1965-05-28

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES

Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is a particular pleasure for me, and a privilege and an honour, to call the attention of all hon. Members in the House today to the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of all the Speakers from the ten provinces in Canada, who are here attending the Canadian Area Council meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am sure we all appreciate their presence here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-108, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this bill does exactly what its title indicates; it provides for the introduction of the voluntary revocable check-off of trade union dues. The language of the bill is exactly the language that was agreed to by the Industrial Relations Committee of 1948 and recommended to the House of Commons in that year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



IMMIGRATION ACT


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-I09, to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to relieve one of the problems of families with mentally retarded children. It would
make a minor amendment to the Immigration Act in line with similar legislation now being considered in the U.S. Congress. This amendment would permit, to the same extent that the present law permits entry into Canada of persons who are dumb, blind or otherwise physically defective, the entry of persons who are mentally retarded, if such persons are members of a family and are accompanied by the family, to give security against such immigrants becoming public charges. The main effect of this Bill would be to ease, on a reciprocal basis, the difficulties which Canadian and American parents of retarded children face when seeking to visit across the international border.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compion-Fronfenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the clerk of the house now read the petition of La Societe Marquette Incorporee which was filed with him on May 18, 1965.


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to the Chair that perhaps the Chair should give a short caveat, a short explanation, for the purposes of record.
As recorded at page 121 of Votes and Proceedings of May 18, 1965, a petition from La Societe Marquette, Inc., Montreal, P.Q., dated May 18, 1965, was filed with the Clerk of the House on that date pursuant to Standing Order 70(1). On the day following the presentation the Clerk of the House laid upon the table, in the manner prescribed by Standing Order 40, a report of the Clerk of Petitions to the effect that said petition met the requirements of Standing Order 70. This comes from pages 129 and 130 of Votes and Proceedings of May 19, 1965.
Pursuant to paragraphs 7 and 8 of Standing Order 70, "Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House and which, according to the Standing Orders or practice of this House, can be received, shall then be deemed to be
May 28, 1965

Petition for Family Allowances read and received". However, a petition "may be read by the Clerk of the House at the table, if required". As stated in citation 343 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
Whilst a member has clearly a right to ask that a petition be read, it is a privilege, like many others, subject to the approval of the House itself. In case of opposition, the Speaker will put a motion formally to the House.
It would seem to me that the proper time for a request to have a petition read by the Clerk of the House at the table would be when the report of the Clerk of Petitions is presented; otherwise it is deemed to have been read. May I be permitted to add that, this petition having been filed with the Clerk of the House late in the day, a very short time was available between its presentation and the tabling of the report of the Clerk of Petitions. A closer look at the petition would seem to reveal that it should perhaps not have been received, as the granting of the prayer thereof would involve the expenditure of public moneys and, according to its terms, purports to give the Government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money. I must, however, take into consideration that a point of order in this regard should quite probably have been raised at the time the Petition was reported upon, and it may be found advisable to leave the matter as it stands in the present case.
With regard to the reading of the Petition by the Clerk of the House at the table, it is my view that the request should be made when the report of the Clerk of Petitions is presented and the Petition received, since at that time it is deemed to have been read unless otherwise requested. Taking into consideration, however, that Petitions are of relatively rare occurrence in modern Parliamentary practice and that there could have been a misunderstanding in that regard on the part of the hon. Member for Compton-Fron-tenac, who presented the Petition in question, and also with a view of not depriving a Member of a privilege on technical grounds, without creating a precedent for the future I am asking whether it is the pleasure of the House that such Petition be now read by the Clerk of the House at the table. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said Petition be now read?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order here. It seems to me that we are in danger of creating a very bad precedent. A little more than ten days ago this

Petition was received by the Clerk. The Clerk presented his report on May 18. The rule in this regard is explicit; in accordance with Standing Order 70(7) the Clerk of the House lays upon the table the report of the Clerk of Petitions. The report was recorded in Votes and Proceedings for the next day.
I should just like to read part of the Standing Order:
Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House and which, according to the standing orders or practice of this House, can be received, shall then be deemed to be read and received.
Since this report was deemed to have been read and received on May 18, surely it is an unprecedented departure from the practice to come along ten days later and ask the Clerk to read the report at this time. It seems to me that this could develop into a practice that is not agreeable to the House if we make a departure of this kind at this time. The document is on record in the correct way and in accordance with the rules, and it has been deemed to have been read.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the apparent opposition of the Government to this procedure, what I would suggest-I do not know the nature of the report-is that the House might agree to this course without in any way creating a precedent for the future. I can understand the arguments advanced, but without creating a precedent surely the House would allow this under all the circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the position stated by the President of the Privy Council may be, and probably is, technically correct. But I think the House should take into consideration the fact that Your Honour has considered all the various circumstances and that Your Honour has said to the House that you think, on balance, the House should do the generous thing on this occasion and let the Petition be read without creating a precedent. I support the position taken by Your Honour, which has also been supported by the Leader of the Opposition.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied to have it read as long as it is clearly on record that this procedure will not be used as a precedent in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the said Petition shall be read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 28, 1965

Whereupon the Petition was read by the Clerk of the House, as follows:

To the honourable the House of Commons of Canada, assembled in Parliament:	the petition
of the Undersigned: "La Soci6te Marquette, Inc." Francis Loiselle, President, Mary Pertz, Secretary, Gedeon Gauthier, Director, respectfully submits:
That...the Government of Canada can and must guarantee all Children in Canada under 16 years of age the sum of $30 per month, as a



&quot;BASIC PERSONAL RIGHT&quot;

[Stage Direction]
That...the Government of Canada can and should guarantee this sum of $30 per month per Child under 16, as of the month of July 1965, this being the 20th anniversary of the first Family Allowances, instituted by our Government in accordance with Ch. 109 of the year 1944-1945.
That.. .the Government of Canada can and must in this way re-establish the National Economic Balance between the "BASIC PERSONAL RIGHT" of Children under 16, and all the other Sectors of the Economy which have advanced 4, 8, 10 or 12 times since 1944-1945, in the 20 years following the end of the War and the beginning of Children's Allowances for children under 16.
Therefore the Undersigned humbly beseech your Honourable House to give effect to this present petition.
And your Petitioner, as is his duty, will not cease from entreating you:
"La Societe Marquette, Inc."
P. Loiselle, President.
Mary Pertz, Secretary.
G6d6on Gauthier, Director.
5341 Park Avenue,
Montreal 8, Canada.
18 May 1965.
Seal.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from a question asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Pontiac-T emiscamingue.
I should like to ask the Minister for External Affairs why Parliament should be denied information as to the treaty making powers of the Provinces and the essential elements of an agreement, particularly in view of the fact that the Toronto Telegram today, in an article by Mr. Collister, set out in detail what the agreement provides. Is it a fact that treaty making privileges and rights are now going to be granted to the Provinces; is it a fact that under the accord entered into a mixed commission of six members from each country, Canada and France, will
Inquiries of the Ministry be set up; is it a fact that the agreement is to be in force for ten years, and is it a fact that what was contended for by the Government of the Province of Quebec has now been accepted by the Government of Canada, namely that the Provinces can enter into treaties with foreign countries from now on in respect of matters within provincial jurisdiction?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I answer my hon. friend's last question by telling him categorically that nothing has been done and nothing will be done which will in any way derogate from the powers of the Government of Canada to conclude treaties, binding in international law, between this or any other part of Canada with a foreign power. Only the Federal Government can enter into a treaty with a foreign power that is binding in international law, and any agreement concluded between any part of Canada and a foreign power has validity in international law only to the extent that it is made under the authority of an agreement, treaty or convention concluded between Canada and a foreign power.
Yesterday I was asked a question by the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue with regard to an agreement on cultural matters which Canada hopes to conclude not only with France but with a number of other countries. Last December the Government, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, discussed this matter with the French Foreign Minister. The Director of Cultural Affairs of the Government of France was in Ottawa three days ago. We discussed our draft of the proposed general agreement which is referred to in French as an accord cadre. I told my hon. friend that until such time as negotiations between the Governments of France and Canada were concluded it would, of course, be impossible to reveal the details of this general agreement or accord cadre.
The matter is now in the stage of negotiation. We do not fully know the final reaction of the Government of France, although we are hopeful; and until such time as these steps have been completed it is not possible, of course, to comply with the request made by the hon. gentleman yesterday. But let me make it clear that the accord cadre does not in any way derogate from the position under international law with regard to the authority to conclude binding treaties under that system which I have stated.

May 23, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Marlineau:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. Member allow me to conclude?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, apparently that is not the course followed on the other side, but hon. Members on this side always follow the course of having the original questioner ask his supplementary question first. I would ask the Minister this question. Is it a fact, as stated by the Quebec Cultural Affairs Minister, Hon. Mr. Laporte, who has just returned from France, that an agreement has been negotiated and made; and was the Minister's attention drawn to Mr. Laporte's words, namely "I don't care how Ottawa feels about the trip I took"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen Mr. Laporte's words, but I would suggest that perhaps he, as a good Canadian, does care what Ottawa thinks about these matters.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Inasmuch as the major portions of the accord cadre have now apparently been published in the press, will the Minister reconsider his decision not to grant to Members of this House the privilege, in fact the first privilege, of taking cognizance of that document?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the reports to which the hon. gentleman and the right hon. gentleman have directed my attention. I would doubt very much that this is the case. In any event it would not interfere with what I conceive to be the responsible attitude which, under our Parliamentary system, a Government must take in this kind of situation.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is related to the question which was put to him a few moments ago. Is it the policy of the Government to agree, or at least not object, to treaties or agreements entered into by provinces with foreign countries which are not binding in international law?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Any arrangement made by any one jurisdiction in the country

obviously has to be related to the foreign policy of the country. Within this limitation I do not really believe there is any real problem involved in the matter which is currently being discussed.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Government would be prepared at an early date to give the House some idea of its intentions with respect to the summer adjournment? Members would like to plan their constituency work, and I think it would be useful if the Prime Minister or someone on his behalf could tell the House at an early date, first, when it is intended to recess for the summer and when the Government intends to reconvene Parliament and, second, what items of legislation the Government plans to put before the House between now and the summer recess.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of us in the House will be very interested in the final answer to this question, and the Prime Minister will deal with it at the earliest possible moment.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: As a supplementary question, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he discusses this with the Prime Minister, ask him not to repeat the performance of last year and impose a condition before there is a summer adjournment?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, before responding to that provocative question may I say to the hon. gentleman that I am sure all of us in the House noted with satisfaction yesterday that his services to his party and to its leadership were properly noted by the members of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have had strong differences, the hon. gentleman, myself and other Members sitting to Mr. Speaker's right, but I think basically we all recognize that good sportsmanship can carry us a long way. I want to be generous, and I want to tell him I am very glad his services
May 28. 1965	COMMONS
have been recognized so fittingly by his leader and his party the other night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I think I have satisfactorily disposed of my hon. friend's question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask an unprovocative question. Was Keith Davey speaking for the Government when he determined the other day that the election was going to be held in September or October; and are Keith Davey's views those of the Government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Davey speaks about the achievements of this Government of course I think he speaks for the majority of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But obviously only the leader of the Government can assume responsibility in the particular context.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I wanted to find out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question but may I direct it to the Minister of Finance. Will his proposed legislation, which will govern private pension plans that come under Federal jurisdiction, be among the priority items to be dealt with by this House?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I would think that is a question, Mr. Speaker, that should be dealt with by the Prime Minister, who, after all, is the leader of the Government and will be making this determination.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that on several occasions the minister has told us this legislation is in preparation, can he tell us whether it is ready?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It can be ready, Mr. Speaker, but it will be up to the Prime Minister to decide which items of legislation that are
ready should come in which order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the answer that it can be ready, or is it ready?


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question? Since
DEBATES	1765
Inquiries of the Ministry the time limit to amend the Bank Act will expire at the end of June, and since the banking and commerce committee which will have to consider the proposed amendments has not yet been established and therefore, has not yet proceeded with the consideration of those amendments, does the Minister of Finance intend to propose that the time limit be extended by another six months so that those amendments to the Bank Act might be considered and passed?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, Mr. Speaker, I had been very hopeful that the resolutions on procedure would have been dealt with by this time. I am still hopeful they will be dealt with very quickly and the committee set up. In that event I would hope second reading of the Bank Act would receive the early attention of the House so the bill might be referred to the committee and the normal review and discussion take place. If this is done expeditiously I would certainly hope it could be dealt with by the House before the end of June.


Gilles Grégoire: No chance.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: My hon. friend says "No chance." He is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to my hope. If this does not turn out to be possible, then of course it will be necessary to ask the House to extend the charters of the banks for some reasonable period.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: As a
supplementary to the original question, Mr. Speaker, would the Government House Leader undertake to call a meeting of the House Leaders on this matter of a summer recess, in order to take it out of this realm of horse trading, and decide legitimately by co-operation with the other party leaders when our summer recess will be?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to undertake such a meeting, but I do not admit that the House Leaders are engaged in horse trading. I would point out to hon. Members that there is some legislation which, by its nature, it is desirable to deal with before a summer recess. It is a matter of judgment as to what legislation should be called in what order and what items can be left over until after a summer recess.


William Arnold Peters: As a further supplementary, is it not a fact that past negotiations have indicated that the determination of the date of
176S

May 28, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry recess is conducive to the arrangements the House Leaders can make in this regard?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I want to know if among that priority legislation he has referred to there is also included the fiscal measures on advertising, concerning newspapers and magazines? I also wonder if the Minister would state whether the Government still intends to go ahead with that legislation in view of recent criticism, particularly by Lord Thomson of Fleet?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the budget resolutions and bills will be before the House very shortly, and I think that would be the time to discuss this matter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I will put my question on the record and perhaps he could answer it next week. On May 4 he informed the hon. Member for Quebec East that he would be making an announcement about the working conditions of the interpreters. I would like to ask again when that announcement will be made.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question. Prime Minister Wilson of the United Kingdom is reported to have said that he is going to ask the senior members of the Commonwealth for a significant increase in their educational aid to other countries within the Commonwealth. I wonder has the Canadian Government a program under consideration to make larger educational grants to the developing countries within the Commonwealth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions about this question and, as my hon. friend knows, it will be discussed at the Prime Ministers' conference in the middle of June. Of course last summer the Canadian Government announced an increase in the moneys being made available by Can-

ada for Commonwealth scholarships. This is a very important way of promoting unity of the Commonwealth.
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): As a supplementary, may I ask the hon. gentleman if he can advise the House when the Government will be in a position to provide larger grants to Canadian universities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has already dealt with that, yesterday I believe.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question arising out of a speech made yesterday by Dr. Deutsch, head of the Economic Council, at a conference sponsored by the council. He indicated we were heading for trouble unless we get better manpower policies; and since this is parallel with what was in the Economic Council's report I want to ask the Minister if he has considered getting together with the officials of the Economic Council and their experts to see whether there cannot be some compromise worked out, and so he could get some suggestions on what would be a good manpower policy?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed the press report of the Chairman's speech but I have not had a chance to study it to date. There have been discussions between Dr. Deutsch and the Deputy Minister of Labour, and I would be quite prepared at an early date to discuss the matter of details with Dr. Deutsch and his officials.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Since the Economic Council is an unusual agency I wonder whether the Minister would undertake to take the initiative in finding out some of the ideas of Dr. Deutsch and what suggestions he may have to put forward; because it is obviously disturbing to us and, I am sure, to the Minister to hear what may be criticism of the present policy of the Department of Labour made by someone belonging to an agency set up by the Government, an agency which has a certain amount of freedom.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that is a good idea, Mr. Speaker.
May 28, 1965



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-PETITION RESPECTING CHANGE IN PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: May I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with an apparent conflict between the views expressed by the Prime Minister and by the Premier of Quebec respecting the amendment to the legislative powers of the Legislative Council passed by the Legislature of Quebec. Yesterday the Premier of Quebec said:
The Prime Minister of Canada told me in the letter-
That is the letter Mr. Lesage quoted on March 11.
-that as tar as his Government is concerned, if the Legislative Assembly of Quebec passes the Address to the Queen which we proposed to bring before it, that Address will be forwarded to Her Majesty with favourable advice.
I ask the Minister, having regard to the denial of this by the Prime Minister, whether that letter will now be tabled so the House and the country may be able to judge which view should be taken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will take this question as notice. The Prime Minister will deal with this matter next week.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: The other day my hon. friend from Timiskaming directed a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the M/V Boylen and the fact that employees aboard that ship are being required to post a $400 bond or cash deposit, in effect buying the right to work for that company. The Minister indicated at that time that he had no knowledge of this practice but undertook to look into the question to see what might be done about it from the point of view of the Federal Government. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is now in a position to make a detailed reply.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have made inquiries through the industrial relations officer in New Brunswick. First of all, there is some doubt as to just which company hires the crew. Apparently the payment of $400 by members of the crew is limited to German personnel who have been
Inquiries of the Ministry flown over to Canada. These crew members were, I understand, required to sign a service contract designed to guarantee a refund of air transportation costs.
It is said some members of the crew have protested this type of arrangement, and officials of my department have been in discussion with officials of the Department of Transport and the matter is being further investigated by the Department of Transport.


Frank Howard: Does the fact that this may apply only to people of a certain national descent-does that sort of discrimination make the practice any less undesirable?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, there was no intention in my answer of drawing that kind of inference. It was really an effort to indicate the facts involved in the situation.



PROPOSED SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS ON LABOUR REQUIREMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. It has been brought to our attention that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration are about to interview 5,000 Canadian employers with regard to their requirements for skilled labour. Would the Minister not consult the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, so that this great overlapping and expense to the taxpayers of Canada will be stopped; because I am sure it is the responsibility of his Department, and they have the staff to make these inquiries?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this matter with the Minister at the earliest possible moment.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday I took as notice a question asked by the hon. Member for Quebec West. I said I should like to reflect on it over the week end. However, I do not think I should keep him in suspense over the week end, and if I might be permitted to clear this matter up now I would be glad to do so.
The ship to which the hon. Member referred, as reported at page 1710 of Hansard, is called the John Cabot. It is not an icebreaker. It is designed for cable laying and

May 28, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
the carrying out of repairs to cables. I think Mr. Pickersgill: I agree with the hon. it might have been appropriate had	we	gentleman	that the Vikings	did make thenamed this vessel the Giovanni Caboto	be-	discovery, but there was	no continuouscause that was the original name of John	result. They made the discovery at about theCabot when he lived in Italy before he	be-	same time	as my own Viking	ancestors sailedcame a naturalized English citizen.	from Norway to Yorkshire.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It did occur to me when the matter was first brought to my attention that another great Italian might have been given this honour. His name was Guglielmo Marconi. But it was pointed out to me that Marconi had invented wireless, and wireless and cable being almost rivals this would not have been altogether appropriate. Because Giovanni Caboto was the discover of Canada and because the cable created another great link between Canada and the part of the world from which it was discovered, his was the name which appeared to me to be most suitable, particularly as the first part of Canada he discovered was Bona vista.
I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion that the ship should be named the Jean Cabot. It would be just as reasonable, supposing we were going to call a ship the Jacques Cartier, to call it the Jim Carter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think we want to carry bilingualism quite that far.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Has the Minister of Transport just said that John Cabot or Giovanni Caboto discovered Canada? Did he really say that or did we dream he did?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the simple truth. A long time before Jacques Cartier came to Canada, Giovanni Caboto landed in Newfoundland, the oldest part of Canada.
[Text}


John Angus MacLean: Does the Minister of Transport put forward the view that the Norwegians, the Vikings, did not discover Newfoundland?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: Does he place no faith in the archeological advances which have been made in the last two or three years, discoveries of which the Premier of Newfoundland is so proud?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A further supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. On what grounds does the Minister refer to the discovery of Bona-vista by Cabot, when it is a well known fact that it was Cape Breton he discovered? Further, since the hon. gentleman has referred to Cabot's discovery of Bonavista, when will the Minister himself get around to discovering it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is wrong again. It is not unusual.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: A further supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do hope it will not be necessary to cover all the constituencies in Nova Scotia.


Robert Muir: This is an important supplementary. Could the Minister tell us why he made the statement with such conviction that John Cabot discovered Newfoundland when such authorities as the Encyclopedia Britannica, Bourinot -who is well known in this Chamber-and many others including the President of the Cape Breton North and Victoria Historical Association, who is also head of the Liberal Association, say it was Cape Breton Island which he discovered?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be degenerating into a debate.



SECOND FERRY BETWEEN NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW ENGLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Judging by his announcement yesterday with regard to the four new ships for the Canadian coast guard service and the new, additional shore base stations, he has ship construction very much in mind for the Atlantic Provinces.
In view of the approaching tourist season and the evident need for additional transportation facilities between Nova Scotia and New England, can the Minister indicate whether any progress is being made toward
May 28, 1965

the establishment of a second ferry between Canada and the United States?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had some discussions with the Premier of Nova Scotia about this matter some little time ago, and we agreed to share in a joint study, which I believe is now under way, as to what would be the most appropriate terminals for such a service. We are constantly on the lookout for some suitable vessel. As the hon. gentleman knows, we could not start building a vessel now for 1965.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to this group of historical questions. I now wish to place a question before the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask whether he has discovered the answer to the question I put to the Prime Minister yesterday in regard to Princess Margaret's visit to the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what the Prime Minister said, but I will call this matter to his attention.


An hon. Member:: He said nothing.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Then I will put the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Following the announcement that Princess Margaret and her husband, Lord Snowdon, have accepted an invitation to visit the United States, has such an invitation been extended to them by the Government of Canada; and if so, what was the reply?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will deal with this question next week.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[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 Labour. I apologize for not sending him notice, but my program was unexpectedly disturbed by the Acting Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am informed that some time ago one Harold Chamberlain Banks, one Leonard McLaughlin and one Norman Cunningham were charged with conspiring to commit an assault against one Richard Greaves in Vancouver. I am also informed that the charge against Mr. Banks has been dropped because he is on vacation in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any knowledge as to why the charges against Leonard McLaughlin and Norman Cunningham have not been proceeded with.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is obvious that this is a question for the order paper.



PUBLICATION OF NAMES OF ACCUSED PERSONS BEFORE CONVICTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to address to the Minister of Justice. I regret that I have not been able to give him notice. There was a civil court case in a large city in Canada yesterday in which the defendant was cleared absolutely and the plaintiff was assessed costs. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if the Department or the Cabinet have ever given consideration to making it illegal for a mass communication media to mention names of accused before they are convicted. Personally I do not believe they should be mentioned by name until a conviction has been registered, and should not be mentioned when they are only accused. Has any consideration been given to such fair treatment being afforded to people who are improperly accused of offences they have never committed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that the same rule might well be applied sometimes in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: By whom?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is that addressed to the Prime Minister?


Robert Muir: Physician, heal thyself.


Guy Favreau: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this, together with other sectors of informa-

May 28, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry tion given either at the time of preliminary inquiry or during trial and before conviction, is one of the questions which I have under very serious consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Minister of Justice suggest that he is giving consideration to a denial of the right to refer in the press and other media of communication to the names of accused persons? Surely he is not answering the question in that way, because that would be a gross interference with freedom.


Guy Favreau: First, Mr. Speaker, I hope my answer will not be interpreted in the way the right hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests it might be. It has never been my intention, of course, to deprive news media or communications media of any of their freedom. But there is also such a thing as respect for the freedom of the individual and in the case of juveniles the regulation already exists in the Criminal Code that their names must not be disclosed in the papers. Surely this is not an interference with the freedom of the press. What I said was that the general question as to the propriety of disclosures in certain cases is under study.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the Minister giving consideration, then, to the compensation of those who, wrongly accused, are dragged through the courts? Is consideration being given similar to that which is applied ex gratia in the United Kingdom?


Guy Favreau: That is, of course, another aspect of various questions that are being looked into. But this one raises a question of jurisdiction as between the provinces and the federal authority, which matter also has to be looked into.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-INQUIRY AS TO WHITE PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. In view of the widespread interest in the matter can the Minister of Justice tell us whether the Government white paper on capital punishment is ready; and, if so, when he intends to table it?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have already arranged with the whips of the Opposition parties for a meeting to be held in my office on Monday morning. A representative of each party will be chosen and will be in attendance, and each of them will receive an advance copy, con-

fidentially, of the information paper. As soon as the matter has been cleared with them and we have all agreed as to the objectivity of that paper, the necessary steps will be taken for printing.
The book is already being translated. I have taken that step so as to avoid any undue delay. I am told that the matter of printing might take approximately two weeks after the first question has been cleared with the representatives of the parties.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver - Kings way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the Government of Ontario has announced plans for the opening of a number of community or junior colleges, will the Minister tell the House to what extent the Federal Government has promised financial support for these new institutions in so far as technical and vocational training is concerned? Furthermore, will he say whether discussions have been held with British Columbia on the same subject?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest this is a question for the order paper.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the very serious statements in the Toronto Star of yesterday about the sordid behaviour of the Secretary of State in connection with a public servant, would the Acting Prime Minister inquire as to the whereabouts of the Secretary of State and let us know?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the implications contained in my hon. friend's question.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put
May 28, 1965

a question to the Minister of Public Works as the minister responsible for the national capital commission.
Could he tell the house whether the proposed development of a huge park on the north shore of the Ottawa river, between Gatineau and Carillon, announced yesterday by the provincial secretary of the Quebec government, Mr. Bona Arsenault, has been submitted to the commission?
If the matter does not come under his jurisdiction could he refer it to his colleague, the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the centennial commission?


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



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs in connection with the dispute between Beach Foundry Limited and local 641 of the United Auto Workers Union. Is the Minister aware that an employee of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is acting as the management representative on the arbitration board? If so, does the Civil Service propose to allow this sort of activity on the part of its employees?


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. Member to put this question on the order paper.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Canielon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the Minister whether the regulations under the policy of assistance to small airports which he announced on March 25, and about which I questioned him on May 11, are now ready, since I am still receiving inquiries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe they are ready and are on the point of being distributed. I will now try to speed things up as much as I can.
Interim Supply NATIONAL REVENUE



INCREASED EXEMPTION FOR TOURISTS RETURNING FROM U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Is the Government giving consideration to increasing the exemption allowed Canadians returning from the United States, which presently stands at $25 every four months, in view of the proposed reduction in the exemption allowed United States citizens by the United States Government in the hope that such a retaliatory move will not take place?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this is a budgetary matter. If such a change were contemplated it would have been brought forward by the Minister of Finance in the budget.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

George James McIlraith: Resolved that a sum not exceeding $380,770,370.34, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, $365,219,237;
(b)	an additional eight-twelfths of the amount of Mines and Technical Surveys Item 70 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates, $400,000;
(c)	an additional four-twelfths of the amount of Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 5 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates, $2,221,666.67;
(d)	an additional one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of Finance Item 15, Fisheries Items 5 and 20, Forestry Item 15, Labour Item 15, Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 1 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates, $12,929,466.67,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the proportions requested in this Bill are intended to provide for all the necessary requirements of the public service up to June 30, 1965. In no instance is the total amount of an item being released by this bill. The bill which will be submitted if and when the resolution carries is in the usual form, and I am, of course, prepared to make the usual undertaking at the appropriate stage in the legislation.

May 28, 1965
Interim Supply
It will be noted from the list of items that has been read that the additional amounts beyond the one twelfth which are required are very small in number, and they are ready at hand. They are related to the season of the year; for instance, items having to do with summer employment where certain activities take place by reason of the weather in the summertime, and matters of that kind. If any detail is required regarding any of them I will be glad to supply it.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the house, since this is one of the few occasions when we can make recommendations to the government or appeal to the authorities, because during the question period-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre on a point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Government House Leader whether there was not an understanding among the various parties in this House that this item would pass without debate and we would then get on to the discussion of external affairs which has been asked for on so many occasions.


George James McIlraith: That was my understanding of the matter, Mr. Chairman. I called this item with the understanding that item 1 of external affairs would be proceeded with as soon as possible.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, as far as the point of order is concerned, I must admit that as the house leader of my group, I have never heard of such an agreement. In fact, I wonder when such an agreement was reached and whether our party was represented at that meeting?
I wish to tell the house that we have never heard of such agreement and that it has never been proposed to us. This is why I am surprised by the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). I may have been absent-minded or I may have forgotten, but to my knowledge, the government house leader never mentioned it.


Gérard Laprise: I wonder whether some efforts are not made to keep us from raising complaints which it is practically impossible for us to state on the orders of the day because the question period is rather brief and we must strictly boil down the questions we want to put to the government.
For some months we have been trying to learn from the federal authorities who is to blame for some phenomena happening in certain regions and particularly in the province of Quebec, namely those unaccountable periods of rain. After asking information here and there, we finally learned that those periods of heavy rains were not natural but were made artificially.
Now, when we ask the government, we only get piecemeal or even erroneous information. We find that it is perhaps more difficult to obtain information on that matter than it would be to learn something regarding national defence, for instance. Indeed, it is more difficult to know what is happening about cloud seeding where experiments are being carried out on artificial rain making, than to know the secrets of national defence.
The first time I personally raised the matter in the House of Commons, I made a laughingstock of myself. Later on, after some research, it was realized that the matter was serious and that as a matter of fact, in some regions of the province of Quebec organizations had been carrying out experiments for over 10 years in order to increase the rainfall. Whether such organizations come under the federal government or a private company has no importance. It is the results that matter. But it remains that when we ask for information, it is given to us in a misleading way.
During last session I put on the order paper of the House of Commons question No. 2,197 asking whether in the last 10 years, the Department of Transport had carried out, in Canada or in the province of Quebec, research or experiments in seeding clouds by means of airplanes to produce rainfall.
Here is the answer I received from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Cantin):
The sole research study in which the Department of Transport conducted cloud seeding experiments during the past ten years was associated with the precipitation physics project and confined to two small areas in northwestern Quebec.
Please note this: in northwestern Quebec.
On May 20 last, as recorded on page 1499, right-hand column, of the official report, a question on the same matter was asked
[Mr. Mcllraith.j
May 28. 1965

by the hon. member lor Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), to which the Minister of Transport answered as follows:
It is true that in 1963, the Department of Transport did complete an experiment in rain making techniques by actual field operations in an area along the Ontario-Quebec border near Rouyn-No-randa. That was completed in 1963-
It seems that they do not know exactly where those experiments took place. On one hand they say that the experiments took place on the Quebec side, and on the other hand, that they were carried out on the Ontario side, near the border.
Mr. Chairman, we want to know who is responsible for that. The federal government tells us that those experiments have been conducted with the help of aircraft. They took place in the years 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963, that is for five years. Yet, the minister tells us that the tests took place only in 1963. The cost of all that to the federal government was $607,099,020.23, as stated in the answer I obtained in the last session.
Mr. Chairman, we want to know who is responsible for that and how those experiments could be stopped.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to interrupt him to say that because of a slight misunderstanding, which I hope we can clear up, the Secretary of State for External Affairs had undertaken to make a very important statement for which, of course, the world is waiting. I will give an undertaking on behalf of the Government to look into this matter. I will be very pleased to examine all the points the hon. gentleman has in mind with my colleagues the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and make a report to this House at the earliest possible moment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, since the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is ready to promise, in the name of the government, that the matter will be considered under all its aspects, namely from the standpoints of the law, of health and transport, it seems to me that in the circumstances, since there was a misunderstanding and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has an important statement to make on the foreign policy of Canada, we will ac-
Ways and Means
cept this formal commitment of the Minister of Transport, in the name of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Ways and Means.
George James McIlraith: Resolved, that toward making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966, the sum of $380,770,370.34 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, as set forth in the Resolution concurred in this day in the Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Mcllraith thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-110, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1966.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second times and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair. [DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to C inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, at what point does the Minister give the undertaking that he said he would be prepared to give at the appropriate stage?


George James McIlraith: I will be very glad to give it now. I am prepared to give the usual undertaking that the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of Members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in Committee of Supply. I am very glad to give that undertaking now.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.
May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave,
Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[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, 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; assistance and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens and persons of Canadians domiciled abroad, including their dependents; Canadian participation in the Commonwealth Arts Festival to be held in Britain in the fall of 1965; payment to the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of the act respecting the commis-established to administer the Roosevelt Campobello International Park; a cultural relations and academic exchange program with the French community, and grants as detailed in the Estimates, $13,176,800,
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I share the view of all hon. Members in this House as to the importance of a restatement of various aspects of Canadian foreign policy, particularly in the light of current events. It would be difficult, impossible in fact, in the time available to me to cover in their entirety all those aspects of foreign policy which are of interest to the Canadian people.
However, the other day the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition proposed subjects which I think I should attempt to deal with at this time. These included the situation in the United Nations, development in NATO, the situation in Cyprus and more particularly the situation in the Dominican Republic and in Viet Nam. I propose to address myself to these questions. I would hope that at the earliest opportunity, perhaps early next week, the External Affairs Committee might be set up following this debate in order to afford an opportunity for amplification of what I
[Mr. Knowles.)
say and to give hon. Members the opportunity of interrogation in respect of subjects that are understandably agitating the public mind at the present time.
I should like at the outset to say something about what I believe is the tragic situation in the United Nations. It would be foolish to deny that the United Nations is passing through a difficult period. The adjournment of the nineteenth session in February came as a shock. The dispute over peace keeping has not been resolved notwithstanding the state of international anarchy in the world in so many areas. The developing conflict in Viet Nam has not been brought before the United Nations. The withdrawal of Indonesia in January was, to say the least, unfortunate.
But it would be wrong to draw unwarranted conclusions from these facts. Looked at in historical perspective, the record of the United Nations is encouraging. After 20 years the League of Nations collapsed. I believe the United Nations is far from that point. Its principal members, including the Soviet Union, have declared publicly their determination to strengthen the organization, not to leave it. Their disagreements about peace keeping should not obscure the enviable record of the United Nations in this field including, of course, the successful operations in Cyprus and in Gaza which are still continuing. All agree to these peace keeping missions. The argument is about the authorization, control and financing of such operations.
In other fields the activities of the United Nations are expanding, particularly in the areas of trade and development. The general picture may not be as bad as it has been painted. We should remember that the United Nations can only act in so far as its members wish it to act. If the purposes and policies of the members conflict on basic issues, the United Nations will move at a slow pace. What we must try to do is narrow the differences that divide us, and we must keep the goal of universal membership firmly before us as a means of strengthening the organization.
I think I may say that I am reasonably optimistic about the negotiations that have been taking place in the special committee on peace keeping operations, of which our country is a member. There are two parts to the problem. One is to restore the United Nations to solvency. There is a resolution now before the committee which requests the Secretary General to make an appeal for the necessary funds, something over $100 million. Only this

now?
May 28, 1965	COMMONS
week the Soviet Union said it would make a voluntary contribution provided the question of article 19 was set aside.
I will simply say that the view of Canada with regard to that situation is not to be described in precisely the same terms that it was last fall. The United States has agreed to contribute provided those countries in arrears pay their debts. Clearly the question, however, is not one of money. What seems to be required is agreement in principle that the question of solvency takes precedence over political disputes about responsibility for past debts. Canada will be ready to contribute her share at the appropriate time. The United Nations must not be denied the opportunity of functioning in the difficult situations that confront us at the present time.
The second part of the problem is to agree on future arrangements for peace keeping. Some members of the committee claim that we should settle this problem first. Our view has been that the two problems are linked and we would prefer to see them settled together. But if this is not possible in the time available-and we only have until the 1st of September-then we would be prepared to have the financial question treated separately.
As regards the future, we have maintained that it is important to maintain two principles. First, the General Assembly must have the power to act in emergencies if the permanent members of the Security Council are divided on what action to take. Second, we must proceed in these matters on the basis of the broadest possible consensus of the membership so that financial responsibility can be shared on some equitable basis. I remain hopeful that, if not agreed in theory, these principles can be accepted in practice, but it is too early to say what kind of compromise will be worked out between the various points of view.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Canada has always had, and continues to have, a special interest in matters having to do with peace keeping. That is not because we think we have any special mission to preach but because we have been in a position to help, and have tried to help ever since our first term on the Security Council, from 1948 to 1950. Last November, it will be recalled, we convened a meeting in Ottawa of experts from 22 countries to consider the technical aspects of peace keeping. The meeting was a first step toward better coordination of planning among governments
DEBATES	1775
Supply-External Affairs which have made major contributions to U.N. peace keeping operations.
The adjournment of the last Assembly prevented us from following up this first step in the way we would have liked, but we have not forgotten the importance of doing so. We have been studying the practical aspects of Canada's role in this field. We have kept in close touch with the U.N. Secretariat on this subject and, keeping in mind the desirability of not infringing on the work of the special committee on peace keeping operations, we hope to make suggestions for specific improvements in advance planning for peace keeping operations, at the appropriate moment. I myself was recently at the United Nations, and consulted the Secretary General with regard to some of these matters. I regret very much he was not able to come here last week, as he had hoped he would be able to do, for the purpose of continuing his conversations with the Prime Minister and myself.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt about the need for strengthening the United Nations in the face of the situation that faces us in the world today. We are confronted with some of the most serious international problems in our time and the United Nations is not able, because of intransigence on the part of certain countries, to discharge its responsibilities in the way intended by those who affixed their signatures in 1945 to the Charter of the United Nations.
We have all been concerned about problems in Latin America. An outstanding feature of the events in the Dominican Republic is the state of confusion which has prevailed there from the outset. This element of obscurity has clouded the aims and the activities of many of the Dominican leaders and political groups. It was to ensure that we had the fullest possible information concerning these complex and disturbing developments that we asked Mr. Michel Gauvin, one of our senior officers in the Department of External Affairs, to go to Santo Domingo early in the crisis as a special observer to supplement the work of our mission.
The landing of U.S. troops has been the subject of controversy both within and without Latin America. Many Canadians were living in the capital of the Dominican Republic, and the Canadian Government was most grateful for the facilities provided by the U.S. for the protection and evacuation of the nationals of many countries, including Canada, following the breakdown of law and

May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs order in Santo Domingo. No one can say it was the fault of the United States that the existing international machinery, which the United States has done so much to create and strengthen since World War II, was inadequate when the Dominican situation arose.
It is easy enough to criticize countries which bear the brunt of responsibility when dangerous situations develop. Such criticism might best be directed at the imperfections in our international arrangements. Unilateral intervention, however, is bound to create anxiety, and it should be our object to work out arrangements which might make unilateral action unnecessary in the future. This was the position that Canada has taken in the recent past. It is the only position I believe we can consistently take at the present time.
Clearly one of the most important lessons for the international community arising from the crisis in the Dominican Republic is the need for improved arrangements for consultation and action. Whatever one may think of the events which have taken place in the Dominican Republic since April 24, the important fact now is that we have reached the point where the United Nations and the Organization of American States have acted and are continuing to act in an attempt to establish and maintain a cessation of hostilities in Santo Domingo. A fragile, de facto cease fire is now in effect, but the news I have this morning certainly is not encouraging.
A multilateral inter-American armed force has been created by the Organization of American States, the object of which is the restoration of normal conditions and the establishment of an atmosphere of conciliation permitting the peaceful functioning of democratic institutions which have yet to strike firm roots in that country.
According to reports which I have received from Mr. Gauvin, efforts are now continuing in Santo Domingo, despite serious difficulties, to form a compromise government that might command the general confidence and broad support of the Dominican people. The Secretary General of the Organization of American States and the personal delegate of the Secretary General of the United Nations are now both actively engaged in this endeavour. We are keeping in close touch with these activities through our special representative on the spot, our mission in the United Nations, and our embassy in Washington; but

I must say that the future is by no means assured. Even this morning the report I received from Santo Domingo emphasizes the difficulties and uncertainties which, I regret to say, continue to exist.
It is to be hoped that the work of economic and political reconstruction required in the Dominican Republic can shortly move ahead with the assistance and co-operation of all countries interested in the welfare of the Dominican people. The part which Canada might play in this period of rehabilitation and accelerated economic and social development is something to which the Government will naturally give consideration.
There are lessons for all of us to learn from this crisis. In particular, it is evident that we of the west are endangering our own future if we do nothing about the economic stagnation and political frustration that can produce the kind of situation which provided the background for the trouble in the Dominican Republic.
It is also evident that we need effective arrangements for consultation and action. In the months ahead we should endeavour to try to improve these arrangements. We would, of course, wish to avoid interference with necessary social and economic changes in individual countries. If unilateral intervention is to be avoided in the future it is important that the international community be properly equipped to discuss and deal with situations appropriate for international action.
Now, the Security Council has adjourned its debate on the situation in the Dominican-


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Minister allow a question at this stage. What is the reaction of the Canadian Government to the views expressed the day before yesterday by Secretary Rusk that there should be established in the Americas, to quote his words, a stand-by force on a continuing basis so as to be available to take hemispheric decisions promptly in the face of fast moving events? Furthermore, did Canada have any representative present at the meeting which took place yesterday among the foreign ministers of Central and South American States, not officially but in a semiofficial capacity?
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker, we did not. This was a meeting of the foreign ministers of the Organization. I noted the statement made by Mr. Rusk. The view we take is that under the charter of the United Nations, regional organizations designed to
May 28. 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1777
assist in avoiding situations which threaten the peace are permissible, but it must be recognized that the authority of the United Nations with regard to peace keeping operations can serve to remove any possible misuse of a regional organization. I think that is clear. The statement made by the Secretary General last night in this context is one which the Canadian Government supports.
As I said a moment ago, the Security Council has now adjourned its debate. Before doing so, however, it called for a cease fire and authorized the Secretary General to send a representative to the spot. These actions illustrate the continuing vitality of the United Nations; for despite the bitterness and confusion engendered by the situation in the Dominican Republic there can be no denial that the United Nations is playing a helpful role in bringing about the conditions which may lead to a settlement of the dispute.
I have no wish to ignore or disparage the part played in this situation by the Organization of American States. I see the roles of the two organizations as complementary. Article 52 of the Charter specifically enjoins the members of the United Nations to "make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through regional arrangements or by regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council" and further requires that the Security Council itself shall encourage the pacific settlement of disputes through such means.
It is not surprising that the Soviet Union, which brought this matter to the Council table, should have introduced a resolution calling upon the United States to withdraw its forces. What is significant is that this resolution received only one vote, that of the Soviet Union. It is true the Council did not specifically endorse the establishment of an inter-American force. It was clear that such endorsement would have been blocked by the Soviet Union. But I am sure we would all wish to see this force carry out successfully its functions of bringing peace and stability to the Dominican Republic. What is important in situations of this kind is that peace keeping arrangements undertaken by regional agencies should at all times be consistent with the purpose and principles of the United Nations. I am sure it was this essential point that the framers of the charter had in mind when they envisaged the delegation of authority to regional agencies.
Supply-External Affairs
The right hon. gentleman asked me to say something about the situation in NATO. I wish to say first of all, of course, that we continue to believe in the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We believe that only through a collective defence organization such as NATO can we provide for our national security in the nuclear and space age. We have never regarded NATO, however, solely as a military alliance, but rather as the first step in the development of a partnership of like minded nations on both sides of the Atlantic. This transatlantic partnership offers the best hope for the smaller powers of NATO such as Canada to be able to play their individual and responsible roles within the western community.
There have been many changes inside and outside NATO since 1949, and it is essential for the Alliance so to organize itself as to be sufficiently flexible to meet these new challenges. Canada has taken the initiative in urging in NATO that member states examine together the future of the Alliance bearing in mind the changed international circumstances since 1949 and the common objectives and purposes that hold us together. NATO has commenced this examination, and all members of the Alliance are participating in it. I stress "all" because of the many press reports which allege that France is about to leave NATO. Canada regards the contribution of France as essential to our Alliance, and I for one cannot conceive of an effective NATO in which France did not participate in a manner appropriate to her position in the world.
One of the major problems facing NATO is how to meet the legitimate desire of some of the European members to take a greater share in NATO nuclear planning and strategy without proliferation of national nuclear forces. Some member states have suggested a multilateral nuclear force; the British Government has proposed an Atlantic nuclear force based on "forces in being". Canada for its part prefers this problem to be dealt with in NATO, not in restricted groupings, and has suggested re-examining existing NATO machinery and agreements to identify those areas where there could be a greater degree of sharing in the military direction of the Alliance.
Those interested in the multilateral force and in the Atlantic nuclear force have asked Canada to join their discussions, and this invitation is now under consideration by the

May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs Government. Of course if we do participate, it will be without commitment. In formulating our decision we shall have to balance the need to protect our national interests, since this group could reach decisions affecting Canadian forces in being, with our preference for discussion of Alliance nuclear problems in the full NATO forum itself.
Consultation on political problems outside and inside the Alliance is the essence of the day to day work of NATO. These consultations are generally frank, certainly wide ranging, and go well beyond mere formal statements of official Government positions. It will be recalled that in 1956 the "three wise men" were concerned at the lack of exchange of ideas on political problems in NATO. We have come a long way since then, and I was particularly struck two weeks ago in London by the frankness of the discussion on the difficult subjects that faced us. I may say that NATO is no longer an alliance which is concerned only with the problems of Europe. Inevitably now, because of the interdependence in this nuclear period, the organization is concerned with problems throughout the world.
I know all Members of the House are deeply concerned by the situation as it has been developing in Viet Nam. I need hardly say that I share this concern, as do my colleagues who have responsibility for formulating Government policy with respect to this situation. I do not think it is too much to say that this situation with its attendant dangers is one of the most serious the world has faced since the end of the second world war.
We in the Government have long recognized that a solution to this situation by military means alone is not practicable. It is obvious that negotiations will be required, in the interests of Asia and in the interests of world peace. It was for this reason that Canada welcomed President Johnson's offer of April 7 to negotiate with any Government, and without pre-conditions.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I may say that the efforts of the Government of Canada have been concentrated on finding a way to get negotiations started. First of all, early in the conflict, I suggested that there be a cease fire, whether by mutual agreement or by tacit acceptance. We have suggested a conference on Laos, itself the product of the Geneva discussions in 1954, as a means of enabling the parties to the conflict in Viet Nam to establish a channel of negotiations. Similarly, we have suggested

that advantage might be taken of a conference in Cambodia for that purpose.
I now join with others who this very day are engaged in trying to bring this conference about. We regard this meeting as possibly affording an opportunity for the kind of outside or corridor discussions that might provide a basis for the negotiations that sooner or later, if we are to avoid catastrophe, must take place.
We have, of course, wholeheartedly supported the idea of unconditional negotiations in any form. We were the first country to welcome the essence of the appeal made by the unaligned nations which had shortly before assembled in Belgrade. Our reaction was reiterated by the President of the United States when he accepted the suggestion that there should be negotiations, and without pre-conditions.
I have recently discussed the problems of launching negotiations with the Secretary General of the United Nations himself. I expressed the hope that the full force of the office of Secretary General was being used in this seriously developing situation. I found that he was doing everything within the limits of his office to prepare the ground for contact between parties to the conflict in Viet Nam. Unfortunately the results of his efforts are bound to be limited by the completely negative attitude of the Chinese and North Vietnamese. U Thant is an Asian, respected all through Asia; but I think it will be recognized that as a spokesman for the United Nations he is not necessarily persona grata with all the nations in Asia, and particularly with some of them who are not within the membership of that body. However, I am able to say that the Secretary General has been using and is continuing to use his high office and his great authority for the achievement of peace.
Canada took the initiative in suggesting that a pause in the bombings of North Viet Nam at an appropriate time might encourage that country to enter into negotiations. One attempt along these lines has recently been made, unfortunately with negative results. The other day at the NATO ministerial meeting in London I was informed by the Secretary of State of the United States, before the pause took place, of the intention of the President and the Government of the United States to embark on this course. I regret to say that notwithstanding the efforts on the part of a number of countries, there was no reaction from North Viet Nam with respect
May 28, 1965

to this particular act on the part of the Government of the United States.
I would like to say something about our assessment of the forces at work in this tragic situation. For more than ten years now we in Canada have had first hand experience of what is happening in Viet Nam, in Indochina, through the presence of our observers on the International Commissions. We know the North Vietnamese have taken advantage of social discontents to pose as the effective leaders of a reform movement. We know that by resorting to terrorism and blackmail they were able to establish control over large segments of the population and to organize the Viet Cong into an instrument of aggression directed, encouraged and supported on a grand scale since 1956 by men and equipment from the north. We believe there are at present over 35,000 highly trained guerrillas who have been infiltrated into the south from the north.
The International Commission officially reported to the two co-chairmen in June, 1962 that the North Vietnamese were guilty of these aggressive acts. The basis for this finding was a study made by Indian and Canadian legal .experts, and quotations from their study were included in the statement of the Canadian delegation on February 13 last. The Polish representative refused to participate in the later stages of this study.
It is clear that the Vietnamese problem goes well beyond the borders of the country itself. On the one hand we have the aggressive form of communism which sees wars that favour its purposes as "just wars". On the other we have the determination of the United States, for one, not to allow this aggression to be profitable, and the determination of the people of South Viet Nam to decide on their own future. The proof of this is in the casualties borne every week by the South Vietnamese soldiers and their continuing will to fight nevertheless.
Mr. Speaker, it is now one o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I just mention that the hon. Minister's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the Minister be allowed to continue this afternoon?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
Supply-External Affairs AFTER RECESS
The Committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment I had been referring to the regrettable death toll of casualties in South Viet Nam and 1 had emphasized, it will be recalled, that from the beginning Canada had taken the position that a military solution to this problem alone was neither desirable nor practicable. Because of this position we have urged a cease fire and that there be negotiations designed to lead to a satisfactory settlement in this strategic area in Asia. I have also emphasized that we have taken, alone as well as in concert with other countries, steps designed to realize this objective.
Some people in this country-and if I interpret his comments correctly this includes the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam- appear to be advocating that the United States simply get out of Viet Nam. I wonder whether these people have really thought through what this would mean. Why does the hon. Member think that the present British Government, for instance, has adopted the attitude it has?
If the United States withdraws from Viet Nam, how far is it to withdraw? Does it mean that Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia, to mention only three of the nations most directly affected, are to be left to fend for themselves with nothing between them and an expansionist China? What about India, which has already had a bitter taste of China's expansionism? What is to happen to Australia and New Zealand? The responsible Ministers in those countries have carefully weighed the consequences which would flow from any United States defeat or withdrawal, and those who would have the United States withdraw could profitably read what the responsible Ministers have had to say on behalf of their governments about them.
I should like to recall to the House the words, in part, of the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Australia in the Parliament of that country on March 23 of this year. He outlined the policy of his government with regard to this delicate situation and urged that the government's recommendation for the dispatch of a battalion to Viet Nam be accepted by the Australian Parliament. Here is what Mr. Hasluck had to say:
If the United States did withdraw, the same conflict would be renewed somewhere else. Within a brief period the struggle now taking place in South Viet Nam would be shifted to Thailand. If there was abandonment of Thailand, it would shift

May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs to Malaysia-to Indonesia, to Burma, to India and further. Nothing would be ended and no stability would be achieved by yielding in South Viet Nam.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the hon. gentleman quoting from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am quoting from the statement of Hon. Paul Hasluck, Secretary of State for External Affairs in Australia. He continued:
Australia's own analysis of the situation has brought us to the belief that the United States action is necessary for the defeat of aggression against Asian peoples and is also an essential step toward the building in Asia of the conditions of peace and progress. We also believe that in their resistance to China they are preventing an alternative in the world balance of power which would be in favour of the communists and which would increase the risk of world war.
Then two days ago in the Parliament of New Zealand, the Prime Minister of that country, Sir Keith Holyoake, in urging the adoption of that government's proposal for the dispatch of an artillery unit to Viet Nam, said specifically:
My last point is this-and don't let anyone have any doubts about it-if South Viet Nam falls to the communists it will then be the turn of Thailand and Malaysia and every other smaller country in the region.
In this eventuality the threat to New Zealand would be that much closer to home. If we are not prepared to play our part now, can we in good conscience expect our allies to help later on?
Those, Mr. Chairman, are the words of the head of the Government of New Zealand and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Australia. They are words which speak for themselves and represent the concern of the people in these two commonwealth countries with regard to this situation.
Canada's position with regard to the dispatch of troops has been stated by myself on a number of occasions in this House. Our commitments do not go beyond our membership in the International Control and Supervisory Commission in Viet Nam. Any obligations that we have in this context arise, of course, only under the Charter of the United Nations. But I think that any assessment of the position I, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, must take should be based upon a consideration of the position of these countries, and of others, in relation to this developing situation.
But I would go beyond what I have said, Mr. Chairman, and ask what the proposed withdrawal of the United States would really mean to Canada. Do we want the United States to base its policies of defence exclusively around the North American con-

tinent while abandoning the remaining countries of the world to shift for themselves individually? Would we favour the probability that some present allies of the United States, left outside fortress America, would want to develop their own nuclear capability, with the result that nuclear weapons would be widely spread and the danger of war increased?
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The Soviet leaders are now criticizing the high risk policy of the Communist Chinese leaders. What would be the effect on Soviet policy if the Chinese People's Republic were to prove vindicated in its interpretation of the way to deal with the rest of the world?
I think the answers to these questions are obvious. If agression is not brought under control in Viet Nam, can we seriously expect that similar situations will not arise elsewhere? I ask the Members of this House to think of the situation in Europe following the end of the second world war-circumstances that prompted the Prime Minister of Canada, then the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to promote the idea of a North Atlantic treaty alliance. Consider the successful results of the establishment of NATO itself.
Aggression must not be allowed to succeed. The international community must not abdicate its responsibilities in this situation. Our objective is negotiation for peace, without any preconditions, leading toward the establishment of an independent or neutral Viet Nam; but there must be guarantees to make sure that this independence or neutrality is maintained. That can only be done, as the Prime Minister stated in New York two months ago, through an assumption of responsibility by the international community.
So far the North Vietnamese and their allies do not show any sign of readiness to abandon their policy of subversion and indirect aggression in favour of negotiation. Indeed, at the moment they are taking a harder line than ever. What they hope to do is to spread dissension in the free world, to divide the United States from its allies-from Canada, from Britain, from the members of the NATO alliance and from others linked with the cause of a free world-and to sap the will of those who are offering resistance. This is something about which all of us in this House thinking of our own security if nothing else must always be mindful. We cannot, however, assume that North Viet Nam and its allies will always remain obdurate. We must keep
May 28, 1965

alert for any sign of change. That is what the Government of Canada is doing. We have not the same responsibilities as some other powers, but as a nation in the NATO alliance, as a nation in the Commonwealth, as a close neighbour of the United States, and as a nation that is dedicated to the preservation of peace, we will watch for any sign of change. We will do whatever we can to use that sign as a means of launching discussions that might well mean the cessation of war. The willingness to enter into genuine negotiations at any time cannot be too often repeated.
Let us be clear about the following points. There is no intention on the part of the West to overthrow the regime in North Viet Nam or in Communist China. I hope that these words of mine will not be misunderstood by those who are for or against the position which I have taken today. There is no Western desire for permanent military bases in Viet Nam, and this I can say with assurance. There is no Western desire to thrust any particular form of government on the people of South Viet Nam. There is no desire of which I am aware to include South Viet Nam in any pro-Western alliance. I have just said that the position we took with regard to Laos is the position we are taking with regard to Viet Nam; these countries should enjoy independence and should enjoy, if you will, a neutral position such as that suggested by General de Gaulle, but with guarantees that will ensure us that there will not be a repetition of what happened following the Geneva conference of 1954. It must be clear to the whole world, including Communist China and its friends, that small countries have the same right to independence as the Chinese themselves. The countries lying farther from Communist China must be spared the agony of suffering in their turn what the South Vietnamese people have had to bear.
Let me make it clear then what the Canadian position is. Our objective is a cease fire; our objective is negotiation at any place, at any time, provided such negotiation is directed toward an equitable settlement. My understanding of United States policy is that it subscribes fully to this position.
Mr. Chairman, this situation in Indochina, an area of the world far removed from Canada, an area not known to Canadians, except now through our association as members of the International Control and Supervisory Commission, typifies the kind of world in which we live; a world of interdependence and a world in which no nation can act en-22620-1141
Supply-External Affairs tirely alone if it values its security and its integrity, and if it wishes to see the world move forward in peace.
This situation in Viet Nam is undoubtedly worrying. It is worrying not only to one side, but also must be worrying to all sides and to all who want to see war as an instrument of international policy eliminated as a means of settling disputes between nations. What I have said today has been carefully considered not only by myself but by my colleagues and by those in my department. Our ambassadors abroad in their consultations with other countries have given their considered judgment of the situation. What I have said should be read along with what I have said on previous occasions. It should also be read in conjunction with what the Prime Minister has said both inside and outside this House.
Now, Mr. Chairman, another question to be considered is that of disarmament. Discussions on disarmament are currently centred in the United Nations Disarmament Commission which has been meeting in New York for the last five weeks. Aside from the distractions caused by the efforts of the Russians and their allies to use the Disarmament Commission as a platform for propaganda attacks on the Federal Republic of Germany and on United States and British policies in Southeast Asia, it has on the whole been a useful session.
In particular, the discussion in the Disarmament Commission has revealed two broad concerns as being uppermost in the minds of the greater part of the membership of the United Nations, namely the need for the elaboration of measures to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, and the desirability of convening a world disarmament conference as a possible method of associating Communist China with disarmament negotiations.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Earlier this month in Geneva I advanced the thought that the simple and limited reciprocal undertakings of the well known Irish resolution in the General Assembly of 1961, might well serve as the foundation for a system of complementary measures to prevent a wider spread of nuclear weapons. Those measures, I suggested, might include the extension of the present I.A.E.A. safeguard procedures, and the creation of some supplementary mechanism which would deal with situations when there has been an alleged transfer of control of nuclear weapons to a hitherto non-nuclear state. I proposed the

May 28. 1965
Supply-External Affairs provision of a credible deterrent or guarantee against nuclear attack for those unaligned and neutral nations which pledge themselves to forgo the option of acquiring a national nuclear capability in the future. I might say that we in Canada have incorporated some of these ideas in a draft non-dissemination agreement which we are currently discussing informally through diplomatic channels. Although there are considerable difficulties which would stand in the way of the development and realization of those measures, I nevertheless believe they represent the direction in which we should try to work. Meanwhile, in the light of recent advances in the technique of seismic recording and analysis, and provided the requirements for at least some on-site inspection can once again be accepted in principle by all concerned, it may be possible to arrive at a comprehensive test ban agreement, that is, one including underground tests.
In so far as a world disarmament conference is concerned, as I said of the United Nations Disarmament Commission, to which the 114 member states of the United Nations belong, I think experience indicates that disarmament discussions are more efficient in a smaller group. A growing number of non-aligned nations nevertheless believe that a world conference, analogous to last year's United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, would serve a purpose. In addition to providing a means for Communist China to participate in disarmament discussions-whether China would in fact attend such a conference is another thing again- those non-aligned nations consider that a world conference would provide powerful support for the efforts currently being made to set the process of disarmament in motion.
Regardless of the decision eventually taken about the holding of a world disarmament conference, the Canadian Government hopes it will prove possible to return to detailed disarmament discussions in the 18 nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva this summer. However, much depends upon the Soviet Union which, perhaps only for tactical reasons, has currently taken the position that it is interested in going back to Geneva only on its own terms. Nevertheless it is encouraging to be able to report that the non-aligned members of the 18 nation Disarmament Committee, like their Western colleagues, are anxious for an early resumption of that conference.
I made a brief report the other day, Mr. Chairman, on my talks with Archbishop

Makarios and Dr. Kuchuk, the Vice President in the Government of Cyprus. I went to Cyprus primarily for one purpose. That was to salute, in the name of the Government and this Parliament and the people of Canada, the Canadian contingent in the United Nations force, and to salute the United Nations force itself. I told the House that I was proud of the contribution made by Canada to the United Nations force. I want to say that I am equally proud of the contribution to pacification made on that beautiful, legendary but troubled little island by the forces of the United Nations.
Over a year ago we in this House, practically with unanimity, decided to send a Canadian stand-by force to contribute to this particular international force. We have had our problems with regard to this particular situation. Special emphasis has been placed from time to time on the difficulties that the force was experiencing in the face of overwhelming armed might on both sides in Cyprus. But surely no one can now doubt, whatever may have been the difficulties, that the United Nations force, to which Canada has made a notable contribution, has been an indispensable factor in the preservation of peace on that island, and has been responsible in consequence for preventing an extension of the conflict that might well have gone to the very heart of NATO, and which might well have affected the peace of the world.
I made it clear when I had my talks with Archbishop Makarios that I was there as the agent of no one, that I had not gone there as the agent of NATO and that we recognized that the question of mediation was one to be determined by the United Nations mediator appointed, with exclusive authority by the Security Council of the United Nations. But I did urge, and I now urge the parties on the island to accept at least the procedural recommendation of the mediator, which was to begin talks to lead to a solution of this problem.
I have seen it suggested that NATO has sought to interpose itself in this matter. Of course NATO has discussed the problem of Cyprus, but the problem of Cyprus has been discussed by NATO, not in relation to the assumption by NATO of the function of the mediator appointed by the United Nations, but only in respect of any possible involvement of two of the Mediterranean members of NATO, Greece and Turkey, with respect, to this situation. I am happy to say that the Canadian delegation at the recent NATO meeting was able to play some part,
May 28, 1965

along with other countries, in bringing together the foreign ministers of Greece and Turkey. There is reason to believe that the talks which began in London are proceeding along constructive lines.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
But I would not want the Government of Cyprus to think for one moment that this Government is not cognizant of the fact that in the final analysis the solutidn rests with the people of Cyprus. Suggestions for a solution may be made but in the final analysis those suggestions remain to be accepted or rejected by the authorities on the island of Cyprus. I do strongly express the view, on behalf of a country that voluntarily submitted itself to engagement in this project and which is paying the entire cost of the maintenance of its armed forces there, because of the financial situation in the United Nations, that it is in the interests of the island itself, in the interests of peace and in the interests of the effectiveness of the United Nations that a solution be worked out by pacific means. Any continuation of conflict in this situation will not solve the problem, no matter from which quarter the initiative leading toward conflict might come. I have reasonable prospects for believing that this difficult situation, born in the roots of a long history and affecting so deeply the peace of the world, may yet be remedied. If this happens our soldiers will feel they have been engaged in a noble purpose, and the United Nations may then chalk up another achievement, under the Charter, in dealing with situations that threaten the peace.
Mr. Chairman, it is of course not possible in the time that is available under these circumstances to cover the whole area of foreign policy. I have just touched on a number of problems that are of concern at the moment to all of us. I hope that the External Affairs Committee will be set up as quickly as possible so that those who do not share the Government's point of view may say so, and so that we will both be given the opportunity of examining the position of one another.
I have stated in a responsible manner the Government's position with regard to these difficult situations. Some hon. Members may feel that there is not that directness of language that they would like, but I would ask them to consider the implications that could arise from a misuse of terms that can so easily be misunderstood in other countries. What we want is understanding and not misinterpretation.
Supply-External Affairs
I conclude where I began, with the United Nations. Canada believes firmly that the United Nations represents one of the cornerstones in our foreign policy, along with NATO, our membership in the Commonwealth, and our propinquity to the United States. It is a tragedy that for two years now the United Nations has not been fully able, on the political side, to deal with substantive questions. That is because of the financial situation which confronts the organization at the present time.
I am the only man in this House, who was ever a delegate to the League of Nations. I was a delegate to the second last general assembly of the League of Nations. I saw that organization wither and disappear from the international scene as an effective instrument. It was followed by the greatest and the most catastrophic world war in human history. While the Second World War was yet on, the leaders of the allies decided once again to try and set up a collective security organization to minimize the occasion for war and maintain the peace.
The United Nations has now functioned for 20 years. It has already outlived the League of Nations, and yet at this time it is faced with very serious problems. The UN might well be irrevocably harmed unless the problems involved in the constitutional controversy and the financial situation are resolved.
Let there be no mistake about this: This Government and this country has done everything that it can, by way of negotiations in the United Nations with other countries, to try to resolve the problem of indebtedness, and to deal with the problem of the future so that we would have a commitment for shared responsibility in respect of peace keeping. That continues to be our purpose.
As we survey the situation in Viet Nam, in the Dominican Republic, and now the incidents in the Middle East, we would wish that the United Nations were strong enough, capable of being utilized as an instrument to deal with these situations so as to discourage the intervention of individual nations, large or small. The future of the world, the future peace of the world, depends on the successful functioning of the United Nations.
I join with the Secretary General who said last night:
There are numerous factors which contribute to our shortcomings, not the least of which is the reluctance of governments to use the available United Nations machinery for the purposes for which it was designed, and to subscribe whole-

May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs heartedly, by actions as well as by words, to the general objectives and ideals of the Charter.
X know well-
He said
-that such a practical commitment to the Charter is easier to talk about than to act on. None the less, the Charter is, I believe, the only reliable road to international peace and security which is at present open to the nations of the world.
Those are the views of the Secretary-General. Those are the views of the Government of Canada. Those, I believe, are the views of the majority of the people of our country. This Government, as its predecessor, has done everything it can to bring about the realization of this great and necessary objective.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the review by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was a wide ranging one. It was one that covered in a general way most of the subjects which I asked to be discussed when I raised this question on May 25.
This Parliament has for too long been denied information by the Government regarding international affairs, and in particular the danger spots to which reference has been made today. For some reason ever since it took office the Government has refused to provide opportunities from time to time to discuss matters of international importance which are of transcendent concern to the Canadian people. If there were more frequent discussions, and more frankness on the part of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Canadian people would have information, within the limitations that one naturally realizes must be maintained, upon which to understand world events and to be able to arrive at reasonable conclusions.
Certainly the situation in Viet Nam and the Dominican Republic has called aloud for a declaration by Canada of her stand. Though not directly involved, Canada, in common with the freedom loving nations of the world, has an interest that was measured in two world wars by casualties far and beyond those suffered by any other nation in the Western Hemisphere, and I say that on the basis of a comparison between our population and those of other nations within this hemisphere.
I am not one who is prone to take the American view. I was criticized almost interminably by those who sit opposite when

I was Prime Minister, regarding my stands and the stands of the Government, in respect of matters in which the United States had a primary responsibility. Indeed, if it had not been for the material and monetary assistance that was available to those who sit opposite during two election campaigns, which came from across the line-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: -the results might have been different. Do they say "shame"?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: They may say "shame" but it is the truth, and the shame rests upon them. I take it that the ejaculation was an expression of personal feeling. I say on the basis of the criticism which was directed against us when we entered into the arrangements for the sale of wheat to Communist China, and in the light of subsequent events one wonders whether those who sit opposite today were as right then as they are now in carrying out the policies which we enunciated and effectuated. I say this by way of introduction to the expression of my views regarding the situation both in Viet Nam and in the Dominican Republic.
It is easy, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, to criticize and to condemn. It is so easy for those who represent segments of our country to rise in holy wrath against the attitude taken by the United States in South Viet Nam. It is a popular thing to take such a stand in some sections. But I would remind you, Sir, of the fact that in the United States that great body of independent national and international trade unions, the A.F.L./C.I.O., has taken a stand in this regard analogous to that taken by the Canadian Government and to that of the Labour Government of Great Britain. When I hear this criticism of the United States I think of the stand taken by the A.F.L./C.I.O. Executive Council as set out here in a document I hold under the heading: "The Crisis in Viet Nam". It says:
The AFL-CIO Executive Council has considered the crisis in Viet Nam which has become very grave as a result of more than a decade of systematic violation of the Geneva Agreement of 1954 by the North Vietnamese regime with the full backing of Moscow and Peiping.
The war waged by the Viet Cong guerrillas is not a local isolated war in some far distant jungle country. This war is of the greatest concern to the American people and the entire free world. If the Communists are allowed to seize South Viet Nam, the position of the democratic forces would be dangerously undermined not only in South East
May 28. 1965

Asia but throughout the world. The Communist aggressors would then be emboldened and encouraged to resort to still further attacks and world peace would be acutely imperilled.
We fully support President Lyndon B. Johnson in having our government take energetic retaliatory measures to deter and halt the Communist acts of provocation and aggression.
What is the attitude of the great unions in Canada? The Executive Council of the A.F.L./C.I.O. is composed of the National Presidents of affiliated unions. The former Trades and Labour Congress of Canada was established by the A.F.L. to be the Canadian legislative mouthpiece for the same affiliated independent international and national unions. In the amalgamation which brought about the Canadian Labour Congress the same policy was to be maintained to assure the successful operation of the Canadian Labour Congress. Mr. Meany announced the policy to which I referred just now for the unions I have mentioned in the United States. When he enunciates a statement of policy he is confirming the agreed policy of his Executive Council and through that Council of all its affiliated international and national unions. Since all of the international unions affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress are also part of the A.F.L./C.I.O. then such declarations of policy by Mr. Meany represent the declared policy of these international unions.
I mention this because a lot of loose criticism by those who purport to represent certain unions across Canada has been directed against the United States, and policies have been put forward totally different from the policies of the A.F.L./C.I.O. in the United States. So it is not the case that those who believe what is happening in Viet Nam is a threat to world peace and survival expressing only the views of those who have no knowledge of what is actually taking place there. If the Americans get out of South Viet Nam, where next will the Communists strike? What of Malaya? What of Burma? What of Thailand? I said I had no reason to stand in support of United States policy as such.
In the experience I had as Prime Minister there were times when from across the line they endeavoured to dominate Canadian policy. But that does not prevent my realizing that what is happening today in Southeast Asia is my personal concern and the concern of all Canadians. If the Americans go, everything goes-everything, in Asia and then beyond.
So let us review the situation. What has Canada done? Well, we have not been able to
Supply-External Affairs get much information regarding international affairs, except as the Prime Minister from time to time attends first one university forum and then another, and we get the story by degrees. He goes from one university to another and we get portions of the policy. Today is the first time we have had some of the general ideas put into a proper perspective. What did Canada do? Well, when we were in office we were told this country needed a government which could make its impact on international affairs in all parts of the world with that diplomatic acumen and finesse which hon. Members opposite modestly attribute to themselves. Well, I will remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he was in Paris recently-I can only go by the press, and there were enough press men along with him-and that the hon. gentleman was about to land at the airport, when the official in charge of the control tower said in the best possible Parisian French: "Buzz off". That is a strange situation.
Then the Prime Minister went to Camp David. He suggested a pause in Southeast Asia. The less said about that the better. The response was not that of a nation fully appreciative of the benefit of Canada's views. However, in fairness, let me say this: Having made that suggestion, in a matter of a couple of weeks the Prime Minister rather withdrew his proposal that there should be a measured pause. Then there was the Prime Minister's suggestion with regard to an international force, expanded by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to include Red China. Well, that did not take very long, either, to receive the consideration which reality gives to experiment and to theory.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
What of the situation in Southeast Asia? Well, Sir, the Prime Minister said the other day that he did not think the situation internationally had deteriorated to the extent that the motion which I moved for the adjournment of the House would indicate. May I say this, that within the last 48 hours the Secretary of State for the United States has certainly pointed out that the international situation is anything but favourable. To use his words: "I think it is very important, however,"-he is referring to the visit of Cyrus Eaton to the Premier of the U.S.S.R.- "that no one misunderstand the gravity of the situation". Throughout he pointed to the gravity of the situation internationally.
There is the deteriorating position in Viet Nam-and it has deteriorated greatly in re-
1788	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs cent weeks. So far the United States has shown its determination to contain the forces advancing from the north; but in the last few days the United States has found it necessary to increase the number of its forces there, which indicates the pressure that is being brought against the American forces preserving and maintaining their responsibility under the 1954 agreement. I would like to hear the Minister tell this House whether the Government has any knowledge of recent Russian and Chinese involvement in North Viet Nam. Is it not a fact that there has been a stepping up of military aid to the Viet Cong in the last three or four weeks? Are there not at this very moment missile sites being established-one has been established, I understand, and a second is under way-in Hanoi, by or with the knowledge of the U.S.S.R. What information is there in this regard? Are there not, and have there not been in recent days, several battalions of North Viet Nam regular troops moving into South Viet Nam?
The situation is worsening with the days; and yet this information we have not had made available to us. As the Minister said, the situation is so easy to criticize; it is easy to criticize what has taken place. But I do bespeak the support of Canadians for the stand taken by the Government in not joining in a hue and cry in criticism of what the United States is doing in Southeast Asia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I do hope we do not join in that. It may win a few votes; but the "V" sign today in Viet Nam is not "Votes"-it is "Victory" against Communism. That should be our concern. I hope we will join together and be able to have a united front on a matter that concerns each and every one of us within this nation.
What of the situation in Latin America? Certainly in the last few days there have been some events which have been encouraging. The Minister said an official had been sent to Santo Domingo to gain information. The information he gained was not given to parliament. Is it not a fact that the Communists are actually undermining the resistance of the people of that country? We have tried to get information in this regard; but the Government at the beginning said it really had no information that there was Communist infiltration sufficient to justify an assertion that Communism was endeavouring to establish another bridgehead. I asked the Minister this morning whether or not

DEBATES	May 28, 1965
the Government of Canada approved the stand of the United States, as enunciated by Mr. Rusk the day before yesterday, for standby forces on a continuing basis, on prompt call, and the organization of a political machinery for taking hemispheric decisions promptly in the face of fast moving events. I took it from the views the Minister expressed in answer to that question that the Government does not believe the Organization of American States should be permitted, unless under United Nations control or direction, to operate any stand-by force in this hemisphere. That is a long step backward from the views expressed by the hon. gentleman in 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962, when he and the Prime Minister of the day stood so firmly for Canada joining the Organization of American States. Have they forgotten about that? They said we were wrong because we did not join. Were we wrong? Certainly those that sit opposite today cannot say we were.
What would our position be had we been a member of that Organization? I confess that I believed Canada should join, being a country in the Western Hemisphere, until I met with representatives of South America and of Central America, who one after another told me-and not by collusion or arrangement among themselves-that if Canada would only join, they would have somebody to stand with them against the United States. That, to me, did not justify Canada's joining the Organization of American States. What is the position today of the Government? Two years ago and three years ago they said we were wrong. There was nothing said today about Canada's joining the Organization of American States-because this Government has run away from that undertaking with even greater celerity than it has succeeded in showing with regard to various other undertakings and promises.
I do hope that the Minister, in place of that bland, warm-hearted, enigmatic smile, will submit the answer in words so that we will understand where the Government stands today on this question. This was a tremendous promise on their part. I remember the hon. gentleman, with all the power of language and diction at his command, with his vast dramatic and rhetorical capacity, saying, "You have got to join, and not one hour's delay". And for over two years the vocal adherence to the Organization of American States by Canada has become a silent and an unexplained retreat.
May 23, 1965



[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
What about the situation in the Dominican Republic? Has it not worsened? Are not extreme elements trying to capitalize on anarchy and disorder? A cease fire has been attained -a cease fire that has been broken about 500 times by both sides during the past ten days. Has the Government any hope to offer that there will be established a broadly based provisional Government? Could Canada do something in this regard to convene in Canada, independent as it is of the Organization of American States, a conference on the subject? What could be done to meet the political and military stalemate that prevails there? Has Canada been asked or some suggestion made that she might contribute to a peace keeping force in this area? The Minister answers by shaking his head in a horizontal position. Has Canada been asked to join with any of the Commonwealth countries in assisting in the establishment of a peace force in Southeast Asia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no. Strange, is it not, Mr. Chairman, that Canada, which has given its dedication, as the Minister has stated, to the establishment of peace keeping, has not been asked to do anything in this regard in the two danger spots in the world today? I hope that the Government will continue to furnish information on these questions and problems that cause all the thinking people believing in freedom a deep sense of foreboding and fear.
The Minister has said that he relies greatly upon the United Nations. He paid a most eloquent tribute to the United Nations and mentioned that he was the only Canadian who had been a delegate to the League of Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said I was the only one in this House.


John George Diefenbaker: I saw the United Nations born in San Francisco and I join with him in saying that it has done much for world peace. Indeed, without it mankind would have had to invent some other organization of a similar nature to assure peace.
But what of today? Did the United States go too far in its virtual ultimatum that unless the U.S.S.R. and the Communist members and other defaulting members paid the amounts they were in default they would be out as members within the provisions of the Charter? If the United States had not gone that far it would not have had so far to retreat. The United Nations can only be preserved and 22620-115
Supply-External Affairs maintained provided there is no insistence on the payment of peace keeping shares on the part of these various countries.
The last session of the United Nations was a virtual caricature of the United Nations. It sat, it talked, but it did not vote. When a vote took place it took place behind the President's throne, if I might use that expression. No decision could be made on any question, because if a decision were made a vote had to take place; and if a vote took place the U.S.S.R. and the other defaulting countries would immediately be faced with the loss of their vote. And that would be the end of the United Nations.
The Minister now says that by September 1 something must be attained, some agreement must be arrived at. He speaks of the discussions which are taking place in the highest of circles, of alternatives which are being suggested. But we are not told what they are. There is no secrecy about it; we know what they are. For after all, the New York Times is one paper that is always able to secure the information as to what is going on, and it has set forth the several alternatives, none of which will be acceptable to the U.S.S.R. or the other defaulting countries. What stand will the United States take? Will it have to depart from its dominating position enunciated last September and continued thereafter? What hopes are there that this matter will be solved? What are the hopes of the United Nations assuming any responsibility in South Viet Nam? I was surprised at one statement the Minister made. He suggested that he had been concerned-I am quoting his words as they were taken down- about whether the full force of the office of the Secretary General was being used. What does that mean? To one who can understand simple language it means this, that there had been some default on the part of U Thant, the Secretary General.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the right hon. gentleman just allow me? I did not suggest there had been default. I had a concern as to whether or not in the circumstances the Secretary General was able to make his appeal to all sides. This was my concern. I was not aware of some of the things he was doing. I saw him in New York, and as I said this morning it became apparent from what he told me, and what he could not give to the public, that he had been working relentlessly along lines consistent with that high office.

May 28. 1965
Supply-External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: That clarifies the situation. But the words of the Minister a little earlier today did not have that high degree of clarity that he has now exhibited in that very terse and characteristic sentence. It was a curious statement.
He also said that the Secretary General was not necessarily persona grata with some nations in Asia. I should like to know which are those nations. Certainly he is not referring to Communist China, because it is not a member. With what nations is U Thant not persona grata? That was the first time I had ever heard that suggestion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, because of the importance of this, may I say it must be obvious that I was referring to China. The situation in Viet Nam obviously involves China. Any action that the Secretary General would take would involve addressing himself to all sides and to all involved, including the Chinese People's Republic. It is now well known that the Chinese People's Republic, respectful as it is of the person of U Thant, would not engage directly in consultations with him at that time as a representative of the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, if they would not do so at that time there has been nothing since to change this. So all the hopes that are held out of ultimately bringing Communist China into a discussion of world events are, as long as the present Secretary General remains, ephemeral and nebulous, and that is a very serious suggestion on the part of the Minister.
I would be the last to bring in anything of a provocative nature, but I was very much struck by the events of about a week ago when for 24 hours Canada waited in a state of suspended animation for the announcement that the United Nations was about to move from New York to the site of Expo '67. [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I think in this case, and I say this with all that kindliness that used to characterize one of the Minister's former colleagues, the late Humphrey Mitchell, the Minister rushed in where angels fear to tread. This made a rather ridiculous position in which Canada found itself for 48 hours-that we were going to take over the United Nations and house it in Montreal at the Expo location at Montreal after that location had ceased to operate as the exposition site.
Is the situation serious in Southeast Asia? I found it difficult to know from the words of the Minister today just exactly what his
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .J
view was in this regard. It is of interest today that one of Canada's outstanding ex-civil servants and foreign affairs authority, Chester Ronning, the former Canadian High Commissioner to India-a man who has had vast experience in China and in the Republic of China-in speaking to the University of Alberta convocation said, in pointing out the seriousness of the situation in Southeast Asia, that "it is a serious error" to assume that the Soviet Union will not aid Communist China if hostilities in Viet Nam grow. He said Canada and other countries are aware of the "explosive" aspect of the Viet Nam situation, and it is "dangerous complacency" to assume that hostilities can be confined to Viet Nam; that the Soviet Union may now be restraining China, but if the Soviet Union is pushed too hard she may be forced to come to the aid of Asian Communists. I refer to that statement to indicate the seriousness of the situation.
The other day when speaking with the knowledge I had, which did not include information contained in secret documents which the Government receives, I stated that in my opinion what was happening was dangerous to the possibility of world peace. A day or so later General Eisenhower gave his views and they were wise, experienced and restrained. He is a Republican and he was giving approval to the policies of a Democratic President. He gave a warning as to how serious the situation is. He was asked whether or not the United States could bring about by pressure an armistice negotiation in Viet Nam, and whether an indirect threat of nuclear force would bring Hanoi to the conference table. His answer was, "No, I don't think so". He agreed that this was successful in Korea, but he pointed out that the situation then was different because that was a long time ago and things have changed.
The article to which I have made reference then states:
He let it be known to Peking that he was prepared to strike the Chinese with the entire United States arsenal, including nuclear weapons, unless they agreed to meaningful armistice negotiations.
Then the ex-President said the Chinese got the message and there was an armistice in Korea, but that was a long time ago. He went on to warn, and this is a message that is worthy of the service of this great world citizen, that we will never bring about peace at a conference table by the threat of the use of nuclear force. He said that the United States should not disallow nuclear power,
May 28, 1965

but should remember that there is no other prescription for Viet Nam today than patience and pressure, which is the strategy being employed by the President.
The view of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as enunciated today is not that if nuclear power is threatened the conference table will be the result. The views of the Minister are those of a man greatly experienced in war and in peace, and should be emphasized over and over again. There is a tendency, which has revealed itself in some parts of the Western world, to believe that the use of nuclear power today would bring about a settlement.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to deal with the other matters referred to by the Minister, as I want to give an opportunity to the various speakers of other Parties to express their views. I am glad the Minister spoke as he did today and, if he will allow me to say so, I congratulate him for the way in which he presented his views and the views of the Government, while at the same time informing him in a kindly way that if from time to time a day was set aside to discuss these things in the House it would be most beneficial not only to Parliament, but also to the people of Canada. The western world does not know where Canada stands in respect of these matters because its course has been too uncertain. It has moved forward, altered, changed and retreated.
Today the Minister for the first time this session has placed before us the views of the Government, which we always hope, in respect of international affairs, are the views of Canadians as a whole. The Minister indulged himself in the luxury of deviation and diversion to a minimum degree and I thank him for the statement he has made. I reiterate what I said at the outset, to use his concluding words: Let us have more of these debates so we can understand each other better and recognize some of the tremendous problems which face mankind.
In respect of the weight of responsibility regarding issues affecting almost the life of mankind which rests on the Government during times like this, my attitude is and shall continue to be candid, but critical where necessary. In respect of external affairs I shall endeavour to look at problems objectively, having had some experience sitting on that side of the House.
22620-115J
Supply-External Affairs [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I very much regret that the debate on foreign affairs has been so long delayed and I cannot but regret that now it is being held it is to be so short. When the Leader of the Opposition proposed a debate under Standing Order 26 the other day, the Prime Minister suggested we might have a debate on foreign affairs on a motion to go into Supply which would have provided some two days for debate. Instead the Government has decided to proceed with the matter today which means that in total the House will have about three hours to discuss a very important subject, and unless the Government agrees to continue the discussion of this item of the estimates next week it means that all we will have will be a statement from each of the parties in the House.
It seems to me this is not good enough. I think there should be an opportunity for Members in all parts of the House, the Government side as well as the Opposition, to say something about this very important matter which is before us. I know there is a disposition in some quarters to say that the public is not interested in foreign affairs. In the first place I do not agree with that statement but, second, if it were true my reply would be that we had better start becoming interested in foreign affairs because in the shrinking world in which we live whatever happens in any part of the earth today will affect the rest of us tomorrow. We cannot afford to be oblivious of what is going on around the world. For that reason I hope there will be an extended opportunity for debate because in the very short time at our disposal we cannot possibly discuss the wide range of topics that come under foreign affairs. If an opportunity presents itself later, my colleague, the hon. Member for Greenwood, will be discussing some other aspects of foreign policy, but I propose to devote the limited amount of time at my disposal to discussing the two main trouble spots in the world today, namely Viet Nam and the Dominican Republic.
I want to begin by reminding the House that we have to recognize that there is a racial revolution going on in the world and that for three centuries the white race has ruled the world by reason of its technological superiority, particularly in the field of firearms. That era of colonialism and imperialism is now at an end. One great empire after another has passed away. In spite of the brave words of Winston Churchill, that he

May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs did not become the Queen's first minister to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire, the fact is that is precisely what has happened. It has not been a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it has been a good thing because it has seen the same nations bound together in a free association held in concert, not by force but by an allegiance to common ideals. One of the great credits which history will accord to the governments of Great Britain, both Labour and Conservative, is that its colonies like India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and one after the other the African colonies, have been given their independence. The same thing has happened with the French empire and the Dutch empire.
This revolution of the coloured races of the world demanding the right of self-determination is going to go on. It has nothing to do with Communism. Communists, of course, fish in troubled waters as they always do, and they ally themselves with any protest movement. But if we took all the Communist countries and all the Communists out of the world this afternoon the problem of the struggle for the right of self-determination by the coloured peoples of the earth in Asia, Africa and South America would continue and we would still have to face that problem.
A new form ox colonialism is growing up. It is no longer a matter of the white man becoming the governor of a backward people backed by the bayonets of his own country. Instead we see some of the great powers supporting puppet governments which are pliable to their will and prepared to accept political and economic domination by the great powers. For this reason it is not easy to identify aggression in the manner that it once was, and one cannot afford to be as dogmatic as he might otherwise be. I am quite prepared to admit that we face a very complex and complicated world situation.
The history of Viet Nam is the story of a people who have been struggling for selfgovernment for centuries. Their land was occupied by the Chinese for about a thousand years and in almost every generation they rose in revolt and were suppressed. In the latter half of the 19th century, when the Chinese empire was in decline, the people of Viet Nam were free for a while. Then their land was occupied by the French for over 70 years and throughout that period they repeatedly rose in revolt seeking the right of self-government. During the second world war their land was occupied by the Japanese, and we sometimes tend to forget that in 1945

the Viet Minh forces by themselves drove out the Japanese forces. There were neither British nor French nor American troops on their soil when they drove out the Japanese and set up a Viet Minh government, e (4:00 p.m.)
But they were not allowed to enjoy the fruits of their independence very long. A British army under General Gracey moved into Viet Nam and he said that his government was not prepared to recognize the Viet Minh government. The United States put up the money to equip French forces and transport them to Viet Nam, and French Indochina once again was established as part of the French empire. Once more the Vietnamese rose in revolt and continued to fight until in May, 1954, at the battle of Dien Bien Phu the French were compelled to capitulate. Even then the Vietnamese were not given the right of self-government.
A conference of some of the great powers was held in Geneva and in July, 1954, an agreement for the cessation of hostilities and a final declaration were signed by the nations which attended that conference, all except the United States which refused to sign the accord. I think it is interesting to point out what Walter Lippmann, writing on this subject, said about that conference:
The cease fire agreement was signed by the military commanders. But in addition, the Geneva Conference issued a final declaration, dated July 21. This declaration contained principles of the settlement.
One of the principles of the ceasefire prohibited "introduction into Viet Nam of foreign troops and military personnel as well as of all kinds of arms and munitions."
The Geneva Declaration went on to say that "the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." Furthermore, the declaration said that, "general elections shall be held in July 1956 under the supervision of an international commission."
Walter Lippmann goes on to say:
The United States did not sign the final declaration. But the Under Secretary of State, General Bedell Smith, made a "unilateral declaration" which said that the United States supported the agreement and that, "in connection with the statement in the declaration concerning free elections in Viet Nam my government wishes to make clear its position, which it has expressed in a declaration made in Washington on June 29, 1954, as follows: In the case of nations now divided against their will we shall continue to seek to achieve unity through free elections supervised by the United Nations to ensure they are conducted fairly.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the terms of the Geneva Accord are clear: first, that the division of Viet Nam into North and South
May 28, 1965

Viet Nam by drawing a provisional line on the 17th parallel was to be temporary and, second, that at the end of a two year period there were to be elections over the whole of Viet Nam.
When President Johnson says, as he did to the people of the United States "We seek no more than a return to the essentials of 1954" he has forgotten that the division between North and South Viet Nam was temporary, and that it was the United States and South Viet Nam who first violated the Geneva Accord by refusing to agree to elections in 1956, as had been provided for under the Geneva Accord.
Why were elections not held, and why was \ let Nam not unified as had been envisaged in the Geneva Accord? One only has to look at the history that has taken place since then to understand the situation. Ever since France had returned to Viet Nam in 1945 it had received military and economic help from the United States. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs tells us today that the United States does not want South Viet Nam as a military base, surely he is flying in the face of the statements which were made by President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in 1953 and 1954, when the then President pointed out that the United States had spent $400 million in keeping the French army in the field in Viet Nam, and that this was necessary because South Viet Nam had economic and political interests which were invaluable to the United States.
And when in 1953 the United States could see that the French were no longer going to be able to hold on in Viet Nam, they brought in Diem, who was set up in South Viet Nam as the head of a government, a government that was dictatorial and repressive, a government which began by abolishing land reform, land reform in a country where 80 per cent of the land is owned by absentee landlords, abolished all local elections, and jailed without trial not only Communists but thousands of non-Communists who had belonged to democratic political parties up until that time. It is hardly to be wondered then that the National Liberation Front was able to gather to itself a great bulk of the support of the people of South Viet Nam in revolt against the dictatorial government of Diem.
Professor Martin Lewis, the associate professor at Sir George Williams University in Montreal, in a C.B.C. broadcast on February 18 said this:
Supply-External Affairs
People don't become guerrilla fighters for fun. They become guerrilla fighters only when they are driven to it by the conditions under which they live. The renewal of fighting in South Viet Nam was not aggression from the North. It was the reaction of the South Vietnamese people to the repression of the Diem regime, just as the earlier fighting had been a reaction to French oppression.
An attempt has been made to picture the revolt in Viet Nam as being an aggression from North Viet Nam. There can be no doubt that North Viet Nam has given military assistance and training personnel to the Viet Cong in South Viet Nam. There can be no doubt that the Communist Party in South Viet Nam which is called, if I remember correctly, the People's Revolutionary Party, has supported the National Liberation Front, but the most impartial commentators I have been able to secure indicate that the National Liberation Front has been a broad coalition. Undoubtedly the Communists have supported it, but the head of it is Nguyan Huu Tho, a Saigon lawyer, who is reputed not to be a Communist but who gained the wrath of Diem because of his civil liberty activities in defending in the courts some of the political figures who had been imprisoned by Diem.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs continues to tell the House the same myth that the China lobby and the American propaganda have been peddling all over the North American continent, that the United States intervention in South Viet Nam is at the request of a sovereign power under attack from the outside.
In the first place one questions South Viet Nam as being a sovereign power. From the very beginning it has been a puppet government supported militarily and financially by the United States, and to say that the United States was invited in by South Viet Nam is like saying that Edgar Bergen was invited to dinner by Charlie McCarthy. The fact of course is that the reason the United States had to intervene is because the puppet government it had set up did not have the support of its own people, and that today two thirds of South Viet Nam is occupied by the National Liberation Front who collect the taxes, who run the villages, and who operate the greater part of the country. The government has never been able to hold on to anything but the cities, and this with a succession of governments because it does not enjoy the support of the people.
It is undoubtedly true that the guerrillas have had military assistance from North Viet Lam, but in the main this has been relatively

May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs small. This afternoon the Minister said that North Viet Nam has given military assistance on a grand scale. I would like to see some evidence of this grand scale.
In the Washington Post of March 6, 1963, General Paul D. Harkins, who was then commander in chief in Saigon said:
The guerrillas are not being reinforced or supplied systematically from North Viet Nam, China or any place else. They depend for weapons primarily on whatever they capture.
Senator Morse of Oregon, speaking in the Senate in July last said:
No one in the United States government has been able to this hour to lay any evidence before the committee on foreign relations that he has been able to find military forces of North Viet Nam..in South Viet Nam. One of our military stooges with the South Vietnamese government alleged a couple of days ago that there were North Vietnamese soldiers in South Viet Nam. But that statement is now retracted When called upon by our officers over there for proof, they could not offer proof.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The Secretary of State keeps referring to the report of the International Commission dated June 2, 1962, but the only reference he makes is to the fact that in the early part of the report which, by the way, was signed by the representatives of India and Canada, it is stated in paragraph 9 that the Commission was satisfied that North Viet Nam had shipped arms to South Viet Nam. But the Secretary of State has studiously avoided again and again quoting from paragraph 10, or from paragraph 12 or from paragraph 14, all of which point out that the United States and South Viet Nam have violated the agreement to a much greater extent not only as to bringing in arms but as to bringing in aircraft carriers, helicopters, building airports in violation of the Geneva Accord. The report points out that whereas the Geneva Accord stipulated that South Viet Nam was to be limited to 648 military advisers there were about 5,000 present in the country by 1962, and it was estimated the number would reach 8,000 by the end of that year.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs talks about the report of the Control Commission he ought to tell the people of Canada just what that report said. Paragraph 20 said:
Taking all these facts into consideration, and basing itself on its own observations and on authorized statements made in the U.S.A. and the Republic of Viet Nam, the commission concludes that the Republic of Viet Nam has violated articles 16 and 17 of the Geneva Agreement in receiving increased military aid from the U.S.A. in the absence of any established credit in its favour. The commission is also of the view that, though there may not be any formal military alliance between the

Governments of the U.S.A. and the Republic of Viet Nam, the establishment of a U.S.A. military assistance command in South Viet Nam, as well as the introduction of a large number of U.S.A. military personnel beyond the stated strength of the MAAG (Military Assistance Advisory Group), amounts to a factual military alliance, which is prohibited under article 19 of the Geneva Agreement.
Paragraph 21 of the report which the Canadian representative signed says:
The commission would also like to bring to the notice of the co-Chairmen a recent and deliberate tendency on the part of both parties to deny or refuse controls to the commission's teams, thereby completely immobilizing their activities and hindering the commission in the proper discharge of its obligations to supervise the implementation of articles 16 ar.d 17 of the Geneva Agreement. During the last few months there has been a near-complete breakdown so far as this important function of the commission is concerned.
And paragraph 22 says:
The International Commission wishes to draw the serious and earnest attention of the co-chairmen to the gravity of the situation that has developed in Viet Nam in the last few months. Fundamental provisions of the Geneva Agreement have been violated by both parties, resulting in ever-increasing tension and the threat of resumption of open hostilities. In this situation, the role of the commission for the maintenance of peace in Viet Nam is being greatly hampered because of denial of cooperation by both parties.
This attempt to make the war in South Viet Nam a holy crusade against Communism is an invitation to swallow propaganda wholesale and shut one's eyes to the facts. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the House of Commons on April 2 as reported at page 13106 in Hansard: "No one can suggest that the intervention of the United States in these circumstances is illegal". How can he stand up in the House of Commons and say that, in view of the fact that Canadian representatives on the Truce Commission state that an agreement amounting to a military alliance exists between the United States and South Viet Nam in violation of the Geneva Accord? How can he say such a thing when the United States insisted that the Diem Government refuse the holding of elections, though elections had been guaranteed by the Geneva Accord? How can the hon. gentleman say such a thing when the United States refused to have the country reunified as had been provided by that Accord?
Well, the situation has grown much worse since that report was issued. United States forces there now number more than 30,000 and another 25,000 are to be sent. The tragedy of this whole affair is that the United Nations has been bypassed. This is significant. Articles
May 28. 1965

39 and 51 of the United Nations Charter make provision for any nation to go before the United Nations and ask it to declare that an act of aggression is taking place. This is what President Truman did when North Korea invaded South Korea. The United States has never taken the Viet Nam problem to the United Nations. The United Nations has been bypassed repeatedly not only in the matter of Viet Nam but also in the matter of the Dominican Republic. The argument made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon is that we must support the war in Souih Viet Nam in order to prevent the expansion of Communist China.


Mr. Robichaud:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He accepts wholesale the Domino theory expounded by the late John Foster Dulles several years ago. No one knows better than the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the world situation has changed radically since the days of John Foster Dulles, and that Communism is no longer the monolithic structure it was then. The Communist world is rent with schism. Communist China is quarrelling with the Soviet Union. Former Communist satellites, beginning with Yugoslavia and extending across Europe, are asserting a greater measure of independence from the Soviet Union. And in Southeast Asia there is not the monolithic control some of the propagandists would have us believe.
It is significant that on three separate occasions Communist China has offered troops to North Viet Nam. These offers have not been accepted. Why? I do not think that the Vietnamese want Chinese troops on their soil any more than the Poles want Russian troops on their soil. After all, the Vietnamese had Chinese troops on their soil for 1,000 years and had a hard time getting rid of them, and they do not want them back.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Leader of the Opposition use analogies about Europe and talk about Malaysia, New Zealand and Australia, they are talking there about acts of aggression, and when acts of aggression are committed we must use all the forces of collective security in order to prevent aggression. But we must not allow, under the guise of preventing acts of aggression, any great power to repress the legitimate aspirations of the people of any country for self-government and the right of self-determination.
Supply-External Affairs
I think the Canadian Government has been woefully lacking in giving any leadership throughout this whole Viet Nam episode. We were, and are, a member of the International Control Commission. We have known as well as any country what the situation is. We have done nothing about it, in spite of the report of June, 1962, which showed that the Commission was being hampered and obstructed at every turn by both sides. It is true that the Prime Minister in Philadelphia made an appeal for a pause in the bombing, and I was rather proud of his temporary courage-until I read the next day that at Camp David, when he was treated somewhat brusquely by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister hastened to assure the press that Canada approved and supported the United States policy in Viet Nam.
Throughout this long crisis the Canadian Government has assumed a deferential pose of supine subservience. Never was it shown more glaringly than when the Department of External Affairs went so far as to put out a memorandum which was passed out by officials of that department, I am told in the presence of the Minister himself, on Parliament Hill to some of the people who were parading in protest about what is happening in Viet Nam. Here is a memo put out by a department of government excusing the Government of South Viet Nam for not living up to the Geneva Accord, excusing Diem because he abolished local elections-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Explain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -referring to the Control Commission report of June, 1962, only in terms of its criticism of North Viet Nam, but saying nothing at all about its criticism of South Viet Nam and the United States. Could anything be more subservient than putting out a memorandum like this to defend the policies of another government? 1 do not wonder there is nothing on it to identify where it came from; I imagine the department was not very proud of it. And I suggest that if the Minister is going to put one out again, he should at least get the American State Department to write it; they do this sort of thing much better and are much more subtle.
Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, because my time is running out, I want to suggest two or three things that I think need to be done. First, I think the Canadian Government should call for an immediate end to the bombing of North Viet Nam. There is nothing hostile to the U.S. about doing that. The Prime Minister of India and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, who have more reason to

May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs be frightened of the Chinese than we have, have called for an end of the bombing in Viet Nam. After all, the United States is not at war with North Viet Nam, and dropping iniquitous napalm bombs on civilians and military alike is not going to endear the Asiatic people to the Western world. It will take decades to undo the damage that has been done by this Viet Nam episode.
Second, Canada ought to call for unconditional peace negotiations. The Secretary of State for External Affairs keeps repeating the myth that President Johnson has agreed to unconditional peace negotiations. He has agreed to nothing of the kind. He has imposed two conditions. One, he will not talk to the Viet Cong. To talk to the government of North Viet Nam does not mean that they can call off the revolt. They have no more control over the Viet Cong than Stalin had over Mao Tse-Tung. If the United States Government is going to sit down and negotiate peace, it will have to deal with the people who now occupy and govern two thirds of the territory of South Viet Nam.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Supported by the people.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The second condition the President has imposed is this. He said it must be understood that South Viet Nam will continue as a sovereign power. I am not opposed to their continuing as a sovereign power if the people of South Viet Nam want it to continue as a sovereign power; but that must be something for the people themselves to decide.
Third, I think there has to be, once a cease fire is established, a conference sponsored either by the United Nations or by the Geneva Accord powers. I am glad to hear the Minister say that a conference on Cambodia might be called, which would open up the way for negotiations. I was disappointed when I saw in the Gazette of April 21 that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had given a very cool reception to the suggestion made by the Soviet Union that there be a conference on Cambodia. I hope such a conference will be held, because I am convinced that there can be no viable solution in continuing the war and that the only hope is to get around the conference table. There is no likelihood of getting around the conference table as long as we are raining bombs on the towns and cities of Viet Nam.
Fourth, I think there has to be, during an interim period, a peace keeping force in South Viet Nam pending free elections, at which

time the people themselves would decide whether or not they want to join North Viet Nam or whether they want to continue as an independent state and elect a government. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said today that he was sure I believed the United States should get right out, and he said there would be chaos. I do not think the United States should ever have been there in the first place. I agree with what J. B. McGeachy said in the May 1 issue of the Financial Post, that the United States had no more business in Viet Nam than it had in Ireland, Guatemala or Luxembourg.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Chairman, would my hon. friend permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have only a few minutes left. It is true that to pull the United States forces out overnight would probably be to cause a blood bath, because you cannot have a civil war without a great deal of animosity. I think there would have to be a peace keeping force there temporarily. I would hope that the United States forces would gradually be withdrawn and replaced by a peace keeping force set up by the United Nations or the Geneva Accord powers, which would maintain order until a government could be elected and peace and order restored in that unhappy land.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tardif):: I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman has made many important observations and should be allowed to carry on. But would he allow me simply to ask him a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.
e (4:30 p.m.)


Murdo William Martin: I have followed him very carefully. He has been critical of the position I take, and that is his right. If this is his point of view, that is his duty. But would he distinguish between the position taken by the Government of Canada in this matter and the position of the Labour Government in Britain?


Paul Tardif: Order. I must confess to an error I made. According to the rules the hon. gentleman is allowed 30 minutes. I have allowed him 38 minutes. If the Committee agrees, by unanimous consent the hon. Member may continue.
May 28, 1965


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the Committee for its indulgence and I will try not to transgress too much. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has asked me what is the difference between the position of the Canadian Government and the position the British Government is taking. I think there is very little difference. There may be a difference in degree, but there has not been a great deal of difference. I am a Member of the Canadian Parliament and I am expressing my views to the Canadian Government. If I were in the British House of Commons I would be expressing my views to the British Government, and I would be expressing them just as forcefully. I have expressed my views unofficially to representatives of the British Government with reference to this matter.
The fifth thing I suggest we ought to do with reference to Viet Nam is that I think Canada should signify its willingness to join with other nations in making very substantial contributions to the development of the Mekong Valley in order to help rehabilitate this devastated country and to help them restore peace in that part of the world.
I was going to deal with the Dominican
Republic but in view of the fact that I am over my time I do not think I ought to encroach further on the Committee's time, except to say that the situation in the Dominican Republic raises some very serious problems for Canada, located as we are in the Western Hemisphere and affected by anything that is done by the United States. No one can deny the right of the United States to go into a country to defend its nationals and its property. But within 24 hours of going into the Dominican Republic the President of the United States said that they were there primarily to prevent another Cuba.
This raises the whole question whether or not the Johnson doctrine has replaced the Monroe doctrine, namely that the United States reserves the right at any time to intervene unilaterally wherever a country has a government the ideology of which is unacceptable to the United States. I was glad to hear the statement made by the Minister this morning to the effect that we do not accept this doctrine. I think we should also make it clear that any peace keeping force set up by the Organization of American States should have the approval of the United Nations. Otherwise the world is embarking upon a very dangerous precedent which will
Supply-External Affairs allow any group of nations, under the guise of setting up a peace keeping force, carrying on military and political intervention in the affairs of other countries.
The actions of the United States in South Viet Nam and in the Dominican Republic have been defended, as they were today both by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Leader of the Opposition, on the ground that they are against Communism. I am against Communism, Mr. Chairman. I am against Communism because I believe it restricts the liberty of the individual, and because it curtails the freedom of the mind and the freedom of the human spirit. But I doubt very much whether the intervention in South Viet Nam or in the Dominican Republic was because the United States was concerned about individual freedom. If they were, I do not know how they put up with Diem for so long in South Viet Nam, or Batista in Cuba, or Trujillo in the Dominican Republic.
I think that the United States has been much more concerned with the fear that these countries will have Governments that will want to exercise their right to manage their own economic affairs. If that seems unfair then I can do no better than quote a short sentence or two from an article written by Bruce MacDonald, the Washington correspondent for the Globe and Mail, in the issue of May 4, when he said this:
But in Viet Nam and now again in the Dominican Republic there is more than enough evidence to suspect that when the United States talks of freedom it has nothing to do with the freedom of people to elect their own government, run their own affairs and enjoy the civil liberties that are the foundation of a true democracy.
Over a long period of history, the United States has shown itself prepared to support many governments-the Trujillo dictatorship being a prime example

no matter how brutally they repressed their own people, so long as they remained untinged by any form of so-called left-wing extremism and were prepared to show proper respect for U.S. commercial interests operating within their borders.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And that is the truth.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think that sums up the whole question very clearly. We in this party are prepared to support collective security to resist aggression, but we do not believe that any country has the right to use military power to force dictatorial and discredited regimes upon people who are seeking the right of self-determination. We do not want some new form of colonialism masquerading as an anti-Communist crusade.

May 28. 1965
Supply-External Affairs
In saying these things I have been accused from time to time of being anti-American. I am not anti-American. If I am anti-American I am in good company. Half a dozen Senators and Congressmen, two or three Governors, Walter Lippmann, John Kenneth Galbraith, who was President Kennedy's Ambassador to India, have all criticized United States foreign policy. As a matter of fact, it is to the everlasting credit of the people of the United States that there has been such a widespread dialogue on this subject, and that in the main it has been free from rancour as they have discussed the right and wrong aspects of that policy.
So that my remarks are not misunderstood, I want to say that I have a great admiration for many things in the United States. I think the generosity of that country in the post-war world has seldom been equalled in the history of man. There has been the Marshall Plan by which that country turned around and spent billions of dollars to help rehabilitate its former enemies. We have seen President Johnson's courageous support of civil rights and freedoms in the United States and his attempt to get for the negro his right to equality. There has also been President Johnson's war on poverty program, which is something we could well emulate. There are many things about the United States which are admirable. I want to see Canada remain friendly with the United States. But, Mr. Chairman, one of the values of having a friend is that he is someone you can speak to frankly when you think he is doing something wrong. I do not believe in dealing with moral issues by looking to see who is on which side.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I am one of the few public men in Canada who spoke out against the Potsdam, Yalta and Teheran agreements, and I was almost alone in that. I said that this was sowing the seeds of the next world war. I criticized publicly the bloody repression by Kussia of the people of Hungary when they attempted to obtain self-government. I spoke out again against Britain and France for interfering in Suez. It is not important whose side you are on, but it is important that you are on the right side, and that you support what is morally right. It seems to me that on this question we have to take a stand. The issues before the world are too serious for evasion.
I hope that this House will have an opportunity for further debate of this kind because
(Mr. Douglas.]
we have only touched upon a very small segment of the large problem in respect of international affairs. I want to remind the House that although the position I have taken this afternoon may be unpopular, and although it may run contrary to the great flood of propaganda that is being peddled across this country, it is not important that one be popular. It is important, however, that one should be able to live with one's conscience, and if by bombing North Viet Nam we are pushing North Viet Nam into the arms of China, and if the United States later is forced to resort to the use of nuclear weapons so that the Soviet Union must come to the assistance of mainland China, what is now a sad local war could escalate into a world holocaust which would devastate the greater part of the earth. If that time comes, I want to feel that we in this party have spoken out against the dangerous path along which mankind is moving. As a poet once said, "to sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men." We think the time has come to speak out, and to speak out boldly before it is too late.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, because of the critical developments in various parts of the world, we welcome the opportunity of debating Government policy in regard to external affairs.
In some respects we have felt almost as though we were assuming a posture of isolationism, not by choice but because of our inability to ascertain the facts necessary to understand what is going on in the world. We do, of course, recognize the necessity for the Government to withhold information if it involves national security or if it falls within the category of confidential material, but sometimes we in the opposition are inclined to think that the Government uses these escapes as excuses for not giving the House and the country information which should be made available in order to properly ascertain the facts and intelligently understand the various situations which exist. I think the Government should remember that the withholding of the truth often opens the way for an acceptance of the false, and its failure to arm us and the Canadian people with the truth tends to prepare the way for the acceptance of insinuation, innuendo and assumptions which are characteristic of current criticisms of policies.
We appreciate the outline given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon. It was a wide ranging discourse
May 28, 1965

covering many of the critical problems with which we are faced, but when one analyses the entire discourse it would seem that in reality there was not much more information given than that which we already had. Therefore, we are in the position of having to discuss matters about which we must depend upon various points of view expressed in the press, and upon statements which have been made from time to time on public platforms, for information. Not having been taken into the confidence of the Government, to the extent I feel Members of Parliament should be taken into that confidence, we are left in this position.
I believe the first reference of the Secretary of State for External Affairs was to the United Nations Organization. This is a great international body which, under its charter, has been charged with tremendous responsibility. Unfortunately at a time when the world is facing some of its most critical problems it has been hamstrung by internal dissension and by an inability to face the requirement of discharging its responsibilities in an adequate fashion.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to some of these difficulties, the first of which was the financial crisis which has existed in the United Nations, and which remains unresolved. It is unfortunate that in the discharge of its responsibilities, the United Nations has had to depend upon a more or less uncertain flow of funds, and this is true at least as far as its peace keeping operations are concerned. The failure of some of the prominent nations to fulfil their obligations and meet their assessments has also handicapped the work of the United Nations at a time when it should have been strong and prepared to exercise its responsibilities in world affairs. I believe the Secretary of State indicated that during this time when the United Nations was hamstrung in its activities, the Viet Nam situation developed, and that because of the adjournment which took place it has not been able to deal with this matter of urgent concern.
Reference was also made to the withdrawal of Indonesia, and various other situations which have developed at a time when the United Nations should have been strong, but when it had reached possibly the weakest position of its history. I am sure all of us hope for the continuation of those activities which have made the United Nations worth while in international affairs. There may be some who are critical of the organization and there are
Supply-External Affairs some no doubt who have questioned even the advisability or necessity of its continuation, but I am sure all of us here today believe it is necessary that the United Nations remain an active organization in order to carry on the work that is has successfully performed in the past, maintaining at least a measure of international security and peace rather than allowing the world to drift into war because of contrary factions. The United Nations has been able to interpose its mediation facilities, and at least has confined most of the conflicts to the use of words rather than guns.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Reference was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the necessity for universal membership in the United Nations. This is a question that has disturbed me greatly. I have read the Charter of the United Nations. I have noted the particular qualifications that are necessary if a nation decides that it really wants to join the organization. Yet there have been times when these conditions have been bypassed. I think the United Nations will have to appraise the situation in a realistic way and make up its mind whether it is going to aim for universal membership regardless of conditions, or is going to maintain and apply these conditions of membership with regard to those nations desiring to join the organization. In my view this is something that must be taken into consideration.
With the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we hope that some way will be found to restore the United Nations to a position of solvency. If this cannot be done or is not done, then we realize, of course, that the work and activities of the United Nations will be seriously handicapped in the days ahead.
The second matter dealt with by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was the NATO community. He did not deal at any length with this organization. I believe that NATO still occupies and must occupy a very important place in the thinking of the various nations comprising this body and also that a reassessment and reappraisal must take place in order to bring it up to the position where it can meet the various challenges and new situations confronting us at the present time.
I think everyone acknowledges the fact that many changes have taken place since the NATO pact was first implemented. In the first instance the organization was estab-

May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs lished as mainly a military body to contain the expansionist policies and activities of the Soviet Union, but at the insistence of Canada it was also to become an organization that would work out the economic means whereby less fortunate nations could be given assistance in occupying their rightful places in the community of nations. There are problems that arise within the NATO structure. There are differences of opinion between the various nations comprising the NATO alliance. We sincerely hope that these can be resolved and that the organization can still continue to function to the advantage of its respective members and also to the advantage of the whole world.
There were other matters to which some attention was given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He referred to the question of Cyprus. It would seem that in the last while we have almost forgotten Cyprus. Very little attention has been paid to it. The situation in Cyprus occupied a prominent place in our question periods for quite a long time, but with the development of the situations in Viet Nam, the Dominican Republic and other troubled spots we have almost forgotten Cyprus. We appreciated the fact that the Minister referred to Cyprus today and outlined some of the activities being carried on to try to resolve the difficult situation in that country.
We recognize the importance of peace keeping operations. We appreciate and are justifiably proud, I believe, of the part that Canada is playing in such operations. But there is one question that has been raised on many occasions. Having regard to the fact that peace keeping forces have been placed in these various troubled spots, why is it that it seems to take so long to arrive at any satisfactory political solution to the problems? We have mentioned this before. We have talked about the Suez situation and now the Cyprus problem. It seems as though these situations go on year after year, year after year, without end, or possibly generation after generation, as someone has said.
One of the difficult problems we face does not involve peace keeping operations primarily, but has to do with the refugees in the East. We wonder sometimes just how long it is going to take to find a satisfactory solution to that problem. Therefore I believe our leaders must take into consideration and give careful thought to the problem of evolving satisfactory political solutions, instead of relying upon military forces to maintain the

status quo from year to year and possibly from generation to generation. In this respect we trust that the negotiations being carried on with regard to Cyprus will soon result in a satisfactory solution that will allow that island to return to a state of normalcy so that its people will be able to carry on their lives without the presence of United Nations forces and will be able to direct their own affairs and be masters in their own house.
I have referred to the fact that the failure of the Government to keep the public and Parliament advised with regard to these various situations has given rise to the spreading of reports that may or may not be factual or may be only partially true, and the result is that people in their desire for information will accept such reports rather than not have any information. Possibly one reason why there has been such a concentration of criticism with regard to some of these problems is to be found in the fact that the Government, as I have said, has failed to reveal the facts to us so that we may understand the situations as they actually exist.
In my view the criticism with regard to policy comes from various sources. There is the element that has always been tolerant of Communist thinking and planning and tries to brand any opposition as warmongering and imperialism. I do not accept that analysis of the situation. If true information were disseminated I believe it would have the effect of offsetting some of the propaganda that has been spreading across the country. The hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has talked about the wholesale acceptance of propaganda that has been spread across the country. One could perhaps say that there may have been the acceptance of a whole lot of propaganda on the other side of the fence and therefore we need a revelation of the true facts with regard to these various problems.
In addition, there are possibly some misguided and shallow thinking individuals who consider it the thing to do to align themselves with protest movements whether they are right or wrong. On the other hand, as I have pointed out there are sincere individuals who are frustrated-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being five o'clock, pursuant to section 3-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. MacNaughi:: I think it would be desirable that the Chairman rise and report progress.
May 28, 19S5


Lucien Lamoureux: Pursuant to section 3 of Standing Order 15 it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the House as the case may be.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be the desire of all hon. Members that this interesting debate be continued, particularly to permit a representative of each party in the House to make a speech. I therefore suggest that private Members' hour be waived for this day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we forego the private Members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to get unanimous consent to make a motion at six o'clock. The motion would be that we revert to motions so that I could move that certain items, namely, Nos. 1 to 40 inclusive, and items L20 to L25 as listed in the Main Estimates of the Department of External Affairs, be withdrawn from the Committee of Supply and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs, or the proposed committee as the case may be, saving always the powers of the Committee of Supply in relation to the voting of public money.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Lamoureux 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, 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 Control in Indochina), Secretaries and staff by the Governor in Council; assistance and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens and persons of Canadian domicile abroad, including their dependants; Canadian participation in the Commonwealth Arts Festival to be held in Britain in the Fall of 1965; payment to the Roosevelt
Supply-External Affairs
Campobello International Park Commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of the Act respecting the Commission established to administer the Roosevelt Campobello International Park; a cultural relations and academic exchange program with the French community, and grants as detailed in the Estimates, $13,176,800.
Mr.   Palierson@: Mr. Chairman, I was pointing out that there are several sources from which much of the criticism could emanate. The third group to which I was referring is composed of those sincere individuals who are frustrated in their attempts to gain an understanding of the issues involved, and who therefore accept whatever is said in the public press, or whatever is passed along to them. In view of the fact that there is nothing to present the other side of the picture to them, they accept the story they hear or read, when actually it may be far from the truth.
I think a very significant statement was made by Mr. Erwin D. Canham, of London, in the Christian Science Monitor of Thursday, May 27, 1965, when he said:
The Viet Nam crisis and now the Dominican crisis furnish very convenient sticks with which to beat the United States in the Central European Communist countries.
He went on to say:
It suits the Communists, naturally, to make the United States the villain of world politics. As a great power with heavy and awkward duties, the United States bear a burden of unpopularity with many non-Communist nations as well.
A true and growing detente does not seem to me to be the actual goal of Soviet policies. The isolation and lessening of American power is. Therefore if the Soviets had not been presented with the gratuitous issues of Viet Nam, Santo Domingo, and the Johnson attitudes as compared with the Kennedy style, they would seek other methods of stirring up resentments.
I realize my time is limited and a great number of areas of world interest have been referred to in this debate, but there are two which seem to be of prime concern at the moment, Viet Nam and the Dominican Republic. So far as Viet Nam is concerned I do not know just who knows all the facts, if anybody does, but we are aware that violence has plagued this unhappy country for many years, and the question of concern is whether Western policy is that desired by the people of South Viet Nam, or is it designed to perpetuate a regime which the people do not want? This is something which was referred to by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
I am not going to take the time to recount again the history of South Viet Nam, but

May 28. 1965
Supply-External Affairs the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated the reasons for the development of this critical problem-the expansionist tactics of Communism, infiltration and subversion-and there are others that have not been mentioned. I appreciate the fact that both he and the Government recognize that military solution of itself will not be sufficient. It must go beyond that.
I think there is a tendency to rely too much upon the military aspects of our efforts to contain Communism. It may be that these are necessary to give an opportunity for the working of other influences and factors, but in this particular case I believe that there should be the fullest possible pursuit, through negotiation, of a satisfactory solution to the problem. We all know the dangers. We recognize the fact that escalation of the war in that area could engulf not only Asia but the whole world. I am convinced that the military operations may be justified and are necessary to an extent, but I am even more convinced that there must be negotiations on every conceivable level, at every possible time, in order to effect a satisfactory solution.
I have here a clipping from the Christian Science Monitor of March 1, 1965, which quotes Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, as follows:
I am calling for an international conference with non-combatants sitting at the head of the table, and the combatants on the two sides, to try to see what we can do to set up a rule of law in Asia-honourable in its implementation to both sides-under which the third-party force, through the United Nations, would maintain the peace in Asia until the happy day comes when the combatants can lay down their arms, and there will be war no more.
I believe this is essential if we are going to have a satisfactory solution to the problems in this area.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the fact that President Johnson had offered to negotiate unconditionally. The hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam says that is not true. Perhaps there is room for debate even on an issue like that, but nevertheless we believe negotiation is of the highest importance and must be pursued on every possible occasion. .
I trust that the Government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are bending every effort to find a meeting ground, some place and at some level, where those who are concerned can get together and negotiate to try and settle this tragic situation. So far as the policy of the United States is concerned, it may be open to question. Indeed
tMr. Patterson.]
it is open to question, but I do know the SEATO organization has supported it and that Australia and New Zealand are sending at least token forces to indicate their full support of the U.S. operations.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I trust that out of this there will evolve a plan whereby peace can be restored and the Vietnamese people themselves can decide their own future and work out their own destiny, in a way that will be satisfactory to them and conducive to world peace. Canada, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs says, has no obligation or commitment in this area other than as a Member of the supervisory team. But what concerns Canada today is this: Though we may have no commitment at the present time, in the event of an escalation of the conflict we should find ourselves involved whether we want to be involved or not. This is why we are so concerned about it.
The Dominican Republic has been referred to as another area of grave and immediate concern. This was a situation which developed when it was feared there would be a repetition of the Cuban situation. The United States Government moved in and acted as a buffer between the two opposing forces. Of course, in doing so it brought itself under serious and concentrated criticism. The United States authorities apparently saw a new Cuba in the making. Whether this fear was real or not, we are not in a position to judge at the moment; only time may reveal just what is behind this whole unhappy situation, whether it was a popular revolt or whether it was a Communist inspired plot. The fact remains that the country was plunged into a civil war. We can at least say that by moving in the United States saved many lives and gave time for reflection on both sides. The enforced pause in the conflict will, it is hoped, lead to a political settlement satisfactory to all concerned. We know that with the entry of a force under the O.A.S. and in harmony with the United Nations the United States has withdrawn some of its forces and is continuing to do so. Here again it seems to me that a lot of loose and irresponsible sniping has taken place at the expense of those concerned in this critical situation, attacks which have done more harm than good, and which has contributed to the agitation of this problem rather than to its diminution.
I am not sure how much time I have left. But coming back to the United Nations I
May 28, 1965
should like to think of the responsibility of that organization. I think it has been set out clearly by the President of the Assembly. He stated it as follows: the maintenance of peace, the elimination of colonialism and the improvement of economic and social conditions in underdeveloped nations. As far as Canada's responsibility in the world is concerned, we sometimes like to think of ourselves as being, perhaps, bigger than we are. At other times it may be we think of ourselves as being smaller than we really are. But I believe Canada has an important part to play in the international field and one of our main objects should be to project an image of this country which would show the world what can be done under a system of free competitive enterprise when the evils of capitalism, as some people refer to them, have been eliminated and where a system which has been approved and supported through the generations can work to the advantage of people as a whole and bring happiness and security, not only to ourselves but to all the nations round about. This is one of the main contributions Canada can make.
Another is in the field of peace keeping and mediation. We are fulfilling our responsibility in the field of peace keping operations. Again I exhort the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he needs exhortation, to move forward with resolution and courage in this field and do everything humanly possible to bring about an understanding of each other's problems, so that the nations may consider each other's views and live in harmony to the advantage of all.
Finally I am of the opinion that Canada could do far more through the medium of foreign aid, both material and technical, to erase some of the circumstances and conditions which are conducive to revolt and to the spread of Communism. People who enjoy the necessities of life and are able to lead contented lives with a measure of security will not be too interested in the revolutionary type of operation offered to them as the only means of achieving economic liberty and freedom.
In conclusion may I say this: The United States is carrying a tremendous responsibility as the leading nation in the Western alliance in the defence of the free world. It is possible the United States will make mistakes. It is possible their foreign policy will not be correct on every occasion. Nevertheless
Supply-External Affairs I think we ought to consider the position of that country as a leader in the defence of freedom. Instead of sniping and fussing, we ought to consider her responsibility and make our contribution as best we can to the development and promotion of peace and good will among the peoples of the world.


Mr. Langlois:: As a relatively new Member contributing to this debate I consider myself somewhat as a buck private in an army of generals. Nevertheless, as a buck private in the last rank of the last company in the battalion, though I may not be able to tell how the parade looks I can see whether the general's stars are straight and whether his medals are well pinned on.
I take part in the debate today as one who has had no close acquaintance with the negotiations which have been going on in connection with these world crises. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition speak. I have listened to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the hon. Member for Burnaby-Co-quitlam and the hon. Member for Fraser Valley. I know that some of these hon. Members have been very active in the external affairs of this country and in world affairs generally. The Leader of the Opposition has, of course, taken a leading part in these affairs, as Prime Minister of this country, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs is now in the midst of this turmoil. The hon. Member for Bumaby-Coquitlam was the premier of a province for a number of years. I trust their judgment on my comments will not be too severe and that I may be able to contribute to some extent to clarifying this present situation. If I adopt the attitude I intend to adopt it is because the eminent people who have just spoken have found themselves in the midst of all this turmoil.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Sometimes, when you are in a turmoil it is pretty difficult to find a way out. This is the time when sometimes somebody from the outside can help you get out. Before you can get out of a turmoil like that, it is always good to find out how you got into it in the first place. I sometimes wonder if we actually know how we got into all this mess and why the quarrels that occur so often across the globe are repeated again and again.
The hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam referred to "this ever shrinking world". It is a fact that the world seems to be shrinking because of these errors we are walking into. Sometimes the errors are caused by haste,



May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs and sometimes by the incomprehension that exists with regard to various problems. They are caused by everybody going in every direction and not knowing exactly where they are going or why. There is no light of any kind to guide them; but they are right in the middle of the turmoil and are trying to do the best with what they have.
I believe that with regard to our external affairs problems we should be guided by our inner conscience, first of all. We should consider external affairs as we consider our internal affairs, because they are no different from what we have to undergo in our own country. It is a fact that today these difficulties come upon countries very rapidly, and the more we advance in time, the faster they come, the more numerous and complicated they seem to get. Why do we have all these complications? Maybe, Mr. Chairman, it is because in different parts of the world there are some who wish to hang on to things and will not let go. This maintains a high-tension wire across the world.
We have the Viet Nam crisis at the moment; we have the crisis in the Dominican Republic, not to mention all the other turmoil that has been happening in the past few years. Then there is the tension that is building up in other parts of the world at the present time. We hear doubts about the future if we maintain the positions that have been taken so far. Are the situations in the Viet Nam crisis and in Santo Domingo new? Is this the first time we have had to face such problems? I should say not, Mr. Chairman; this is not the first time we have had to face them-they have been repeated again and again throughout history. I think that to find out why these things have happened we have to look back at history, and find out exactly where we left off and what were the reasons that drove us to this point. You can be sure there has always been a cause for this sort of trouble. They were probably caused in the first place by somebody who did not mind his own business; that is usually one of the causes. More trouble is started by somebody not minding his own business than when people do mind their own business. But who did not mind his own business in this situation? Who is the cause of the present troubles?
If we go back through history, I think this situation has been repeated throughout. I do not want to be a moral historian, but one can at least be a practical historian; and sometimes when we are a little more prac-
[Mr. Langlois.l
tical, use a little more common sense and less political sense, we obtain better results and at a faster rate.
If we look back on history we see it has not been only military forces that have ruled. This is not something new. Before all this trouble started, if you look back on history you find that people ruled in the past on the basis of superstition. We had this situation in Canada before the white man ever came here; there were medicine men in this country that ruled their tribes on superstition, and the whole of this country was ruled in that way. You can go back to the time of the high priests and the Inquisition; they ruled at that time on the basis of the principles and beliefs of superstition. This has been largely overcome, although we still have traces of it in our modern civilization. This business of superstition is not so strong now, but we still have it.
This was overcome throughout the years by the force of the sword, the rule of the sword. This form of rule came into power next, and if we look back through the Middle Ages and at the Roman Empire we find that the sword was the rule-the stronger the nation, the better off it was. The country that had the biggest army and was the richest ruled the land. I am not saying it is different today. After revolutions and turmoil we still have people in this world who do not want to be ruled by the sword of the almighty king. Louis XIV of France said, "The state is I. It is the law because I wish it so". That was pretty drastic at that time, but it was the way the country was ruled. What the king wanted, he got; what the people wanted did not matter.
We overcame the rule of the sword with what is now a race to the cash box. This is the force that prevails today; it is the force that is having the greatest effect on the affairs of the world. You can be sure of that, Mr. Chairman. If it were not for some financial interest somewhere in the world we would not have half the trouble that we now have. This is one of the reasons for all this mess in the world today. Revolutions have occurred in countries where hunger prevails; revolutions have occurred in countries perhaps because of unscrupulous exploiters of some natural resources. We have seen a revolution in Cuba and there have been revolutions in other countries. And we will be seeing revolutions in Latin America before too long, if we do not change our outlook on how to solve these problems which face us today.
May 23. 1SS5

The world situation at the present time is caused by a conflict between those trying to exploit and those trying to make an honest living, but who are living in hunger and misery. We have come out of this turmoil and this blackness across the globe with two main ideas, and I must say that they are forming within regions and within blocs fairly rapidly. We have the idea of state control and Communism in the Eastern bloc, on the one hand, and we have the democratic way of life on the other hand. There are still points that we have to learn in our own democratic way of life. We see our southern neighbours trying to uproot our democracy by their methods. They do not always approve of the way of life in some other country, and tell the other people what to do; but they themselves have a lot to learn with regard to their own democratic way of life, when one considers the racial discriminations that are found to exist in that country. One has to look back not later than two or three weeks ago to the situation that existed with regard to the Ku Klux Klan, and the trial that took place in that country.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
If lawyers in the United States take the stand which this lawyer took not more than two or three weeks ago, we still have a long way to go toward civilization.
I wonder how Washington has the nerve to intervene in one manner or another in the present quarrels across the globe. Many times we find foreign interests at the bottom of these conflicts. I said that there were two blocs, the Democratic bloc and the Communist bloc. These two main ideals will be facing each other before too long. Even within one government one finds different conceptions, some to the right and some to the left. If we solve our problems with guns and bombs, which country today would not be at war? If we And peace within our own boundaries here, it is because we have an institution within which we can work together without using force of any kind. If this institution of parliament today has been built up over the years into its present image, it is because it has some good in it. We must find ways of bringing these two blocs together, one side or the other giving up. Everyone seems to try to maintain to a certain extent the democratic way of life, and we in the Western bloc can be proud of ours. But we must also defend it and help others who wish to acquire it. To do this we must find out, first of all, what these people need.
Supply-External Affairs
Even though we have the United Nations, NATO, NORAD and other world organizations, if we do not find out what these nations need then how can we give them what they want? Practically two thirds of the world's people today go to bed at night hungry. Therefore we must be neighbours and allies to these people, not aggressors. This has not always been our line of action. Even our southern neighbour has sometimes taken advantage in this respect. They have helped some nations under the flag of help, but sometimes we have noticed they did not always do what they should. Some European nations have done the same thing. They have professed to help underdeveloped nations, and the first thing one knows is a revolution occurs because they are exploited to the bone. This sort of thing we must prevent. Practically every Communist country in the world today turns to Communism because its people are hungry, and possibly because they were offered something we did not offer, namely food, shelter, and to a certain extent security. I am not referring to freedom and individual liberty of the people in the Eastern bloc, but wherever hunger prevails there remains the need for food.
I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs should defend this approach today. He should find out what these people need. I am sure not one of them wants war. Not one of them wants United States troops in Viet Nam or in Santo Domingo. All of them want peace. All of them strive for individual peace and quiet. They all want security.
Canada might be a small country in the matter of warfare. But is this how we measure the strength of a nation-by the number of planes, bombs and missiles it possesses? No, Sir, you do not. You measure the strength of a nation by its good will, by its internal wealth and what it can do for other nations and for its own people. That is how you measure the strength of a nation and its government. This is where the Secretary of State for External Affairs should guide the thinking of his colleagues, his other Ministers, who are involved in this international turmoil. We have replaced the sword, but by what? By bombs? They are not much better; in fact they are worse. We have already had two world wars. If things maintain their present trend-this will be verified in a few years' time; and I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion because some university historians have also reached the same conclusion-then I make this prediction. We are

May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs going into the third world war now between the United States of America and Russia. I am referring to the cold war, and its little fireflies flying around, with sparks here and there, but no main fire. But as I have said, where there is hunger and misery there will be revolution and war. The next war will not be between the United States and Russia; I am pretty sure of that. The next war will be between Mainland China and the U.S.S.R.
Why do I say that? First of all, there is poverty today in China. It has overpopulated areas. It cannot contain its present population. It could move toward India but that is not the natural debouche, the natural way out. The natural and logical way out will be to the north, toward Siberia. I visualize one mighty government in Russia and another in Mainland China. When that situation develops, which one will be chosen?-and I should like to know about that choice if it has to be made in five or eight years time.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We must recognize that the situations exist before the clashes commence. Today the world is engaged in a race to see who puts the first man on the moon, and which country can develop the greater number of atomic weapons. Good Lord, Sir, we could now blow this world up, and the flash of the explosion would not even be visible on the nearest planet; so why should we worry about making a flash in this sense.
Surely our job is to go out and help those nations that need assistance, and this can be done through the Department of External Affairs. During the war we were not a large country as far as the world picture was concerned, but surely we are big enough that we can help to feed those people of the world who are starving. I am sure we would accomplish a great deal more in this manner than will be accomplished through an attempt to be water boys of the United States team.
I should not like people to think that I am anti-United States. They must accept the responsibility for their own actions; but if we believe that they are wrong in their policies, it is up to us to try to get them to change their minds. Surely if we believe that we are right, we should stand up and defend our ideas. I do not believe that we can solve the problems of the world today by force. Surely force is not the solution to the problems which exist today in Viet Nam and the Dominican Republic, or in other areas where conflict is taking place. While it might be necessary to support peace keeping operations such as that which has taken place on Cyprus,

I think we can obtain our goals more expeditiously by providing a lead in assisting underdeveloped nations. I am sure that we can achieve our desires in a much more effective way by helping the underdeveloped and underfed countries of the world.
Most of the difficulties now facing the world are direct results of conflicts of interest. Very often these differences develop into expanding turmoils and it is up to us to prevent them by initiating negotiations between the conflicting countries. We should provide a lead in co-ordinating efforts directed toward the maintenance of peace, security and freedom.
I should like to conclude by reading from a communique I have just received from the Voice of Women, and I hope the words of this organization will be considered seriously by the Minister. Submissions made by this organization have received serious consideration in the past and I think at this time, in view of the circumstances with which we are now faced, this expression is even more valuable than any received before.

The Voice of Women, sharing fully the feelings of urgency which led the government to hold a debate on this country's foreign policy, has decided to interrupt its annual convention now taking place at Carleton University to send a delegation authorized to meet the leaders of the various political parties.
The Voice of Women states that any war may now lead the world to catastrophe and we assert once again that conflicts of interests can no longer be settled by the use of force.
Therefore, we ask the representatives of the Canadian people to state that we are a nation that wishes to remain an instrument of world peace. They must then openly express our disapproval of the American intervention in South Viet Nam and the Dominican Republic, an intervention which constitutes a glaring violation of the principle of self-determination for all peoples as set out in the United Nation's charter.


Mr, Herridge:: Well spoken.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity, that presents itself in the discussion of the main estimates of the Department of External Affairs, to draw to the attention of the House a question which is of paramount importance to the nation. This is an international matter, governed by an international treaty, and properly comes within the purview of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I refer to the question in respect of the water levels of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in particular, although some of my references may be directed to the Great Lakes as a whole.
May 28, 1965

The reason I wish to speak at this time, and I am happy to do so, relates to the fact that this is the month of May when the greatest flood waters are moving down the rivers, through the lakes, toward the sea, and if action is delayed in impounding those waters for the benefit of this country as a whole we will lose another year, because we will have to wait for the melting snows and spring run-offs in 1966, should we have another drought this year similar to those we experienced in 1964 and 1963.
This question is highlighted today by a strong and forthright editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette this morning under the heading "Low Water Again". I am certain many of you will be amazed to learn that in April-last month-of this year the water level of the harbour of Montreal reached its lowest recorded point in history. As a Member for a Toronto riding, I should like to point out that in February of this year the water level in the Toronto harbour came within one quarter of an inch of its lowest recorded level in history. The lowest level in recorded history was reached in December of 1934, and in February, 1965, the level was within one quarter of an inch of that lowest level.
With Montreal now complaining about the low water level in the Montreal harbour, and with the residents of Toronto and of the Lake Ontario basin complaining of the low water level of Lake Ontario, I say, as a Member from the Toronto area, which is vitally affected by this situation, that the Department of External Affairs should give immediate attention to the operations of the International Joint Commission. The International Joint Commission is a joint body of the United States and Canada, but it falls within the purview of the Secretary of State for the United States and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada, and I suggest that it is not doing its duty.
The water of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River is controlled by an international treaty signed in 1909 by Lord Bryce of Great Britain on behalf of Canada and by Elihu Root on behalf of the United States. In article VIII of that treaty covering boundary waters of the Great Lakes there is listed a table of precedence relating to the value of the water. I should like to read part of this article, as follows:
The High Contracting Parties-
That is Great Britain on behalf of Canada, and the United States.
Supply-External Affairs
-shall have, each on its own side of the boundary, equal and similar rights in the use of the waters hereinbefore defined as boundary waters.
The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various uses enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be permitted which tends materially to conflict with or restrain any other use which is given preference over it in this order of precedence:
(1)	Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes:
(2)	Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of navigation:
(3)	Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.
This problem is highlighted today by the interesting fact that the people living in the basin of Lake Ontario are demanding that this treaty be enforced by the two Governments and that priority No. 1 be observed. The water level of Lake Ontario today is 17 inches below the average level for the past 105 years, and this is adversely affecting domestic and sanitary purposes, which is the first item in this table of precedence. We in the Lake Ontario basin are determined that the treaty shall be enforced and the table of precedence observed so that the people on the shores of the lake will enjoy priority No. 1. But we have the City of Montreal through its voice, the Montreal Gazette, asking today that priority No. 2 be observed and in that regard the Gazette argues, and argues correctly, that the power interests of this continent are being allowed in practice to wreck the table of precedence completely, and are getting a priority they do not enjoy by international agreement. The Montreal Gazette points out that the trouble in Montreal harbour has come about because priority is being given to requests for the provision of water for the generating of hydroelectric power. They also point out that in the table of precedence for the use of boundary v/aters, power and irrigation come at the end of the list.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I would ask hon. Members to note the Montreal Gazette's statement that at the end of the list comes use for power and irrigation. There are three items only in that table of precedence, and at the end of the list comes power and irrigation. But I have in my hand a copy of a speech delivered in the Ontario Legislature by the spokesman for the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission. The Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission is one of three power entities that make use of the water flowing down the St. Lawrence for power purposes, the other two being the New York State Power Authority and the Quebec Hydro-Electric

May 28, 1965
Supply-External Affairs Power Commission. There are three power organizations interested in developing power on the St. Lawrence.
What does this speech of the spokesman for Ontario Hydro, delivered in the Ontario Legislature on February 3 of this year, say? The Montreal Gazette points out that the low water level in Montreal harbour is due to the fact that priority is being given to power purposes, and the Gazette emphasizes that power is at the end of the list. But here we have the spokesman for the Ontario Hydro pointing out something that I think is amazing:
In the precedence for users of the lakes established in the 1909 treaty, power production is high on the list, In third place, after domestic water supplies and navigation.
Here you have a spokesman for the power interests talking about the last item on the list being in a high position. Montreal demands that the treaty be enforced and that the second position in the table of precedence, navigation, which would help Montreal harbour, be observed over and against the third item in the table of precedence, power and irrigation.
As a Member from Toronto and one who represents voters residing on the shores of Lake Ontario I demand that the first item in the table of precedence be observed. We know that those responsible for Toronto harbour are dissatisfied with the present arrangement, just the same as those responsible for Montreal harbour. I spoke in the House on May 11 and pointed out that the problem with regard to Lake Ontario and Toronto harbour could be solved if the International Joint Commission would close the dam at Iroquois. If they will close the dam at Iroquois they can hold Lake Ontario at any predetermined level. While the flood waters are rushing down to the sea, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to take steps immediately to see that the International Joint Commission closes the dam gates at Iroquois in order that the level of water can be raised 17 inches to the 105 year average and to see that the level is held there. I do not want to see the level brought up to the average figure for 105 years, and then water released for power development purposes later, resulting in establishing a new low level.
I say that Quebec demands that item No. 2 in the table of precedence, navigation, be observed over and above item No. 3 which has to do with power. On the other hand, Ontario demands that item No. 1 in the table

of precedence be observed. I say that the Department of External Affairs should give immediate attention to the enforcement of this treaty which has been in effect since 1909, and is still of vital force as an international agreement. If we cannot observe treaties that affect us within 60 miles of Ottawa and the Parliament buildings, why ask us to observe international treaties that apply half way around the world? Let us see to it that we observe international treaties affecting us at home before we start to go tens of thousands of miles away to enforce treaties that are not as vital to us as the International Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.


Mr. Nugeni:: Mr. Chairman, I hope there are a few minutes left so that I may say a few words. I was much impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I did not agree with everything he said, but I do agree with him that it is time we took a stand and spoke strongly and distinctly. When we are considering international affairs and what action the Government should take we have got to remember what we are standing for. Are we just fighting against Communism, without caring what the results are so long as we are fighting Communism? Are we prepared to say that the rights of other peoples do not mean anything and that we are willing to use anybody on any occasion and abuse them in any way we like in the struggle against Communism? I think this is something v/e have to take a look at right now if we are going to consider what attitude the Government should take toward the action now being taken by that leader of the Western world, the United States.
To begin with, the situation in Viet Nam has excited more than a few of us. Certainly we are not suggesting that the situation there is a simple one and that solutions are easy. But there have been a couple of things in the action of the Americans there that must surely give us all pause. In the first place, one American spokesman summed up the dilemma of the United States in Viet Nam when he said that the main trouble there is that the people of South Viet Nam will not help themselves. That was an official American spokesman, the Secretary of Defence, I believe, and he was giving the official American view with regard to the difficulty in South Viet Nam. He said that the people there would not help themselves. What he was really saying was that they were not going to help the Americans. If the Ameri-
May 28, 19SS

cans are not in that country to help the people there, what the devil are they doing there and how can their actions be justified?
Certainly the situation in the Dominican Republic is even plainer. There is no suggestion of intervention at anyone's request. This is not a case of the United States moving in to protect their own nationals. I doubt that they would have the right to do that in any event in the circumstances, but I will not argue that point now. However, there is no doubt from the action they took that they moved in for the purpose of making sure that no government could take power there unless it met with the approval of the United States. It was as simple as that.
I suggest to members of the committee that if we start to think about why we want to stop Communism and why Communism has been the big bogeyman of international affairs for so many years, it is simply because we say that the international Communists would insist on their right to move into a country and would deny the people of that country the right of self-determination, in that by the use of power they would force those people to accept a government acceptable to the Communists. Is that not why people are afraid of the Communists? Is that not why we have always criticized them? But now, in the name of stopping this bogeyman, the United States is apparently doing exactly the same thing.
I suggest that the people of the Dominican Republic or the people of South Viet Nam are not really too concerned about what kind of dictator they get. Whether he calls himself an American or a Communist, he is a dictator and I am sure they want to get rid of him. We owe more than lip service to the principle of self-determination.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman. I wish I had a little more time to develop that theme but perhaps I will be able to do so *at some other time.
Progress reported.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I move that we revert to motions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: For what purpose?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?
Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: For what purpose, Mr. Speaker?


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I might point out that earlier today I got unanimous consent of the House to move a motion to refer certain items of the Department of External Affairs to the Committee on External Affairs, or an appropriate committee when appointed. I got unanimous consent at five o'clock to do that, and I now propose to make that motion.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: What committee is there? No committee has been appointed.


John Watson MacNaught: The External Affairs Committee or appropriate committee when appointed. I move, seconded by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet):
*he items hsted in the main estimates for 1965-66 relating to the Department of External Affairs, presented to this house on May 11, 1965, be withdrawn from the Committee of Supply and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs, or to the proposed committee on external affairs as the case may be, saving always the powers of the Committee of Supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


Malcolm MacInnis: You are out of order.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will be asked to resume the discussion on the resolutions relating to the improvement of the procedures of the House. If those resolutions are completed, and with the good will that prevailed yesterday they should be completed early on Monday, then the House will be asked to take up item No.
3 on today's order paper, namely resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance for the second reading of Bill C-102, an act respecting banks and banking.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask, in the spirit of good will with regard to the discussion of the resolutions on the rules, is the N.D.P. amendment to be withdrawn?


John Watson MacNaught: Which amendment is that?
I know of no amendment of the N.D.P. before the House at the present time relating to rules.

May 28, 1865
Business of the House Mr. Knowles: Yes, there is the amendment of the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Bre-win) with respect to the limiting of the time of speakers in a debate that is under time allocation.


John Watson MacNaught: I know of no such arrangement, that that amendment will be withdrawn.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the Minister permit another question? Is he aware he is not in his own seat and has been out of order for the last few minutes?
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Monday, May 31, 1965