as a direct member of the conference. At the present time that country is, in all but name, a divided country. One part of it is held by right wing forces which have been far from blameless; they have done many things which have made the task of the neutralist prime minister, Prince Souvanna Phouma, more difficult. But at least they have co-operated in some measure with the prime minister, and the areas they hold are generally open to inspection by the international commission of which Canada, I wish to emphasize, along with India and Poland, is a member.
20220-222J
Supply-External Affairs
The areas held by the communist Pathet Lao are closed to the commission except upon rare occasions, and the Pathet Lao faction has been unco-operative to such a degree that one is forced to the conclusion that it really prefers the partition of the country to its unification under a neutralist government. Their latest military attacks in the plaine des Jarres cannot be justified by any political manoeuvring of the right wing in Vientiane. Our delegation to the commission has consistently supported both the authority of the prime minister and the obligation of the commission to carry out its duties under the Geneva protocol of 1962. Unfortunately we have not received the degree of co-operation required for success. The commission has to act by majority vote, or in certain circumstances by unanimous vote.
The prime minister of Laos has proposed that in view of the gravity of the situation the members of the 1962 conference on Laos should hold consultations as provided by article 4 of the Geneva protocol. The government of France has now indicated its support for this proposal in notes to the co-chairmen of the Geneva conference, Britain and the Soviet union. It seems to me that consultations under the protocol could have a salutary effect on the present crisis, and I have already instructed our commissioner in Vientiane to let it be known that Canada would be willing to take part in such consultations arranged as a result of the proposal made by the prime minister of Laos. It will, of course, be for the members of the Geneva conference to decide whether any consultations which are agreed upon should take place with all the formality of an international conference or, perhaps preferably, in some less formal way.
I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that this has not been an encouraging picture of the state of affairs in Indochina, an area where Canada has for 10 years now, at great expense to our people, sought along with India and Poland and other countries to bring about peaceful conditions. The key seems to lie in Viet Nam, and if the communists would renounce armed subversion a great step forward would have been taken toward restoring peace and stability to the area. Political solutions seem hardly possible for Viet Nam as long as the present militant communist interference in South Viet Nam continues.
I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that I have taken too long, but really I do not apologize because these are matters on which parliament has a right to hear from me. I recognize that time has prevented me from dealing with many other questions, such as

Supply-External Affairs external aid, international economic development, desirable changes in the United Nations, and the organization of American states. These and other questions will undoubtedly be covered in our discussions here and in the external affairs committee when my estimates are being considered.
The wide area covered by what I have had to say, Mr. Chairman, points up the fact that our world is interdependent. When I think of the questions with which I have to deal I cannot help but go back to my early days- in this house 28 years ago when there was little discussion of foreign affairs and when it was regarded almost as presumptuous even to put a question having to do with the foreign policy of the nation. All that is changed because our world is changed, and with that change has come perhaps a heavier responsibility for parliament than it realizes. Canada cannot escape its responsibilities in matters which a few years ago were not regarded as our concern. We are drawn into the maelstrom of a disturbed world. We are not one of the great powers, but self respect and international obligation present us with a duty and an opportunity. Although we are not one of the main architects of the world's destiny I believe we will not shirk our responsibilities in seeking to establish better conditions for peace among the nations.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, it is about one minute to one o'clock, so I was wondering whether we might call it one o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
["It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.\nAt one o'clock the committee took recess."]
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This morning, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave us a very wide ranging comment on very important aspects of international affairs, but during his discourse he did not say very much about what the government actually intended to do. He certainly pointed out the problems and the difficulties, but he did not offer too many solutions. As we know, in this aspect of government it is not always possible to present solutions until they have been worked out with other countries, but

surely at least in some fields the minister could have given some clarification of what government policy is, or will be, and it is to these particular fields I will refer in the course of my remarks.
As it was, the minister's speech was mostly concise, and a very interesting resume of what we have all been able to read in the Times, both the London and New York varieties, in the Christian Science Monitor and elsewhere during the last few months. As a matter of fact, in the case of Cyprus we have been able to find out more by reading the press than we have been able to find out from the minister in this chamber.
On repeated occasions over the last few weeks and months various members of the committee have tried to find out, both from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, what directives were given to the United Nations force on Cyprus, and on every occasion, as I recall, either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs said these could not be divulged because it would cause embarrassment to the United Nations, or it was not possible to give out these details because it would complicate matters on Cyprus. Perhaps that is true. Having had some experience in this field on other occasions, notably with the Congo advisory committee, there is perhaps some merit in what the minister said in this regard, but I could never completely understand why it was not possible to disclose the directives given to the United Nations force on Cyprus.
I am sure these directives must have been known to a great many people on Cyprus, and I fail to see how it could have caused any embarrassment to the government to disclose them. I have in front of me a publication called "Report on Foreign Affairs" published by the general council of the parliamentary association in England, and this issue is for January, February and March of 1964. As most members know, it is an extremely reliable publication, and I would refer Your Honour to page 6, the middle of that page, where it lists a number of the directives given by the secretary general of the United Nations to the United Nations force on Cyprus. I quote as follows:
The following points were understood to be among the 14 laid down by the secretary general: (1) the force should not interfere in the internal affairs of Cyprus; (2) it should not use arms to disarm Greek or Turkish Cypriots and should fire only in self-defence; (3) it would be the aim, though not a mandate, to attempt integration of the U.N. force with the Greek and Turkish contingents in Cyprus (which, under the Treaty

of Guarantee, numbered 950 and 650 respectively); (4) a clear distinction was to be made between the British contingents which were part of the U.N. force and fell under its command, and British troops manning British bases; (5) the disarming of Cypriot irregulars was not to be enforced by arms, but other measures might be used; (6) a status-of-forces agreement was to be negotiated between the Cyprus government and the U.N.
Then it goes to mention a number of comments on these directives which allegedly have been given by the secretary general to the force on Cyprus. If these in fact are some of the directives, and I have reason to doubt that they are, I cannot see any reason why there would have been any embarrassment to the government or the United Nations in disclosing them to us.


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


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly.


Harold Edward Winch: You are reading out the directives as you know them, or as we know them. Is there any way to interpret the directives to say that, if a member of the United Nations force is killed, as one has already been, they cannot then disarm those who fire?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for the question. Having looked at these alleged directives as set out in the article, there does not seem to be any specific directive among the ones listed here to cover that situation, except perhaps No. 2 which says:
2. It should not use arms to disarm Greek or Turkish Cypriots and should fire only in selfdefence;


Harold Edward Winch: My question was not exactly that. Can they not disarm those who fire, until somebody is killed?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is no such directive listed here. However, it says there were 14, but the article lists only six of what are understood to be the directives. Presumably there are other directives which the author of the article did not ascertain or did not care to publish. It may be, as I have already mentioned, that some of the other directives might have caused some problems if they had been disclosed, and with regard to the question just asked, possibly a directive of that nature might have caused some trouble. But certainly the alleged directives published in that article could not have caused any problem. Indeed, they do not seem to have, and I cannot understand why those directives at least were not disclosed to the house.
Supply-External Affairs


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out that those were the terms of reference which have already been tabled in the house.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have read those terms of reference. I have them here and I have looked at them carefully. They are similar but they by no means coincide with the other ones to which I have referred. I do not have much more to say on the Cyprus situation at this time. Certainly there were great difficulties involved in the preliminary aspects of the Cyprus venture. I repeat that at the moment things appear to be going very well, with the exception of the incident in which a Finnish soldier was unfortunately killed and became the first casualty in the force. I am sure all members of the house will wish to express their sympathy to the government of Finland in this regard. But at the moment things seem to be going fairly well and all we can say is we hope they will continue to do so. The minister may be sure that if they do not there will be further inquiries as to the extent and terms of our participation in this venture.
I noted certain observations that the minister made during the course of his remarks this morning and there are a number of questions I should like to ask him. I hope he will have an opportunity to answer them toward the end of this debate. The first matter I should like to ask the minister about has to do with mainland China. In his discussion of the China problem this morning he made it quite clear that as far as cultural and trade relations with mainland China are concerned things are going very well. I think we would all agree to that statement. He also expressed the hope that these enterprises would continue and expand, and again I think we would all agree with that.
However, in discussing the apparent attitude of the Peking government with regard to war, and nuclear war in particular, the minister indicated, as I recall, that it was by no means certain whether or not the Peking government had entirely renounced the idea of a nuclear war. Then the minister made what I thought was a very odd observation. I noted it carefully and I should like him to clarify it for us. In discussing the matter of China's intentions as to nuclear war the minister said, as I noted it, that we should test the intentions of the Chinese government in this regard. That struck me as a rather startling observation because, if I may say so, it was reminiscent of a certain now deceased but well known secretary of state who on frequent occasions advocated a policy of brinkmanship. I hope the Secretary of State for

Supply-External Affairs External Affairs was not suggesting that we should keep pulling the dragon's tail to see if it will spew forth Are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course not.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I simply refer the Secretary of State for External Affairs to his statement. For this reason I hope he will offer some explanation or enlargement of this rather odd observation.
Another question I should like to put to the minister concerns the possible seating of the Peking government of China in the United Nations this fall. The minister indicated that he was rather concerned and had reason for concern that perhaps the credentials of nationalist or Taiwan China might not be accepted by the credentials committee of the United Nations this fall and that either this year or perhaps next the credentials of Peking China would be accepted. He indicated there would be certain problems with regard to what Canada would do in this event. Would Canada sit in the United Nations and not speak to Peking China, when we are trading with that country, or what would we do?
The minister put forth the question in a very interesting way but he did not offer any suggestions as to what the government might do in this regard. While at the moment this may be a hypothetical question, I wonder whether the minister could not enlarge a little on what he would expect the government would do if this should take place, inasmuch as he indicated that there is a reasonable likelihood of its happening. Later in the debate one of my colleagues will be making further remarks on the subject of China so I will not continue any longer in this vein, except to say there is one other matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister on which he might perhaps seek the advice of his departmental legal adviser.
I refer to a rather interesting proposition which has been suggested to me. I do not know what the answer is and I hope the minister will be able to give one. In the event that the credentials committee of the general assembly should not accept the credentials of nationalist China but rather accepts the credentials of Peking China at the next general assembly or the one after, and Peking China is then seated in the general assembly, does this necessarily affect the credentials of Taiwan China in respect of its seat on the security council? This could present a most interesting state of affairs.
While from a practical viewpoint it would seem quite ridiculous that there could pos-

sibly be a situation where Taiwan China would be seated in the security council and Peking China would be seated in the general assembly, after a brief and cursory examination of the terms of the charter I am not at all sure that this could not be the case. The security council would have no veto over the credentials committee of the general assembly, but I would be interested to hear what the minister can find out from his department in this regard. As I have said, it does not seem at all logical, but legal aspects are not always logical aspects as we all know. We know, for instance, that the Soviet union has refused to pay its assessments for the various United Nations peace keeping expeditions, because of a very tenu-uous and technical legal argument. I would think it would be helpful to get some further enlightenment on the interesting possibility to which I have referred.
If I may now deal with the minister's observations on NATO, he gave us quite a bit of information as to his travels to Paris, The Hague and West Germany. I am wondering whether the minister visited London at any time during the course of his travels, or had the minister visited London before his trip to the last NATO ministerial meeting at The Hague? I realize that the visit of the minister and the Prime Minister to France, and the minister's visit to The Hague, West Germany and West Berlin are very important, but I also think that our relationships with the United Kingdom are likewise very important. Therefore I am wondering whether the minister has not been there yet. Visits have been made to Washington since the government has been in power, and I should like the minister to make some comment in this regard.
A year ago at the NATO meeting here in Ottawa it was decided, as I recall, that a review of the NATO defence role and NATO's requirements would be carried out. So far we have not had a report on this matter and I wonder whether the minister can enlighten us in this regard.
With regard to the matter of disarmament the minister was certainly very hopeful and enthusiastic. I can remember my first association with the minister back in 1955 at the United Nations, at which time he was also very enthusiastic and hopeful. We all have been since, but I think we are all sorry to have to say that there has not been that much progress. Therefore I believe a somewhat more realistic and practical view should be taken of disarmament. In my opinion all of us, including the minister, well know that

disarmament is a long, long, slow, tedious process. It is a matter of two steps forward and one step backward, three steps forward, four steps backward, five steps forward and so on. It is a long drawn out affair. We are all hopeful, and perhaps conditions are propitious in the world at the moment because of the detente between the Soviet group of states and the west. We certainly hope there are further steps.
I am glad to see the minister is now so enthusiastic and so hopeful, because he did not seem to have that same degree of enthusiasm and hope when the former secretary of state for external affairs, Hon. Howard Green, was expressing those views. In those days, Hon. Howard Green was expressing the same hope and enthusiasm for the success of the disarmament negotiations and making every effort in these talks, but the present minister was full of worry, reserve and fears about the future of disarmament. Now that he is back in office, he seems to have another view. Of course the views you have on various things all depend on where you sit in this house.
Since the minister said in his opening remarks this morning he was intending to cover only a certain number of fields in international affairs, because in any reasonable length of time it is impossible to cover the whole gamut, I intend to limit my remarks to certain aspects. My colleagues, at another stage, will be dealing with other aspects, particularly those relating to external aid and assistance. There are two or three items with which I should like to deal specifically this afternoon. One is the peace keeping operations of the United Nations. Another one is our problems in the Pacific. Another one relates to the organization of American states. This latter subject was always a great favourite of the minister until he became a minister. We have not heard very much about it since then. However, perhaps I will be able to remind him this afternoon of his views in the past.
With regard to the United Nations peace keeping operations, I agree with the minister's remarks this morning in which he stated that the three principal peace keeping operations that we associate with the United Nations namely the one in the Near East sometimes known as UNEF, the Congo and Cyprus, have been largely successful operations. Perhaps it is a little too early to say this about Cyprus, but at the moment it seems to be progressing well. We hope it will be as successful as the previous two.
Supply-External Affairs
These operations have been successful in so far as the political results that have been obtained are concerned, but they have not been so successful in so far as payment for them is concerned. As everyone knows the Soviet union has refused steadfastly to pay anything towards its share of the assessment for these operations. In so far as the Congo is concerned, France and Belgium have behaved in the same manner.
As I indicated earlier the Soviet union, as the result of a very tenuous legal argument which was not upheld by the judgment of the world court in 1962, has refused to pay for the Near East and Congo operations. This argument was based on the fact that the resolution was passed, not by the security council but by the general assembly. As I say, the world court has not accepted this argument advanced by the Soviet union, but that has not made any difference. The Russians are still literally sticking their tongue out at the United Nations and refusing to follow the rules of that organization. Of course, there are other reasons for the refusal of the Soviet union and France to pay their share of this assessment. I think the situation would be different if the late Premier Lumumba were still in power in the Congo. Then the Russians would have been only too glad to pay their share. This not being the case, they have not done so.
Only this morning I heard a news bulletin to the effect that the Soviet union had again flatly refused to pay any amount of its assessment for the Near East and Congo operations. As I understand it, this did not include the Cyprus operation because this venture was started in the security council. While the Soviet union did not vote against it, they participated and I think made it quite clear they were not excluding the possibility of helping to pay for this operation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to Cyprus I know of nothing that would warrant the view that she indicated she would.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize that, as the minister has said, the Soviet union has given no indication she would pay. On the other hand, she has given no indication she would not pay. Since her argument in connection with the Congo and UNEF were that the security council had not passed the resolution in the first place, and since she said nothing when the security council passed the Cyprus resolution, it is perhaps reasonable to hope she may contribute.
Then, we are faced with the question, what should we do about it? If the Soviet union

Supply-External Affairs and France continue to refuse to pay, in the one case for both the UNEF and Congo operations and in the case of France for the Congo operation, after being ordered to do so and after vetoing the decision of the world court, then some kind of action must be taken. Under the charter, of course, these countries could lose their voting rights in the assembly if they do not pay. As I understand it from various press reports-I have some here but I will not take the time of the house to read them-the Soviet union has given an indication it would have to change its attitude towards the United Nations in the event its voting rights were suspended. The implication is she might leave the United Nations and she would be accompanied by a number of her satellites if she did.
One of the views one hears expressed is, if the Soviets want to walk out, let them go; that if the Soviet union will not pay its share of the cost of these operations, the United Nations may as well break up anyway. This is one viewpoint that is expressed. If a country will not follow the rules, you may as well call the whole thing off right here and now. You have to have a confrontation or showdown with the Soviet union and France in this regard. You cannot go on forever placing the burden on a few countries like Canada, Norway and Sweden that do all the work and pay the bills as well, although funds have been contributed by some other countries including the United States and Britain.
Many people, however, believe that if the Soviet union were actually confronted with this situation whereby she might lose her vote, she would back down in the same way as she backed down in 1961, when she was insisting that there be a troika or threeheaded secretary general, and also when she was carrying on a particularly bitter personal campaign against the late secretary general, Mr. Hammarskjold, trying to get him out of office. I remember it well, since I was there at the time. When the Soviet union found this behaviour was not acceptable, particularly in so far as the smaller countries she hoped to influence were conceme'd, without turning a hair she just backed down and changed her whole attitude. After the late secretary general was killed, there was no further insistence on a three-headed secretary general, and the present secretary general, U Thant, was accepted. Many people feel that this is a bluff by the Soviet union and that if the bluff were called the Russians would back down because it is in their interests to remain in the United Nations. It is useful for several purposes. There is also the fear of the great

opprobrium which would come to the Soviet union from the smaller countries she hopes to influence. Russia would have no choice but to remain.
Another point of view is, of course, that if some face saving device could be found for the Soviet union so that she would not have to pay for UNEF and the Congo, she might remain in the United Nations. Perhaps in this regard some compromise could be worked out. Such a compromise proposal was suggested by the United States representative, Mr. Adlai Stevenson, in a speech to the United Nations which was reported in the New York Times on March 24, last. I have the quotation here and perhaps I could read it.
Mr. Stevenson said the United States wished to discuss with the Soviet union a new United States-British plan under which all proposals for future peace keeping forces would be submitted, in the first instance, to the security council-
That would take care of the Soviet objection.
-and a new standing committee of the assembly would recommend the assessments required for the force.
That is the alternative suggestion

that some such plan as this should be negotiated if possible with the Soviet union. I believe this would be the wiser course. Failing this, the bluff, if such it be, might be called, and we would then see what happens. Another view I have heard expressed is that if the Soviet union proved not to be bluffing, if that country did, indeed, walk out of the United Nations, thus ending its effectiveness to all intents and purposes, such an action might enforce the revision of the charter, a reform which is badly needed. We can all suggest dozens of ways in which the charter could be improved. The present system of one vote, one country, is clearly nonsensical. It has created a situation where countries such as the United States and the Soviet union have one vote, just as do countries like Zanzibar. No provision is made for representation on the basis of population, or resources, or anything else. The system is completely out of touch with the realities of the world. In the last few years many new nations have joined the organization. In many cases their territories are purely arbitrary; it is not going to work out. Well, it has been suggested that if the Russians did walk out, one of the reasons for their doing so would be to bring about a revision of the charter, because revision of the charter by discussion would take a long, long time; it would probably be talked about for the next 50 years and then get nowhere.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I interrupt the hon. member and bring to the attention of the committee the fact that his time has expired?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure we would all wish to allow the spokesman for the official opposition to extend his remarks.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the committee agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the other members of the committee for their courtesy. I shall try to complete my remarks as quickly as possible.
I was saying that even if the Russians did walk out after having been suspended for non-payment of assessments, it might not be as bad in the long run as it would at first appear, because their action might enforce a much-needed revision of the charter. I remember the last conversation I had with the late secretary general. At that time, in 1961, he was under heavy personal attack from the Soviet union and he looked very discouraged. He said: "You know, the league of nations was a great success". I guess I looked a little surprised, because he said: "I know you will think I am wrong but, after all, the league of nations was the first time in world history that anything of this kind had ever been done, and it was at least a start. The next step was the United Nations. We have gone much further and have been much more successful than the league of nations ever was. This organization is now getting into serious trouble. It is apparently unable to revise its own constitution by agreement. These difficulties will increase as the world changes and the constitution of the United Nations becomes outdated. The United Nations will have to change or it, too, will fail." I am quoting to the best of my memory from my conversation with the late Mr. Hammarskjold. Then he said: "If that happens, a third body will come into existence, one which will be more successful, and then a fourth." I remember his final admonition. He said: "You people in America, in Canada as well as the United States, tend to think of events in terms of five or ten years. We in Europe think in terms of one hundred or two hundred years. A thing like this, progress toward ultimate world government, may take a couple of hundred years before we are ready for it." I do not disagree with the late secretary general.
So, should the Russians be forced out of the United Nations the situation might not
Supply-External Affairs be as black as it would appear. As I have said before, we might get the necessary revision of the charter and the emergence of the United Nations in a new form, as many of us would agree is necessary. However, so that I may not be misunderstood, I again express my hope that the first alternative I suggested is workable, namely that agreement can be reached with the Soviet union with regard to the payment of future peace keeping operations and that some more peaceful and less extreme method of revising the charter can be found.
As to the nature of the peace keeping force, what kind of peace keeping force do we want? I think there are three requirements in connection with any such force. One is that it must be practical in world-wide political terms. Second, it must be effective. It must be ready for use at once. Third, it must be paid for. This is a matter about which we feel a little sensitive. Not only must it be paid for, but it must be paid for by all of the members of the United Nations, at least to some degree. When the general public thinks about a United Nations peace keeping force it imagines some kind of standing army kept on First avenue, New York. People have no conception of what is required. Such a force would obviously be too expensive. Besides, one could readily imagine the difficulties which would be involved if troops were sent to country X and country X was one of the countries involved in a peace keeping operation.
The arrangements made so far in this field have been good. They have been ad hoc arrangements, played by ear, as we say. The approach has been purely pragmatic. But the result has not been too bad. Action has been slow in developing and there has been little experience upon which to rely, but I think both our secretaries general have shown great wisdom and judgment. They have made a few mistakes, but who would not have done so in these circumstances? I think they deserve great credit indeed for the results they have been able to accomplish. Nevertheless, I think we should all like to see some type of arrangement whereby the secretary general is not driven out of his mind trying to work something out, and we hope that when these forces have to be raised in the future a more expeditious and efficient means can be used by the United Nations to deal with emergencies.
The United Nations has to be a pragmatic place. I think the idea now being developed

Supply-External Affairs between Canada and the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and others, is a good start. I was pleased to hear the minister tell us that a meeting between these countries is to take place in Canada later this year. I should like to expand this idea a little. I would think this is a good nucleus for such a group of countries to try to get together to have forces ready and available, should the United Nations request them. What countries should contribute forces to such a group? Initially, I think, countries which have contributed forces in the past should form the nucleus. This is apparently what is taking place. Other countries, such as Colombia in South America should also be invited. It may be they have not been able to take part up to the present time, but they should have an opportunity.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that any of the countries which have contributed forces to the three major peace keeping operations should be the first to form this nucleus. This program could be expanded to cover any countries who are members of the United Nations and who might wish to contribute forces. First of all I would omit the big powers, the five permanent members of the security council; but at a later date I see no reason why even these countries could not offer to contribute forces if necessary.
Someone might say, "Well, how about the communist countries?" As the minister pointed out in his remarks this morning, the expression "communist countries" does not mean what it meant five or ten years ago. One might envisage this position in two or three years. If communist China should be in the United Nations and she had a border dispute with India, I imagine that Polish troops would not be unacceptable in such a situation. It would do no harm to try such a program, and I think eventually all countries wishing to offer troops to the secretary general should be allowed to do so. How they will be selected, of course, is a matter to which I will come in a moment.
The next thing is, should this group of countries be in the United Nations and directly under the jurisdiction of the secretary general, or should they be a quasi part of the United Nations, or out of the United Nations? As the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have indicated, at the present time it is probably better to have the nucleus of such an organization outside the United Nations, but making themselves available-they would all be member countries -to the secretary general in a sort of an affiliated or associated way. I can understand

full well the reasons why the minister would say this, and it is not necessary to go into them. The secretary general would perhaps be caused certain embarrassment at the present moment if this organization were to come directly under his jurisdiction. I think any hon. member will realize why I say this. Eventually, though, I think this organization, when arrangements for payment are made between the larger member states and the United Nations, should come directly under the jurisdiction of the secretary general.
It may be said, "How will these troops be made available?" Each country which offers to contribute troops to the United Nations should agree to have a certain number of troops trained and ready for United Nations use at 24 hours' notice. We in Canada have had these troops available for several years now, and I understand that the Scandinavian countries are passing legislation to do this. This is essential. Any country could volunteer any number of troops, from 100 to half a brigade, as the case may be; but these troops would have to be ready to go within 24 hours. I say this, Mr. Chairman, because certainly one of the biggest problems which has faced the secretary general in the past is the fact that first of all he has had to get in touch with the countries he thinks might be suitable to contribute troops; then those countries have had to find out whether they could provide troops, for domestic reasons or purely technical reasons; time has elapsed while answers were received; the troops have had to be gotten ready in the meantime, and during this period of time the situation has probably worsened-and time is of the essence in all these things. If the countries had troops ready to move in 24 hours, troops that were trained and ready, this would probably prevent half the difficulties and dangers that have been encountered in the past.
Perhaps this is getting into matters of defence rather than foreign affairs, but I believe that such troops should receive training under all sorts of warfare conditions-desert, jungle, and perhaps even arctic. Perhaps they should also receive political instruction, in the very broad sense of the word, as to how to behave with inhabitants of other countries, because these men would be good will representatives of the United Nations as well as being charged with keeping the peace.
These troops should be listed on a roster at the headquarters of this group, or eventually on a roster of the secretary general, so that the secretary general, if an emergency situation should arise, could get in touch with the headquarters of the group and ascertain what

troops were available. He could say, "I would like to know what countries have what troops available"; he could consider the answer received, and if he decided that the troops of certain countries would be better choices under certain conditions, that is a matter that would of course be the responsibility of the secretary general. In this regard the secretary general will need not only troops to help keep the peace, but civilian personnel. I mean by that, police, and so on. I believe the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have indicated this already; but in addition to police forces you would need public health officials and even transport officials, and the like, to help move supplies into the area involved. These men should be senior civil servants and technical personnel from the countries contributing troops. This type of personnel would be very, very helpful in carrying out any peace keeping operation. I believe these personnel should also be kept in a quasi United Nations group-that is to say, outside the United Nations-but eventually a roster of this type of personnel should be available to and directly under the jurisdiction of the secretary general.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, in this regard I think the secretary general-he could do this even now, I think, without any embarrassment-should arrange to have at his disposal a staff of personnel, or a roster or list of personnel, whom he could contact in an emergency. These people could be known, in United Nations terms, as a "U.N. Presence". Every emergency situation that arises in the world is a different kind of situation. It might require a committee of three or four men in one place, while in another place one person would be sufficient. In one case the "U.N. Presence"-I use the word "Presence" with a capital letter and in quotation marks- would be a type of person such as an undersecretary or the secretary general himself. In another case it might be a distinguished foreign diplomat, as in the case of Cyprus at the present time; or diplomats, since there are two. This would be very useful. The type of presence required depends on the circumstances; but again, if the secretary general had a list of internationally well known and respected persons who would be available, this would again save time-and so often it is time that is important in these cases.
The secretary general cannot do any of these things until a resolution has been passed directing him to carry them out. I have already pointed out that in the future if any arrangements can be worked out it is essential that the security council handle
Supply-External Affairs this type of resolution. If that is not possible, due to a veto, it might be necessary to go back to the "united for peace" type of resolution from the general assembly. In the case of the Congo the secretary general appointed an advisory committee to advise him as to how he should carry out the terms of the resolution of the general assembly, because resolutions on peace keeping matters are always by nature and by necessity exceedingly vague and the secretary general would have to be a Philadelphia lawyer and have the wisdom of Solomon to carry them out. This is because the resolution may mean one thing to one country and another thing to another. I know that in the case of the Congo it was a very difficult matter. The secretary general had the advice of all the countries which contributed forces. While I cannot say more in this regard, certainly this advisory committee caused the secretary general a great many headaches and a good deal of wrangling went on in the committee. But it was of some help at least, and very often the late secretary general would do something of his own volition and then tell them, "I have done this", and because nobody else had anything better to offer, they usually accepted it. I think an advisory committee is something that should be carefully considered on every occasion, if the secretary general thinks it necessary.
Finally in this regard, Mr. Chairman, is the question of financing. I think the United Nations should try to arrange-and I think Canada should take this initiative-to have a special fund ready from which to provide immediate costs. In the matter of finances and financing, the United Nations is probably the worst of any organization in the world, which is a shocking thing. We have never been able to get some countries to pay their bills, although certainly this does not apply to us. A special fund should be available for emergency purposes into which the secretary general can dip at once without having to pass around the hat and go begging. It is a shocking thing which has taken place in the past. Then for long range financing the plan suggested by governor Stevenson of the United States should be adopted. I emphasize again that if assessments are made by any group of United Nations countries, even if it is only a small amount, these assessments should be paid. We all know that countries like Zanzibar and other small countries have not the money to pay large amounts, but they should pay something, even if only a token payment, to

Supply-External Affairs make them feel part of a group, which is something very necessary. As I mentioned before, Canada and our friends like Sweden, Norway and Ireland have not only done the dirty work but have had to pay the bills as well.
One final matter on this subject. In view of the fact that this nucleus of countries is going to try to form a group to make troops available and will be meeting in Canada shortly, I would suggest to the minister, since some co-ordinating arrangements must be made between these countries with regard to standardized training of troops and civilian personnel, that some kind of permanent centre for these countries, perhaps a staff college, might be made available in this country. I think that would be very helpful and would provide a permanent headquarters. We are not trying to get away from the United Nations, but at the present time it is probably not feasible to bring this matter directly under the secretary general. I think that if a headquarters or training base for the senior officers of these troops were set up in this country it would be a good thing. Canadians want their government to take the lead in this United Nations enterprise, and I think that is true of everyone in Canada. However, although most Canadians want to do their share I do not see why they should do more than their share. We do not want to accept the role of "suckers", and therefore we should act now to see that these arrangements are made, and that other countries do pay their share as best they can. I think that is essential and that the government should give the best leadership it can in this regard.
The next matter I should like to deal with briefly concerns our relations in the Pacific. Canada is a Pacific power but very little emphasis has been placed upon, or attention paid to, this fact over the years by, perhaps, all governments. In the last three or four years events in the Pacific have moved very rapidly, and they now make it imperative that the government pay very close attention to what is going on in this part of the world, and try to do something about it, purely from the point of view of our own future safety. The minister told us today of the troubles and dangers in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia. Relations with China were also touched on. In the north Pacific our relations with Japan, both commercial and diplomatic, are excellent and can hardly be improved upon. But this is not the case in the south Pacific.
I refer to the situation pointed up by Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand


and the Pacific islands. There lies a very dangerous situation indeed, of which we are all aware. The minister mentioned this morning when discussing Europe that if a man like Hitler gets in control he goes from one conquest to another, as a result of economic conditions at home which cause him to do something to distract the people, and he becomes an egomaniac. These people can never be trusted.
I am not suggesting that the head of the government of Indonesia, President Sukarno, is in that category, but he comes pretty close to it. First of all he took over the Netherlands New Guinea as a result of a weak-kneed attitude in Washington. Now he is after Malaysia, and he has suggested that Malaysia of all places is trying to encircle Indonesia. Now President Sukarno has sworn himself to the destruction of Malaysia and attacks are being made on that country, which is a sister nation of the commonwealth. Australia and New Zealand are very concerned about this, because if Malaysia goes the next step will be New Guinea, part of which is controlled directly by Australia. Then the next step would be the Pacific islands, and the information I have received from people in Samoa and other places is that they are very concerned.
Fifty years ago no one would have given a hoot for the Pacific islands. People do not give a hoot about things which do not concern them. But in this age of jet aircraft the Pacific islands are of great importance not only to us but to our immediate allies. When you have an imperialist, power-hungry, expansionist country headed by someone like President Sukarno heading out in all directions, people give way. This causes concern, and it concerns us.
I would suggest that the government take steps to consult Australia and New Zealand with regard to establishing some sort of closer relationship or alliance; that we consult Malaysia to see what we can do to help. Since the minister of defence has scrapped a large part of our navy or put it in moth balls, perhaps we could make some arrangement whereby some minesweepers and destroyers which are presently laid up are made available to help Malaysia drive off these aggressive attacks by the Indonesians on Sarawak and Brunei. This is a matter which I think should be carefully considered. We should also offer other aid, both economic and military, to Malaysia, because if President Sukarno is not stopped now then, just like Hitler in the 1930's, he will go on, and the next country to which he will turn his attention

will be New Guinea, and then Australia and New Zealand will become involved. We cannot stand idly by because this is a thing which will spread. The man should be stopped now. He has no possible reason for making attacks on Malaysia except to satisfy his own ego and to cover up the failure of his economic policy at home. I think he should be stopped now before we get into more trouble.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where is the Minister of National Defence? He should be listening to this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is at a meeting. He was here all morning.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I might mention in this regard that I have before me a clipping from the London Times of April 15, 1964. It is an article by the naval correspondent of the London Times pointing out the necessity for Malaysia to have small ships to help her ward off these hit and run commando-like attacks which are being pulled off almost daily by the Indonesians.
In conclusion-I am sorry if I have bored the hon. member in the corner from Quebec, but perhaps these matters do not concern him very much-the last item I want to deal with concerns Canada and the organization of American states. This was one matter about which the minister could have told us this morning. We would like to know what government policy is in this connection. Before the minister came to his present office he was very anxious to tell the house what we should do in this regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I still am.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not want to remind the minister that I have a good many newspaper clippings in front of me covering the last year or so, and to save the time of the house I will not read them all into the record. However, I think the minister will be only too willing to agree that in the past he did advocate that Canada join the organization of American states.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not
changed my view at all.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister says he has not changed his view. Perhaps when he replies he could elucidate on that matter.


Murdo William Martin: I would be very glad to.


Mr.   Nesbill@: There was one other thing I was wondering if the minister had considered, and it is this. While the minister has not changed his view, apparently some of his colleagues changed their views-
Supply-External Affairs


Murdo William Martin: Wait and see.


Mr.   Nesbill@: The minister says wait and see. Does that mean we are going to join the organization of American states?


Murdo William Martin: You can never tell.


Mr.   Nesbill@: The minister says you can never tell. I think this is wonderful. Perhaps when he is replying he will make that more clear. As everybody knows, there are a great many arguments, pro and con, as to joining this organization. If the minister cannot persuade his colleagues to join the organization outright, then I wonder has he given any consideration to trying a sort of trial run, in the form of observer status, or perhaps a status similar to that of the United States in the CENTO organization, where they do not have a vote but they give gratuitous advice. People who do not vote but give gratuitous advice probably are not too welcome in any organization, but I just throw out the suggestion of an observer status for Canada in the organization of American states.


Murdo William Martin: We are thinking along the same lines.


George Clyde Nowlan: This worries me.


Mr.   Nesbill@: By having observer status for a while we could see what problems we might encounter if we became a full member, and we would have better grounds upon which to decide whether we should or should not join. I certainly look forward to the minister's observations later in this debate.
Before sitting down there is one other thing I would like to mention, and that is Canada's relationship with the West Indies and the Caribbean. Every effort should be made to increase our close association with these countries, and in particular I would mention one which is shortly to become independent, British Guiana. Our colleagues in the United Kingdom are faced with great difficulties at the present time. Their armed forces are spread very thinly through the trouble spots in Yemen, Cyprus, South Arabia, and the like. It is also a well known fact that there might well be trouble in British Guiana, and it is my understanding that the United Kingdom has very skimpy forces there at present, which causes the United Kingdom great concern.
It might be helpful in this area if the minister gave consideration to offering the use of certain Canadian forces in this very important area of the Caribbean. It is getting pretty close to home. It is not too far from

Supply-External Affairs Cuba, and I do not think I need say more or elaborate in this regard at this time. It is something the government should consider.
Again I want to thank the committee for allowing me the extended period of time in which to make my remarks, and at this point I will now sit down.


Mr, Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to open my remarks by welcoming the review of foreign policy given us this morning by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With a very great deal of what he said I imagine no reasonable Canadian of good will could possibly disagree, but there are some points of difference of opinion which I would like to mention, and some differences of emphasis I would like to discuss in the course of my remarks.
I imagine, Mr. Chairman, all members of the committee have received a very beautifully edited magazine about the President of the United States. In it was an article on the late President Kennedy, written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who was his special assistant. In it he used these words with which I would like to preface my remarks:
Every significant statesman must possess and be possessed by a vision of the future. He must have some instinct about the grand movement of history, and must perceive some direction in which he supposes the world is moving. He must have a conception of the historical process which connects what has been and what is to come, and which therefore gives his present deeds and decisions a setting and a point. Implanted within him there must be an image, not necessarily conscious or explicit, but plastic and capacious of the world he strives to bring into being.
I imagine it would be difficult, in fact presumptuous, for all of us to seek to be significant statesmen; nevertheless I think it would be worth while for us, in making our comments in this discussion on external affairs and on the statement given to us by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to set them in the context of our understanding of the world situation today and in the light of some sort of vision of the world of the future. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the significant feature of today's world is its radically changing nature. There are today new opportunities, and there are new threats. If one's thinking is clear it seems to me that it would not be good enough for us to go on meeting these new threats with the methods that were appropriate to meet the old. If we do not seize the new opportunities we may lose them and they will never recur. These remarks, I think, are appropriate in discussing our position in international affairs.
When he spoke to the special committee on defence in July last, the Secretary of State

for External Affairs stated that the foreign and) defence policies of any state in the nuclear age are inseparable, and they must both have but a single objective, the preservation of peace. With that statement I most heartily concur.
If I may mention a personal matter I had the privilege, as did some other hon. members, of having lunch today with Dr. Matsumoto from Japan, who was a school teacher in Hiroshima at the time of the explosion of the nuclear bomb. He lost his wife, and 378 of the girl students died. He is here on a mission to try to explain that experience to other people in the world. With that experience in mind, I am sure none of us will disagree with the proposition that the-major objective of both foreign and defence policy-which, as the minister said, are inseparable-must be the preservation of peace. In that light I want to look at NATO, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs discussed with us this morning.
It was created in 1949 under conditions totally different from those which prevail at present. It was created to meet the threat of Soviet aggression in Europe, but uniting the nations of Europe in an alliance which was backed up by the United States nuclear monopoly. Without that backing, the nations of western Europe might well have fallen victims either to the internal subversion or external military threat of Soviet conventional power. But the situation has radically changed since that time. The western European nations have recovered their economic strength. In the common market and other western European institutions, they have recovered a sense of strength and independence, and in addition the world has entered a new era. It is the era of the hydrogen bomb, the era of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The United States of America no longer has the nuclear monopoly. We have reached a situation, it seems to me and to many people, of a nuclear stalemate, and at the present time we have in Europe massive confrontation of tactical nuclear weapons equal, as Mr. McNamara has told us, to 10,000 Hiro-shimas and Nagasakis put together. From this I think we can deduce that any major conflict in Europe would quickly escalate into all-out nuclear war. Fortunately it is clear that Mr. Khrushchev and his advisers are well aware of this. Indeed we know that this was one of the main items in the dispute which shattered the myth of communist unity and put the U.S.S.R. and the peoples of the republic of China into open conflict. In these circumstances no one who is not crazy

would risk a major conflict in Europe, and no one believes that the leaders of the U.S.S.R. are crazy.
There remains nevertheless a danger of war, a danger that we set off war by accident or by the impelling incentive in case of tension to strike first before you are struck. I suggest that it is on minimizing and reducing these risks that the major emphasis should be put both in NATO and in the disarmament conferences that are taking place at Geneva. But, Mr. Chairman, apart from this threat of accidental war or war induced, as I say, by the dangerous nature of the weapons which we possess in superabundance, we can, I think, reasonably look forward to a period of relative stability, a period in which the two major powers of the world have a strong, common interest in co-existence. The threat which NATO was designed to meet has been lessened by these facts and we would be foolish in my judgment to put our major emphasis in international affairs into meeting a waning and almost non-existent threat. We are aware that on both sides of the iron curtain there is no longer a monolithic picture. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that we should not be speaking of the east versus the west. On both sides of the iron curtain he agrees that there are indications of various sorts of a changed picture. There is no longer monolithic unity on either side. Therefore we have a period of relative stability based upon this balance of nuclear power.
My belief is that we must use the time bought by this measure of stability through the nuclear stalemate in order to create institutions on an international basis which will put on a far firmer foundation than any balance of mutual terror possibly can the hopes for peace of the world. If we say that we have acquired a degree of stability in Europe because of this nuclear confrontation, we must simultaneously admit that other developments throughout the world are creating major areas of instability, and I suggest it is to these major revolutionary movements in other parts of the world that our chief attention should be directed at the present time.
These major revolutionary developments involve not only the technological changes that have brought us all together so that we now discuss, as the minister has said, the affairs of Viet Nam, the affairs of Cyprus, affairs in every quarter of the world. There is also the major development of political emancipation, and I think that a basic fact that we sometimes overlook and which creates insta-
Supply-External Affairs bility is the tremendous disparity in living standards between the peoples of two thirds of the world and the peoples in other parts of the world. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is to this type of threat to stability that we should be devoting more attention.
I suggest that Canada must remain within the NATO alliance, but I welcome what I understood to be the statement of the minister, that he believes that concrete new developments for more effective consultation within NATO are required. I was sorry that he was not able to tell us that any of these concrete solutions were either suggested at the council meeting he attended or that he himself has any in mind with regard to the development of NATO.
But I think that more important than the maintenance of these regional alliances at the present time is the meeting of this other threat which can only be met if we build up the world institution; in other words, it can be met only if we turn the United Nations, so far as we are able to do so, into a power, in embryo if you like, that can create something of the nature of a world government eventually, but in the meantime at any rate can be a force working for peace in all of these unstable areas of the world. Whether or not we recognize it, we have to build in this generation a world community, or we have to perish.
What does this mean in terms of concrete policy today? I suggest it means putting our major emphasis on the development of the United Nations. It is for that reason that we in this section of the house warmly welcomed the intervention, in which I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave great leadership, of the United Nations in Cyprus. We are disturbed by some of the details there, but any disturbance we may have is entirely secondary to our earnest desire to see this new experiment which is being carried on now in different parts of the world gain experience-gain, moreover, the experience which will enable it to be done more effectively in the future.
We cannot expect 100 per cent success, as I think the hon. member for Oxford suggested, in these first efforts. I welcome, and we in this part of the house all welcome the intervention of our forces in Cyprus, difficult, painful and perhaps even unsuccessful as it could possibly be in the long run. We cannot weigh things by whether they are 100 per cent successful at the time or whether they are easy. We have to do what we can, and we

Supply-External Affairs commend the part played by the government in carrying through this experiment.
As one who, as some members know, has been interested in law, I am reminded that the common law of Britain, which is regarded as quite an achievement of civilization, was not laid down by any prior plan but gradually broadened out from precedent to precedent, and I suspect that the development of the peace keeping powers of the United Nations will come about in somewhat the same way.
For the same reason we warmly welcome the initiative which has been taken by the government in planning to create stand-by forces for the United Nations. I had intended to read into the record certain remarks made by the Prime Minister in an article in Maclean's magazine of May 2 last. Perhaps I should read one or two sentences from it because in what he says he has the warm concurrence of the members of this group. He is dealing with the need for leadership to bring this about, for a constructive initiative toward peace and security by establishing stand-by forces. He said:
There must be leadership to bring this about- As a leading middle power, with a well known record of support for United Nations peace keeping operations in widely spread theatres, Canada is in a unique position to take the initiative. It is prepared to do so. It is anxious to develop its close co-operation with other U.N. members in these vital endeavours; to explore with them means for strengthening the United Nations' capacity to act in this field and the ability of member states to participate.
To that statement we here say "amen", and we hope that not only will this policy be carried out but that our defence dispositions will clearly be made in a way that will enable us to carry out the obligations that are to be assumed in this way. I say quite frankly, that simply is not the situation now and I have serious doubts whether the white paper will permit us to do that and carry out the other obligations referred to there. However, I do not want to digress too far into matters that relate strictly to defence, although they are closely interrelated.
There is another activity under NATO about which I feel far less happy. I am going to read to the house the answer to a question I put on the order paper. I realize that what was done was not done during the administration of the present government, but I should like to ask the minister to inquire about this matter because I find it disquieting. I read in a newspaper, the Montreal Gazette, I believe-I do not have it with me-that

Canada had some sort of joint arrangement of mutual aid under NATO whereby we and the United States jointly were to supply 120 F-104G aircraft, to be assembled by Cana-dair in Montreal, to Greece and Turkey as part of the mutual aid program. I was naturally interested in this when, at the present time, there is some real danger of conflict between these two allies of ours in NATO. I, therefore, put a question on the order paper and was given the following information as recorded at page 3213 of Hansard for May 13, 1964:
On June 12, 1961, Canada and the United States concluded an agreement under which F-104G aircraft, support equipment and spares to the value of U.S. $200 million were to be produced in Canada. Of the total cost, the U.S. government was to pay $150 million and the Canadian government $50 million. It was agreed that the aircraft produced under this arrangement would be used to meet Canadian mutual aid contributions to NATO and U.S. military assistance program requirements. According to most recent estimates, it is expected that this sum will cover the production of approximately 140 aircraft; the figure of 120 was an earlier estimate. Delivery of aircraft from the production line is still in its early stages, and it is not expected that production will be completed until October, 1965.
Then, I call attention to this statement:
In late 1961, the Canadian government agreed that title to all aircraft produced under this program should be vested in the United States. An understanding was reached whereby the U.S., having title, would decide the allocation of the aircraft, taking into account Canadian views.
This seems to me to be a very extraordinary statement, Mr. Chairman, that we should put up $50 million-and we do not have too many bundles of $50 million-to purchase aircraft, and then vest title and the real disposition of the aircraft in the United States. I do not say this out of any lack of confidence in our allies but sometimes, under the guise of mutual aid as approved by congress, things are done which this parliament might well not approve. I suggest this is an arrangement which requires to be looked into carefully. I continue quoting:
Arrangements have since been made for the total production to be divided into two categories; aircraft purchased in Canada for the United States military assistance program, and aircraft produced for presentation to NATO countries as a joint Canada-United States program of assistance to NATO countries. Such aircraft as have been delivered to date all fall into the former category.
So far we have delivered aircraft which, I understand, were for the United States for disposition by them.
No decision has as yet been taken concerning the countries which will receive F-104G aircraft under a joint Canada-United States program of assistance to NATO countries.

Then, I had asked about specifications, but I was told that the technical specifications of these aircraft were classified military information. Although 1 am no expert on the fine points of defence I have, as a member of the defence committee, learned enough to know that this F-104G has a range of 400 miles and when acquired by Canada as Starfighters or CF-104's they were equipped solely with tactical nuclear arms. This may not be so with these particular machines. This does not seem to be the time to be arranging to deliver to Greece and Turkey these highly offensive weapons. I wonder if there is not a little inconsistency between this type of arrangement and what our soldiers are trying to do in Cyprus at the present time.
Then, the answer concludes in this way:
In the event that it is decided to allocate to Greece and Turkey any of the aircraft produced under the latter program, the normal conditions attached to Canadian mutual aid will apply, viz., that recipient countries will use any material they receive to strengthen the capacity of NATO to deter or resist aggression.
But, Mr. Chairman, in the possession of nations at war, whose existence is at stake, are these conditions likely to be very meaningful? As I said, these arrangements appear to have been made some time before the present administration came into power, but the eventual disposition does not seem to have been decided. I should like to know what the answer is to a proposition whereby we put up $50 million of our money and provide that control of these offensive weapons is in the United States. The control is in the United States and apparently the eventual disposition of these is in the United States. This phrase is reminiscent of the Columbia treaty. As the minister will recall, the phrase in that treaty was that they would take into account Canadian views-and then make their own decision.
There was another aspect of the speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs which I found, I must say, partly exasperating and partly delightful because it was so well done. This was the part in which the minister discussed our relations with the people's republic of China and it was, I would say, a typical and very skilful performance. Once again he gave us, as clearly as could be, good major reasons why we should not continue the isolation of the republic of China. He then proposed an exchange of journalists, and I have no objection to this proposition at all. It is delightful that we should learn something about what goes on in one quarter of the globe. If the journalists from China can find anything in Canada
Supply-External Affairs that would interest their readers, personally I would be delighted that they should do so.
The minister reminded me of a gentleman in early spring in a bathing suit, going out shivering, putting his toe in the water and getting ready to dive in, then his courage leaves him and he puts on his dressing gown and retires to sit in front of the fire once again, and saying, "Some time in the future". The logical consequence of what he said would have required him to finish with an announcement that we were exchanging diplomatic representatives with the People's Republic of China, and that we would, under proper conditions, support the admission of the de facto government of that country into the United Nations. In this connection, I noticed a statement the Prime Minister made when he was in Paris, and I think the minister was with him at that time. He said this:
Two courses are open to us. One Is the diplomatic and economic ostracism and isolation of states behind the iron curtain.
I ask you to note those words:
One is the diplomatic and economic ostracism and isolation of states behind the iron curtain. This course, Canada rejects.
If we reject it, why do we not do something about it? I know there are complications and difficulties, but if Mr. de Gaulle can recognize the People's Republic of China, then so can we. The minister discussed the matter with him and told us he agreed with many of the reasons that impelled that decision. This suggests that it is about time we carried out the logical consequences of what the minister has said when he referred to the continuing isolation of the de facto government of a quarter of the people of the world.


Mr. Valade:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Brewin:: Yes.


Georges-J. Valade: In view of what the hon. member has said, what does he propose to do about the Formosan government?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think there is not the slightest doubt that conditions should be attached to any admission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations, that the Formosans should be given the right to choose, by referendum or otherwise, what form of government they prefer. I think that should be clearly recognized. We do have to get into a two-China policy. I do not think it would be right or proper for us to say we will just hand over that country, which is independent, to the people's republic of China. We do not

Supply-External Affairs yet know, at least 1 do not believe we know, whether, faced with the possibility of admission to the United Nations, that term might somehow or other be acceptable to the People's Republic of China.
The minister said conditions would be required. But you do not reach the stage of discussing conditions until you make up your mind that, subject to the conditions being met, you are ready to move. My criticism is that we have dilly-dallied too long on this subject. We in Canada are in a position, it seems to me, to use with other people in the world the interval which we believe exists to promote a world community.
I want to end my remarks by expressing a mild degree of disappointment that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not find the question of external aid one which he thought necessary to review or emphasize, though he did mention the subject. I say this because it is my conviction that in building a world community we must have regard for the welfare of two thirds of the people of the world. We have a measure of responsibility. This has been requested by the United Nations, which we say we are trying to serve and build. The government has moved forward but, in my view, it has not moved forward as fast or as far as its own commitments require it to do. I have here a copy of a decision reached by the United Nations general assembly in 1961 to the effect that the standard contribution from the developed nations in economic aid should amount to 1 per cent of the income of those countries. That is not a very high standard. However, it was not chosen arbitrarily. The figure was set after careful examination.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Batten):: I am
sorry to say that the hon. member's time is a little more than expired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The committee was very generous to me, and we agreed that the spokesman for the official opposition should extend his remarks. I would be happy to do that in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I thought I heard someone say that the agreement was not without limit. I hasten to reassure the committee that I shall conclude my remarks in a very few minutes. I had reached the last point I wished to make, which is that the percentage figure for contributions to underdeveloped nations set by the United Nations assembly
[Mr. Brewin.)
itself was 1 per cent of the national income. In my view, this is not enough, but the figure is related to projects which could now be undertaken to meet the impact of this terrible problem caused by abject poverty in large sections of the world, a poverty which I suggest is one of the main causes of instability in the world today. Our own contribution has not risen above $100 million a year; I think the figure in the estimates for next year is of the order of $100 million. If we were to give the 1 per cent, we should be contributing $370 million. I do not think that less than half of the international standard suggested is good enough for a country which aspires, as Canada does, to leadership in the development of a world community, and I urge that this matter be given more attention by the government than it has in the past. Hon. gentlemen opposite have moved in the right direction. Their intentions are good. I do not think they need be frightened about what the people of Canada may think in this regard. When we are spending one and a half billion dollars on defence, surely we could spend more than we are now spending on this other aspect of the battle for the peace of the world.
I hope, also, we shall make a contribution on a far larger scale to research into those things which are required to bring about peace. We are spending plenty of money on research into so-called defence. We have the scientists, capable people, in Canada who could do this most important job in co-operation with other nations, and I hope the government will set about this task with the assistance of such organizations as the Canadian peace research institute. In his eloquent peroration the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the fact that Canada was not a major power and, therefore, did not have-I am paraphrasing his words -the awful responsibility which rested upon a major power. But, he went on to say, Canada does have a special responsibility-and I think I speak for all members of this party when I say I could not agree more. One of the reasons for this special responsibility is that we are not a major power. We welcome the initiative which the government has taken to strengthen the United Nations and to build up forces to support it. We hope they will go further and faster along that road because along that road, rather than in the maintenance of military alliances which are becoming obsolete, lies the hope of the world for peace in the future.


Mr. Thompson:: First, I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs upon the effort and the thought which he put into his statement to this chamber this morning. I believe he attempted to give us a realistic review of world affairs as they stand at the present time. Certainly, what he had to say represented a great improvement over what we have been offered in the last year or so, as far as a realistic approach to world problems is concerned.
The minister said we had come a long way in Canada in the field of external affairs. He reminded us that 25 years ago it was difficult to get a government statement on foreign affairs. I agree that the situation has improved very much, but I think we still have a long way to go. I was disappointed to find this morning that we were fewer than 45 members in the house; the front benches on the government side were practically empty at the outset of what should be one of the most important occasions on which government policy is stated.
The minister began by saying that the world situation could no longer be divided on an east-west basis. He said the east-west label was no longer applicable and that he would like a better one. So he tried to find a more descriptive terminology. I think it does not matter what we call it; the world is still split in half. If the minister would like a better name, perhaps he should describe it as a fight between freedom and totalitarianism. The minister divided the world scene into four groups. He mentioned the free world and Russian communism as opposed to the Chinese type of communism. Then he spoke of the underdeveloped or uncommitted nations. I believe such a method of division covers up the fact that we are still divided into two camps, both of which are wooing the uncommitted nations. The side which will be most successful will be the one which is able to win the uncommitted nations to its camp. In my opinion the present phase of this struggle is far more dangerous than was the situation in the time of Stalin, when the war was fought out front and when the western nations were more or less driven to unite in face of a danger they could see.
Today the situation is much more deceiving; in fact, it is covered over in such a way that it is often difficult to determine and fully understand. It is much more subtle. If the minister really wants to differentiate between the Soviet type of communism and
Supply-External Affairs the Chinese type of communism, I think it would be wiser to do it in terms of strategy rather than in terms of their present attitudes toward the west, because I think both brands of communism have the same ultimate goal. Their only fight today, the only basis of their argument, is how best can they achieve that goal. Khrushchev is selling a soft line. By doing so I believe he has deadened the perceptive powers of the west; he deceives us into passiveness and often into lowering our guard. Mao Tse-tung, however uses the cold, brutal methods that Stalin used. These are often more impressive to the underdeveloped nations. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that China is closer to them in their economic underdevelopment than is Russia herself.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, Khrushchev has adopted the method which he believes will succeed, and I think in many cases he is succeeding where Stalin's method failed. Stalin, in taking over much of eastern Europe, was unable to legalize or to gain any degree of acceptance for his takeover of those various countries. Khrushchev today, using the line that he is, is coming much closer to it. When he reaches the point where he is able to convince the people who live in these satellite nations that the west have forgotten about them, he will have accomplished his purpose. I believe that as he realistically looks at the world he understands the truth of the atomic situation relating to military force, because he knows he could not survive any more than could his enemies. So of necessity he is using this soft sell approach in talking to the rest of the world.
But again I would say that the communist approach is different only in strategy; their goals are the same. Whether you read a speech that comes out of Peking, or whether you read a speech that comes out of Moscow, every time a statement is made one should note that it defines their ultimate objective to be the takeover of the world for the communist way of life.
Therefore I think we must face up to this situation. We must face it as the grim reality that it is. Any attempt to rationalize these things will only mean we will be deceiving ourselves, and our efforts to promote those things in which we believe and which are the only alternative to this situation, I am convinced, will end in failure. How can the free world, in any permanent or substantive way, compete with the communist world, when the advantages are on their side? We are a free society. They can have their own political parties in our midst, as they have

Supply-External Affairs in the free countries of the world, and at any time they wish, they can flood those countries with propaganda. Can the free world do this in the other direction? It cannot. Therefore it seems to me that the only realistic approach to the many problems which face us in the world today is to face up to them.
I believe the minister, in trying to lay a new foundation for the policy which he has developed, is forgetting, or perhaps is attempting to rationalize the trade policies of the present government; because today the war that continues in the world has shifted from a military to an economic one; it is a cold war. I think the turning point was Cuba, because there we saw Khrushchev backing down to the threat of armed force, which he himself was responsible for building up. From that point on I think he has been convinced that, aside from brush wars, his real tool today, his real weapon, is the economic side of things rather than the military side. That being so, the logical question is, what are we doing about it? Are we to continue believing that we can separate our foreign policies from our trade policies. Somehow we content ourselves into believing that we can reach our objectives by doing this, just as we did in earlier years and just as the British empire used this policy down through the years
Therefore I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the basic premise which the minister attempted to lay before us this morning is wrong. While many of the arguments which he built upon that premise were reasonable- and certainly he has given a great deal of thought and effort to developing these-he can never expect to reach the goal which we know we must reach if we are to survive as a free nation in a free world. The minister said, "If only the communists in southeast Asia will give up their military subversion". Well, they will not do this; they will never do it. In fact they intend to step it up, because what they expect to do is take over southeast Asia. I believe there are only two alternatives for that troubled part of the world, and it is a critical part of the world today. Either there will be an all out conventional war, or southeast Asia will be lost altogether. How can neutrality further our purpose? In fact, I do not think the communists ever use the position of neutrality or agree to go along with it unless it is part of their specific strategy. When it no longer works to their advantage, they throw it aside. This is what has happened in Viet Nam; this is what has happened in Laos. And we


see, even with our peace keeping missions,, when the communists reach the point where they realize that neutrality is no longer furthering their objective, they withdraw their member altogether. This fact itself ought to speak very clearly to us. The peace keeping mission, as we heard in the news yesterday and today, and again in the statement made to us, have been able to keep their pledge of inspection on the neutral, or western, side but when they step across to the communist side, they cannot do it; it is impossible; it is not permitted.
I believe, also, that in this regard the minister overlooked a basic and very important factor on the international scene. This concerns President de Gaulle of France. It is obvious that he is determined to undermine the United States position wherever he can. In fact his obvious dislike of Americanism, and Anglo-Saxonism as well, indicates that he will resort even to using the communists to further his own objectives. This is rather clear in what has happened in Brazil in only the last few weeks. Here we find that he was giving at least encouragement of support to the Goulart administration. I think if what has happened there had not happened when it did, we probably would have had a communist coup before this date. De Gaulle lost out in his plans to use Brazil, and so now he is working against the American influence in southeast Asia. Any attempt to neutralize southeast Asia can result in nothing more or less than the loss of that entire area to the communists. By neutralization all we will do is help the communists reach their objective. His own ideas have become an obsession with him. That is why he has all but torpedoed NATO at the present time; that is why he was determined to prevent Great Britain from entering the European common market.
There is another omission which the minister has made in outlining government policy today. I do not think he did it intentionally. Perhaps in endeavouring to provide answers to some of these acute problems in crisis areas he merely overlooked it. This concerns the cold war, which seems to have become less of a military war and more of an economic war. The communist countries are in trouble and are not able to produce what they need. Therefore they come to us in their extremity and we help them out. Their system is unable to produce, unable even to meet the needs of their people for food. What we are doing in our present trade policies is assisting them in their weakness. Not only the commodities we sell to them but also the longer

term financing which we make available helps them to bridge over their problems. Russia could never be doing what she is doing in Egypt today, or in Algeria or other parts of the world, if she had to use all her efforts in meeting the problems in her own country. In this sense we are actually furthering the [DOT]aim of the Russians to bring about a communist state throughout the world.
I come now to the greatest omission of all made by the minister this morning. He did not even mention the underdeveloped nations as such. He mentioned southeast Asia, an area-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend forgive me. I mentioned that I had taken an hour and 20 minutes, but that I did propose at some point to discuss a number of problems, among them external aid. I would not want my hon. friend, who is very fair in these matters, to have the impression that the government is not interested in this- because it is.


Robert Norman Thompson: I understand that the minister's time was limited and that is why I prefaced my statement by saying that he had probably overlooked it. But at this point it comes into the argument I am trying to develop, which is that we are attempting to carry our share of the load in the crisis areas of the world. I am thinking of the United Nations, NATO, southeast Asia and Cyprus. We are doing a commendable job, but are failing to take what is probably the greatest opportunity of all, and that is to help some of the uncommitted nations to develop to the point where they can look for their needs in light of what we understand and believe to be a free way of life.
I am thinking now particularly of the organization of African unity. There has been a tremendous revolution take place in Africa in recent years, some of it without bloodshed, some with. Unfortunately we learn of this through news media which emphasize only the violent aspect. I think one of the greatest opportunities before Canada is to understand what is taking place and to show those people that we are willing to carry our share of the load in helping them reach their goal. I think we should have permanent observers at the organization of African unity and should have direct diplomatic missions in more African countries. In this regard we ought to be stepping up our external aid program. It is not good enough to say that we are going to double it and let it go at that. I am convinced-I say this will all sincerity because I know the tremendous load the minister has in other parts of the
Supply*-External Affairs world-that perhaps an associate minister is required who could concentrate on the undeveloped areas of the world. He could go out carrying Canada's message to the countries of South America, of the Caribbean area as well as parts of the Far East and Africa. If such an additional position were created within the Department of External Affairs a tremendous amount of good would be accomplished which at the present time is not accomplished, simply because the burden of organization rests upon one person who cannot give the necessary attention to this very important aspect.
I mentioned the organization of African unity. We are all aware that there has been great bloodshed in the country of Rwanda. We are fearful what might happen in the Congo once the United Nations operation ceases. We know there is trouble in upper Sudan. We know there is trouble between Ethiopia and Somalia. We think also of countries like Algeria, Angola, Mozambique and central Africa. It is a fact that the African states themselves are making a real attempt to work out these problems in some kind of peaceful way. Then we read that Russia is moving in; that China is also moving into these areas and exercising a great deal of influence.
This also applies to the organization of American states. We hear a great deal about it not being advisable for Canada to become too closely related to problems in the southern hemisphere. On the other hand, how can we expect to be neighbours and convince them the way of life which we have in Canada with our free enterprise approach to living and the guarantee of those liberties which permit people to develop their initiative and have privileges which we sometimes regard all too lightly is the right way if we do not reach out to them as well?
Then there is the Caribbean area, quite apart from the American states. I do not think there is a person in the house this afternoon who would not agree that we should not do more to help our friends in the Caribbean get on their feet. There are small territories there which are isolated. The colonial office really has no longer any affection for them. The West Indies federation has collapsed. They need to be assisted and guided as they come closer to a new eastern Caribbean association. We are able to help them, and here lies a great opportunity.
We have a tremendous moral obligation in Canada which we are not fulfilling as we should. That is why I believe it would be

Supply-External Affairs a very practical suggestion that some provision be made in the Department of External Affairs to appoint an associate minister or some senior official who could truly represent Canada with the necessary prestige and authority, and who could concentrate on this important field.
I believe the minister was right when he said, in speaking about Berlin, that Berlin was the core of the European problem. I think what the minister should have done is to extend this illustration of Berlin to the whole picture in Europe. The problem NATO faces in Europe today will never be solved unless it is brought back to the point where the problem started. The problem NATO is facing in Europe today, with which we in the western world are so vitally concerned, begins with the very division of Europe. You cannot eliminate the disease unless you get to the root cause. I am sure the parliamentary secretary to the minister understands this even better than some of the rest of us. As far as Europe is concerned we must get back to the point that the only way to solve the problem is the reunification of Europe. I doubt whether there is one example the minister can cite where it can be proved that the communists ever carried out any commitment or agreement they had made, and did so in a way which fulfilled their obligation. As I was speaking about this to a friend, there arose the illustration of Austria. In my opinion Austria might be used as an example. I am convinced that the Russians were willing to go along with Austria in the way they did simply because it assisted them out of a very difficult situation. As they saw that western Austria was being used as one of the main transportation routes for supplies going into NATO, they were willing to withdraw if western Europe would also withdraw. They certainly removed a very difficult situation from their own hands and put it in NATO's lap.
The point I want to make here is that in dealing with the communist problem as it relates to NATO, let us face facts as they are. The minister stated this morning that we have to deal with the communists and have to work out ways of continuing peaceful negotiations, but on the other hand we must maintain our strength in order to carry out our obligations. In this connection I wonder if what NATO needs now is a new joint high command that would bring the various policies of NATO together, not just so far as the branches of the military forces are concerned, but to bring the various problems together, with someone in command of each

section. I am thinking of the political responsibility, the economic responsibility-yes, even the psychological aspect of it.
If NATO is to perform its real function in the years ahead, it cannot be regarded just as a military alliance. Certainly I agree with the minister when he says Canada is determined that it must be a trans-Atlantic organization, but, unless we bring all the aspects and phases of the problem together, and coordinate them under one main policy, NATO will not fulfil its obligation and do what it expected it to do.
When I suggest a joint high command, I am saying that we should have a specific department of NATO in each of these four fields, and then have over them a co-ordinated policy that will bring them together. At the present time Canada is strengthening its forces in NATO. I understand that Canada is not intending to increase its forces, though, when we heard the minister mention this morning that there are 25,000 Canadians in Germany, we fully realize that is not a small effort. Of course we must remember that this includes dependants and all the auxiliaries that go along with the military.
Yesterday in a newspaper report we were told about the re-equipping of our Canadian forces in NATO, and that the Honest John missiles are going to have nuclear warheads. But in another article in the same newspaper I read that, though France is withdrawing from NATO, she intends to bring back into it a ground to ground missile far superior to the Honest John. In view of the tremendous development of West Germany, the recovery of France and Italy, and the development of some other NATO powers, I question if it is essential for us to continue keeping such a large NATO contingent, in the military sense.
If NATO is to continue in a positive role it needs to be reorganized along the lines I have previously mentioned, and Canada should play a far greater part in the economic and psychological aspect than she does in the military aspect.
Referring briefly to Cyprus. This is indeed a difficult problem. Actually, it brings us back to the United Nations at this time and, more specifically, to the visit of the secretary general of the United Nations. In last night's Montreal Star there was a very timely article in regard to the visit of U Thant to Ottawa, and I would like to place one or two paragraphs from it on the record:
For their part, Canadians will be able to assess a secretary general who has called upon Canada to assume an increasingly heavy UN burden in terms of men and money for UN operations.

However, If anything concrete is to come from the Thant visit, it will be incumbent upon the secretary general to clarify for Canadians just what role Canada is to play in a UN that has changed radically in the last five years.
Since assuming power, the secretary general has followed the Hammarskjold tradition by playing up to the newly emerging nations of Africa and Asia.
It must remembered that Canada is just one of 112 members of the United Nations and I think the secretary general should be reminded, though no doubt he is well informed about it, that we contributed something more than $20 million to United Nations operations in the last year, and that this does not include some of the peace keeping operations which we have paid for directly. Out of a total budget of some $300 million we contributed that much, when actually we represent, so far as voting power is concerned, only one one hundred and twelfth.
The visit of the secretary general to Ottawa is a significant one because it brings us to the question of how long we are to continue these peace keeping missions through the United Nations and still have the same lack of cooperation from other members of the organization. Specifically at the moment this concerns the Cyprus operation. Yes, we are carrying our share. We are doing our best. We are helping to settle the hot spots. We are playing a leading role in setting up within our armed forces a special unit available at all times to assist in peace keeping. This is good; but we must understand that beyond all this there is a greater responsibility.
Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention the commonwealth. I believe we speak and think too little about the commonwealth, and the important part it can play. Somehow we think about it as something of the past, but the commonwealth of today represents some 700 million people, and is one of the greatest vehicles we could use to discharge the responsibility of helping the underdeveloped nations of the world.
The commonwealth education conference is to be held this year in Ottawa. It would be good for the minister to consider, in addition to the regular agenda, the arranging for a study period for those delegates who are coming from underdeveloped areas. It could last for a month, or possibly two or three months. I personally have had letters from a number of delegates whom I know, asking if they could not stay here for a couple of months in order to study the Canadian educational system, to take a short course that would help them when they return to their own countries. Again this is the kind of thing
Supply-External Affairs that we can do in Canada and which does not cost a lot of money.
In closing may I say, let us not think in Canada that we are a great military force which can compete with the great nations of the world such as the United States, the U.S.S.R., France, and Great Britain. We cannot do that. Any attempt to try and imitate them is just going to frustrate and confuse the picture so far as our own responsibilities and obligations are concerned. We are in a peculiar situation. Formerly we were a colony, but have reached our own independence. We have developed on a free basis a tremendous economy that rates high among the other nations of the world. We have a tremendous reserve of good will in the world. These things should all be tied together in our external affairs policy, in our defence policy, and in our politics as they relate to the international scene. They should all be co-ordinated so that we can make a greater contribution for world peace.
Again, coming back to the very fundamental need across the world, which is in two words, perhaps more vitally and clearly to the people of the underdeveloped countries than in any other words: world hunger. If we can align our policies and set our actions in a direction that will assist people in these countries meet their needs more effectively, then we can make the greatest contribution to the world scene, and accomplish much more than we are doing at present.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would answer a question. I did not want to interrupt him during his remarks. Does he still take the position that he and his group are against selling western wheat to Russia and China?


Robert Norman Thompson: Well-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me finish. Is he still against that and, if not, what is his policy in that regard and why has he changed?


Robert Norman Thompson: If the hon. member for Bow valley-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Bow River is my constituency.


Robert Norman Thompson: -has not found the answer to his question from the remarks I have made, then he is not able to understand very well what I have been saying. But I will be very specific. He just loves to stand up and say to the people of western Canada that I am against selling the farmers' wheat. What I am interested in doing, Mr. Chairman, is assisting the people of the underdeveloped nations with the tremendous reserves of food

Supply-External Affairs products we have in this country and with the know-how that is behind them in a way that we can strengthen them in their stand in wanting to be part of the free world. If we subvert our trade policies to anything else I think we are not accomplishing what we should.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the hon. member would answer one more question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps I should mention to the committee that the hon. member's time has expired, but if it is the unanimous wish of the committee a question might be asked. The hon. member for Chapleau.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will be brief.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed the hon. member may ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We all agree with regard to feeding the people of the underdeveloped nations, but my question was a direct one and the hon. member for Red Deer said he would give a direct answer. Is he against trading with red China and Russia in western wheat?


Robert Norman Thompson: The hon. member for Bow valley-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Bow River is my constituency.


Robert Norman Thompson: Bow River-is very concerned about this problem. What I have said time and again I will say to him now. I believe our policies should be directed in a way that we can sell our wheat to our friends instead of to those who are threatening to destroy the very way of life that we regard as right. Until these policies can be worked out and some of the economic problems involved in them can also be resolved, not to sell our wheat would certainly be utter folly. I have never said anything other than that, but I believe we have a far greater obligation to our neighbours and friends than we have to others who may be on the other side of the world, and on the other side of the fence.


Gérard Laprise: This morning, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), in his splendid statement, took us around the world. In my estimation, he did not take up too much of our time, since his activities have led him everywhere in the world. This is a part of his duties, and he showed us to some extent what is happening in the world. It was quite proper that the minister should

report on his work, his observations, and the stand he took to influence, as it were, the nations with whom he discussed for peace.
I would like to point out immediately to the minister and the members of the house that I agree with those who believe that we must discuss with the other countries in the world and organize cultural and trade exchanges with foreign countries in order to obtain a durable peace.
I believe that this dialogue tending to obtain better understanding and more comprehension between the countries of the world is necessary. I also believe that we, Canadians, are to a certain extent willing and ready to help underdeveloped countries to get their economy going and to teach them to help themselves.
However, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs was well equipped during his meetings to offer those countries the solutions they need. It is all right to go to your neighbour offering to help him tidy up his home, but, Mr. Chairman, I believe that one should first tidy up one's own place.
I am not convinced that real peace is prevailing at home. I know that the minister is aware of the great amount of distress to be found all over the world, and of the poverty prevailing in too many countries, and I admit that they should be enabled to shake off this state of destitution. I also agree that there are in this world, and in our own country as everywhere else, ever increasing and more extensive means to help those countries fight the destitution found all over the world, so that it should not get a permanent hold in spite of the new scientific and technical developments, in spite of the machines and automation, that are, or should be, at our disposal.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe that in order to be well equipped to offer those countries efficient solutions, it would be in order to look and observe at home, in the four corners of the country, with a view to discovering whether we are not also somewhat underdeveloped.
Not very long ago it was reported that we could number in this country 35 designated areas where depression still prevails. There are 35 underdeveloped areas which encompass not only a city or a village; each of them represents quite a considerable area.
Well, under the circumstances, I wonder whether we are justified in trying to clean up our neighbour's house.

Solutions are being offered and should be implemented. On the other hand, I shall have later on an opportunity to come back to this subject. But in the meantime I would like to ask the minister for some explanation, for instance, in regard to the United Nations.
According to the news we get and which comes from reliable sources, it seems that the member countries of the UN have not quite honoured their obligations or met their commitments toward that organization. In fact, it appears that Canada is the most generous country and also the most aware of its obligations. Therefore, I think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should clear up that matter by telling us what is the total amount of all the contributions owed to the UN and how many countries have not yet paid theirs? Besides, he could tell us whether, in his opinion, those commitments will soon be fulfilled.
Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, I have some doubts about the results of the action of the United Nations force in Cyprus. This is a personal opinion, based on what I saw or what I learned from reports published in the large newspapers from other countries. My doubts are based on the results obtained by the United Nations forces in other countries faced with domestic difficulties.
As an example, I should like to mention the case of Korea where soldiers from various countries were implicated. Did that action prevent the destruction of that country? I think not.
And more recently, Canada sent troops to the Congo, and there again, one may wonder if our interference prevented trouble or disturbances. On the contrary, we heard that murders had been committed, that disasters, engagements and even assassinations had taken place, in spite of the presence of United Nations forces.
Mr. Chairman, those are the reasons why I feel justified to wonder whether the results which our soldiers will obtain in Cyprus will be any better than in the past. At least, I hope so, since we have become involved.
During his statement the minister referred to the fear now existing in the free world facing communism and its threats. I think that communism, whether it comes from white Russia or yellow China is no less a red communism, and it is dangerous, wherever it comes from. But we do not simply have to face up to communism. If communism, where it has taken root, did not succeed in achieving its objective, that is in ensuring security, it did succeed nevertheless in depriving the people of freedom, without ensuring the se-20220-223
Supply-External Affairs curity it had promised. Nevertheless, those countries are suffering from poverty and insecurity.
On the other hand, there is another group which is no less dangerous and which rules the world, at least in part. I refer to free masonry, an anti-Christian and anti-religious society which has kept the world and the working class in dire poverty since it came into existence. Communism is also an antireligious and anti-Christian society which has achieved the same objectives.
Mr. Chairman, those organizations have given us and are maintaining a false system. In spite of the abundance which exists, they are keeping the world and its peoples in the most abject and intolerable poverty. Such poverty is due to an organization and a system which are false.
That system exists not only in what we call the old countries, those of old Europe, Asia or anywhere you please, but here also: even if Canada is a comparatively young country, we have copied a little the old methods of those countries.
Mr. Chairman, those systems breed poverty and keep the people in that intolerable poverty.
A few years ago a former leader of the Conservative party, who was then premier of Manitoba-I mean Hon. John Bracken-stated at a federal-provincial conference in 1941:
Under the present tax system the income of the relatively poor is transferred to the relatively rich.
That tax system, Mr. Chairman, is forced upon us by a debt-money system which does not take into account the country's economic realities or its production capacity. That tax system which was already bad in 1941 and even before-but that premier recognized it in 1941-and which transfers the income of the relatively poor to the relatively rich, is still with us. This is where some changes are needed if we want to be able to show the other countries of the world that it is possible to fight poverty and give each person in those countries, as well as in our own, a purpose in life and the proper means to achieve it.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock? [Text]


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being five o'clock, the committee will rise and report progress, to proceed with the consideration of private members' business.
Progress reported.

Criminal Code CRIMINAL CODE



Mr. John R. Malheson (Leeds) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-35, to amend the Criminal Code (habeas corpus).
He said: In rising to speak on this Bill C-35 I should like to tell hon. members that this is the same bill as Bill No. C-77, read on November 12, 1962, for the first time and the same as Bill C-42, read on May 20, 1963, for the first time. So this is the third time that this amendment to the Criminal Code has been spoken to.
This is a very simple amendment, when one looks at the words actually involved. The proposal is to add three words to section 691 of the Criminal Code, the words "or habeas corpus".
This is the result of a recommendation to me from a distinguished friend, Professor H. R. S. Ryan, Q.C., who is known to a good many members of the house, now a professor of law at Queen's University law school, a man who prior to teaching law spent many years as a successful counsel. He is also one of our best known students of penology. It was Mr. Ryan's suggestion, in a letter to me on November 5, 1962, that this bill should be produced. I was supported in the preparation of this measure by advice from an old teacher of mine, a man young in years but long in experience of criminal law, Mr. G. Arthur Martin, Q.C. Mr. Martin wrote me on December 7, 1962, saying:
I think that the lack of appeal in habeas corpus proceedings constituted a gap in the law which the proposed amendment remedies.
I have also discussed this matter with Mr. John Robinette, Q.C. and Mr. Royden Hughes, Q.C. who are well known in criminal law circles. There is, however, nothing new in this recommendation, which is an attempt to implement a suggestion made by Chief Justice McRuer of the high court of Ontario in the case known as "Re Shane".
Before discussing this case may I say, for the benefit of lay colleagues in the house, that habeas corpus is one of the most ancient and honoured of the writs known to English law. In the most recent copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the author says on this subject:
From the earliest records of the English law no free man could be detained in custody except on a criminal charge or conviction or for a civil debt. It is granted only on application to the high court or a judge thereof, supported by a sworn statement of facts setting up at least a probable case of illegal confinement. It is addressed to the person in whose custody another is detained,
[The Chairman.]
and commands him to bring his prisoner before the court immediately after the receipt of the writ.
Halsbury, in his Laws of England, the third edition, volume II described it as being-
-a prerogative writ by which the Queen has a right to inquire into the causes for which any of her subjects are deprived of their liberty. By it the high court and the judges of that court, at the instance of a subject aggrieved, command the production of that subject, and inquire into the cause of his imprisonment. If there is no legal justification for the detention, the party is ordered to be released.
It is, of course, further pointed out:
Release on habeas corpus is not, however, an acquittal, nor may the writ be used as a means of appeal.
Hon. members may inquire as to the timeliness of bringing forward a bill making provision for the right of appeal in connection with habeas corpus. I think that all over Canada we are concerned, today, with civil liberties and the rights of individuals. I have here a clipping from the Brockville Recorder and Times of November 26, 1964 where the writer of an editorial on civil liberties asks this question: "What happened to Gerard Bigras, 29, of Sudbury, who was sentenced to seven days in jail and 83 days later was still in jail?" The article continues:
This points up a glaring weakness in our system of law, when a man can be stuck in jail and nearly forgotten.
We all know that Chief Justice McRuer has served Canada in various capacities as counsel, prosecutor, chairman of various important royal commissions and, of course, as chief justice of the high court of Ontario. The learned chief justice in the Shane case looked very carefully at the legal authorities. Perhaps I may read briefly from the head-note. The headnote to "Re Shane" which is reported in 19 D.L.R., second edition, and at page 460 reads as follows-the hearing took place on May 20, 1959:
A prisoner has no right of appeal from an order of a judge of the supreme court (Ont.) refusing a discharge under habeas corpus proceedings and neither can he apply from judge to judge of that court until he obtains a decision in his favour or until all judges (31 in all) have heard his application. Once his application for discharge has been refused that is an end of the matter and semble, it makes no difference that, as here, the prisoner is held under the Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 322. The present situation, which places the liberty of the subject in the hands of one individual judge, can only be remedied by legislative action providing for a right of appeal in habeas corpus matters.
The learned chief justice had this to say, as reported at page 465 of the reports:

In disposing of the case I respectfully suggest that prompt action should be taken by proper authorities to resolve the confusion that now exists and to provide for the right of appeal in habeas corpus matters that was thought to exist prior to the decision of the Court of Appeal in this case.
I might indicate to hon. members that Professor Ryan has drawn to my attention the fact that the conference of commissioners on criminal legislation has recommended at least once-in the year 1959-that provision for an appeal be restored to section 691.1 beg to point out, also, that this matter has been considered by courts of appeal in other provinces. One of the important cases is "In Re Fred Storgoff" reported on page 526 of S.C.R., 1945 where it was found that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction to authorize such an appeal under the provisions of the British North America Act, sections 91(27) and 92(13). In this case there was reference to the dictum of Lord Halsbury who said:
For a period extending as far back as our legal history the writ of habeas corpus has been regarded as one of the most important safeguards of the liberty of the subject.
Lord Birkenhead is recorded to have said:
We are dealing with a writ antecedent to statute, and throwing its roots deep into the genius of our common law. It is perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law of England, affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or confinement. It is of immemorial antiquity, an instance of its use occurring in the thirty third year of Edward I. It has through the ages been jealously maintained by courts of law as a check upon the illegal usurpation of power by the executive at the cost of the liege.
Finally, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, C.J.C., who was a well known Quebecker, said application for this writ was "unquestionably the first security of civil liberty". The same ideas are contained in the case of Wattebled v. Lesage and Aubut and attorney general of the province, as reported at page 108 of C.B.R., 1953. Here we find a dictum of Mr. Justice Tasche-reau. He points out that this ancient writ-
-dates back farther than the Magna Carta of Jean Sans-Terre, it was jus non scrivtum. and it was only in 1679 that it appeared in the statutes of England.
This was "an act for the better securing the liberty of the subject and for the prevention of imprisonment beyond the seas".
In some circumstances appeal has not been provided for in our code. The failure to provide appeal in habeas corpus was, I think, inadvertent. This gap in judicial remedy has been recognized by those jurists who make periodic examination of our code, and I believe they have recommended from time 20220-2234
Criminal Code
to time to the Department of Justice that this oversight be corrected.
I shall not trespass further on the time of the house. I simply indicate that this bill is an attempt to do what has been recommended by His Lordship Chief Justice McRuer in Re Shane and follows logically from the conclusions of other important judgments that have been given by the courts of appeal of various provinces and the Supreme Court of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) for bringing forward this bill. I might say at the outset that I am going to support it without any reservation or equivocation whatsoever. I will try to be as brief as I can because I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), and perhaps other hon. members, will want to speak on this matter. Also, I do not want to take up too much time, in order that perhaps this matter can be dealt with and the bill passed today.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, we are considering one of our special, extraordinary remedies that deals with the rights of an individual. We are dealing with habeas corpus, of course, and we are dealing with that kind of right which is afforded a person in custody. There are many extraordinary remedies; there is the right of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, and others. But in this case we are dealing with habeas corpus, which is very important because we are dealing with the right of a person to make an application for release when he is held illegally in custody, This situation arises when an inferior court, by its judgment, has placed someone in custody and has either exceeded its jurisdiction, exceeded the law, or the decision is against the natural law of justice. It is one of those rights which we have that protects the individual and guarantees his freedom in this country under the rule of law as we know it. After all, our democratic processes are based on the rule of law and not on the rule of people.
What is the law at the present time? It may be that there has been more litigation in this country in reference to habeas corpus than with regard to any other facet or phase of criminal law. I am going to refer to various cases briefly, just to place them on the record; not particularly to emphasize the facts but just to give a portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. I did not have too long to prepare these remarks this afternoon. I knew this bill was

Criminal Code
coming before the house, but some of the other bills were stood.
One of the earliest cases is Smith v. The King, 1931 S.C.R., at page 531. Another case is In Re Jack Goldhar, 1958 S.C.R., at page 693. There is also another decision on the same case by the whole court, reported in 1960 S.C.R. at page 435. I might just pause there, Mr. Speaker, and say that the 1958 case was a decision of Mr. Justice Martland sitting in chambers and the decision in 1960 was by the supreme court on the same set of facts. Then there is the case of Re Shane, which has been referred to by the hon. member for Leeds. That case is reported in 19 D.L.R. (2d) at page 460. Then there is the case of In Re Storgoff, 1945 S.C.R., page 527.
What is the law when one reads these cases? Before referring to that question, Mr. Speaker, I might just say that at one time it was the feeling, when someone was making an application because he felt his liberty had been usurped by being held in custody, that you could apply to a judge of any superior court in the trial division, any judge of the court of appeal, and then you could apply to a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada; but it was finally decided that you could go to only one judge in one court, and having done that your remedy, as I understand the law, is at an end. In other words, the law today is that if one is held on a charge under the Criminal Code of Canada-I emphasize the Criminal Code of Canada because we have to differentiate between offences under the common law and those under the Criminal Code, and I will have something to say about that in a few moments-you could go to any one judge; you can go to a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or, in my province, which happens to be where I practise law, you can go to a judge of the trial division of Alberta, or a judge of the appellate division, which is our court of appeal in Alberta. This applies to any province.
The next question is this. On the statute books of each province there is some statutory law, or there are some rules which are codified by the legislature of the province, which allow you to go to the court of appeal only on matters with regard to which the province has jurisdiction. For example, there is the dental act, and if someone was found guilty of malpractice on summary conviction and the magistrate or board had exceeded their jurisdiction under that act, you could go to a trial judge and then to the court of appeal of Alberta. This is true in

regard to the various provinces, I believe. I know it is true in British Columbia and Alberta.
The next point is this. Until April 1, 1955 there was a differentiation as between an offence under the common law of Canada and one under the Code of Canada. Now, since the new amendment, those offences are all under the Criminal Code of Canada and there is no differentiation between offences which are under the common law and those which are under the Code. At one time a person who was charged with an offence under the common law of Canada, but not under the Code, could not apply for habeas corpus; it did not apply in his case. In particular, he did not have the right to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. He may, of course, have had the right to go to a judge in his own jurisdiction.
Let us look for a few moments at these authorities. The first case I mentioned was the famous Smith case. It is Art J. Smith v. The King. The appellant in this case bears no relationship to the famous Arthur Smith who was a Queen's Counsel in Alberta, or his son. A different set of facts are involved, and a different province. This case states:
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of habeas corpus extends only to cases of commitment following upon charges of offences which are criminal by virtue of statutes enacted by the parliament of Canada-
That is what I was saying; the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada applied only to those offences under the Code and not to those under the common law. Since the amendments to the Code of April 1, 1955, any offences under the common law are now part of the Criminal Code in this regard and therefore there is jurisdiction in this respect.
The next case I referred to was In Re Jack Goldhar which, as I said, came before Mr. Justice Martland in chambers. Mr. Justice Martland was a judge of our Supreme Court of Canada. He said that as it was no longer possible to prosecute a person for an offence at common law, there could no longer be a commitment in a criminal case for such an offence, and any offence thereafter charged under the Criminal Code must be considered as a criminal case under an act of the parliament of Canada. Therefore the Supreme Court of Canada would have jurisdiction under the Code and under the common law, because the common law had now been codified. That decision was appealed; the decision of one judge of the Supreme Court of Canada was appealed to the whole court, and that decision was upheld. The judgment

was written by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada at that time.
Dealing with the Shane case, this is the problem-and I am going to come to grips with it. The problem is that at the present time you can only get this remedy from one judge at a time. You can go only to one judge. At one time there was a lot of law to the effect that you could move from one judge to another. At the present time the law seems to be very firm that you can go to one judge in the superior court, but there is no right of appeal. You have to distinguish between a civil remedy and a criminal remedy. That is because we have quasi-criminal offences.
Let me give an example, Mr. Speaker, of a case I had myself concerning a dispute between the dentists of the province of Alberta and the dental mechanics. Charges were laid against the dental mechanics of manufacturing teeth. They were quasi-criminal charges. If a mistake were made in law by a magistrate or an inferior court, then you had the remedy of habeas corpus if the accused were in custody, or if not in custody, on certiorari, to go for trial in the province. Then there was an appeal to the court of appeal of Alberta. The same procedure existed in the province of British Columbia. Unfortunately, under the offences in the Criminal Code of Canada there does not seem to be an appeal provided for to the courts of appeal of the provinces, as established by the Re Shane case. I discussed this question privately with the hon. member for Leeds a few minutes before five o'clock, and under his bill which he has presented today to the house provision will be made only for an appeal to the court of appeal of a province. I do not think that anyone would like to see, unless a mistake in law had been made, all of these matters go to the Supreme Court of Canada. But I think it is a good thing that we should at least have a right of appeal to the appeal courts in the respective provinces which have jurisdiction as far as the Criminal Code is concerned.
In that regard this bill is a necessary amendment, because if a trial judge does make a mistake, or if he does not agree with the applicant's counsel, the applicant can at least have the decision of the judge reviewed by five judges of the provincial court of appeal. That is true in any criminal matter if you lose a decision before a judge or are convicted before a jury. In Alberta, which is the only province where you can have a case before the supreme court trial division
Criminal Code
without a jury, if the trial judge has made a mistake in any criminal matter you can appeal on a question of law or on a question of fact in law to the court of appeal. This amendment would mean that if a decision on a question of habeas corpus is unfavourable to the applicant he can have it reviewed by the court of appeal of the province. In that regard I congratulate the hon. member for Leeds for bringing forth this amendment, and I hope it passes.
In dealing with the extraordinary remedies, I think there is one thought which parliament should have, as we sit here passing legislation in this house. I can spend the rest of my time talking about various examples, where, by statute, is taken away the right of habeas corpus and the right of certiorari, which are extraordinary remedies and protect the individual against the infringement of the state where the law is exceeded.
In this regard we need only look at the Income Tax Act, which is a terrible act in this regard. It is only under very unusual circumstances that you can apply this extraordinary remedy. We have only to look at provincial statutes and at our archaic liquor laws. Provincial legislation always makes me laugh. We are always so holy in this country with reference to our liquor laws, while the provincial treasurers take into their accounts about $6 million each year. Yet under those acts it seems to be legal to sell liquor but illegal to drink liquor in most places. In these particular statutes-and this is the point I am making-you will read time and time again that there is taken away the right of habeas corpus and the right of certiorari. They want to make it so tough for the accused that if he is ever charged under the liquor acts he cannot help but get fined or imprisoned. If the law has been exceeded then you have not the extraordinary remedies which you have in normal cases under the Criminal Code and other statutes.
So I say in passing that I endorse this amendment; but I suggest to any future parliament-and I hope the legislators follow suit-that when we are shaping legislation with reference to penal matters we do not take away these extraordinary remedies, because in many cases under the federal Income Tax Act and under the provincial liquor acts injustices are done to individuals. Sometimes they are held in custody illegally. They are fined or their books are seized illegally. These extraordinary remedies which exist in other phases of our law should exist as far as those statutes are concerned. Particularly

Criminal Code
in provinces where the revenue from the sale of liquor is sizeable the legislators could certainly leave the law the same as it was under the common law as it exists under the Criminal Code. Because if a provincial statute is to become a penal statute, then why have you not all of the remedies which exist under the offences described in the Code?
So I say in summary, realizing that others want to speak, that this is a good suggestion because the application can be made only to one judge of the court. If that judge makes a mistake in reviewing the record of an inferior court as far as the extraordinary remedies of habeas corpus or certiorari are concerned, you have a right of appeal to the court of appeal of the province. We have that right now in quasi-criminal matters or in civil matters, such as the case of the dentists where the dental mechanics were charged with making teeth, because it was alleged they were practising dentistry. We considered the magistrate in that case exceeded his jurisdiction. We considered another board which dealt with the dentists also exceeded their jurisdiction in that regard. You have a right of appeal in these matters in Alberta. In criminal matters, whatever the charge is, whether it be serious or is another offence under the Code, where habeas corpus applies, when an accused is in custody, or certiorari applies where he is not in custody, there is the right of review by the top court of appeal in the province. Since April 1, 1955 we have taken steps to see that all matters are now dealt with as if they come under the Code.
This is another step in the history of jurisprudence of this country and I endorse the bill entirely. I congratulate the hon. member for Leeds for presenting it, and I trust that when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) speaks he will support it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, that this bill should be passed should become very obvious to us all when we realize that the lawyers and members of this house, who usually agree about little or nothing, are all agreed that it is a good bill and that it should be passed. I think the best contribution I can make toward passing this bill is to confine my remarks to a very few minutes of time, and I will certainly do that.
I should just like to point out to any hon. member not aware of it that what the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) has described in the remedy of habeas corpus as an ancient and honourable remedy-I think he used those words-is the fundamental means

whereby the rule of law and the liberty
of the subject have been worked out and preserved during centuries of history. This is one of the great achievements of our system. The security of every individual person against arbitrary imprisonment is based upon this remedy of habeas corpus.
This bill which is recommended to us not only by the words of the hon. member who spoke with obviously good sense, but also by a very distinguished justice, Chief Justice McRuer-who happened to be my partner once, although I did not agree with him in everything-gives the right of appeal where some judge has refused this remedy to effectuate the liberty of the subject.
For myself, I have had enough experience with courts to have learned that judges are not infallible. They are human, and they perform better sometimes if their acts are subject to review by higher courts. I think this is a very commendable thing. I am not going to elaborate on the learning put before the house by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), which I found very interesting. I just wish to commend the bill to the house and to commend the honourable, learned and distinguished member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) for having introduced it into the house.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not lay any great claim to an understanding of legal terminology or practice, but it seems to me that the amendment proposed this afternoon is one that commends itself to the principles of humanity and justice.
Before taking part in this debate I asked the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) if it would be permissible for me, a layman, to enter a debate such as this, and he gave his consent. Possibly it is a case of a layman moving in where angels fear to tread. I assure the house, however, that I am not going to enter deeply into the discussion that is taking place.
It has been indicated that this is an amendment which has the support of many of those who are well versed in legal matters. It has been recommended as a remedy for what appears to be an oversight or omission of the drafting of the present legislation. The fact that it has been supported by those in the legal profession, and has been so ably and conscientiously introduced by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), for whom I have the greatest respect and in whose judgment I have great confidence, prompts me to voice support for the amendment before us.


Mr. Auguste Choqueiie (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend wholeheartedly the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) and say that I fully support the bill he submitted to the house in order to preserve individual liberty, in conformity with the principles of the bill on human rights recently passed by this house.
I believe this is to reduce to the minimum any arbitrary imprisonment or denial of liberty, of an individual by providing for an appeal from the decision of a court having denied an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state briefly a very deplorable situation which exists in some of our Quebec criminal courts.
There we find a situation commonly known as "fixing". "Fixing" is a scheme by which one speculates on the sentences to be imposed, sentences which are prolonged or reduced according to the talkativeness or otherwise of an accused or an individual who confesses to the police.
Indeed, a despicable game is often played between lawyers, police officers and judges, who get together to speculate on the length of the detention period, based on whether the persons held in custody have satisfied or not the curiosity of certain police officers who do not care too much for the dignity of the human person. Those police officers often vent their bad temper on others by resorting to violence.
The Coffin investigation shows that there is something wrong with the administration of justice. A Montreal judge has requested a thorough investigation, and he is right. Judge Wagner asked for a thorough investigation of justice, and I feel that as the world fair is approaching, there will be a great promiscuity among people coming from all parts of the world, so there is reason to fear a new outbreak of criminality.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think that he is wandering far away from the matter under study.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by saying that this bill concerning the possible illegal confinement of a person, prompts me to make these remarks and also to urge the federal government to make also its own thorough investigation, as the world fair is approaching, an investigation which will indicate precise standards to the judiciary in the terms and execution of sentences, so that in accordance with the principle
Criminal Code
stated by the hon. member for Leeds, any illegal detention will be prevented at any cost and as much as possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I too appreciate the principle behind this bill. Habeas corpus, the English meaning of which is to have the body, is a direction by the court to the authorities to bring the body of a person-the live body, of course-of a person who is held in custody under confinement before the court, so that the authorities may justify their detention. I often think, after several years in this house, that when all else fails here we raise a point of privilege. When all else fails in court a person in jail raises a writ of habeas corpus.
May I just add one thing to what has been said. The case to which the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) made reference is one based on an English decision. Before that decision it had been impressed on most members of the legal fraternity that a solicitor or counsel for a man held in custody, if rejected by one judge, could then go from judge to judge and keep making his application for habeas corpus; but an English decision indicated that this was an incorrect assumption on the part of the law, the lawyers and the judges. Therefore this was followed by Chief Justice McRuer's action, with the effect mentioned.
However, I would point out that prior to that decision it had not been a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs where, within reasonable limits, you might go to successive judges. I point that out for this reason. It may well happen that the confinement under which the accused person is being held might be of a limited nature. By the time you get to the court of appeal it might be too late. This accounts for the reason why, having been turned down by one judge in the morning, you go to another judge in the afternoon. There are obviously limits to the application of a principle of that kind, as Chief Justice McRuer pointed out. In the province of Ontario which has 36 judges, and probably more now, it would be an obvious abuse of the legal procedures.
But I would suggest to the Minister of Justice-while I hope he will give an indication that he is going to consent to the amendment at this time-that he might give consideration to including at some later time, in conjunction with it, a limited right which could be incorporated under section 424 of the

Criminal Code
Criminal Code, where there is given to courts of appeal the right to make recommendations on procedure. This is the section under which the various provincial courts have made recommendations on the procedure, under authority of the federal parliament, with regard to criminal matters. I suggest that the minister give the provincial courts of appeal the right, under section 424, and by a further amendment to section 691, to provide for limited access to individual judges, as well as the right of appeal.
I emphasize the reason for that in this fact that there are a number of cases which occur to my mind, and I think the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) illustrated this by reference to small penalties which might be imposed in respect of certain offences, and by the time you get into the court of appeal it is all over, and, while you might have the honour of the declaration by the court of appeal that you were unjustly imprisoned, that is not always a salutary remedy. I would suggest to the minister in conclusion that he might give some consideration to the suggestion I have made. All it would take would be a legislative enactment to restore the right which the legal profession considered did exist prior to the English decision followed by Chief Justice McRuer. It would permit in some provinces limited access to a number of trial judges of the superior court, which might be desirable. I would ask the minister to consider the possibility of some limited right of application to successive judges in certain cases.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this unique opportunity to say that I agree not only with the spokesmen of my party, but also with all those of the opposition who have expressed their views. This is an opportunity that might not happen again very often in this house.
I am also happy to congratulate the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) on the civic sense and the understanding of the administration of justice in this country he has shown by introducing the bill now under consideration.
The situation he pointed out is one which constituted an anomaly up to now. Section 691 of the Criminal Code which is sought to be amended by the present bill, refers to three methods of examination or of statement of invalidity with regard to conviction or imprisonment.

I do not want to discuss here, in a technical way, those three methods, but they are mentioned in that section: mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. The only test of the legality of a conviction and the only means of getting directly out of jail the person who complains about the decision, is through the procedure of habeas corpus which was well explained before I rose. It is abnormal that the code should include at the present time a provision which, in the case of the other three procedures, stipulates the right of appeal but entirely omits to stipulate it in the case that is undoubtedly the most important of those privilege proceedings, that is habeas corpus.
As Minister of Justice, I must say that even if this bill is not a government bill I had that same amendment in mind. As a citizen, as a member of the Quebec bar, the Ontario bar and the Canadian bar, it is a measure I wanted to see introduced.
Indeed, I remember that during the last five or six years I was associated with the faculty of law of the University of Ottawa, one of the subjects I taught dealt precisely with those extraordinary writs called "prerogative writs". Every year, and especially since the appeal court's decision in the Storgoff case, to which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) referred, I would point out to my students this anomaly where an appeal could be heard on the other three writs but not on a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case.
That is why I feel it is a duty for me to give full support to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Leeds. In my opinion, its passage would be a step forward in the administration of justice and I hope that the house will pass it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, we are indebted to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) for having brought this matter forward and for having taken action in this regard. I note in the explanatory notes, however, that it is five years since the suggestion was first made, so that it is not prejudicial in any manner to this bill to make reference to the law's interminable delays.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't filibuster your own bill.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The wording in the explanatory notes stating that "the present situation . . . places the liberty of the subject

in the hands of one individual judge" attracts my attention. I agree that there should be an appeal in such a situation and I am happy that the hon. member for Leeds has introduced this bill. I am very pleased to know that it has the approval of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). But as a layman and not a lawyer, and as one who never uses a thousand words where one will do, and who has never studied law, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice to give consideration, after this amendment is passed, to the fact that certain judges-I will not name any of them here, but most Ontario people know to whom I refer-make use of the power they have with regard to contempt of court in what I think is an improper way. There is certainly no appeal from the decision made by one judge in such a case, which lets the hammer of the law fall on the subject, and certainly the liberty of the subject is at the disposition of the judge.
I am thinking in particular of a friend of mine in the city of Cornwall in the riding represented by the Deputy Speaker who was subjected to a contempt of court decision by an authority I do not need to name. That means that the record of this decision will stand against him. I do not think the action of the judge in the case was correct at all. That man had no appeal from the decision of the judge; but now we have high authority quoted today to indicate that the circumstances covered by the bill place the liberty of the subject in the hands of one individual judge.
Business of the House
There is one judge of the Ontario high court who finds there has been contempt of court more frequently than all the other judges on that bench. I hope that the Minister of Justice, in approving of the amendment of the hon. member for Leeds, will give consideration to action to provide an appeal from the sentence of an individual judge in a contempt of court accusation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Barneil:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that some of us on this side of the house are probably feeling a little faint from surprise at a bill passing in this hour, and in view of the fact it is Friday, I wonder whether a suggestion that it be called six o'clock would be acceptable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the house leader if the business of the house for Monday and Tuesday is unchanged-a supply motion, I believe?


Guy Favreau: Yes, the business for Monday and Tuesday will be a supply motion.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
3519
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 25, 1964