1966-02-04

INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the report of the commissioners of internal economy tabled by Mr. Speaker on Tuesday, February 1,	1966 relating to salary revisions and
reclassifications affecting a number of positions in the House of Commons, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which arises out of a telegram, copies of which were sent to the Prime Minister and various other members of the house, in connection with the body blow struck to western Canada by the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway in discontinuing the Dominion, and in closing so many railway stations throughout parts of western Canada.
In view of the representations made by Mr. R. B. Copeland on behalf of the train dispatchers, station agents, operators and telecommunication employees, would the Prime Minister say whether consideration is being given to the establishment of a board of inquiry regarding passenger train operations, which at the same time would deal with all phases of the adverse results which have followed the action already taken?


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I received a copy of this telegram this morning. I have discussed it with the Minister of Transport, who will be able to reply to the question raised.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: To answer the second part of the question first, I have been giving some consideration, and so has the government, to the suggestion made by the right hon. gentleman that we might arrange to have the Canadian
Pacific Railway appear before the standing committee on transportation, as I think it is now called, to explain what they are doing and proposing to do in connection with their passenger service, and to allow all interested parties to attend and make representations; in short, to create a forum where these matters can be thoroughly examined.
I confess-and this is not a usual coincidence-that this idea occurred to me two or three days before the right hon. gentleman raised the question. I think it is a very good idea. My colleagues were rather favourably inclined toward it. I spoke to the chairman of the C.P.R. this morning, and C.P.R. representatives would welcome an opportunity to appear before such a committee. I will try, through the usual channels, to arrange for a suitable reference which we could get through the house without prolonged debate so as to get this going once the committees have been set up. The question of passenger service in itself is broad enough and big enough, it seems to me, and if we want to have practical results we should, for the time being, confine ourselves to the whole problem of passenger service and not include other services.
With respect to the closing of stations referred to in the telegram-these, of course, are not on the main line; they are in southern Alberta-I have not had time since receiving the telegram this morning-I have a copy of it too-to go into the matter or even to consult the Board of Transport Commissioners. I should like to do that over the week end and give consideration to what would be appropriate.


John George Diefenbaker: I will just say that I appreciate very much the serious consideration given to the proposal I made. If I may reply to the suggestion that three days before I brought it up the minister thought of it, I would point out that I do not have that power of telepathic communication.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not sure that the right hon. gentleman's modesty is very becoming.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: With reference to the suggestion that these matters be discussed by a parliamentary committee, I think this idea has merit; but I
708	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he would consider making representations to the C.P.R. that there should be a moratorium on any discontinuance of passenger service or the closing of stations pending such discussions before a parliamentary committee. Otherwise, if the present process continues, by the time the committee reports serious damage will have been done to the economy of western Canada, and great hardship will have been perpetrated upon many people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there should be confusion created as between the two entirely separate questions of the closing of stations and of passenger service. I think it would be very unfortunate to have the two confused. As for the cessation of any additional passenger service, there is, of course, always the necessary process, that I do not think parliament can interfere with except by legislation, of a reference in the first instance to the Board of Transport Commissioners.
However, the C.P.R. will undoubtedly read what the hon. gentleman has said. I understand that the committees are to be set up on Monday. I hope we can get this committee started the week after next, if not next week; therefore there should not be any delay.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Before he closes the door on the terms of reference for such a committee will he give serious consideration to the many protests that are coming in regarding the way the C.P.R. is treating its employees, particularly with respect to two or three pieces of legislation? In other words, would he not consider including these matters in the terms of reference so they can be discussed by the committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my departmental estimates are coming up later in the day, I hope, and perhaps we could have a debate at that time. However, I would like to emphasize that if we are going to have an inquiry about passenger service it is a pretty big subject, and we should try not to get a lot of other matters confused with that or we will not get anywhere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are not the rights of the employees comparable to the other problems?


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the people of Canada are too concerned about who thought up the

DEBATES	February 4, 1966
idea of a committee, but can the minister tell us how the functions of such a committee are going to interfere with or affect the appeals which have been made to the Governor in Council by the western provinces, and the appeal made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, sir, it is unwise for me to venture this opinion, but I do not think the Governor in Council could abdicate the responsibility placed upon him to hear and adjudicate on appeals that are made to him under the law. But undoubtedly the Governor in Council, in making up his mind, would welcome any light that can be thrown on these questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister when the cabinet expect to hear the appeals with reference to the cancellation of the Dominion, and when do they expect to bring down their decision? Certainly time is of the essence in this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under consideration now and we hope to review it shortly.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: As a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister, has a definite date been set yet for the meeting with the mayors of western cities from Calgary to Winnipeg on railway passenger problems, to which the Prime Minister has agreed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I dealt with that matter the other day. We are expecting to meet them soon.


Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. I understand from the previous answer that the appeal against the abandonment of the Dominion is going to be heard in spite of the fact that it is proposed to set up a parliamentary committee to study this matter.
My question is this. In the course of the hearing and ruling on this appeal will the cabinet consider itself restricted to dealing with the abandonment of the Dominion as an isolated action, or will the cabinet recognize this as possibly another stage in the Canadian Pacific Railway's program of complete withdrawal from transcontinental passenger service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the latter part of the question is precisely the
February 4, 1986	COMMONS DEBATES	709
kind of question that I should hope would be discussed when the Canadian Pacific Railway appears before the transportation committee. As far as the appeal is concerned, I believe we would be limited to the matter on which the appeal is taken.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this legislation is going to be based on the MacPherson report and since there are no copies of this report available, would the Minister of Transport consider having it reprinted or copies made available to the new members in the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will have that matter looked into at once, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation1



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R6al Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
What did the Minister mean when he said in Winnipeg that if the provinces believe that bilingualism and biculturalism should be restricted to people stupid enough to live in Quebec, it would then be a special status?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I never said that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I should like to rectify the answer I have just given the member for Villeneuve. On reading the text he sent me, I see I did, indeed, say the sentence he quoted. On reading the whole article, one can see that what I said makes a lot of sense.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Yesterday we heard from Washington that President Johnson declared that the question of automobile safety
Inquiries of the Ministry and the slaughter of millions of lives on our highways was second only to the problem of Viet Nam, and that he intended the federal government in the United States would act immediately regarding the question of the production of safer cars.
Have we any Canadian officials at the subcommittee hearings in the United States on car safety and the production of safer cars, and what action does the Canadian government intend to take immediately in this regard?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will recognize that the government of Canada and the people of Canada are very adequately represented by our ambassador and his staff in Washington and that they have in the past, as one can expect them to continue in the future, adequately kept track of what is going on in Washingtom.
As the hon. member himself well knows, the government does attach great importance to this question of safety in automobiles, and we have in the process of evolution a very active program in this regard.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I wonder whether the minister's attention has been drawn to an article which appeared in the authoritative magazine Aviation Week stating that the F-5 Freedom Fighter had to be refuelled 16 times in the air and make two ground stops in a 10,500 mile trip from Arizona to Saigon. Does the minister expect freedom to stand idly by while this materiel receives such devoted attention?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the aircraft required 16 in-flight refuellings and two stops on the way to Viet Nam. This is not extraordinary. Other aircraft such as the F-104 and F-100 would require similar refuelling. It is customary for practically all U.S.A.F. aircraft on the way to Viet Nam to stop at Hawaii and Guam for crew rest if nothing else. The main point is that the in-flight refuelling exercises were carried out without incident, which proves conclusively that the F-5 has no problem in refuelling in flight.
710	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



INQUIRY AS TO POLICY RESPECTING SALES OF GOLD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising from his announcement yesterday with regard to the sale of gold to the United States, as reported in the Globe and Mail under the excellent title of "Gold sold by Canada to aid U.S.". I should like to ask the minister, as the member of the government responsible to Canada, whether he is contemplating a policy in respect of gold that might be of benefit to Canada rather than the United States?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman and the house that the policy being followed in respect of the sale of gold is very much in the interests of Canada.



U.S. SECURITIES COMMISSION REGULATIONS RESPECTING CANADIAN COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance and ask whether he would comment on the announcement recently made by the securities and exchange commission, an agency of the United States government, that it will require Canadian and other foreign corporations which engage in interstate commerce, have total assets of $1 million or more, and have 300 shareholders resident in the United States, to register with the commission and thus become subject to its regulations unless the corporation's shares are now fully listed on a United States stock exchange.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for the comments of the Minister of Finance, and I think that is not the kind of question that can be answered at this time.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the proposed action by the securities and exchange commission of the United States, the government of Canada has lodged a protest with the Americans in regard to this matter, to protect Canadian business.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that this question was answered last week. But in case it was not I should like to say that we made very strong representations to the United States government some time ago.

DEBATES	February 4, 1966



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether his attention has been drawn to an article in today's Globe and Mail about a statement by a Mr. Biddell regarding the connection between a "group of scoundrels thoroughly familiar with the bankruptcy game" and the collapse of the Atlantic Acceptance Corporation? If so, can the minister give us a report in respect of the study being made of the Bankruptcy Act, and can he tell us whether we may expect effective legislation early in this session?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report to which my hon. friend has referred, but I shall be happy to read it. As far as amendments to the Bankruptcy Act are concerned, we hope they will be introduced soon during this session and that they will cover the main areas of complaint in respect of administration of the Bankruptcy Act.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether he is aware of the statement made yesterday in Vancouver by the British Columbia minister of lands and forests to the effect that Canada cannot have a national water policy because water resources are constitutionally under provincial jurisdiction. If he is aware of that statement will he give the house his views about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to suggest to the hon. member that this is a question in respect of broad policy and is not so urgent as to require an immediate reply. I would ask the hon. member to place it on the order paper.



EXPO '67 PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT FLOODING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister of progress. It concerns the
February 4, 1966	COMMONS
1967 exposition and the work being done in that regard. In view of some rumours, possibly of an official nature, can the minister assure the house that every measure and precaution is being taken to prevent flooding in view of the present high water level and the level which might be expected in the spring?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on January 19 of this year the Prime Minister, in reply to a question I asked, promised to consider recommending the establishment of a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons during this session to consider the activities of the National Capital Commission and, in particular, an emergency program to prepare the capital for the centennial of confederation. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he and his colleagues have had an opportunity to consider this proposal and, if so, what decision they may have reached.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with my colleagues, and perhaps the Minister of Public Works would like to say a word about it.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the matter is getting quite careful consideration. As the hon. member knows, there was a firm of consultants brought in to consider the reorganization of the commission. Their report was received and implementation was started in December of last year. It was thought, because of this and the fact that it would now appear that there will be more work before committees of the House of Commons in a very short time than there ever has been in history, it would not be wise to add this other special committee at this stage of the session. In other words, Mr. Speaker, while leaving the question partially open, if it implies setting up the committee immediately the answer would be no.
DEBATES	711
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



SOUTHERN ALBERTA-REPORTED BOX CAR SHORTAGE FOR FLOUR SHIPMENTS TO WEST COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is aware that some flour mills in southern Alberta had to shut down earlier this week due to lack of railway box cars to ship the flour to the west coast; and if so, would he ask the new co-ordinating committee to look into this matter, to avoid this happening again in the future?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will have the committee look into the matter raised by the hon. gentleman.
[Translation1



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Would he assure the house that negotiations are under way with the postal employees unions to avoid a strike like the one we had in the past?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Posimasier General):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Montpetit is inquiring at the present time about matters affecting postal employees and I do not know what the hon. member for Chapleau has in mind.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources about a progress report on the committee studying the fishing and hunting rights of Indian people.
The minister said at that time he would take it as notice, along with notice of another related question. I wonder if the minister, if he has not done so already in my absence, would like to relay this information to the house.
February 4, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I would still like to make a separation of the two questions. The first question was answered yesterday for the hon. member for Kamloops.



QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR ICEBREAKING ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Comtois (Joliette-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
I have received in the last few days letters from people in the Repentigny area who are worried about the floods affecting that area at the present time.
Here is my question. What steps have been taken by the Department of Transport with regard to the floods affecting that area at the present time and what will be done to prevent such floods in the future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the icebreaking activities this year have not been adequate to prevent the unfortunate flooding that has taken place, despite most vigorous efforts to do so. We have had a climatic condition that has been quite exceptional. Every effort is being made by the department and I hope the hon. gentleman will pursue this question further when my estimates are before the committee so I can give him an extended reply.
[Translation1


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since the same situation exists in Pointe aux Trembles, can the Minister of Transport inform the house of the action taken to compensate the residents for the heavy damage they have suffered?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will try, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this matter too when my estimates are before the committee.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Since the minister referred to the inadequacy of icebreaking operations, may I ask whether he is aware of the fact that icebreaking activities were sufficiently adequate to take most of the business away from Halifax and Saint John?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that statement is completely incorrect.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: May I ask a supplementary question, prompted by the question from the back benches on the other side? I ask the Minister of Transport if he attends the Liberal caucus.
[Translation1


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question-


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
What the hon. member has just said is, in my opinion, the worst parliamentary heresy. We are here first as representatives of the people, and second, as representatives of a political party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
In view of the damage caused this year by the ice, does the Department of Transport intend to organize an icebreaker service so that Montreal can have winter navigation on a permanent basis in the future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this is another question I will try to answer on my estimates.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, following an earlier question on January 28 regarding a certain television station and channel at Barrie, would the minister say whether any application has been received from Mr. Ralph Snelgrove or any company in which he is interested to have the television station for the Barrie-Orillia area transferred to Toronto and the vacant channel there taken up? Would he also say whether there are any Newfoundland interests connected with Mr. Snelgrove?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Except for the last innuendo in the right hon. gentleman's question, his colleague the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka asked that question several days ago and I replied to it. The reply will be found in Hansard.
February 4, 1966


John George Diefenbaker: I read the reply, but this is six days later. In the past six days has Mr. Snelgrove been engaged in endeavouring to secure such a television station?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said six days ago, or whatever number of days it was, that an application had already been received. There has not been a second application.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister answer the rest of the question as to whether Mr. Snelgrove, who participated so actively for the Liberal party during the election-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: has associated with him Newfoundland interests?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the right hon. gentleman is suggesting that it is a dishonourable activity to be a candidate for this house. I do not believe it is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforfh):: I have been trying to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, based on his answer to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition with regard to the television application. May I ask, when the government is considering this application can we be sure that the government will investigate very thoroughly the allegations that the moving of this station will seriously interfere with reception on channels 2 and 4 in the Toronto area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, or rather the Department of Transport receives these applications, considers their technical feasibility, and then sends them on to the Board of Broadcast Governors where, of course, there is always a public hearing. The hon. gentleman is asking me whether this particular question will be considered. To that question may I say I am sure there will be representations about it. However, I think our first consideration is to make sure that we protect the interests of Canada, to make sure that we have as many channels in Canada as possible, regardless of who may have the right to use those channels.



SUGGESTED RECALL OF TRADE COMMISSIONERS FOR CONSULTATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will he advise 23033-46
Inquiries of the Ministry the house when he expects to bring his trade commissioners abroad home for consultations with Canadian businessmen, with a view to advising them on additional opportunities for trade in their territories?


Robert Henry Winters: I am-making plans to see the trade commissioners during my visit to Europe next week.


George Harris Hees: In view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is going to Paris and will be there for only some five or six days consulting some of his trade commissioners, and there is a whole world in which we do trade, will he consider bringing the other trade commissioners home?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Albert Bell: I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether the government has received a report from the interdepartmental committee on bilingualism in the public service. If so, has there been any opportunity to give consideration to it?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: It is my recollection that I have not yet received such a report. I will have a check made in my office. It goes without saying that if it has been received the government has not had an opportunity of studying the report.



COLLECTIVE BARGAINING-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the commitment the Prime Minister made last summer, at the time of the postal strike, that legislation respecting collective bargaining in the civil service would be before us when we met in the fall, could he say which fall he meant? Will we have that legislation soon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, we hope to have that legislation before the house shortly.

February 4, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



TORONTO-POSITION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BY MEMBER FOR YORK-HUMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: I have a question for the Secretary of State. Can the minister inform the house the position of the proceedings taken by the hon. member for York-Humber in an attempt to prevent the French radio station in Toronto from operating?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I had a check made just before coming into the house, and I beg to advise that the latest information I have received on the subject is that on June 25, 1965, Mr. Justice King of the Supreme Court of Ontario made an order striking out the statement of claim of the petitioner and dismissing the petitioner's action with costs. Thereafter, however, the petitioner served notice of appeal on the C.B.C. through its counsel. That was on September 3, 1965. I am informed that the solicitors for the plaintiff have recently advised the solicitors for the C.B.C. that they have been instructed to continue with the appeal and to set the appeal down for hearing during the month of March, 1966.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister as yet in a position to advise the house whether it is the intention of the government to reconvene the committee on broadcasting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there will be a committee dealing with this matter, and we hope it will be set up next week.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is to leave on a trip to Europe, and I wish him well; but among other things the question of uranium

is going to be considered. My question is, has the government received representations from the president of Denison Mines, Mr. Roman, suggesting that the policing of uranium sales and purchases should be left to the purchasing country, and that the inspection provisions should be done away with? Is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether these representations made by Mr. Roman are going to be accepted by the government in any way?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the representations in question would not be in accord with government policy.
[Translation1



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell us why the Canadian National Railways do not provide sleeping cars on their trains going from Ottawa to Rouyn, Timmins or Cochrane in northern Ontario? Why is that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to make inquiries about these matters.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister, because I think this is a matter that concerns his own constituency. I would ask the Prime Minister whether the government is presently taking measures to deal with the radioactive pollution of public waters, particularly in the Elliot Lake and Bancroft areas, and also whether he considers that existing legislation is sufficient to provide proper controls over such situations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he place that important question on the order paper.
February 4, 1966	COMMONS



REPORTED INABILITY TO MAKE CERTAIN EXPORT SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as minister reporting for the wheat board. I would ask him whether Canada has had to forgo in recent weeks any significant grain export sale opportunities, and if so could he elaborate on the cause of this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would urge the hon. member to place that question also on the order paper. I suggest that perhaps a written reply to a question on the order paper would serve the purpose just as well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great deference to Your Honour it seems to me that if there has been any necessity to forgo sales, then surely this is a matter of great importance to the farm population of the prairies. There is a degree of urgency to this. Perhaps the minister might tell the house whether it has been necessary to forgo certain sales, and whether any action has been taken to remedy the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The point is very interesting, but it seems to me that the way the question was put does not make it acceptable at this time.



ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to direct to the Prime Minister on the matter of the vote for 18 year olds, and I put this question in view of the responses he made last session to questions on orders of the day, indicating his support for this measure. In view of the fears of the members of the Conservative party that these young people are all going to vote Liberal and N.D.P.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will put his question, but he will realize that in putting the question it should not be augmented by his opinions.


Reid Scott: 
Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a very important question, Mr. Speaker. Whether it should take priority over other business I am not quite sure.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to follow the usual practice of referring the Elections Act to a committee, in order to have it examined from top to bottom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to see that question examined by a committee.


Edward Nasserden: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, in a supplementary question which I should like to ask, if the Prime Minister would take into consideration the fact that in the province of Saskatchewan, where the 18 year olds have the vote, the New Democratic party which formed the government was thrown out during the last election.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker, is the minister also aware that they were not thrown out by the Conservatives.


Mr. Reg Canielon (Kindersley):: My question is supplementary to the question addressed to the Prime Minister. Does he know that in the University of Saskatchewan parliament the Conservative party formed the majority?


Mr, Starr:: And at Queen's, too.



EXPO '67 AWARDING OF DISPLAY CONTRACTS TO U.S. FIRMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["I think it would be a mistake, because now we are getting into private members' hour. We have made very good headway today and we can perhaps finish these estimates on Monday. But in deference to some members who were anticipating that some of the items would come up later, we should not rush them through at this stage. I know some members who want to ask specific questions on certain items. I think we should-thank the minister for his remarks today, and we will listen to him again on Monday after he has had time to contemplate and decide on some of the proposals we put before him. -\nProgress reported.\n[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)"]
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wonder if the minister would look into the allegations being made in Canada that contracts for Expo displays are being given to firms in the United States rather than to Canadian firms because of an unusual provision in the Expo contracts governing bids, which makes it very difficult for Canadian firms to meet these bids.

February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to look into that question, but I may say that I can hardly believe the truth of it. Contracts for Expo are let by the Department of Defence Production which normally, all things being equal, awards contracts to Canadian suppliers.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten 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 stalls 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 Indochina), secretaries and staff by the Governor in Council; assistance and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens and persons of Canadian domicile 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 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.
The Chairman:: Vote number 1, Department of External Affairs. This vote is to be found on page 94 of the blue book of estimates. Shall item 1 carry?
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to confine my remarks during this discussion on item 1, which I understand will go on for a few days, to one topic, namely the question of the training of German troops in Canada.
On January 19 last I addressed the following question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as reported at page 18 of Hansard:
I wish to address a question to Colonel the honourable and gallant Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have been requested to ask the question of the minister by war widows, parents who lost sons and daughters in the first and second world wars, by veterans. Legion members, various ethnic groups and survivors of concentration camps, trade unionists and other persons who support four parties in this house and who reside in five provinces.
[Mr. Mather.1
Did the government give any consideration to the feelings or fears of these persons when it consented to the training of German troops in Canada, led by former nazi officers who took part in the invasion of European countries in the second world war?
The minister replied as follows:
In this matter, Mr. Speaker, the government took into consideration the understandable reactions and feelings of persons concerned. The government also took into consideration its obligations to a NA10 partner.
What the minister is saying in that reply, Mr. Chairman, is that he gave consideration to the reactions and feelings of the Canadians concerned but that he gave first consideration to the requirements of the German military machine.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when this request was made to the Canadian government the minister could have wriggled out of it very well indeed had he answered the request in the same way that he answers questions from members on the opposition side of the house on certain occasions, in which case the Germans would have continued to live in hopes that something might possibly be done in the days ahead.
I rise to deal with this matter because the government has tried-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Chairman, I
rise on a point of order. May I ask you to call the committee to order so we can hear what the hon. gentleman is saying.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am having difficulty in hearing the hon. member, so I would ask hon. members please to refrain from conversation in the chamber.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, apparently the government has tried to keep this operation a secret, and in this connection I wish to quote briefly from an article appearing in Maclean's magazine for the week ending February 5. "How Ottawa hid the German army" is the heading. The article reads:
And why the panzer's cold-weather tests landed everybody in hot water.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. May I ask hon. members who wish to have certain conversations to hold these conversations in the different lobbies, because we are having difficulty hearing the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Canadian government's handling of a similar German invasion of Manitoba this winter was less successful-*
February 4, 1986

February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs Press under the heading "Canada Barks Back at Russia".
Canada has cracked back at Russia for accusing this country of supporting a Soviet-alleged revival of German militarism.
An external affairs department spokesman said Wednesday night Russia has mounted an entirely unfounded campaign of defamation against West Germany in an apparent attempt to sow mistrust of Germany as a partner in the North Atlantic Alliance.
It is a matter for grave concern, the spokesman said, "that Soviet policy should apparently be directed not only toward the indefinite postponement of solutions to cardinal issues of European security-
Anyone can see he was out on that point by reading the papers this morning.
-but also toward sowing mistrust of the Federal Republic of Germany as a partner in NATO by an entirely unfounded campaign of defamation against it."
The words were the harshest in the foreign policy field to emerge from official Ottawa in a long time.
The harshest words, that is, to come from a spokesman for the department of external affairs. The report goes on:
The spokesman was commenting on a Moscow report Wednesday quoting the Soviet Tass news agency as saying that Canada is supporting the revival of German militarism by permitting West Germany to conduct cold-weather weapons tests at Camp Shilo, Man.
What was the reaction? I can tell the minister there were many people who were concerned about this report, possibly because they had been told nothing about these events in the first place. If they had, they might have been able to put them in a different perspective.
As an example of what happens when people are not told the facts, let me tell the story of one old lady who got in touch with me, quite distressed, to say that our Prime Minister had become an honorary colonel of a German battalion. "I heard the troops shout 'Heil!' when he received the honour." This is what she told me. I made some investigations and found out she had heard this story from Rawhide on his program one morning. This is the sort of thing that happens when the government acts in secret.
What were the reactions to these reports about Camp Shilo? Here is what The Commonwealth had to say on December 22 in an article written by Charles L. Biesick under the heading "Why Are We Training German Troops in Canada?"
They are here! Whether you like it, approve of it or are enraged by it, German troops are training on Canadian soil in preparation for another war.
[Mr. Herridge.l
Aware that they were doing wrong; conscious of their ignoble act against the cause of peace, our government officials wanted this move made in utmost secrecy. They wanted no pictures in the newspapers of the arrival of German troops, tanks and other war machines. They were afraid publicity would arouse too much protest.
Then the article goes on to say:
Let me make it clear my protest against having German troops training in Canada is not prompted by hatred of the German people. I was born and grew up in Canada in a German community. German is the first language I learned at my mother's knee. There is no hate in me for the young German lads who landed at Camp Shilo. They are no doubt as pleasant, nice and clean-cut a group of young men as any of those who dropped bombs on London, Coventry, Warsaw or Stalingrad.
After dealing at great length with this whole question, this writer says:
Had the young Germans been sent to Canada on some peace project, or on a holiday, or to settle here I would have extended them a hearty welcome. But they were sent here by the present powerful military machine in West Germany. They were sent here to complete their training for the same career as their fathers who were responsible for the lives of millions of people in two world wars; including some who went overseas with me.
Then the article deals with the reaction of the Soviet Union. The people of the U.S.S.R., he says, have a reason to fear. To quote further from this article:
T. C. Douglas was a member of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to the U.S.S.R. last summer. At a meeting in Toronto he spoke of the attitude and feeling of the Soviet people. He said: "More than anything, these people have a genuine and deep longing for peace. They are deadly afraid that the Prussian spirit will return to Germany and that Germany will be given nuclear weapons".
The writer goes on to deal with these issues at much greater length, then ends as follows: Being aware that many Germans are opposed to the growing German militarism; being aware that many Germans are actively working and striving for peace and a more decent world, I resent and deplore our Canadian government's being allied with the German militarists against the Germans who are striving for peace.
I resent and protest above all the sneaky, underhanded way the government allowed the Germans and their war machines to be brought into Canada. Yes, as an ordinary Canadian I do ask: What the hell is our government playing at?
The whole article is very well written from the writer's point of view. Then there are the press reports. I have read an extract from the Winnipeg Free Press. Here is something from another paper, a union paper, the Canadian UE News. The article is headed "Protest this madness".
Canadian mothers and wives who lost sons and husbands in world war II must be wondering what that war was all about and whether or not the lives of their loved ones mean anything at all to the political leaders of today.
February 4, 1966

Some time ago this column dealt with the then rumour that the Canadian government intended to make possible the training in Canada of German military personnel. At the time, the governmet denied that such a matter had even been considered. Events prove they were not telling the truth.
German officers and troops are now at Camp Shilo, Manitoba, busily engaged testing missilecarrying tanks, with special attention to their performance under winter conditions.
The German group is under the command of Lt.-Col. Wilhelm Mundt. Mundt joined the German army in 1933, when Hitler seized power, and was promoted to officer in 1937. He participated in the destruction of Poland, and the military campaigns against France and the Soviet Union.
Then the articles goes on to ask the government to take action. Other protests have appeared in various newspapers. Here are some of the headings: "Move Germans Out of Shilo, Protest Groups Asks Govt."; "Protests Placard Carrying Ban"; "Why are we hiding the Germans?"; "Marchers protest German army test"; "German Army Wares on Show at Shilo". And so it goes.
All this indicates the concern felt by Canadians over this question. In the first place, they were not informed by the government of its intentions. Indeed, they were first told that the government was not giving consideration to this proposal. The labour unions are taking an interest in this matter. I should like to quote from a resolution passed by an organization in my constituency calling for opposition to the training of German troops at Camp Shilo. It is worded as follows:
Veterans-and there are many in local 480-are deeply affronted at the thought of German troops being Invited to utilize our training facilities for the purpose of acquiring war techniques.
The memory of the atrocities perpetrated upon Canadian troops by the nazi S.S. troops is still fresh in the minds of our overseas veterans and the presence of a new generation of German troops, this time on Canadian soil, is hardly calculated to heal these horrible memories.
We are deeply conscious of the need to maintain and promote a better understanding between Canadians and the people of other nations including the West Germans. But we think that to ask Canadians, and particularly our veterans, to assist in reconstructing a war machine that we had destroyed at such frightening cost, and to do this cheerfully at Camp Shilo is exceeding the bounds of good taste. We urge every candidate to support our stand.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
This resolution was adopted by a number of organizations. I ask the minister to direct his attention to this situation, because I have received protests from war widows, parents who lost sons and daughters in the first and second world wars, veterans, Legion members, various ethnic groups, survivors of concentration camps and persons who support at
Supply-External Affairs least four of the present parties in the house. I am also informed that this matter is going to get a thorough airing at the dominion convention of the Royal Canadian Legion when it meets this year.
Why did the government proceed in an atmosphere of secrecy? Without doubt the government has a guilty feeling on a sensitive subject like this since it reversed its policy with respect to nuclear arms, knowing the government of West Germany is anxious to have a finger on the nuclear trigger, and knowing the German army is still largely controlled by senior former nazi officers who took part in the second world war.
The Prime Minister informed the house that the government intended to negotiate out of what he said were commitments with respect to nuclear weapons. My first question is, will the minister tell us what progress has been made with respect to these negotiations? My second question is, why did the government proceed in this atmosphere of secrecy? Was it fearful of the reactions of the various groups I have mentioned and those of a large number of other Canadians?
My third question is, why did the government commit such a diplomatic blunder when it unnecessarily offended the Soviet Union and other countries by agreeing to train German troops in Canada? When the truth is out we find they are not large in number, but the suspicion has been created because the government was not frank with the people.
Why are German troops being trained in Canada in sub-zero weather, for winter warfare? What other enemy is there for them to attack but Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Soviet Union? There is no other place for them to fight except in attacking the countries I have mentioned, and I am sure we can well understand the reactions of these countries when they heard we were training these troops to engage in winter warfare.
Without doubt this is a diplomatic blunder which has damaged our relations with the Soviet Union and other countries. The minister will find out about this in the days ahead. It was a most unfortunate blunder that they were not even informed of what we were intending to do, and in this connection I would like the minister to table the agreement our government made with the government of West Germany with respect to the training of these troops in this country.
I may say I am speaking for some members of both the Conservative and Liberal parties in my riding. You know, Mr. Chairman, I always speak with broad support on
February 4, 1966

Supply-External Affairs an issue of moral principle. I have had some very interesting conversations on this issue with Conservative supporters and others in my district. Several of the persons who complained to me thought it was most unwise of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to leave the reply in a most important matter like this to an anonymous spokesman for his department.
As I said before, I call on the minister to table the agreement between the governments of Canada and West Germany for the training of these troops. We are entitled to a full explanation for (1) the secrecy surrounding this question; (2) the utter disregard of the deep feelings of many Canadians on this question, and (3) the reason for this diplomatic blunder. People's feelings would not have been so intense if they had known the truth. One person thought it was a brigade which was being trained in Canada. Another thought it was a German division. If the government had been frank and told the truth there would be less trouble than there will be before this unfortunate situation is ended.
I repeat with emphasis that an unnecessary diplomatic blunder was made, having in mind the fears of the Soviet Union about the resurgence of German militarism and the threat of an attack to the east.


George Harris Hees: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: That could not have been possible without the complete co-operation of the United States government and, as I have said, that complete co-operation was readily forthcoming.
Now let us consider the recent decision of the United States government to impose guide lines are found to hurt Canada we will subsidiary companies which are operating in Canada. The first purpose of these guide lines is to decrease exports of Canadian commodities from these companies to the United States, and the second is to increase imports of American made components into Canada for use in the manufacturing processes of these 900 subsidiaries, even though those components are readily available in Canada at a lower cost and of better quality.
February 4, 1966	COMMONS
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Both these measures will further increase the trade deficit between Canada and the United States, seriously decrease production in Canada, and thereby decrease jobs available for Canadians. Any economist or businessman, if asked, will tell the government that this will happen, that it is not a question of perhaps or if; it will happen. Perhaps the government should at times get down from its ivory tower and seek the advice of practical businessmen. I am sure in this way they could learn some of these economic facts of life.
The minister said in this house a day or so ago, having been forced by the opposition into adopting a slightly stronger stand than he had taken in the first place, that if these guidelines are found to hurt Canada we will impose our own guidelines. I have a copy of his first comment in respect of this action taken by the United States government. All he said then was that he could not see how these guidelines were going to hurt Canada and, in fact, that in some instances they would probably assist us.
Mr. Chairman, under the pressure created by the opposition, the minister has stiffened his position slightly, and now states that if and when it is found that these guide lines imposed by the United States hurt our industry, we will impose guide lines of our own. By the time it is discovered that we are being hurt, that action will be too late. Once these guide lines have seriously affected Canadian industry, and I have stated that this will happen, the serious harm will have been done, and any retaliation in respect of an imposition of our guide lines will be a negative action.
I strongly urge this government to adopt the same approach to the government of the United States that we adopted when we were dealing with an equally serious problem, that of working out our national oil policy. This government should remind the government of the United States that we are today buying $1 billion more from them per year than they are buying from us, and that this is equal to our total balance of payments deficit in our dealings with all countries throughout the world. If we did not have this trade deficit with the United States our books would be balanced and our economy would be in a far healthier state.
We must remind the United States government that of necessity we must take positive steps to correct this very serious billion dollar
DEBATES	721
Supply-External Affairs imbalance of trade which we experience each year. We must tell them that the application of these guide lines will worsen this imbalance, and that if these guide lines are applied to Canada, we must take proper steps to correct the damage that will be done to our economy.
If the matter is put in this way to the government of the United States, I am sure they will understand our position just as they did in the case of the national oil policy. I am sure they will co-operate as they have cooperated on a number of other occasions when the case was laid properly and clearly before them. I am positive they will withdraw the application of these guide lines to Canada because of the great importance of Canada to them in so many ways, and because of the harm the imposition of these guide lines will do to the economy of their closest neighbour and most important trading and defence partner.
When we were in the government we found that the United States respected us if we stated our position clearly and firmly. They are very reasonable people and want to co-operate to the fullest extent with their neighbour and best customer. We must teH them what our problems are; otherwise they will not be aware of them. They have many other problems to deal with each day. The United States is the leading world power and we are just one of many countries with which they deal. We must have courage and fortitude when telling them clearly how we feel and what we think should be done in the interests of Canada and in the interests of continuing harmonious relations between Canada and the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course they were told this.


George Harris Hees: We must point out our position clearly; otherwise they are simply not going to be aware of it. I urge the members of the government to start acting in their relations with the United States like men rather than like minions with their hats in their hands and their knees trembling, as they are acting today. If they will act like men and speak up to the United States government, as the United States government expects them to do, stating our policy clearly, then this country will once again receive the respect and fair treatment which it deserves.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member takes his seat I should like to ask him whether he rejects

February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs categorically the statement of Mr. Randall, the Ontario minister of economics and development, to the effect that the guidelines are not harmful to Ontario's economy. Does he regard Mr. Randall as a minion as well?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. gentleman has said is simply not borne out by the facts. Mr. Randall was objecting to a minister of another province coming into his province and speaking on a subject which, in his province, comes under his jurisdiction. In no way did he say that these guidelines would do no harm to Ontario or Canada. He said quite the reverse of that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Did the hon. member hear him last night on television?


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, I enter this debate to deal particularly with the question of Rhodesia. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will, in the course of the debate, reply to some of the questions asked by my hon. friend, the member for Greenwood, in respect of our position regarding the Viet Nam situation. I have had an opportunity to speak on that subject but I should like to deal at this time with the Rhodesian situation on behalf of the New Democratic party.
First, I should like to say categorically that we are already on record as being in support without reservation of the fullest possible economic sanctions against the government of Rhodesia at this time. I also want to point out that while the Secretary of State for External Affairs is right that in connection with the ban on imports it has been more than 90 per cent effective, I am sure he will agree with me, as I found in studying the record of statistics, that as far as the ban on exports is concerned it has hardly had any effect on our exports to Rhodesia.
We do have a ban on oil products but, of course, we do not to the slightest degree export oil products to that country. We also have a ban on armaments and I found some reference to some kind of rifle. I do not know whether or not that rifle falls within the armaments ban, but I do know that all the other products we normally export to Southern Rhodesia are not affected by the ban on exports.
I was pleased to hear, as I am sure all my colleagues were, that the government is now prepared to extend this ban to all other goods we export to Rhodesia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1


David Lewis: The minister says that is right, and I am glad to hear that.
* (12:30 p.m.)
I was a little surprised yesterday to hear the hon. member for Oxford, whom I have not had the pleasure of knowing very long but whom I have learned to respect in the short time I have known him for his deep sense of humanity, put questions before this house which seem to me to be at least a century and perhaps longer behind the times. First of all, he questioned the wisdom of an economic embargo on Southern Rhodesia because we did not have enough information. Ever since I have been interested in political matters and particularly in international matters I have known of no reason more responsible for inaction than the excuse of lack of information.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is one matter about which the information is full and about which the facts are clear: when Mr. Smith and his government illegally took power in Southern Rhodesia, they did it for one purpose only-and they declared that purpose unashamedly. That purpose was to prevent any constitutional development which would give four million Africans in that country an equal place with less than a quarter million whites.
There is no mystery about what Mr. Smith did or the purpose for which he did it. Nor is there any mystery about the repressive, antidemocratic, indeed one might say neo-fascist laws which the Smith government has introduced in Southern Rhodesia since he took power. I say to the hon. member for Oxford that there is no mystery that these laws are intended to prevent any possible opposition to the racist policy of the Smith government; laws indeed intended to prevent even the whites in Southern Rhodesia from knowing the truth about things and learning what is happening in their country, and more particularly what the world thinks about it.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit one brief question?


David Lewis: Yes.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member has given us some information which he says he knows to be correct. I would be very delighted if he could provide me with this information in documentary form because I would like to have it.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing anyone likes more than to help educate fellow members of parliament and I shall be
February 4, 1966	COMMONS
delighted to present the hon. member with a complete dossier of articles from newspapers like The Observer of London, England, and many newspapers in the-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Ah.


David Lewis: My hon. friend says "Ah" I respectfully suggest to him that responsible correspondents are just as good a source of information as even a White Paper from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who would probably base his information on precisely the same sources as the articles in The Observer and similar newspapers.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No.


David Lewis: How else does my hon. friend obtain any information? Does he, when he presents a policy to the people of Canada, insist that he spend five years in profound, unexhausted and inexhaustible research before he makes up his mind, or does he take it upon himself to arrive at a decision on a matter of urgent and important policy on the best information he can obtain?
I suggest that all the information indicates that the Smith government in Rhodesia has undertaken what in the middle of the twentieth century can only be described as a dastardly and inhuman attitude toward other human beings.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I suggest also that neither this parliament nor any other parliament can permit this to happen. My hon. friend also spoke about the possibility of massacres. Let me say this to him with the deepest conviction: This is the very reason why every effort must be made to ensure that the economic sanctions against Rhodesia are effective. It is only if they are effective, it is only if they are so effective that they bring the Smith government down and the United Kingdom government is able to take charge of events in Rhodesia and have the necessary policing powers, that a massacre in Rhodesia can be avoided.
If the economic sanctions should not be effective, if they should not succeed, then as certainly as we are now discussing this matter in this chamber a massacre of one sort or another will occur. Therefore I greet the sanctions by this government in support of the United Kingdom government for that reason as well.
The hon. member and other members-and I have noticed in reading journals from Great Britain that this applies also to members of
DEBATES	723
Supply-External Affairs the Conservative party there-are talking again about time being required to give people an opportunity to learn the ways of government and particularly of democratic government. Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for saying that for decades I have had no patience with this arrogant, white man's burden kind of argument.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to members of this house in a somewhat jocular tone, but I mean it, that the blacks have just as much right to make a mess of their governmental institutions as the whites have and as the whites have done. This God-given right to make their own mess of their own affairs must not be denied them. It should not be denied any people. I am not at all sure that they can possibly make errors as bad as ours or any worse than those we have made through the centuries.
May I remind hon. members that those of us who speak so blithely and so glibly about our superiority, whether by implication or expressly, that it took decades for the United Kingdom to become a united nation. It took decades of endless wars before at the beginning of the eighteenth century Scotland, Wales and England were united into a nation. Indeed, it took centuries in Britain for that to happen. It took centuries for France to become a united nation-


An hon. Member:: You did not mention the Irish.


David Lewis: No, Mr. Chairman, I did not mention the Irish, as one hon. member said. It took centuries of wars before France, Germany and Italy were able to build unity. What is the reason for this sense of superiority that we parade before the black and Asians in 1966? What have we to say about our own past, about the various countries from which our ancestors came and the ages of relentless and inhuman wars which they fought before they established themselves as political entities? When we say these things, let us humbly remember those historical facts about our own past.
The other day-and this I commend to hon. members as being a very important point -there was an article in the New York Times. This article appeared last Monday, January 31, and is headed "Homebuilding, Kenya's Barometer Pointing to Fair". In the course of the article the following appears, and I make no apology for quoting it in full:
Sir Michael Blundell, former leader of Kenya's white settlers summed it up in a recent call to the
February 4, 1966

Supply-External Affairs
Ian Smith government in Rhodesia to heed Kenya's example and make a painless transition to African rule.
Sir Michael Blundell said:
Undoubtedly Kenya has been a happier country since independence. There is no doubt that Africans are more friendly and more contented. Before independence the average European feared discrimination, being shunted to one side, rudeness because of his colour, a breakdown of law and order, and tribal fighting.
Sir Michael goes on:
None of these things has happened. There has been a slight lowering of standards. But this happens anywhere in the world under a "people's government". There have been stock thefts and isolated attacks on people, but the risks are no greater than elsewhere. The only difference is that here there is a colour complex. The government's taxation policies have been sensible, and designed to attract overseas investment, even to the government's cost in popularity.
This is the important paragraph. Sir Michael Blundell said:
Today we have a completely nonracial society, which is African in concept. This means that if you go to the post office to post a letter, you are not pushed forward because you are white. Neither are you pushed back. It is true that Europeans are unable to take much part in political life, but if you went to, say, Portugal you would not expect to become a dynamic force in Portuguese politics.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I commend this statement by a responsible spokesman. I am not at all surprised that this is the case in Kenya.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out that Canada's economic embargo, in its major part, followed a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on November 20, 1965. Most of our orders in council for the export and import bans started, if I remember correctly, from and after November 26, 1965. I greet the fact that this government and other governments are at last listening to a decision of the United Nations Security Council.
I remind this house that one of the many death blows given to the league of nations before the second world war was given by a Liberal government in 1935 or 1936. I am just speaking from memory now. I refer to the proposed economic sanctions against Italy. They were proposed by a Canadian representative who, if I remember correctly, was named Riddell. However, the Liberal government of Canada at the time rejected Mr. Riddell's proposals and withdrew him from that conference. This failure to support economic sanctions against Italy under the league of nations charter was one of the

death blows to that organization. I am surprised that anyone who is as interested in international affairs and in the welfare of the United Nations as the hon. member for Oxford undoubtedly is, should fail to see that when this country implements a resolution of the Security Council, that is one of the best ways of strengthening that international body.
The next point I want to make is one that comes rather strangely from a person supporting the ideology that I do and that my colleagues do. However, this metamorphosis has taken place. We have become interested in strengthening the British Commonwealth of Nations. Those who liked the empire do not like the commonwealth. It has been of interest to note in reading the United Kingdom newspapers that many Conservatives in the United Kingdom are now questioning the value of the commonwealth because so many of its members, they say, do not give allegiance to the Queen and many other members of the commonwealth do not share the traditions of the mother country. It is precisely because that is a fact that the British Commonwealth of Nations is now of real value to the world. Whether or not the empire was, I have very grave doubts. In fact, I have grave doubts that it was and I have a strong suspicion that it was not.
But the British Commonwealth of Nations, which has within it countries of various origins, various cultures, various traditions and various colours of skin, has become a real force for the kind of international dialogue which we must achieve if the world is to have a basis for real peace. Anyone who is concerned with these things, and I am sure the hon. member for Oxford is, must have been delighted to see that in Lagos it was possible for members of the commonwealth, representing all the established countries as well as the emerging new countries of Africa, to keep together. At first the African representatives were angry and felt frustrated at the failure of the British government to take military measures but rather limited its action to economic measures.
At the end of this conference in which Canada's Prime Minister participated-I repeat my commendation I expressed the other day-with the British Prime Minister and the representatives of other white countries explaining what was in their minds, the conference was able not only to end in some understanding instead of the division with which it started but to set up machinery for
February 4, 1966

following up the events in Rhodesia and for the necessary action if events should so dictate.
It seems to me this is a tremendous development within the commonwealth, a tremendous development that could have within it great promise for action of that sort beyond the boundaries of the commonwealth. I respectfully urge the members of this house to greet that development with the enthusiasm it deserves.
Finally, it was suggested that the action taken by the government in imposing sanctions lacked legality. I have taken a look at both the international arrangement, the note on which the arrangement is based, and sections 5 and 6 of the Export and Import Permits Act. I speak now as a member of parliament and not as a lawyer. I believe there is sufficient grounds for the law officers of the crown to have advised the minister that the action is legally based and for me as a member of this house to feel quite happy and without any fears for the situation. In short, I am not trying to give a legal opinion on the matter. I say that there are sufficient words in the act, sufficient words in the note of agreement, to enable a lawyer to conclude that there is a legal basis for the action.
Since we are dealing not with a technical problem, since we are not dealing with a question of legalistic interpretation, since we are dealing with a matter of great international importance, with a matter that affects the relationship between the white nations of the world and the emerging new nations, I do not believe that references to legalisms, no matter how much validity they may have, are of the slightest consequence. If anyone questions these orders, let him go to court. Some member of my profession will gain by it. In the meantime, however, economic sanctions will be in force and the moral and physical effect of their being in force will have its say in the developments that are to take place.
I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that one of the things of which my colleagues and I are ashamed is that any part of the British Commonwealth of Nations should have adopted policies such as the Union of South Africa adopted before it was thrown out of the commonwealth and such as Ian Smith has adopted. I feel ashamed to have been a citizen of a country associated with a government which practices apartheid. I feel ashamed to be a citizen of a country that is associated with a member of the commonwealth that has acted as Ian Smith has acted.
Supply-External Affairs No words, no actions could be adequate to deal with so barbarous a concept as the concept of racism. I urge this house to support the action of this government. All of us will criticize the government whenever criticism is necessary and will do so without any reservations or trepidation. In this case the government has acted correctly. If there is any criticism it is that the export ban was not a genuine ban from the start. I hope the government will not be persuaded to deviate from that course one iota.


Mr. Churchill:: I wonder if I may ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member is enthusiastic about the imposition of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia because political freedom is being denied the blacks of that country. Would he also advocate the imposition of sanctions against a country like Russia which denies political freedom to a great number of subjugated countries that are satellites of Russia?
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


David Lewis: I did not know that the hon. member would refer to Russia, but as soon as I heard the first few words of the question I knew what the question was, whether it was going to be Russia, Czechoslovakia or Rumania. Let me say this to the hon. member. We are objecting not to the denial of political freedom because there is not any political freedom in any real sense in Ghana. The government of Ghana has seen fit to develop what we might call a one party state. I am not suggesting any economic sanctions against Ghana. We are objecting to less than one quarter of a million whites in Southern Rhodesia insisting not merely that the others do not have any political freedom. Surely the hon. member is playing with words. These people are insisting that all of the political freedoms should be available to the whites, but that not only the political freedoms but also any of the social and economic standards which go with them should not be available to the blacks, and this purely on the basis of colour.


Mr. McIntosh:: You are playing with words now.


David Lewis: Second, I say to the hon. member who asked the question that in the case of Southern Rhodesia you have what is recognized by everyone as an illegal government which has taken power when it had no right to take it. There is in Southern Rhodesia a representative of Her Majesty, I
February 4, 1966

Supply-External Affairs say to my honourable and Conservative friend, who is the real government of Southern Rhodesia, and who is being flouted by the rebel government in that country.
What the government of Canada is doing in imposing economic sanctions against Southern Rhodesia is that it is supporting the real government of Southern Rhodesia, which is the government of the United Kingdom, and it is doing so in concert with that government. I would suggest to the hon. member that his question really has no proper relevance.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could I ask the hon. member another question, to give him a further chance for evasion. May I ask him this. If the economic sanctions fail-and he has suggested the dire consequences that might occur if they do-what would he recommend should be the action or attitude of the Canadian government under those circumstances?


David Lewis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will tell him what I think should be done, so that he does not have an opportunity to say that I evaded his question-because I am not going to do so. Personally I feel so strongly about the matter that, if the government in Southern Rhodesia is not brought down within a reasonable period of time as a result of economic sanctions, then I would hope the British government would take the necessary policing steps to enforce its governmental authority in Southern Rhodesia.
If it does that I would be in support of such action. That is my reply to my hon. friend; and the other obvious reply to his question is that that is precisely what the continuing machinery is for. This machinery, I understand, was set up in Lagos for the purpose of enabling Canada, the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth to succeed in their economic sanctions, with further steps to be taken should they not succeed within a reasonable time.
I repeat what I said before: If the hon. member's question is seriously meant, then what he ought to do is to support the economic sanctions so as to make absolutely certain that they do succeed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are just letting Canada have a watching brief, then, should the thing fail.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for York South permit a question? In view of his remarks as to his grave doubts whether the British empire or Common-

wealth of nations has been of value to the world, does he regret the fact that the British empire went to the defence of Poland when that country was unjustly attacked in 1939?


David Lewis: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that I had any doubts about the British Commonwealth; I have not. I think the British Commonwealth of nations has been a great organization of great value to the world. But I have always had doubts about any imperialist activity, and therefore I have doubt about the activities of any empire-and I make no apology for that.
It is also a distortion of history to suggest that it was the empire in the old sense that went to the defence of Poland in 1939. All of the democratic world did, as did the British Commonwealth of nations, and I am very glad and proud to be a member of it.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join in this debate very briefly, principally because last fall I had the honour and the privilege of heading the Canadian delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Wellington, New Zealand, which took place between November 15 and December 8. I should like later to deal with the subject of Rhodesia, but before I do so I should like as a Canadian to record in Hansard the thanks of the Canadian delegation to New Zealand, to the Right Hon. Keith Holyoake, the Prime Minister, and to the people of New Zealand for the kindness and courtesy they showed all of us during our stay. As leader of that delegation I should like to pay credit to the members of this house and of the other place who formed the Canadian delegation, namely Senator Welch from New Brunswick and Senator Smith from British Columbia from the other place, and the hon. members for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Asselin), Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), Queens (Mr. MacLean), and Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman). I think Canada was well represented at that conference, and all of the delegates played their full part in the work and deliberations of the conference.
I should also like to pay my thanks and tribute to our High Commissioner in New Zealand, Mr. Ken Burbridge, to his first secretary, Mr. Ray Robinson, and to the staff of the High Commissioner's office, who made our visit to New Zealand so pleasant and contributed very largely to the effectiveness of the work of the Canadian delegation.
This year, 1966, the conference will be held in Canada, some time this September and
February 4, 1966

October. I think it is fitting that it be held in Canada this year because there is a general feeling in Canada that we should be playing a bigger part in Commonwealth affairs. It seems to me useful that the conference should meet here in Ottawa and that Canada should see the new Commonwealth as it presently exists.
Unfortunately, the arrangements for this conference have to some extent been delayed because of the very sad illness of Senator John Connolly, the chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The Secretary General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will be arriving in Ottawa from London, I believe this Monday following the week end. I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will meet with him and take a very personal interest in the arrangements for this forthcoming conference this fall-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be very glad to.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -so as to ensure that Canada as the host country does all it possibly can to assure the success of this meeting of Commonwealth parliamentarians.
This conference which we had the honour of attending brought together in Wellington some 123 delegates from 68 branches of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, from the 22 self-governing independent countries, from the non-self-governing territories, and observers from Fiji, Hong Kong, the Northern Territories, Tonga and a very distinguished congressional delegation as observers from the United States, headed by Senator Fulbright.
The agenda of the conference covered five items, debate extending over eight days. These items were Rhodesia, economic growth in the Commonwealth, parliamentary government in the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association itself, and then a general debate on international affairs. Because of the nature of this debate in this house I want to deal with only one of those agenda items, Rhodesia, which at this conference, as other conferences, was a subject which many feared would bring the conference to an end.
I think it is very hard for some people in this country to understand the feeling of the African peoples toward the situation in Rhodesia and the establishment of the illegal Smith regime. It is surely our part to join with them in their determination-and you have only to meet with them very briefly to
Supply-External Affairs realize the extent of their determination-to prevent the formation of a government or of a country based on racial lines; their determination to prevent the formation in Africa of another South Africa.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
They are absolutely and utterly determined to do this. We in this country, Mr. Chairman, and others in the world generally have become concerned over the years about aggression and the enslavement of peoples by military force.
I was startled to hear the member for Oxford question the propriety and the legality of the present sanctions imposed against Rhodesia. Surely now is the time when we must be concerned about another form of aggression just as important or perhaps more important than military aggression and the enslavement of people, the aggression by countries and by peoples against the civil rights and the civil liberties of humanity. The type of aggression of the Portugals and the South Africas and the Ian Smiths is a very different type of aggression but it is aggression nevertheless against the fundamental human rights of people. The African peoples, Mr. Chairman, are determined to prevent that type of aggression.
It is our part, regardless of the colour of our skin, to join with those peoples in assisting them to carry out their determination. I compliment the government for the very forthright way that it has given support over the last few months to the policies of the government of Great Britain and has supported the resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations seeking the imposition of economic sanctions against Rhodesia. The policies of the government of Canada have resulted, I believe, in effectively preventing trade and commercial intercourse to take place between Rhodesia and Canada.
From time to time the fear has been expressed that, regardless of what action we may take and what action other countries may take, the sanctions against Rhodesia will not be effective because of actions taken by Spain and Portugal. I think there was a fear that Spain and Portugal might be tempted to assist the Smith regime to lessen the effectiveness of the sanctions. I had hoped it would be made clear to Spain, Portugal and South Africa that should they not join with the rest of us in the imposition of sanctions we are prepared to impose sanctions against them also. We must make it clear that we are

February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs ready to impose sanctions against those countries that are prepared to assist the Smith regime.
There is some evidence, Mr. Chairman, that the sanctions are becoming effective. The hope has been expressed in the press that within a few months they will be effective. Therefore I think we shall have to look for ways in which we can start conversations and negotiations with those people in Rhodesia who want to establish a legal regime. To this problem, which has been voiced in the public press and in public statements, not very much attention has been paid.
At the Lagos conference the suggestion was made that if the Smith regime were brought down there might be an immediate and temporary period of complete colonial administration. That was one possibility that was voiced. However, it seems to me that we must start exploring ways by which we can start to talk to those people in Rhodesia who want to establish a constitutional and legal regime. I would hope that at some point the minister might deal with that question.
During the course of this debate the opposition has questioned, it seems to me, the propriety and legality of the imposition of sanctions. The questions of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre certainly would seem to indicate the position of his party with regard to the whole policy of sanctions. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there is a general basis and reason for sanctions quite apart from the Rhodesian situation. Heretofore sanctions as a weapon or tool of the international community have been somewhat discredited. I think I am right in saying they have never worked in the past. Certainly, as the hon. member for York South pointed out, they have a very sorry history in the case of Italy. Surely it is up to us in the case of Rhodesia to be determined to see to it that the sanctions work. It seems to me that this matter is one of tremendous importance to the international community. If sanctions do not work, then the only and ultimate weapon, may I say, that the international community has at the moment is force and the use of force.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, it would be terribly significant to the world if we were able to demonstrate to the international community that there is another ultimate weapon that works equally well, namely, economic sanctions. Therefore it is important for us and for all the countries of the world that we should be determined in this instance to see that these sanctions work.

Finally, I should like to say something about the Commonwealth generally. I believe there are in this country a great many people, particularly among my own generation- among the younger generation-who question its validity and value in the world today. May I say that the Commonwealth, it seems to me, serves a very vital and worth-while purpose in the world today. To understand its purpose it is first of all necessary to recognize, as the hon. member for York South did, that today's Commonwealth is very, very different from that of the past and that the new commonwealth, as exhibited at the conference I attended-I hope-is a very different commonwealth.
It is no longer the alliance of Anglo-Saxon oriented white peoples, made up of Britons, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians. The old commonwealth is very much something of history. Attending the conference in Wellington brought me face to face with this new commonwealth made up of 22 independent nations representing all types and all sorts of peoples, the majority of whom are Afro-Asians. They are people who are rightly proud of their newfound independence and who are rightly determined to fulfil their own national destinies. It is the determination of the black African members to run their own show in their own countries, to develop their own countries for the benefit of their own citizens and to take their place in the community of nations of the world.
I realize this creates great problems. It also, I suggest, presents us with our greatest challenge, the challenge of contemporary race relations. It seems to me that there are few more important factors in international politics today than those raised by the colour of one's skin. If we are to survive, we have to develop ways for all races to co-operate on terms of mutual respect and understanding. We cannot tolerate a world, as we have seen in the past in some instances, with whites sitting in one corner and blacks in another. Yet if we are not extremely careful this is the sort of world that we are going to have. The new commonwealth does serve, I think, the purpose of a trans-racial bridge or link between the white and black races. If we develop our Commonwealth institutions such as the newly developed secretariat and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association I spoke about a moment ago, I think that the commonwealth will develop as a trans-racial bridge. This is something worthy of all our
February 4, 1966

efforts. May I suggest that Canada has a great role to play in this great commonwealth.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
As the leader of the Canadian delegation to the conference I found that there was a tremendous fund of good will toward Canada and Canadians on the part of the Afro-Asian members. We are trusted and respected. We are not handicapped as Britain sometimes is by coming to the new commonwealth as a former colonial power. Because of Canada's unique position I suggest we must do all we can to strengthen the new commonwealth as a link for good between the various races comprised within its borders. It is essential for the peace of the world, not just for the peace of the Commonwealth, that this approach be established.
I would recall words which Arnold Toynbee wrote shortly before Christmas, and they will bring my remarks to an end:
Modem technology has annihilated distance. It has brought all human beings, all over the face of the earth, into direct contact with each other, for weal or woe.
If we continue to practice the ancient double standard in the atomic age-
He is speaking of the double standard of white and black.
-we are going to destroy ourselves sooner or later-probably soon.
In the atomic age, mankind can survive only if human beings succeed in widening their moral horizon. We have to take the whole human race into the fold of our kith and kin, behaving to all men as we have behaved, in the past only to members of our own minority group.
Our responsibilities-
He is speaking now of the white race.
*-are proportionately great. If the human race were to take the fatal step of dividing on racial lines, a big share of the guilt would be on our heads.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I think there is an old saying that people cannot be expected to be reasonable on an empty stomach. I hope those of us who are still present and who have not yet had the opportunity to go to lunch will be exceptions that prove that rule.
In taking part in this debate I intend to limit my remarks to one aspect only of international affairs and Canada's role in relation to them. I refer to the current position of international law as it affects the law of the sea and Canada's situation at the present time in this regard. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that a number of years ago Canada took the initiative in persuading the

Supply-External Affairs United Nations that it would be in the interest of the world in general to convene a conference on the law of the sea. A conference was held in Geneva as a result and a large measure of agreement was reached on four important conventions. The only subject on which agreement was not reached was the width of the territorial sea and exclusive fishing zones. As a result of this situation a further meeting of the conference was held in Geneva in 1960.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member excuse me? I have to leave the chamber for a few minutes. I am sorry; I have been called upstairs.


John Angus MacLean: I would certainly be pleased to allow the hon. minister to go to lunch. I have no power to keep him here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why don't we all go to lunch?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Out of respect for the hon. gentleman I would stay, but I have been called upstairs.


John Angus MacLean: This second session was held in Geneva in 1960 and agreement on this contentious question was almost reached. The Canadian proposal failed to secure agreement by only one vote. This was a great disappointment to Canada because we had taken the initiative in trying to bring some order out of the chaos in international affairs as far as territorial or contiguous fishing zones were concerned.
Then in 1962, as we all know, an election was held. Unhappily some very unfortunate statements were made during that election campaign by the then members of the opposition. I will give no more than one or two examples. Here is one reported by the Montreal Star of April 26, 1962. The present Prime Minister was speaking in Morell, a village in the constituency of Kings.
He told the fishermen of the village that their fishing grounds should be protected by a 12-mile limit and that Canada should set it unilaterally if no international agreement is possible.
In the following year there was another election campaign in the course of which statements even more extreme in character were made. For example, speaking in Sydney in 1963, I believe, the present Prime Minister said:
Now, so far as the 12-mile limit is concerned our purpose is this: as we have not been able to do this by international agreement then we as a Canadian government will declare a 12-mile limit by national action. I think the time has now come

February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs
for such action. I am sure that if Norway and Iceland can do this, so can we, and in a way which will not cause difficulties with our friends. I am not afraid of this step-the present government is.
I should like to point out that these statements were somewhat less than trank as an expression of the situation as it was at that time and as it still is. I think the people of the constituencies in which those statements were made realize this and this realization has lowered their opinion of the present government. I think it is not accidental that such constituencies as Gaspe, Kings, Prince, Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare and Halifax, to name a few, voted against the present government on this occasion although they had supported it in the election of 1963.
I should like to place on record the frank statement made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand speaking in the New Zealand parliament on the second reading of a similar bill to the one passed by this parliament in 1964. Here are his words as reported on page 1917 of the New Zealand Hansard:
Right Hon. Keith Holyoake-Questions were asked by Opposition members as to the extent to which any other country could come down here and fish- and members had Japan particularly in mind. They wanted to know to what extent Japan would be bound by this new fishing zone. No country is bound by any definite rule.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
There is no definite international rule because the whole basis of the 12-mile limit was not approved by the international organization.
We have talked about the meeting in Geneva in 1958 and 1960, and I can say that the wider limits have a very solid body of international opinion behind them. The 12-mile zone missed being agreed to by only one vote. As has been said on a number of occasions, a two thirds majority was required-
Later he goes on to say:
Regarding the Japanese attitude, it must be remembered that Japan has never publicly accepted as an exclusive fishing zone any area beyond the 3-mile limit of any country.
As I have said at the beginning, this is a complicated and difficult international problem. The government made a commitment to the Canadian people that it would introduce legislation making a 12-mile fishing zone the law within a year of coming to office. Within that year it introduced legislation which is known as the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, but the catch was that the government was caught between its extravagant statements on the one hand and the facts of the situation on the other. When it saw itself squeezed between these two situations it adopted the philosophy of the cross-eyed
[Mr. MacLean (Queens) .1
mouse that always saw two cats jumping at him and tried to run between them to get away.
The government introduced a bill which was passed with practically the unanimous approval of the house, I believe, but the catch was that the effective part of the bill, which would cover the fishing boats of nations that had habitually fished near our shores, would not be effective until certain orders in council had been passed. These have not yet been passed. Repeatedly we have asked questions and time and again the government has said negotiations have to be carried out with these other foreign countries which have an interest in the fishing zones that we propose to make exclusively Canadian.
This, of course, is understandable. We have been saying that from the very beginning but the government has been saying that the negotiations were proceeding. It would take an historian to keep track of all the statements that have been made, but back in May, 1964, when the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was before the house, this was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as found on page 3412 of Hansard:
Both my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) and I have already emphasized that we were not in a position to indicate the state of our negotiations concerning our straight base lines and the bodies of water which may be enclosed by these base lines. I am sure this will be understood.
Then he went on:
I am hopeful, however, that our discussions will soon be completed and that the Governor In Council will be in a position before the end of the year-
That was the year 1964 he was talking about.
-to proclaim a list of geographical co-ordinates of points for application of the straight base lines to at least a part of our coast line. If our optimism here proves unwarranted it will not be because this Is not our present appreciation of the situation: it will be because of the nature of the negotiations themselves. It is unlikely that the Governor in Council will publish points covering our entire coast line in his first list.
It is possible that, depending on how our discussions proceed, he will publish several lists and that, in the first, base lines will come into force only for those areas in respect of which we have completed our talks.
This would indicate that there was going to be a series of these orders in council but we have not even had the first one yet.
On September 24 of that year the Minister of Fisheries said in reply to a question, as found in page 8399 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) referred to the order in council passed on the 17th of July exempting certain countries from
February 4, 1966

the application of the 12-mile fishing zone. I am sure hon. members will understand why this was done. It was done for those countries with whom we are negotiating, inasmuch as we could not expect to enforce the 12-mile fishing zone on those countries before the negotiations were completed.
It might be thought that these countries which are exempted from the application of this act would be insignificant countries, not the ones our fishermen have been complaining about for years. But what is the list? I shall quote from the order in council:
The Coastal Fisheries Protection Regulations are amended by adding thereto the following section: 9. (1) Fishing vessels of United States of America are authorized to continue to fish in the fishing zones established by section 4 of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.
(2) Fishing vessels of France, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Norway and Denmark are authorized to continue to fish in the fishing zones of the Atlantic coast of Canada established by section 4 of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.
The only important fishing nations that have not been exempted are the U.S.S.R., Poland and Japan. Practically a year went by and still there were no geographical co-ordinates established by order in council. On April 30, 1965, the Minister of Fisheries was asked a question regarding them and he replied, as found on page 779 of Hansard:
On May 6, 1965, as recorded at page 979 of Hansard, the minister was asked a similar question and replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I replied to a similar question last week. I wish to assure the hon. member that every possible action is being taken to proceed with the establishment of co-ordinates. However. I should add that the status of negotiations with certain countries makes it advisable to further delay such action as was contemplated in this regard.
On June 11, 1965, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked a similar question, which apparently was prefaced with the remark "What are you doing?". He replied, as found on page 2259 of Hansard:
What am I doing, Mr. Speaker? I am working very hard together with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, in respect of a negotiation that is proving very difficult.
I do not complain of these negotiations because the establishment of exclusive fishing zones and a straight base line method of measuring are things we all agree should be the objective of Canada as a nation. There is little dissent from that point of view. The only way in which we might differ is as to method.
I think the government has had every co-operation from all parties in the house in its endeavour to bring about such a state of affairs. The ministers have said that if they tell us too much it will jeopardize their
Supply-External Affairs negotiating position and therefore silence in this case is golden and the longer the silence is, the more their hands will be strengthened in these negotiations. It seems to me that the silence has been so long and so deep that their hands should be strengthened to the extent that they could almost demand the whole of the oceans.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
I should like to ask the minister to bring us up to date on the progress being made, if any, in these negotiations preparatory to the establishment of geographic co-ordinates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just want to say to my hon. friend that I hope during the week after next I will be taking this matter up during talks in Washington.


John Angus MacLean: I thank the minister for that answer. I should like to ask him also if any difficulty is being experienced in enforcing the act on the limited number of nations to which it now applies. Incidentally, I should like also to find out what the position is in regard to the sealing which will take place in the gulf of St. Lawrence in the next few weeks by foreign countries and whether the situation has not changed. This is the time of year when foreign draggers will be moving to the southwest coast of Newfoundland and when fish will be moving into the St. Lawrence. This again will be a sensitive situation if nothing is changed.
What has been the effect, if any, of legislation passed by various other countries in this field, and what is the general situation with regard to the law of the sea? I should like to know what is Japan's attitude in respect of this kind of legislation. We have not been told what Japan's attitude has been but we have received some information in an indirect fashion about her attitude to the New Zealand legislation which came into effect on the first day of this year. That legislation was not dependent upon orders in council. I have an article which was published in the Japan Times of December 28, 1965 in which it is stated:
New Zealand issue may be taken to International Court. Japan may lodge an appeal with the International Court of Justice in the Hague against New Zealand's plan to set up an exclusive fishing zone 12 miles off its coasts. The planned exclusive fishing zone is scheduled to go into effect January 1.
A government spokesman said Monday the Foreign Office has sent Masato Fujisaki, Director of the Treaty Bureau, to New Zealand to negotiate on the problem but so far has failed to persuade that country into changing its plan. The government has already decided to bring the matter

February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs before the International Court, if necessary, he said, though efforts would be continued to settle the matter more amicably.
I have another news report resulting from this Japanese diplomat's trip to New Zealand to talk with the New Zealand government at the end of last December. A statement issued by the New Zealand foreign office regarding this matter states in part:
Representatives of the Japanese government stated that they were unable to recognize the validity of the New Zealand zone in terms of its understanding of international law on such questions. New Zealand representatives reaffirmed the New Zealand government's view that it is within the sole competence of the coastal state to take such a measure.
I shall not bore the committee by quoting further from this statement, but it is my understanding that Canada has agreed to be bound by any rulings of the International Court of Justice. This is a matter which should be of great concern to Canada, particularly if a test case is taken to the International Court of Justice.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I assure you that it is.


John Angus MacLean: If Japan's contention that these exclusive fishing zones cannot be extended unilaterally is successful, then our legislation would be ineffective as I understand the situation, although I am not a lawyer. We as Canadians have a great deal at stake in this matter, first, whether or not it will go to the International Court of Justice and, second, as to the outcome if it does.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Would the hon. gentleman mind repeating his last statement? I am interested in this situation.


John Angus MacLean: I have said that it is important to us whether or not this case goes to the International Court of Justice or whether it is resolved between New Zealand and Japan by negotiation. If it does go to the International Court of Justice, it is of vital concern to us because if New Zealand loses its case we in effect lose our case as well. Our interests are the same as New Zealand's in this matter.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am not so sure that a judgment in one case would be authoritative in another but I agree that this is an important matter.


John Angus MacLean: I think such a precedent would be extremely dangerous so far as our legislation is concerned, particularly if the New Zealand legislation was ruled to be invalid.

Earlier in my remarks I said that at the conference on the law of the sea held at Geneva four conventions were adopted, three in total and a fourth in part. The fourth one not agreed to in total was a convention on territorial sea and contiguous fishing zones.
My understanding is that 27 countries have ratified that convention which has been in effect since September 1964. There was also a convention on the high seas which I believe 35 countries ratified and which has been in effect since September 20, 1962.
There was also a convention on fishing and conservation of the living resources of the high seas. I believe that has been ratified already by 21 countries. It needs one more country to ratify it to make it effective because, as I understand the situation, 22 countries must ratify each convention to make it effective. There was a convention on the continental shelf. Thirty one countries ratified that and it has been in effect since June, 1964.
My question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is: What is the attitude of the government with regard to Canada's ratification of these four important conventions? I think it is becoming urgent for Canada to ratify these conventions, particularly in view of the fact that Canada took such a leading part in having this meeting called under the auspices of the United Nations.
I should also like to refer to the very important matter of the lack of any international agreement as to what should be the width of territorial waters and/or exclusive fishing zones. It seems to me that the world situation has changed greatly since the last meeting took place in 1960. The attitudes of various countries may have changed. A great many countries have amended or changed their laws in this regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe there are about 40 which have made changes.


John Angus MacLean: That is right, and many of them have declared unilaterally that their territorial waters are of different widths than they had been previously. Furthermore, the composition of the United Nations has changed greatly since 1960. I believe something like 30 more countries are now members. I am not sure of that figure but the membership is much greater than it was in 1960.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are 117 now.
February 4, 1966	COMMONS


John Angus MacLean: I believe there were 85 in 1960, so there has been an absolute increase of 32 members who would now be entitled to vote at such a convention if one were called. I should like to suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that if he has not already done so he should very seriously consider the possibility of Canada again taking the initiative to have such a conference reconvened in order to see if once and for all we could not come to some international agreement which would regularize and codify international law as far as exclusive fishing zones and territorial waters are concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think we must take the position that the fact that so many countries have acted unilaterally does in itself establish the state of international law just as much as would the opposite position.


John Angus MacLean: I tend to agree with the contention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I think any Canadian would, but it may be because we have an interest in that being the case. It is very nice to hold this viewpoint, but other countries are just as entitled to hold the opposite viewpoint. It is interesting indeed that the most important fishing nation of the world, Japan, holds the opposite viewpoint.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to speak too long on this first item unless I get carried away a little. But I do feel it necessary to rise in my place and say a few words about the situation in Viet Nam. First, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important for every member of this house to realize that what is going on in Viet Nam is Canada's business and the business of everyone in this house for several good reasons, because of our dedication to the United Nations, for instance, and for our own protection because we realize that wherever there is a conflict such as there is in Viet Nam there is always the danger of escalation into all-out nuclear conflict which would perhaps mean the end of civilization as we know it.
For those reasons, because of the ideals to which we subscribe, for our own personal protection, because the United States is the acknowledged leader of western policy and our friend and ally and because we are so closely tied to the actions taken by that government, we have a right to examine what the United States is doing in the name
DEBATES	733
Supply-External Affairs of peace and a duty to criticize any action which we think is detrimental to our interests or to the interests of peace and the advancement of democracy in the world generally.
Many members have risen in this house and questioned the legality of the action of the United States in Viet Nam, their right to be there and what they are doing. I think it is long past the time for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to get up in this house and defend or explain the position that the United States is taking. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the hon. member for York South and myself on earlier occasions have stated that we do not believe that United States intervention in Viet Nam can be defended as legal and that it has no legal right to be there. The United States contends that it is legally there. If our government subscribes to that policy, I believe that to reassure the people of this country who so seriously question this stand the minister should get up and defend the position of the United States or explain why Canada has not protested United States intervention if it is in fact illegal.
People all over the world are worried; their consciences are bothered. As Christians they feel a sense of outrage at the loss of blood in Viet Nam. They feel very uneasy because of the fact that the only explanation given by those who say the United States is right is, "What else are you going to do? Are you going to let the whole of this part of the world go communist?" It is a fact that whatever explanation may have been given from time to time by some people, the only argument heard by the man in the street is that simple statement, "What else are we going to do?" Certainly, Mr. Chairman, that is an argument of despair. That is the best that can be said for it.
Since we subscribe to the ideals of the United Nations and the right of people to have a government of their own choice, I think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should get up and tell us why he has not dealt with this question, why the United States has not answered the challenge that its intervention in Viet Nam is a deliberate attempt to make sure that those people cannot have the right of choice of a government. To put it another way, do we believe in the right of choice of a government by people only if we are in favour of their form of government?

February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs
I suggest that the first indication of how we can judge what the people of that country want is the amount of power that is obtained by those who say they should form the government. It would appear from everything we read that the most powerful forces in that country are those inimicable to the present government which is being supported by the United States. In other words, Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the Viet Cong have the most powerful forces behind them and that if it were not for the United States forces the government of South Viet Nam would have been overthrown and the revolutionary forces would now be in complete control of the country.
We do not judge this, of course, just on the amount of military power that can be raised, but what is most important is the fact that, so far as I at any rate can tell from every reporter who has been on the scene, there seems little doubt that the majority of the population is opposed to the present government now being supported by force of arms by the United States.
There seems little doubt that the most influential people in the revolutionary forces are the communists. I have seen reports that they are more powerful than their numbers would indicate, that there is a relatively small percentage who want to kick out the present government but they are a very powerful percentage. However, I wonder whether we as people who believe in democracy and claim to be Christians can look at the present situation in Viet Nam, realize the kind of slaughter that is going on there and be satisfied in our own conscience with less than a positive opinion that we are backing a government whose actions are legal.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
There are many sources of information on this subject. I recall what may be considered a very unlikely one because it appeared in "True" magazine about a year ago. It is not very often in this house that a member will rise and quote as a source of information a fiction-type man's magazine, but in this magazine an article appeared written by a United States reporter who had been in South Viet Nam for a considerable period of time. He wrote a book-length report on the subject. The important thing is that there was a foreword to his story by Henry Cabot Lodge of the United States. In the foreword Mr. Lodge did not cast any doubt upon the accuracy of the facts stated by the reporter. He did say that the

reporter wrote from a pessimistic point of view and that he was the type of person who would refer to a bottle of whisky as being half empty while Mr. Lodge preferred the point of view that you should talk about it as being half full. This was the only quarrel Mr. Lodge had with the article. Anyone reading the article, and there are others like it, must be impressed by the pure savagery, I could almost say bestiality, of the fighting in Viet Nam. Most of us can recall that in the early stages of the last war there was an outcry against the bombing of Coventry as well as the bombing of other military targets. We asked if it was justified, if it was unchristian, but gradually there was an acceptance of it.
In Viet Nam United States planes and those of the government of South Viet Nam, in trying to fight the revolutionary forces or the Viet Cong as they are called, will hit any village in which they have some reason to believe Viet Cong may be hiding. They hit these villages in such a way as to attempt to destroy every bit of life in them or in the surrounding countryside. The slaughter of the innocent men, women and children is certainly something we can only excuse or go along with in the belief that it is legal or else we can justify it in the same way as we can justify deaths in wartime. These things become necessary to the continued existence of our nation.
However, we are a long way from that in this case. Some arguments may be put forward that this bombing is not completely illegal. So far I have seen nothing to indicate that the position of the United States is even as good as the position of France when France was fighting to hang on in Indochina but was finally forced out. I submit that France at that time at least had the responsibility of a parent nation to a colony to ensure peace, order and good government and to see that there was an acceptable government before clearing out.
I submit that France at least had a colour of right. I suggest it is different in the case of the United States, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs should give us a clear statement whether his government supports the United States being in South Viet Nam at all and whether they support the present methods of the United States since they have advanced from being mere advisers to violent combatants.
I take great exception to the argument put forward by some people, what else are we
February 4, 1966

going to do, just get out and let the communists take over? They say if you let the communists take over there they will take over all of southeast Asia. I take violent exception to the argument for two or three reasons. First, it is no answer to the question. Second, there is no suggestion that the present action is going to prevent the communists from taking over. Third, I believe that this type of action is the greatest assist that can be given to the communists in the worldwide ideological struggle between communists and democracy as we know it.
Certainly I have seen no reports to indicate that the United States, despite the fact they have greatly increased the number of men and the amount of material committed to that struggle, have been able to make any great inroads. The latest reports indicate they are still holding only a few cities and a few strong points and that to all intents and purposes most of the rest of South Viet Nam is under the control of the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong move at will, occupy any position they want and do as they like. The United States forces and the forces of the South Vietnamese government are confined to a few closely held areas and can only make forays in strength into the rest of the country. They are unable to occupy it or hold it.
I can find nothing in the present reports to indicate that the attitude of the people of South Viet Nam has changed or that they are more prepared now to back the present unpopular government than they have been in the past. Human nature being what it is, I find it difficult to believe that the savagery of the fighting and the methods used by the United States in trying to destroy the Viet Cong will endear them to the people of that country. I suggest that the unrelenting determination to kill off the Viet Cong has made it obvious to the people of Viet Nam, indeed to the whole world, that we are careless of how many innocents may die.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that at this stage the war has become a war of terrorism against the people. Since they have not shown any willingness to rise up and get rid of the Viet Cong, the present attitude of the United States seems to be, we will make life so tenuous the people will either want to try to get rid of the Viet Cong or they will have no peace and very little hope of life. I suggest that this is the sort of policy that is going to bother the consciences of the people of Canada generally. At a time when everyone in the country is greatly concerned over the
Supply-External Affairs question of capital punishment and whether or not the state has the right to take the life of a murderer, when we compare our standard of living with conditions that exist in Viet Nam, when we believe the people of other countries have the same right that we have to democracy, then surely we should be doing more than giving mere lip service in regard to this very serious question of the wholesale slaughter of innocent men, women and children in Viet Nam.
It is my contention that were the United States to drop out of South Viet Nam and the Viet Cong to take over, as they likely would, no case has been made out by anyone to indicate that this is going to weaken the western world in its struggle against communism in southeast Asia.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
It seems to have been taken for granted by a lot of the people that the argument will be used: "What else are we going to do? Let them take over?" I submit this argument does not follow logically. In fact, I can only think that since the western case is built on democracy and Christianity, on respect for the rights and lives of individuals, on the right of self-determination, and since we have always made so much of our ideological stand in this regard in the world wide struggle between democracy and communism, every day we do such violence to our ideals in that part of the world we are giving aid and comfort to the communists.
I suggest that the present reaction when we in the western world, who are responsible for the Vietnamese not having free elections to decide their own fate, refuse to recognize their right to self-determination is to send a pang of fear through the heart of every person who wants self-determination in each one of the countries in southeast Asia. There are many parts of the world yet where conditions are ripe for communist infiltration, where there is much poverty and where there is considerable unrest and doubt in the minds of the people about what form of government can best improve their lot in life.
When we continue to say that we have no use for ideals or that we should not be idealistic, we give every person in every one of those countries that we would like to see on our side grave doubts as to our sincerity. I suggest that they have many reservations whether the savagery, the ferocity and the methods used by the communists are as bad as the savagery, ferocity, unfairness and high handedness of the United States in South

February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs Viet Nam today when they look at what has happened. It is a case of comparing the theory of the bogey of communism and how bad it can be for them and its actual effects on the United States and the western world with how far we are going to go to save those people from this terrible communist bogeyman. Well might they say, Mr. Chairman, "Lord, protect us from our friends; we will take care of our enemies".
I cannot help but feel that present United States policy in South Viet Nam is the greatest aid and comfort to the spread of communism which exists in the world today. I think the violently anti-communist attitude, as I call it, which says that we should throw away ideals and use any weapons we want and fight in any way we want so as to make sure there will be an anti-communist government in South Viet Nam, is the most tragic and shortsighted policy imaginable. To all intents and purposes the United States seems to have abandoned all hope in the United Nations. Certainly if there were a case for armed intervention, a case to show that the people of South Viet Nam needed armed intervention to protect their rights, then the case should be made before the Security Council of the United Nations. If this task is going to be taken on by the United States instead of by the United Nations, then their right to do so should be defended. Someone should stand up in this house or elsewhere and give the reasons the United States has such a right.
I suggest that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs gives an indication, as he did at page 513 of Hansard, that the government is not entirely in accord with the views or actions of the United States government in South Viet Nam, which is what I read in the last half of the right hand column on that page, then we are entitled to ask in what way it is not in accord. First of all, does the government say that the United States is legally in Viet Nam? Second, does it believe, as the United States apparently believes, that since acting as advisers was not enough and because the Saigon government would be overthrown, the United States had the right to step in with its own force of arms and keep that government from being overthrown?
I need only point out to hon. members that if they look at newspaper reports of a year or two ago they will find that the United States propaganda agencies at that time talked of the South Vietnamese as neutralists and of

the United States as advisers. The insurgents were fighting United States advisers there. In just a year or two the situation has changed. Now the United States is talking as though the Diem government were the real government and saying that it is the government of South Viet Nam which is being supported by the armed forces of the United States against armed intervention from North Viet Nam. Surely, Mr. Chairman, such a metamorphosis in the terms used must show, rather than any basic belief in the rightness of their case, simply a shifting of method and use of terms so that the United States will not have to defend the undefendable.
I think one of the greatest tragedies of the present situation is that is democracies such as Canada and the United States, at a time when such fearful actions are being taken in the name of democracy and Christianity, there should be a complete absence of any logical discussion or argument about the legality or illegality, the rightness or the wrongness, of the situation. I cannot imagine people who believe in democracy so blithely accepting the suggestion that the United States has no territorial ambitions and the proposition that since we are always on the side of right, how can we be wrong? It is a very comforting sort of attitude which they take and a very fearful state of mind, I suggest, for people in any democracy to accept.
I cannot understand how thinking people-and there must be thinking people if democracy in our own country is to remain secure-can accept an argument which is so current and which is, I submit, the only real argument which is heard these days, namely, "Well, what else are we going to do? Let the communists take over?"
I submit that that is the sum total of the argument. I do not want to bore the committee but I repeat that the western world is taking a very fierce attitude. We are acting very savagely. I can find no argument to prove that the United States is in Viet Nam legally. I can find no logic to support the proposition that the Viet Cong will not take over anyway. I can find no argument to dispel my fear that the most logical result of this action is to give aid and comfort to the communists, that it very seriously damages the picture of democracy throughout the world, that it will drive away from us any allies we hope to make, and that it will only give despair to people who believe the great ideology we talk about holds out something for them too.
February 4, 1986	COMMONS
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will now put forward to the house and to the people of this country some of the legal arguments that the United States has used to justify its actions. Perhaps some of the arguments, if you look at them, will show that the result of United States actions in South Viet Nam is that they are not doing what they are thought to be doing but rather are helping the communists.


Mr. Bower:: Mr. Chairman, making my first address to the House of Commons after so many outstanding speeches by new members accentuates the awesomeness of the project I now have in hand. However, there is one compensating feature in that I have had the opportunity to appreciate fully the grace, urbanity, acumen and fairness with which the Speaker has conducted the affairs of this chamber. It has also been fully demonstrated that the words I heard voiced during his nomination and election to his demanding and pivotal post were not politely empty words. Mr. Speaker, I extend to you my sincerest congratulations, as I do also to you, Mr. Chairman, and to you, Mr. Deputy Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday my colleague, the hon. member for Oxford, touched briefly, and my colleague, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) at greater length, on a subject in which I am greatly interested and in which I believe I have some background of experience. The hon. gentlemen dwelt on the issue of Canadian membership in the Organization of American States, a matter of no little import to our country in the coming years. The hon. member for Oxford held that Canadian membership in the O.A.S. was not desirable and the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) took the opposite point of view. I heartily concur with the former.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I must crave the indulgence of the house to interject a personal note, and while modesty suggests I abstain the seriousness of the issue dictates that I touch upon it since it may give some added weight to the validity of my observations and conclusions. It was my pleasure, sir, and I consider it my good fortune, to have lived some 35 years in South America in nearly all the countries of that continent. As a young man I slogged across its jungles, deserts and mountains and lived in its small 23033-47
DEBATES	737
Supply-External Affairs towns. Later it fell to me to deal with ministers and heads of state of countries down there.
I have nothing but affection and respect for the peoples and countries of Latin America in their travails and difficulties as they search for a place in the sun. During my years in Latin America I was associated with American interests while retaining my Canadian citizenship. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that Canada enjoys tremendous prestige all over Latin America. We are admired and trusted. The fact, sir, that a large proportion of our population is ethnically French is by no means the least factor engendering those sentiments.
It is of course expressing no new thought to say that Canada has the closest of ties with the United States, both cultural and economic. These ties, eternally I hope and trust, always will be adapted to the maintenance of our basic interests in this close association. Therefore great care, it seems to me, should be taken to avoid burdening those ties and the maintenance and protection of our paramount interests.
I have no doubt that many Canadian individuals as well as officials of our government and members of our diplomatic corps have from time to time had Latin Americans express enthusiasm for Canada's entering the Organization of American States. They have done so in response to a question from the Canadian side as to their attitude on the matter or it has been offered voluntarily.
In the first place, knowing the innate politeness of the Latin, I should not be inclined to accept the response as representing necessarily the result of deep thought or of profound feelings on the matter. In the second place, with all respect to the countries of Latin America, I have a strong feeling that when they think, if they do, upon the question of our entrance into O.A.S. they may equate us only as a permanent ally against what they rightly or wrongly consider to be the colossus of the north. The dissillusionment and the effect on the splendid relationship built up over the years with the countries of South America by Canada, were that preconceived concept to be punctured, would be nothing short of tragic.
Up until the second world war the really great international sport was a game known as twisting the lion's tail. The game continues but it now has a new name: Pulling the eagle's feathers. For good and sufficient reasons I think that our Latin American friends

February 4, 1968
Supply-External Affairs may wish to indulge in this sport. However, I conceive of the relations between Canada and the United States as having progressed beyond this type of proceeeding, which probably would work out to our great embarrassment. Consequently I feel that detachment is in Canada's national interest.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The O.A.S. is an evolutionary product of the Pan-American union rooted to a degree in the Monroe doctrine. I hope and believe that eventually it will prove a splendid one. However, historically O.A.S. and its predecessor entity have had a long history of discord and difficulties, and our presence now within it might well result in setting back its desirable development rather than promoting it.
If I might be permitted once again to interject a personal note, I can assure hon. members that on many occasions when I lived in South America and when certain conflicts of interest arose between people of the United States and of the host countries I found that by becoming very, very Canadian it was possible to solve some of these really difficult problems. I trust you will not find it unduly presumptuous of me, Mr. Chairman, if I suggest an extrapolation of my small experience into the national scale. For many years in this hemisphere there will be moments when it will be in the paramount interest of Canada to remain silent. Let us not, by being a compulsive joiner, deny ourselves that advantage.
In Latin America the greatest qualities attributed to both France and Britain enjoy what I might call a built-in esteem. Paris and London exert a profound pull. I submit that we here at the northern end of this hemisphere with our dual culture look even more like a bridge than like a cog in a machine.
In the course of my remarks I have emphasized Canada's paramount and vital interests. I make no apology for doing so. As a member of the Canadian House of Commons, if I were to do anything else I should be subverting the position to which the good people of Shel-bourne-Yarmouth-Clare elected me and for which I humbly express my greatest appreciation. Having said this, I feel my position on the issue under discussion is not selfishly Canadian. On the contrary, I believe non-entry into the O.A.S. at this time and perhaps for some years to come is in the best interests of that organization as it is evolving, Latin America, the United States and Canada. I yield to no man in my good will toward

Latin America and the United States. But let us season our good will with a souppon of good sense and a pinch of practicality.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) for taking part in the debate but I will be brief. A few minutes ago, the minister came to me and asked if I intended to speak. At that time, I did not intend to. I hope that the minister will not hold it against me if I take the floor for a new minutes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not at all.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have a very simple reason for wanting to say a few words, Mr. Chairman. In 1959, I was a member of the Canadian delegation to the annual conference of the commonwealth parliamentary association.
At that time we went to Australia where the conference was being held, and there I found out, by mingling with hundreds of parliamentarians and some Australian citizens, that Canada was held in very high esteem by all.
It was also given to me in 1961, if I am not mistaken, to attend the NATO conference in Paris. There again, I noticed that whenever the name of Canada was mentioned, it brought us the respect and even the admiration of all those with whom we came into contact.
I decided to take part in the debate because I think that the minister should clear up some points about which many people are in doubt.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, a cultural agreement was signed, on the one hand by the minister of Quebec and on the other, by the minister of France.
That gave rise, from the beginning of 1965 and all through the year, to a controversy on the possible repercussions of that agreement. In my opinion, that matter should be cleared up by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Being myself of Norman descent-my ancestors came from Normandy-it is quite normal for people to think that, along with all my family and colleagues from the province of Quebec, I favour the signing of the most friendly agreement between our former mother country and what we call the mother country of French Canadians in Canada, the province of Quebec.
February 4, 1966
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
That is why the conditions of the agreement should be made perfectly clear by the minister to avoid any misunderstanding on the part of anybody in this connection.
As everybody knows, education is the main concern of all legislators in the province of Quebec, or in any other province, for that matter. They want to see monthly, even weekly progress in the field of education, and that is why they tried to establish a link between the Quebec Department of Education and France's counterpart.
Now, I would like someone to tell us in the province of Quebec what we can do about this agreement. I would like it if the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs would define, in a clear and precise way, the powers, duties and responsibilities of the governments concerned.
We must at all costs avoid complications and disastrous consequences that could be prompted by a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the regulations concerning such an agreement.
That is why I would like the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has something French in him, to take this opportunity to explain to us the basis of this agreement, so that there could not be any possibility of a misunderstanding by any of the parties involved.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, eight years ago when I first came to the House of Commons I felt myself in almost complete agreement with much that was being done in regard to the external affairs of our country. During those years I have not had occasion to take part in the debates that from time to time have taken place concerning Canada's relations with other nations and the effectiveness of our external affairs policy.
All of us are proud of the reputation Canada has had over the years when becoming one of the more powerful middle powers and all of us have been proud of her role in searching for peaceful solutions to the problems that confront mankind. However, I am a little disturbed at the reluctance of the minister to give us all the information necessary to satisfy ourselves about some of the courses Canada has taken during the past year. I realize some of this information is not as
23033-47J
Supply-External Affairs readily available as people may think and so I do not intend to deal with one or two of the matters that have already been discussed.
But when I look around the world today and see so many emerging nations trying to grasp the fundamentals of democracy, the moral concepts that it stands for, what bothers me is that the image of Canada during the past year cannot but have been tarnished by what has taken place right here within our own borders and right here within the House of Commons. I think of the upheaval in the ministry opposite, the questions that were raised in regard to the conduct of ministers, and the whole question of the administration of justice in Canada.
I also think of the inaction of the Prime Minister, shirking his responsibility to face these problems and calling on Canadians to take part in another election campaign, one that could not help but be destined to result in a parliament not too much different from the one that existed last June. I cannot help but wonder how seriously this has damaged Canada's effectiveness as an example to the emerging nations of the world who are searching and reaching for the fundamentals of democracy. Surely what has happened in this house during the past year has made the problem of those in the Department of External Affairs much more difficult than it might otherwise have been.
Surely anyone who studies history must know that the consequences of these events will follow our foreign affairs officers for almost a generation in their deliberations with other nations. I cannot help but feel that somehow this takes on an even more important significance when one realizes that our Prime Minister was a Nobel peace prize winner. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is his seatmate in this chamber. Surely he must have brought to the attention of the Prime Minister the serious effects that his hesitation and reluctance to deal with these internal matters must have had on nations throughout the world.
I cannot help but wonder what advice the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave the Prime Minister in this regard. I cannot help but wonder, if the Secretary of State for External Affairs had been in the Prime Minister's shoes, whether the situation would have been much different. I cannot help but feel, looking at the effects this will have on the future relations of Canada with emerging nations, that the effectiveness of the Prime

February 4, 1966

Supply-External Affairs Minister as the head of our state has been seriously and desperately impaired. This is something we must face in the days ahead.
The world is perhaps facing the most critical situation it has ever faced. I hope Canada still has some vestige of the good reputation abroad that it had in the past. If it has it should do all that it can to make its efforts for peace more effective, and foster the community of interest between the emerging nations and those that have been established for years.
There are problems within our own borders, and in this connection I speak of the native people of our country. It is only a few years ago since we gave them the vote. I believe it was during the period of time when the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of my party, was the prime minister of Canada.
I have five reservations in my riding and more will have to be done for these native Canadians if we are to fulfil our obligations in this regard and if we wish to have an effective voice in the councils of the world.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I cannot help but wonder what the situation is going to be 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now. When I look at some of the decisions that are now being made I realize that some nations of the world must look at their short term responsibilities, but I impress upon the minister and the government that the long term responsibilities and consequences of actions they are now taking are important. I wonder too whether sanctions have ever been effective before anywhere in the world. If they prove successful I wonder whether or not they will create greater problems than the problems we are now facing.
Mr. Chairman, I felt that I should put these thoughts on record because I know a great many people in Canada have these things in their minds at this time. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will want to give some consideration to them, I am sure.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks by way of contribution to this very important debate. When I first returned to this house I found the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the position he now occupies and I should like to take this opportunity to compliment the affable and learned gentleman on his attainment of that position. I hope before the debate is concluded we will hear from him about the important policies in respect of several of the situations that have developed.
IMr. Nasserden.1

While he has said he made a full statement to the committee last year, some of us did not have the advantage of being here then to hear him. In addition, a great number of events have taken place since that meeting was held.
Let me first make a plea to the minister to do something for Canadians who serve in his department abroad. I have discussed this matter already with the minister, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to place my remarks on record. One of the wonderful things about being elected a member of parliament is the number of good wishes one receives. I must say that some I received came from employees of the minister's department stationed at various outposts round the world. Almost all of them said: Get back to parliament and get us the vote. I do not understand why in this day and age it should not be possible for the employees of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Trade and Commerce, as well as other departments, who are stationed abroad to have a say in the affairs of this nation. We have made it possible for servicemen serving abroad to vote in our elections. Admittedly their numbers are larger and are apt to be found in greater concentration where they serve, but this has been made possible for them. Their votes are brought back to Canada and counted.
Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs would consider using his courier service to collect these votes abroad and return them to Canada. It might be necessary to speed up that service during elections or to appoint more people to travel abroad to collect the votes, but I think this could be done. I think to accomplish this is important and necessary. I believe that the fact these people are not able to vote is one of the real sources of dissatisfaction for employees serving in the foreign services. They are permitted to vote when they are in Canada but not when they are abroad.
While I appreciate that on previous occasions during meetings of the External Affairs Committee a statement has been made why it is not feasible to collect these votes and have them counted, my suggestion to the minister is that, over the next two or three months, before the debate on the estimates for the next fiscal year is started, the department draw up the most practical plan it can conceive of to provide an opportunity to foreign services employees to vote. Then perhaps the minister would be good enough to place those
February 4, 1966
recommendations before the committee so that we as parliamentarians could do our best to iron out any difficulties. I am sure that everyone in this committee will agree that this is desirable. All that remains is somehow to bring desirability into practice.
The second point I should like to make deals with the matter of membership, and the wooing that Canada has undergone from certain quarters, in the Organization of American States. In this respect I think that Canadian governments have always come close to seizing the nettle, but at the last moment have somehow refused it as an obnoxious bouquet held out mainly by the international lover, Uncle Sam, and have avoided being drawn into the Organization of American States with the idea perhaps that it is some sort of a harem of the said Uncle Sam. My suggestion is along the lines of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Oxford, that this problem might be solved by more bilateral dealings between this country and Latin America, particularly with Mexico.
The final point I want to make for the consideration of the minister is one that is partially related to his department but has relation to a number of other departments as well. I refer to the International Joint Commission and its activities. Within the next hundred years I believe the hottest political issue that this chamber will face and that future parliamentarians will have to solve will relate to water resources. In this regard I do not wish to go over the excellent speech the hon. member for Kamloops made during the Throne Speech debate. His speech clearly pointed out how valuable water resources are and how important it is to husband and use them properly. That hon. member pointed to the necessity for co-operation of not only a broad range of departments under the control of this parliament and the International Joint Commission but of provincial departments as well. The International Joint Commission and the Department of External Affairs have had a great number of dealings over the years in respect of water problems and policies.
I want to commend to the minister who, if I may say so, is a master of diplomacy with an ability to get along with people-this somehow has not rubbed off on all his colleagues -that he could play a very useful role in developing some statesmanlike long-range approach to our water policy.
Supply-External Affairs


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join in this debate today to discuss Rhodesia and I have two reasons for doing so. The first is that we in this party have not hesitated to be critical of the government on many occasions in the past, and on this occasion when we find ourselves in full accord with the government's policy in respect of Rhodesia I do not think we should hesitate to endorse that policy.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Further, Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity of attending the Eleventh General Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in New Zealand and it has given me a first hand opportunity of assessing the feelings of some of the other member nations of the Commonwealth with regard to the Rhodesian situation. I think there can be very little question that the problem of Rhodesia was on everyone's mind at the Wellington conference. It was an opportunity for me to gauge that opinion and discuss it quite frankly with many of the people who are vitally concerned, particularly the newly emerging and the newly emerged African nations, and recognize how strongly they felt about the entire question of Rhodesia.
For the Commonwealth I think it was a time of crisis. It was a time of crisis because I believe the black nations were waiting to see what the white nations of the Commonwealth intended to do about this matter of Rhodesia which so vitally affected their whole future. They were waiting for an answer to the question, was there going to be a double standard in the Commonwealth or was there going to be one standard? I think it was a time to test the sincerity of the commonwealth, to see whether those words that we always use in relationship to the Commonwealth, namely, the sacred heritage of parliamentary procedure and the great British traditions, were going to be upheld in the matter of Rhodesia. It was a time to prove the value of the Commonwealth and to back up these words with action.
I believe it will be recorded that the Commonwealth may very well have survived because of the action of the United Kingdom, supported by Canada, in the Rhodesian situation. I think we indicated in no uncertain terms that we were willing to back up words with action, that we were willing to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the emerging people in Africa to have a government that



February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs would suit them rather than a government that would suit a minority.
I was proud on that particular occasion to be a Canadian. I was proud that Canada took a firm and definite position on sanctions against Rhodesia. I was also proud when later our Prime Minister went to Lagos and helped allay some of the tears that sanctions would not work. I was particularly pleased that he did not wait for everybody else but made a decision and went as a representative of Canada who did not have to wait for everyone else to agree with our country.
To put the question of an embargo in its proper perspective, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out the atmosphere that prevailed in Wellington at the time of the conference. The African leaders were calling for armed intervention and apparently nothing less than armed intervention would satisfy them. Their reasons were that an embargo would be ineffective and that the only test of sincerity from their point of view, the only way they could believe that the white nations of the Commonwealth were willing to support their aspirations, was the willingness of those nations to carry out armed intervention in Rhodesia. They pointed out that in the past, when it was a question of a white minority or a white majority under attack, gunboat diplomacy was practised. They did not feel that the arguments in favour of an embargo were valid for two reasons, first, because it would not work and, second, they believed it was an excuse for not intervening.
It therefore became doubly important to prove both that an embargo could work, could be effective, and the sincerity of our attitude toward the African nations. I believe that by our support of an embargo and the fact that it apparently is working now those fears should be allayed. We have taken this matter very seriously and I think we may be embarking upon something very significant. We may perhaps have found an alternative to bloodshed, because there is very little doubt in my mind that if an embargo had not been invoked, if the situation had been left alone, if merely platitudes had been uttered in place of the action that was called for, bloodshed could very well have occurred in Africa, if not at the present moment certainly later, and it may still occur if the embargo does not prove effective.
I should like to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that by our action we have probably helped substantially to avoid or put off an African war. I think we have restored the faith of

many of the people of Africa and we may perhaps have proven that there are far more effective ways of creating the rule of law in the world than bloodshed alone. It is a long time since Canada adopted a firm position in foreign affairs, and I believe this image of firmness suits Canada very well. I certainly hope it will continue not only in this area but in other areas.
I should like to say a few things about an embargo or a boycott as it is sometimes called. As I pointed out previously, the Africans were very afraid that this was an excuse for doing nothing. The experience of embargoes in world history has not been the best and certainly has not been such as to evoke confidence. I believe, however, that this time an embargo can work. I think it can work because there are enough people going to make it work.
I can recall that when I was fairly young Italy was bombing Ethiopia and I remember the many occasions upon which world leaders called upon the countries of the world to impose an embargo on Italy. I feel now as I felt then, that had an effective embargo been imposed on Italy we might very well have averted the second world war.
In order for an embargo to be effective we must be prepared for its full consequences, and I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard point out in the debate this morning that if we are going to make this embargo effective it has to be invoked not only against Rhodesia but against any country that helps Rhodesia and tries to subvert the decision of the United Nations in this particular matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you prepared for warfare if it fails?


Max Saltsman: The hon. member for Winnipeg South-


Gordon Minto Churchill: "Centre".


Max Saltsman: Centre-has asked whether I am prepared for warfare if the embargo fails. Let me state, sir, that I am not a pacifist and I believe there are some occasions when, if you really value and honour liberty, you have to be willing to take the risks of warfare. The question is clearly, under what conditions do you take those risks? Do you take them as a beginning or do you take them only when you have exhausted other methods? I submit that the proper course of action is to try an embargo. We should try to make this embargo work. If it does not work and if a decision
February 4, 1966
of the United Nations is reached and the collective will of the world is that Canada should participate in military action in Rhodesia in order to ensure that the people of that country have an opportunity of governing their own country, then I would be willing to see Canada participate in that kind of action. But it cannot be a unilateral action; it must be an action sanctioned by the world through the United Nations.
[DOT] (3.00 p.m.)
We are now engaged in military actions in various parts of the world. I am certain that Canadians have been killed since the second world war. Sometimes military actions are necessary. However, it is my belief that so far as Canada is concerned it should not engage in any military action unless it does so with the support of the world.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to say a few words about the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I feel we should have an answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West this morning when he brought forcibly to the attention of members of parliament the fact that interested organizations such as the Legion, the Canadian Corps and the Voice of Women have deplored the fact German troops were brought into Canada for training. Obviously, the purpose was to provide climatic conditions that were not available in most other countries. It was indicated we were training these troops so that the German army could be used in Russia if necessary.
I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs is well aware of the fact that the history of the last 15 or 20 years is now history, and that the direction in which the Canadian people have decided they wish to travel as well as the direction in which Russia has decided to travel is considerably different today. If any country should know this, it must be Canada and the Department of External Affairs should be even more aware of it. I believe it is time the Canadian public were informed of the co-operation that is taking place between Canada and the Soviet Union, not that I have much interest in either side of the problem except in terms of what it may mean to the Canadian public.
The other day I had the opportunity of listening to a number of officials from Expo. They were discussing some of the problems they were facing in the development of an international world fair. Some of these problems had never been faced by any nation before, since this will be the largest interna-
Supply-External Affairs tional exposition ever held. Some of the problems were beyond the comprehension of anyone who had been engaged in this type of business before. They were surprised by the fact the Russians were offering them advice and indicating they would supply officials, accounting practices or any kind of help which was needed.
At the same time I was told we were having some difficulty in beating off the overtures of Russia in another field. I refer to shipping in the great lakes and the exporting of our grain. Some Russian ships were helped back into Montreal by a Canadian icebreaker. Following this, it was indicated that these freighters were able to break ice easier than our icebreaker. There have been overtures made to certain officials to provide the Lenin, if we wished, to keep the gulf open for Russian shipping. The reason the freighters waited for the icebreaker, I suppose, was that it did not look right for them to be breaking ice in front of our icebreaker; it would give us a feeling of inferiority. I do not know if they have offered the Lenin, and I am not sure that we want it.
I suggest however that if the Russian people are interested in this field, we in northern Ontario would be quite happy to have the Lenin brought into Hudson bay, so that we would be able to ship grain 12 months of the year from the port of Churchill. It seems to me whether or not this story is true, there is a considerable amount of co-operation between Russia and Canada. I believe this is worthwhile. If it is, then I think it is not fair of the minister or the country to hide behind some stupid protocol, as they do when they scratch the backs of the people of the United States whenever they make decisions. Let us face it, the United States would be very happy if we were to say we would not ship anything to China or Russia. The United States is not able to ship wheat to these countries because of arrangements that were made to protect the merchant shipping of that country. I think our interests do not always parallel the interesis of our allies to the south. We may be developing other allies around the world.
We have much in common with Russia in the area of geography, and the climate in many areas of that nation is not unlike ours. I recall hearing at a reception that one of the problems we were facing in connection with the development of housing in the Arctic had been assisted a great deal by information received from Russia. I refer to the problem of building on permafrost. A year or two

February 4, 1966

Supply-External Affairs afterwards I was surprised to find that the then minister of northern affairs indicated he had been in on these discussions and it was a fact that Russia had indicated to Canada she should scrap her investigations along the lines being followed at the time because Russia had solved the problem of handling permafrost. I did not believe what I had heard earlier; I thought it was just propaganda. The Russians found that the way to handle permafrost was to keep it frozen and refrigeration was the answer. This is something Canadians are now doing.
The only reason I am mentioning this, Mr. Chairman, is that I feel it is time Canadians were told these things and that we try to get along. There is enough opportunity of stirring up differences between the various countries of the world. I think when we are having offers of co-operation from Russia, then the Canadian public should be informed. In my opinion, the Department of External Affairs has more secrets that are not secret than they have secrets that are kept. If I wanted to find out something, and I knew what I was looking for, it would be fairly easy to find it out.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
If Russia is not the great red bear it once was in international affairs as far as Canada is concerned, then why does the government not tell that to the Canadian people? Why do they say they are such terrible people that we must train German troops in Canada so as to provide similar conditions as that found in Russia, and enable NATO eventually to have a force to fight in that kind of climate? The Germans had some experience in this direction during the last war and did not come out of it too well, and I do not think their experience at Churchill will help much either. Last time they played for keeps and lost, and we had better keep it that way. It is not in Canada's interests to do something we do not believe in just because the United States believes it is a nice idea to train these people at Churchill.
I have no objection to extending these facilities to the United States army. We have conducted winter exercises with them at Churchill for some time and our Canadian soldiers are happy about this. Some of the equipment, such as sleeping bags, have been handed on to their poor cousins in the north after the United States army has tested them, and these people have ended up with some nice pieces of equipment.
We should look at this situation from the over-all point of view. I believe Russia is

getting along quite nicely now, but we are taking advantage of them. We are not being honest about them with the Canadian people. If you want the Canadian people to be mad at the Russians, then there are lots of things to bring that about; but they are also doing things which are in our interest.
I do not object to the Lenin steaming up the St. Lawrence to Montreal. When Montreal is faced with an ice jam I think the people of Montreal welcome the Lenin there. I do not know whether anyone said anything about paying for its services, but I believe that this is an icebreaker which can break ice 15-foot thick at 30 knots. If we were able to leave the locks open by use of compressed air, and if we could steam the Lenin up to the lakehead and take on some of the wheat which is waiting there, we could probably solve the problem of boxcars and freight difficulties on the west coast and push this type of friendship a lot further than has been suggested.
Personally I believe Canadians are too timid. I am also aware of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs can draw up the information in such a way that if it is made available to the Canadian public they will not get the gist of it anyway. But the Russians have done a great number of things which are to their credit. They have co-operated with us in Expo to the extent of building the largest pavilion there. They have made offers of technical advice, which I think we will have to take advantage of because it will save us money and which is going to be a factor in the next few months.
Russia has co-operated and been fair with us on a number of occasions in the United Nations and also in the deliberations of the Interparliamentary Union, and if it is true in other fields I suggest that the minister tell the Canadian people. The elections have proved that Canadians are not so stupid that they cannot make some decisions for themselves. In fact, I am always surprised how smart they are. Let the C.B.C. do some programs showing the co-operation we have received, rather than just the bad side of things. We do not have to build our enemies; we make them fast enough without building them; but if there is co-operation, then let us hear about it.
I have another problem which interests me as a Canadian. I am no expert on external affairs and I do not want to be. I have enough trouble with domestic affairs and making my mark there without worrying about external affairs.
February 4, 1966
What concerns me is not the role Canada has to play in Viet Nam, not the sending of troops to Viet Nam, or not telling the United States, rightly or wrongly, whether we will support them. It is the opportunity that we had in 1954 but which we muffed.
I am not opposed to the minister standing up and telling us that this was the fault of the former minister, or the one before him, or the half dozen before him back to 1954. But when Canada had the opportunity of sitting on the International Joint Commission and making available to the world the inspection report which would have indicated who in fact was wrong and should get their knuckles rapped, and how hard, Canada was put in a position of trust, which in my opinion they lived up to for a number of years.
Then in 1964 things changed. The Department of External Affairs found the United States was getting its head beat in, in the role they were playing, so they switched from the report they made the year before and wrote a minority report. In this report they talked only of the atrocities occurring in the north and did not say anything about United States adventures into hard diplomacy with the Viet Cong in South Viet Nam.
It seems to me that if we want to join the United States we should do it openly. But if we want to help them I am not sure that this is the way to do it. The United States is in terrible trouble in Viet Nam, and everyone in the world knows it. If I had the answer to the problem I would write a book, which would probably be a best seller. I do not know what the answer is or what the United States will do, but escalating the war will not solve anything because they are going to get their pants trimmed off. When that day comes then I want to warn Canadians that, rightly or wrongly, Canada will have to support the United Nations. I am not a pacifist, Mr. Chairman, I would join with what was said by the hon. member for Waterloo South. If the day comes when we have to fight, then we will do so, and I will fight.
This situation reminds me of the man who had a brother who drank too much on Saturday nights. His problem was that he always got into trouble. One Saturday night he came home and found his brother, who had had too much to drink again, starting a brawl and getting the hell beat out of him. He did not ask him what started the fight, he just had to help him. He may not have liked it, but that was the situation.
745
Supply-External Affairs
The same situation applies to Canada, Mr. Chairman. If our role is to be worth while it has to be that of solving the whole problem. That was the role of the international joint commission. It is true Geneva conventions have never been 100 per cent satifactory, but they are made according to world law and are the best we have been able to do.
If the arrangements which were made at that time had been enforced, and if Canada had maintained its impartiality, we would have done the United States a lot more good than by saying to them: "Don't ask us to come out into the open, but in the background we will be all for you until the last drop of our blood is spent". I do not think that sort of thing helps them and it is not what the Canadian public wants.
The Department of External Affairs in Canada is a shame. We are told by the northerners who live above the 49th parallel that they do not get very excited about anything and try to keep everything on a reasonable keel.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
From my limited examination of world affairs nothing is ever that reasonable in international affairs. Nothing is that simple or reasonable. I had the opportunity of attending at the United Nations at one time, and I found that the people who went there would not have anything to do if they were not there, and they would have to go home. Many of them did not go home, and they stayed there and got everything going from one day to another. There were lots of cars, and speeches, and everything that is needed to keep them employed.
It seems to me that the Canadian people are not that kind of people, and that those who represent us are not really representing the average Canadian. We look at things reasonably. We call a spade a spade, and we should do this internationally. Sometimes I call it a shovel, as one of my colleagues says. Perhaps I should say a shovel is a shovel-not that it makes much difference. I do not think that we are trying to relate the issues with what the Canadian people want to do in these matters. I do not think that diplomacy, when it is covered in secrecy, and when you bear all the things in mind that are building up in the external affairs branch, have anything to do with the people. Frankly, we are not big enough to have the kind of external affairs branch that we have. Our role is not big enough. We have built up all the machinery and we have built up the organism, even



February 4. 1966
Supply-External Affairs though we have only the nucleus of an organization to cover it. We have all the protection that everybody else has, and we have not got a big enough external affairs department to do more.
Canada's role, Mr. Chairman, can be a very worth-while one. I think that our role in the world is a very well worth-while one. The external affairs department really is not able, nor is the minister able, with his colleagues, to do anything more than run round the world, doing things that are hardly possible for the Canadian nation. When I say that I am thinking of the role that we have played in some of the other fields that the minister has been involved in, and these are the peace keeping missions. I believe that Canadians have never been guilty, in their service under the United Nations flag, of shooting anybody or starting any calamity in many of these very troublesome situations, and that is so because of the type of people that Canadians are. This has been widely discussed in the United States and elsewhere; and I refer by that to the peace keeping role that could be accomplished both in Rhodesia, if the situation gets worse, and possibly elsewhere. I should like to see Canadian participation in a peace keeping role rather than in an active military role of any nature.
That sort of thing has been talked about very loosely, in my opinion, in the house in the last day or two. We just do not have the kind of soldiers for that. We just do not have the types of members of parliament, and I do not think that Canadians would be prepared to provide men for that.
We have established a reputation, and I am shocked when I see this reputation being destroyed, when it was so hard come by. I am shocked that it was destroyed by the action of the Department of External Affairs. This is not because of the guy that sits on the joint commission in Indochina, or as it is now called, Viet Nam. It is not because those gentlemen have changed their minds. It is because the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and even more than he, the departmental officials he works with, have changed their minds as to the interests of Canada.
I believe we should take a look at what we do, and at the mistakes we made, and at what role we might still play in the joint commission. If this was the interest of the parties that signed the Geneva convention, should we not go back to establishing that boundary, not by war, not by destruction, but by the work

that we originally set up, of which the minister of course is much more aware than I am. But I do think history will indicate that Canada failed when we gave up our active participation, with Poland and India, in trying to make that convention that established the International Joint Commission work, and thus preserve the establishment of the division between North and South Viet Nam.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to say too much about this, but I do think that is something to which the minister should give serious consideration. That is something that I think many people of Canada and probably many members of parliament believe. It has to do with these dealings and these operations, when they come within the Commonwealth of nations. When we do that we could end up very well.
I have no objection to the decision that was made in Rhodesia. I have no difference of opinion with the decisions made in conjunction with other members of the Commonwealth of nations, of which we are proud to be a member. But I do think if the minister looks at it honestly, and if he asks some of his constituents, but not officials-because they have a role to play-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Be careful now.


William Arnold Peters: -it is an Alice in Wonderland role; it is not a real role. It is a role which they make up for themselves. Some members ought to read "The Ugly American". You can see from that how you can get involved in some of the song and dance of that sort of thing, and forget what the people back home are thinking.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I interrupt my hon. friend. I am sure that he will agree that Canada has as good a foreign service as any country, and we are all very proud of it.


William Arnold Peters: I agree with this. I agree that it is about the same as that of other countries. All I am saying is that I do not think Canada should have that kind of civil service because I do not think that is the role Canada should play. Let us do something different. Let us establish a different role; I would have no objection to that.
This is not to be taken as anything of a personal nature against the minister or any of the officials of the department, because I do not mean it that way. We, here in parliament, are also playing that kind of role. That role has been developed; perhaps we might find a better way of doing it, but so far we have not decided on it.
February 4, 1966	COMMONS
The truth of it is that the Canadian people agree with the decisions that were made within the Commonwealth, and they have had to go along with decisions, here, only because we are closely associated with our neighbour to the south. Usually those decisions are not good decisions. They are not decisions that are necessarily made with our own personal interest in mind.
I should like to mention one or two other things, one of which is the recognition of China. I still think of this as most important.
I am surprised and shocked when I hear that some of our officials do not see, as some of us have, families of Chinese citizens in Canada.
I find that you cannot talk to anybody from Canton, because you have got to go through that song and dance we all know about, where everybody had to go to Hong Kong and be smuggled over the border. Why can we not discuss that, and possibly work out some sort of arrangement with the British embassy that will allow the embassy to do a cursory medical examination to find out whether these people are healthy, or whether it would be possible to admit them.
Is it not being rather foolish for us to say that we cannot recognize the Chinese? We do recognize them. We accept their money; we make arrangements with them; we recognize them all the time. Why do not our people, then, want to recognize them officially? I say it is because the United States does not want us to.
Mr. Minister, I predict-and we may both be here to see it-that the United States one day may say that it is a good thing to trade with mainland China, that they will make a bid for that trade, and Canada will be left out in the cold, following along. We could do this on our own.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Referring to what the hon. member said previously, I will take him up on that.


William Arnold Peters: We will probably both be here, and I will take that up when the time comes. Probably the satisfaction of it will be sufficient, but I do think we should look at this in terms of Canada.
I know of all the monkey business that goes on. I listen to all this gobbledygook in calling the Chinese barbarians, and saying that the Soviet Union are not. Frankly we have barbarians in our own country; we still have them. But I do not think that the members of this house always look on the best side of things. I say that things will get 23033-48|
DEBATES	74?
Supply-External Affairs better. I think that if we got to the Chinese on the mainland, they would be a lot different from Madame Chiang Kai-shek, and General Chiang Kai-shek and his gang, and some of the gangsters who live on Formosa.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Then we come to the O.A.S. I never had the opportunity of sunning myself in Trinidad, Jamaica or some of those other warm countries. But between you and me, I would like to. It is true there would be problems, but I would not object to their being our extra province, if that is possible.
Nor would I be opposed to the minister taking an honest look at what is happening in Cuba. I had the opportunity some time ago of talking to one of my hon. friends who had what was probably the opportunity of becoming the first bona fide visitor to Cuba from Canada for many years. He was impressed, not by the communist domination of that island but by the needs of the area-the fact that Canada was supplying the poultry, the seed potatoes which have to be replanted every year, the breeding stock for the dairy herds. We believe Cuba has a great need for many of the technical facilities we are competent to supply.
I am sure the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, with all the geniality and ability he has, could sell Mr. Castro anything he wanted to sell him. I am also sure, knowing him, that he would not sell anything he did not desire to sell. I think he could make an arrangement which would be in our interest. Let us not kid ourselves: We are lucky that the Americans were so biased about that Monroe doctrine that they insisted upon their exports being sent only in their own bottoms. Otherwise


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Mr. Harkness:: I rise to speak briefly on one matter which, as it happens, comes directly under vote number one, namely the desirability of Canada's continued participation as a member of the international commission for supervision and control in Indochina.
As a result of various reports with regard to the work of this commission, and particularly as a result of a number of conversations I have had over the last five or six years with personnel who have served in Indochina, I have become increasingly doubtful whether our continued participation in the work of this commission is justified, either on the
February 4, 1966

Supply-External Affairs ground of what is being accomplished-and what there is any possibility of accomplishing in the future-or on the ground of its cost to the country. I think the time has come when a hard look should be taken at this question and a decision reached as to whether we should continue our participation in this commission. If the answer is in the affirmative, we should consider whether we ought to continue it on anything like the scale on which we have been participating in the past.
In my view the present situation makes the value of at least the greater proportion of the Canadian effort in Indochina very questionable. Indeed, most of our people there are able to do practically nothing and their presence is of little value. They are wasting their own time and wasting the country's money by being there in such large numbers.
I would refer to the special report of the international commission dated June 2, 1962 and made, of course, to the co-chairmen in Geneva. The report states on page 10, section 21:
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 terms, thereby completely immobilizing their activities and hindering the commission in the proper discharge of its obligations to supervise the implementation of articles 16 and 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. The commission considered the situation, and addressed detailed communications to the two parties recommending the resumption of normal controls immediately. (Copies of the letter sent to the two parties are attached as annexure 1 to this report). The commission, however, regrets to inform the co-chairmen that there has been no improvement in this regard.
As far as I am aware there has been no improvement in this regard in the intervening three and a half or four years. These inspection teams are still immobilized. They are unable to carry out their functions. I do not know what purpose is served by maintaining them there. I should like the minister to tell us, when he replies to some of the questions which have been asked, just what activities this commission is carrying on at the present time. Would it not be possible for any valuable work which the commission may still be doing to be done by one tenth or one twentieth of the number of people we are presently maintaining in Indochina? I notice that the cost is reflected in the estimates. As far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned it was $602,000 last year and it is estimated to be $637 000 in the current fiscal

year. It will probably be more than that because the estimate of the previous year was only a little more than half the final expenditure.
The number of personnel listed is 28. But the total number of Canadian military personnel there at the time I was minister of defence-and I do not think the situation has changed since-was considerably more than the number of civilian personnel. The estimates of the Department of National Defence are not set up in such a way as to enable one to isolate the cost of these operations from a military point of view. Nevertheless it is evident that it is considerably greater than the cost listed in respect of the Department of External Affairs. As I say, there are a great many more people involved. I should like the minister to tell us the total cost of maintaining our membership on this commission. It is bound to run between $1,250,000 and $2 million a year. In view of the fact that the commission is not able to carry on the functions it was supposed to discharge, and has not been able to do so for four years or more, I think it is the height of foolishness to be spending this amount of money on maintaining what really amounts to a sham.
It may well be that continued participation by Canada in this commission serves as a convenient screen, excusing the Canadian government from taking any other action. Our continued membership may be justified on this ground to some extent. But I should like to ask this question: If this is the principal purpose our participation serves, is the cost not prohibitive?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
To sum up, I ask that we get definite information on the total cost, what actual activities these people carry on, whether it would not be desirable to withdraw completely from these activities and, if it is considered that it is desirable we should not, could we reduce the personnel to, at the most, not more than one tenth of the numbers we have had, and possibly one twentieth of those numbers?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to traverse the ground that has been covered, but I have two or three matters which I would direct to the attention of the committee by way of inquiry from the minister.
The contributions have been most interesting and revealing. One this afternoon by the hon. member for Timiskaming provided the
February 4, 1966

committee with that feeling that is so necessary from time to time. He has a happy way of speaking and his power of language is only exceeded by the perception of this thought. But as I listen to some of my hon. friends in the N.D.P., who speak with clarity, definiteness and the assurance that their view alone is right, I am not forgetful of the fact that in 1939 the views expressed on September 9 of that year turned out to be far removed from the practical realities of the war that was then just beginning.
Today I want to deal with one or two matters, with a view to securing the opinion of the minister. Much has been said about Canada's sovereignty, Canada's right to determine her own policies. I bring to the attention of the minister the fact that within the last year, the power, the prestige and the authority of parliament and our country have been diminished as a result of permitting provinces virtually to enter into treaty arrangements.
When I first brought the matter up it was brushed aside. The amending formula for the constitution is not going to be proceeded with, but tremendous amendments have taken place by arrangement and agreement; by discussions which have weakened the power of the national government and of parliament.
On April 26 last the Secretary of State for External Affairs issued a statement. I am going to read a part of it and I intend to ask him, on the basis of the views that he expressed, how far removed are we today from the authoritative statement which he made at that time. He said:
The constitutional position in this country on the question of treaty-making is clear. Canada has only one international personality in the community of foreign states. There is no doubt that only the government of Canada has the power or authority to enter into treaties with other countries.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is the situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, with the customary diplomatic approach paragraph 2 begins this
way:
It is nevertheless true that under the Canadian constitution as it has been interpreted, there is a lack of harmony between treaty-making and treaty-implementing powers. This creates special problems for Canada in respect of treaties concerning subjects of provincial legislative jurisdiction. The problem is not unique.
Then he said:
The federal government has exclusive responsibility for the conduct of external affairs as a matter of national policy affecting all Canadians.
Supply-External Affairs The policy of the federal government in discharging this responsibility is to seek to promote the interest of the entire country and of all Canadians of the various provinces within the over-all framework of our national policy.
That is a long way from the views expressed by the government of Premier Le-sage. On more that one occasion in the last year, declarations have been made by representatives of the government of the province of Quebec that there is no reason why provincial governments could not enter into international arrangements. To accept that proposition is virtually to set up within Canada 11 states: a proposition dangerous to the future of this country, dangerous to unity and dangerous to confederation itself. I intend to deal with this at some length after the minister has replied.
I ask the minister whether or not any province in Canada can enter into an arrangement, a treaty or a sub-treaty with a foreign state to permit the acquisition by a province of armed forces from another nation to give military training in Canada?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No, of course not.


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no. Well,
then, if they cannot, is he aware of the fact that this has been done?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it has not been
done.


John George Diefenbaker: Well then, the minister did not read what Mr. Gerin-Lajoie had to say. This is what Mr. Gerin-Lajoie said, and it is a surprising thing to hear the Minister say that he never heard of such a proposition.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No, I did not say that. I say the statement as alleged is inaccurate. No province-


John George Diefenbaker: I did not get that.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am sorry. I just said the statement as reported was inaccurate, and there is no doubt that no province has made any arrangement with any country for the importation into Canada of armed forces from a foreign country. Furthermore, no province would have the constitutional authority to do so, and I know of no province that wishes to exercise such authority.


John George Diefenbaker: Before I go on, in view of the interruption by the minister, what report does he say is inaccurate?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The report I am referring to is one I saw in a French newspaper which suggested that arrangements exist in France whereby young people may be
750	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs assigned to the French civil service for the duration of what would otherwise be their period of compulsory military training. Some of these young people, namely teachers, are seconded to the French foreign ministry to help carry out the French technical and cultural assistance programs abroad. As long as they have been seconded to the French foreign affairs department these young people have nothing to do with the French armed forces, but become French civil servants for the period of their military training.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
That is the reply I gave to a newspaperman who asked me about this question. These persons came by virtue of an arrangement, not in respect of their military functions but in respect of civil academic functions. I am suggesting to the hon. gentleman that while I can very well understand the interest he properly takes in this subject-


John George Diefenbaker: What is the minister reading from at the moment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was reading from a statement I gave to a newspaperman who asked about the particular situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman says "oh". This is the only reply I could give. I say there is no foundation in fact for the story upon which the right hon. gentleman is now seeking to build his case. He is building a straw man without justification.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have received that type of answer from the minister before, and once the official facts were ascertained the minister was as far removed from those facts as he is on this occasion.
I intend to read what Mr. Gerin-Lajoie has said and then allow the minister and Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, with the assistance of any interpreters in the cabinet who desire to participate, to tell me what this means. I want to be grammatically correct, and I want it understood that this is in the present indicative and not in the future subjunctive. The words are these, and I want the minister to explain them. This is from the Montreal Gazette of December 1,	1965 and states that Mr. Gerin-Lajoie in Paris-
_told the conference that 200 French Canadian
students are working in France and 30 Frenchmen are studying in Canada for doctors' degrees. Among teachers sent from France to Quebec were 30 men temporarily detached from the French armed forces to give military training in Quebec-
IMr. Martin (Essex East).]
DEBATES	February 4, 1966
Now I ask you, is that statement by Mr. Gerin-Lajoie correct? It indicates very clearly, once you open the door to a right of ten Canadian provinces to enter into treaties, how dangerous this can be to this country. The minister did not conveniently forget that; he just did not have that part of the statement when I asked him what he was reading from.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could tell-


John George Diefenbaker: The minister will be given an opportunity to reply.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought you were finished; I am sorry.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister will be given an opportunity to reply, that is why I am raising this matter.
Mr. Gerin-Lajoie then stated-
-30 men temporarily detached from the French armed forces to give military training in Quebec-


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is just no foundation whatever to that.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to see a higher degree of co-operation under this cooperative federalism between the ministers of that province and this government. What was meant by this statement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: You had better look at-


John George Diefenbaker: Just a moment. I do not know why the Secretary of State for External Affairs is getting so excited.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not excited.


John George Diefenbaker: He has been most pacific up to this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that if the hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps the minister will allow me to continue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry.


John George Diefenbaker: I am looking forward to his reply, and by the time he presents it he should have had time to send out for more information. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether or not there are 30 members of the armed forces of France temporarily detached, who have come to Canada to give military training? Will the minister find out what is the nature of the training being imparted, and also the branches of the services to which this instruction is being given?
February 4, 1966


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There is just no foundation for that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: The serious part of the step taken in this connection is revealed by that statement.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says "no". Apparently he gives full approval.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I did not give any approval. I say simply that is not the fact.


John George Diefenbaker: I can only interpret this nod in a horizontal direction as meaning approval. I say this is a serious matter.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: If true; but it is not.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, the minister does not know. He did not read this.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: If my hon. friend will allow me to tell him what the facts are-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -I will tell him right now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I should like-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. May I suggest to the two hon. gentlemen that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition should be allowed to complete his speech, following which an opportunity will be afforded the Secretary of State for External Affairs to reply.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that was a judgment of soundness.
We have heard these statements made by various ministers in the Lesage cabinet over and over again. I want the minister, with the information he has, to answer this question, because it is a matter of deep concern and moment. If you open a door part way for this kind of thing you bring about the establishment of states within a state.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is right, but-


John George Diefenbaker: To show the danger I have only to call as a witness the very able member of parliament who just recently came here and immediately became the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. No one has taken a stronger stand against
Supply-External Affairs this kind of thing than has he. I am not going to read quotations in that regard because he is not present, but there will be a time and an opportunity to deal with the views he expressed-the views of one who has given much study to this problem and who now supports that which is the complete antithesis of those views. That has been characteristic of this government.
Mr. Gerin-Lajoie then challenged the federal government's exclusive right to negotiate and conclude international treaties or agreements. He said that his province had the right to both negotiate and conclude agreements with foreign governments in fields in which provinces have exclusive jurisdiction, and that they intend to exercise that right.
He further indicated that the government of Quebec would seek to exercise the right to make agreements with foreign governments not only in those fields in which the British North America Act gave the province sole jurisdiction, but also in fields of shared jurisdiction.
Those views cannot be accepted if confederation is to be maintained. I know the expression of any view like this will be misinterpreted, as always. My views were misinterpreted when I took a stand in regard to the formula for amendment: Now my heresy has become government policy. I want to know what has been done in this connection and what the minister did over and above that magnificent generalization composed of beautiful words he gave us. What has been done to assure a stop to this attitude over and over again taken by those to whom I have made reference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure my right hon. friend, because I know he is genuinely interested in regard to this important matter, that there has not been and there will not be any erosion of the exclusive authority of the federal government in respect of those matters involving the treaty making power of this nation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, while the minister asserts-and other ministers including the Prime Minister have done the same-the guerrilla tactics have gone on, whittling away the strength and constitutional power of the central government. I want to say that, Mr. Chairman, and at an appropriate time I shall deal with it at length. They speak with two voices. In the House of Commons they utter words like those uttered by the minister. By

February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs actions those words are denied. Certainly there is no one more able than the Hon. Gerin-Lajoie. A man like that does not make loose statements when he defines what he has done, whatever the denials may be of the government of Canada.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: He has done nothing as suggested.


John George Diefenbaker: However, we are going to have that outlined by the minister and I hope that from now on he will couple his euphonious declarations with effective action. It is so easy to make declarations like that, and while they are going on the chiselling operation continues.
Now I come to the second point. This has to do with discussions regarding the Commonwealth. I listened this morning to the hon. member for York South, a powerful and able man who earned his place as a great debater when he became president of the Oxford Union of his day, an honour that has come, as far as I recollect, to no other Canadian. I found it difficult, however, to follow some of his arguments.
We are passing through very difficult times in the Commonwealth. With the proposition that the Commonwealth must be colour blind I can take no objection, because I brought that proposition in those words before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in 1960 and 1961. What of the independence of Rhodesia?
It is not for me to say whether or not the proper course has been taken by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in dealing specifically with this matter, a matter between the British government and Rhodesia. The independence of Rhodesia initially was of a quasi variety, and I offer merely as a query whether any nation of the Commonwealth has the right to say to any other nation within the Commonwealth that what they are doing is wrong, regardless of our feelings in that regard. It may well lead to consequences in the future that may be anything but those which we would like to contemplate.
Some may say, "Oh, this is very similar to South Africa". It is nothing of the kind. South Africa had withdrawn from the Commonwealth and become a republic. In the conference of 1960 I pleaded with South Africa to give representation to the native population. I pleaded with the prime minister of that country to avoid a blood bath such as that to which the hon. member for York

South referred this morning. I said, "You cannot go on like this. You have millions of black people. Give them the representation they used to have in the house". This was a house of 160 members. I said, "Give them the three seats that were taken away from them some six or eight years ago".
The answer was no. At that time South Africa announced that it was going to become a republic, and it was incorporated in the communique from the conference that if it became a republic it would have to re-apply to enter the Commonwealth. It was with regard to the application for re-entry that I took a strong stand on behalf of Canada and was bitterly criticized by the Liberal party of that day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Oh, yes.


John George Diefenbaker: It was bitterly criticized. I will have an opportunity of getting the Hansards wherein this criticism is reported. One has only to read the things that were said to realize that we were subjected to burning condemnation because it was said I had participated in the breaking up of the Commonwealth.
I am against discrimination; it is a course I have followed throughout my life. If you read the records of the courts, you will find that no one within a jurisdiction in which I could practise was ever denied full appeal to the courts, without payment, when there was interference with individual rights and freedoms.
It may well be that new nations have been formed in haste. Mention was made of Nigeria. We felt Nigeria was the most hopeful of all the African democracies, and I feel a deep sense of personal sorrow at the passing of Sir Abukar Tafawa Balewa, a man of vision, strength, and a Commonwealth concept, which I share. In the last two years there have been revolts in Africa. One wonders about the future. There have been coups in Zanzibar, Gabon, Algeria, the Sudan, the Congo and the Central African Republic of Upper Volta.
The Rhodesian situation is one that deserves to be considered with courage and compassion. To maintain the Commonwealth is becoming an ever more difficult proposition. Indeed, I have found there are many in the United Kingdom who wonder whether the greatest days are not passed. I do not share that view.
February 4, 1966	COMMONS
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
What course should we follow? I detest the course of discrimination followed by the Smith government, that stubborn course. I condemn its unlawful attitude and its action in declaring independence, and I should like to see Canada bring about conversations with the Smith government, or pseudo government, to try to reach a solution. The minister says no. We should have conversations with the Smith government to endeavour to bring about an agreement that will not have in it the seeds of future trouble and discord.
I point out that this view is shared by a former prime minister, Sir Roy Weleitski, a man whose life is an amazing record. He was born in Rhodesia and married an Afrikander. His father was a Polish Jew. He fought Smith throughout the years and today is outside of parliament. He says that if Britain keeps this up the whites will back Smith. This is his warning and his view, not mine. He said:
I am a Rhodesian with my everything here. I do not support the government except in the maintenance of law and order; but what choice does Britain offer us? If it succeeds in bringing us to our knees, is it going to impose a colonial-type government on us? . . .
If Mr. Wilson's government fails to clarify the position, then I think there will be a rallying of many sections of the community to support the regime of Mr. Smith.
Everything indicates now, from what one reads, that sanctions will be effective within a very few months. Someone has suggested July. Why wait until then? Why should Canada not take action in this regard? Why should not Canada send a representative to Rhodesia? The minister says no. I offer that suggestion in all seriousness to point up the fact that there must be a return to the path of normal, constitutional relations. We should let Rhodesia know that if that quasi government, illegal as it is, is prepared to forsake the course it has taken, we in Canada, the senior member of the Commonwealth overseas, would do our part to endeavour to bring about a rapprochement in keeping with justice and constitutional authority.
Has the government of Canada any assurance that when the Smith administration goes out of existence there will be a return to constitutional government in Rhodesia, and not a return to colonialism and to the allpowerful governor, without any suggestion of there being any direct rule from Whitehall? Those are things I should like to hear the minister discuss. While he has reacted negatively to my suggestion, 1 can see his ability
DEBATES	753
Supply-External Affairs with the prestige of Canada, to do something. If this matter be settled in Rhodesia by the simple force and power of economic sanctions, then you are building for years to come a division that will be difficult to heal.
What has been done is unconstitutional and' unjustifiable. It has been done by those who believe in principles which we do not accept. Why should not Canada take a step? If the minister says no, that is the final determination.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my
hon. friend a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want my seemingly negative position to indicate that I am not interested in my hon. friend's suggestion. But I ask him, has he given consideration to the fact that the government of Britain is the only government that has any constitutional authority in this matter? It is the colonial power, and it is the government of Southern Rhodesia. The government of Mr. Smith is a non-existent government in law, and in so far as the nations of the Commonwealth are concerned. What would be the consequences of intervention by a Commonwealth government with the so-called Smith regime, in the light of these-facts?


John George Diefenbaker: Now, Mr. Chairman, the-minister has raised an argument that I raised a while ago as a query. What right have the other nations of the Commonwealth then, at the Prime Ministers' Conference, to say to a colonial country under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom: This is the course you shall follow; this is the danger I see. The minister has pinpointed that danger with a clarity that I could not hope to emulate. This is exactly the thought that is in my mind.
What authority has the Prime Ministers" Conference of the nations of the Commonwealth to say this thing has got to stop, when it is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of one of the nations of the Commonwealth? I thank my hon. friend for his-intervention because he now has turned my query into a very serious question.
Then, he says, what would happen if Canada did something like this? Well, Canada is an independent country without any direct interest in the situation there.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: A Commonwealth, interest.

February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: 
Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am sure my right hon. friend cannot produce words like that which I have uttered. What he can say is that I said that I believed it was in Canada!s interest to join the Organization of American States and that we should give this matter sympathetic consideration. But the words which my right hon. friend attributes to me I am sure he cannot produce.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am in the unfortunate position today of not having his statement here, but he is going to be back and I will be back.
The present Prime Minister said we were wrong on this, that we must join the organization. Now the minister says that what he uttered were those tattered words, "sympathetic consideration". What he said was that it should be done; and it was one of the planks of the Liberal platform in the 1962 and 1963 elections.
Since then there has been uncertainty. The Prime Minister went to Banff, I think it was, and left the impression there that Canada was about to join. When he got away from the conference he said that he had not taken that stand. What is the government going to do about it? What is the present position? Has it advanced beyond sympathetic consideration? I have before me a Canadian Press dispatch for July 3, 1963 which indicates that while in opposition both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External
February 4, 1966

Affairs strongly indicated that they felt Canada should join. What was the meaning of the statement by the Prime Minister after his visit to the Caribbean, when he said that the matter had been discussed with the Jamaican government, or the Barbadian government, or the Trinidadian government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With Trinidad and Jamaica.


John George Diefenbaker: I see. Does that statement, if I were to give it sympathetic interpretation, mean that Canada is waiting for those two countries to decide what they are going to do? I recall very well when in Trinidad a year or so ago that at that time strong pressure was being brought by the United States to secure our joining. When we-my hon. friends from Perth, Winnipeg South Centre and Queens-were in office the administration of the United States did everything to push us in. But we said that we were going to decide our policies in Canada. Is the United States still pressing in this regard? I should use the word pushing, for that was the expression which was used.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Neither pressing nor pushing.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I will wait in anticipation, but I am trying to get through so that the hon. gentleman will be able to reply to these matters. We ought to know about this. Is this just another of these uncertain vacillations on the part of this government, pretending to do that which they are not going to do, or doing that which they pretend they are not doing? Let us have clarity on this question and let the minister advise. Certainly the challenges of communism in the next year or so are going to be more potent and more dangerous, in my opinion, than any we faced during the days of Khrushchev.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I now come to the concluding matters which I want to bring to the attention of the minister. Nothing particularly vital has been said about NATO. I am concerned that NATO is weakening. The cement that holds NATO together is softening in the face of what is believed to be a reduction in tension. NATO faces its end in 1969 if General de Gaulle's views are to be accepted. There are many people who now believe that we should give consideration to a compact, if you will, of the Atlantic community to a degree never before achieved.

Supply-External Affairs
One of the last things that Sir Winston Churchill did, as I recall it, was to speak with favour regarding the concept of a great Atlantic family joined together in unity.
What is the attitude of the government of Canada? At the present time there is a concurrent resolution before the Senate of the United States. I am not going to read it in detail. I am just going to read the portions that will illuminate the argument that I am going to make:
Whereas in 1969 any party may withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty, which was ratified in 1949 as a first rather than a last step toward unity;
Whereas since 1949 revolutionizing scientific, technological and other advance has outstripped it and made practical union of these allies imperative for prosperity, peace, and freedom;
This preamble says:
Resolved . . . that (1) The congress hereby creates an Atlantic Union delegation, composed of eighteen eminent citizens, and authorized to organize and participate in a convention made up of similar delegations from such North Atlantic Treaty Organizations allies as desire to join in this enterprise, to explore the possibility of agreement on:
(a)	A declaration that the eventual goal of their peoples is to transform their present alliance into a federal union;
(b)	A tentative timetable for the transition to this goal;
Would the government of Canada give favourable consideration to the appointing of members to, and to the joining of such a convention? Any considerations or decisions that are made or recommended will not be binding on those members. All of those things would have to be determined by the representative institutions of each of these countries. However, I think it is worth while having such a convention where the representatives of these nations would gather together and discuss the problem of survival in the face of increasing communist aggression, which is not as overt and not as direct as it was in the late 40's and the early 50's, but virtually as effective as it was then.
The resolution states:
Whereas the fragmentation of the world in new nations, now when the strongest democracies can not live alone, also require them to build the pilot plant needed to spread liberty and union both by example, and by admitting to their union other nations desiring this and able to uphold its principles;
I think the time has come not to make a final determination on this, but to at least take the first feasible steps to the attainment of a union which can be effective in preserving the things in which we believe, and which
February 4, 1968

Supply-External Affairs can be effective also in assuring that our defences shall not be permitted to weaken. The countries comprising NATO itself will be controlling countries in the European Free Trade Association, some of which would want to join a great international convention to determine the viewpoint of the average man and woman in these nations. At the same time these nations would mobilize that thought, that concept, not only for the preservation of democracy but for the assurance that in unity and in strength we can look forward with greater certainty than we were able to in 1945, when the United Nations had its beginnings.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is too limited a time at my disposal, until the private members' hour at five o'clock, for me to answer all of the questions raised in this debate fully. However, I think if there is a disposition, we might possibly pass this item today, so that we might proceed with the other estimates next week. I do not know whether it will be on Tuesday; in any event, that will be a matter for arrangement. Therefore it will be impossible for me in the amount of time at my disposal to deal with so many of the questions that have been put in what I think has been a useful debate during the past two days.
We shall have an opportunity after the tabling of the estimates next week to set up the External Affairs Committee when, without precluding the opportunities of this house, we may be able to give detailed consideration to many of the questions which have been put to me. That also would enable me, in turn, to elaborate on some problems that I have not been able to discuss in the limited intervention which I am now making.
I have listened with the greatest interest to the remarks of the right hon. gentleman. I should like to deal with one of the suggestions he has made, because of its important current application. I have already indicated what my reaction would be to the suggestion. I do think that it deserves further elaboration from me, because it comes from one who has been prime minister of this country, who has participated in Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences, and who is aware of and has a deep appreciation for the actual and potential value of the Commonwealth as it is presently constituted.
The suggestion is that the government of Canada, as the senior dominion in the Commonwealth, should undertake to mediate

the dispute now involved in the existence of an illegal government in Rhodesia. I said last night that long before there was a unilateral declaration of independence the government of Canada had made known to the Smith government and to its predecessor our views with regard to the inevitable consequences of such a declaration. Ample warning had been given. Likewise at the Prime Ministers Commonwealth Conference this matter was fully discussed. The result was that all the prime ministers in the Commonwealth and all of the governments represented there expressed, in anticipation, their opposition to any possible unilateral act of declaration of independence on the part of the government of Rhodesia.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
As I stated in my interjection during the remarks of the right hon. gentleman, Britain is the colonial power. Whatever relationship exists between Rhodesia as such, apart altogether from its position in the Commonwealth, and Britain, is a matter which legally and constitutionally belongs to those two jurisdictions. Canada has no legal, no governmental, no constitutional interest whatsoever in the situation in Rhodesia, except in so far as the actions of the government of Rhodesia concern the Commonwealth of which we are a member. That is the basis for our interest. That is the basis for whatever kind of intervention has thus far taken place. At the Prime Ministers' Conference this was made clear. The British government itself made clear that this was its own responsibility-that it was not the responsibility of any Commonwealth country to tell Britain what she should do with regard to the government of Rhodesia. Other Commonwealth countries are involved as a result of the fact that there are Commonwealth implications in the unilateral declaration of independence.
The British government itself has refused to deal, I think correctly, with the illegal government of Rhodesia. It has said that to deal with the illegal administration would be to give approbation to something which it had already characterized as having no legal basis. I would say to the right hon. gentleman that this is the first time such a suggestion has been made, certainly in the way in which it was put forward today. I do not throw it aside as being irresponsible; I must say I cannot conceive that it would be wise to give the impression in the face of the action taken by so many countries that Canada did
February 4. 1966	COMMONS
not share the general opinion that this illegal government in Rhodesia must tumble.
I would think that to give any hope that there was any kind of action possible by Canada in this way would be to interfere with the purpose of the sanctions to which we are committed and to which other countries both inside and outside the Commonwealth are committed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And to encourage treason.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: And to encourage treason, as the hon. gentleman says. That is exactly the situation as a result of the action taken by the Smith government.
I appreciate the concern shown by the right hon. gentleman. I appreciate that, like many others in our community, he is greatly disturbed by the consequences in the future to those of the white population who by initiative and pioneering activity have helped to make Rhodesia, along with its native and indigenous population, the country that it is.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not my argument, that is yours.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I know. I say I can understand the right hon. gentleman's interest because of that and other reasons.
What we have to take into account here is the fact that this situation has deep implications not only for the colonial power but for the Commonwealth. It involves the relations of Canada with the African countries in particular. If we had not taken our present position, as we have sincerely done, along with other countries in tune with what we believe to be the overwhelming endorsement of contemporary mankind, we should have lost whatever value, whatever influence we have with African countries in the Commonwealth, in the United Nations and elsewhere. I know for example what the position would have been in the Commonwealth part of the Caribbean if Canada had not taken the position which we did take, and which I have affirmed in the course of this debate.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by that?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: It surely needs no explanation. In Trinidad, in Jamaica and in other parts of the Commonwealth seeming approval of racial discrimination would not be calculated to win approval. That is what I meant.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is different from what you said.
DEBATES	757
Supply-External Affairs


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No, I do not think it is. The hon. gentleman seems to be overly belligerent. I say to him that what I have just said was true. If we had taken any other course we might have won the favour of Mr. Smith but we would have lost the favour of all these other countries. What is more, the unity of the Commonwealth might well have been involved. I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to think over what I said last night.
When the African countries met at Addis Ababa on December 1 last, they took a vital step, one which had deep implications for the Commonwealth. They said that unless Britain was able to give evidence of more effective action in the imposition of economic sanctions and unless the result of those sanctions was to bring the government down by December 15 they would all withdraw their missions from the United Kingdom. Supporting this decision were a number of African Commonwealth countries. Two of those countries have actually withdrawn their missions in spite of requests and persuasion by Canada and other Commonwealth countries that they should not do so. Countries such as Tanzania felt this was the course they must pursue. They clearly indicated that in taking this step they did not intend to withdraw from the Commonwealth.
Let us assume, however, that we had not taken the position which we in Canada have taken in line with Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries. Can anyone imagine that for very long real trouble in Africa could have been avoided? There was a suggestion that force should be used. This was made by a number of African countries on the assumption that economic sanctions would not work. We were opposed to such suggestions. We thought this could complicate a dangerous developing situation. We undertook to bring in sanctions and to support the stand generally taken by the British government. Our attitude was: Let us see what the effect of the application of these economic sanctions will be before we consider taking any step either under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter or in pursuance of any decision which might have been made by two or three governments in the Commonwealth.
I think the course which the Canadian government has pursued in this situation has been the correct one. I think the suggestion which the right hon. gentleman has made is one which he has raised because of his feeling that this would be a way of minimizing a serious situation.

February 4, 1966
Supply-External Affairs [DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I do not attribute improper motives to him at all because of his suggestion, but I am bound to say that for the reasons I have given I cannot conceive how such intervention could do anything but exacerbate a serious situation. What we must do is to see to it that these sanctions work, that in cooperation with the greater burden assumed in this arrangement by the United Kingdom and other countries, particularly the oil exporting countries, we will be able to convince those in Rhodesia who have taken this rebellious position that this is a course calculated neither to further their nation's interests nor the relations with African countries. It is not calculated to assist in the establishment of more harmonious relations between Rhodesia itself and other nations.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister permit a question in that connection? What does he think of the stand taken by Her Majesty's opposition in the United Kingdom in sending a former minister, Mr. Lloyd, to Rhodesia on a fact finding trip? Does he not think that is a course that might be beneficial?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I hope my right hon. friend will not misunderstand me if I do not fully answer that question. I would not want to say anything that would not be helpful in a situation that might have been attended by the best of intentions. I have already noted some of the reactions to this proposal, but a visit by an individual, even though that individual may have been one of Her Majesty's privy councillors, is quite different from any act undertaken vis-a-vis this illegal administration, and a properly constituted government in one of the Commonwealth countries.
I promised, Mr. Chairman, before this item passed that I would deal with some questions that had been put with regard to Viet Nam. I listened last night to the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and, if he will permit me to say so, I thought it was an admirable statement. I am not in a position at this time to comment on two suggestions he made, but I can tell him that in our assessment of this problem we will certainly take his suggestions into account, as well as the suggestions made by other hon. members.
Emphasis was placed on an observation that I made the other day in a statement to the house on Viet Nam, and I will just have enough time to deal with it before I take my

seat. I say that if our policies in Canada differ in some essentials-my hon. friend said,
I used the adverb "fundamentally"-from those of the United States, it is because there is a difference in the position we occupy in. relation to the Viet Nam conflict.
The United States is a party to the conflict in Viet Nam. Canada is not; and we have made it clear that Canada could not contemplate military involvement in Viet Nam except as part of a United Nations peace keeping operation.
We are a member of the international commission in Viet Nam. I remember what my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre said last night about the commission. When we get into a detailed discussion I will comment on what he had to say, as well as on the observations made by a former minister of national defence. Since we are a member of the international commission we have a responsibility to report on any infractions of the Geneva cease-fire agreement, and we have done so impartially in respect of violation on both sides. We have cited South Viet Nam for the actions it has taken in co-operation with the United States, as we have cited North Viet Nam for its policy of infiltration and subversion in the south.
We were among the first to advocate publicly a pause in the bombing of North Viet Nam. We were among the first privately to urge on the United States the advantages of prolonging the most recent pause until all possibilities of eliciting a positive response from Hanoi had been exhausted. We have subsequently expressed, here and elsewhere, our regret that the United States found it necessary to resume the bombing.
Unlike the United States, Canada has undertaken no military commitments in southeast Asia, whether in the context of SEATO, or of other arrangements, or bilaterally toward the government of South Viet Nam. Our only commitments in that area are under the Colombo plan in respect of assistance toward the economic development of the area, and under the international commission.
Because of our position as a middle power we have made it part of our foreign policy to commit Canadian resources to the task of international peace keeping. Our present involvement in peace keeping situations, and the continuing role which may be ours in this regard, have naturally been a factor in shaping our policies in relation to the Viet Nam conflict.
February 4, 1966

We have made it clear repeatedly that there is no military solution alone to this problem. The only prospect we see of a durable settlement emerging is as a result of a negotiation which will take account of the legitimate interests of all the parties directly or indirectly involved.
If our policies in these areas are different from those of the United States it does not mean that we differ with the United States in other policy areas, and in those areas we have clearly indicated our position. The reason for our difference in the areas we have been considering is, therefore, to be found in the difference of our respective positions and responsibilities. If, on the other hand, our assessment of the forces at work in the situation in Viet Nam is in many respects comparable to that of the United States, this is not a matter of our having accepted someone else's judgment, but of our having formed our own independent conclusions in a situation with which we have had direct contact over the past 11 years.


William Arnold Peters: Has there been any recommendation, or does the minister intend to make a recommendation of establishing contact through our commission between the two- North and South Viet Nam? Has any attempt been made in this regard by Canada?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have made a number of attempts, the last significant one being when our representative on the commission, Mr. Blair Seaborn, made a visit to Hanoi and discussed matters shortly after the first pause in the bombing of North Viet Nam.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I know there are still one or two members who wish to speak and I was wondering if there would be agreement to leave the first item open and pass the other items. This might be of some help to the minister and to other members because it would allow them to discuss many subjects in which they are interested. It would also indicate some co-operation on the part of the opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would be agreeable.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I would want to make a few remarks on the International Joint Commission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That could be discussed on the first item.
Canada Elections Act


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it would be a mistake, because now we are getting into private members' hour. We have made very good headway today and we can perhaps finish these estimates on Monday. But in deference to some members who were anticipating that some of the items would come up later, we should not rush them through at this stage. I know some members who want to ask specific questions on certain items. I think we should-thank the minister for his remarks today, and we will listen to him again on Monday after he has had time to contemplate and decide on some of the proposals we put before him. -
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act (limiting election expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill I am presenting to the house provides for the limitation of expenditures and for publicity for federal election expenditures. It proposes to control election expenditures by limiting the expenditures of official agents and of political parties. It also provides that an individual candidate, through an official agent, may spend up to 20 cents for each elector in the constituency. In an average constituency of 50,000 this would mean a limitation of $10,000.
The bill also provides that a recognized political party may spend up to 10 cents for each elector in the constituency in which it has a candidate. As a rough estimate, if a political party ran a candidate in all of the constituencies, this would amount to an expenditure in the neighbourhood of $600,000 to $700,000.
The bill also provides that a sworn statement by the official agents or party officials shall be sent to the Chief Electoral Officer setting out in detail all moneys expended in an election campaign and the names of all contributors to election campaigns.
Subclause 5 of the bill sets out a principle which I feel is a desirable one. It states that any person, corporation, association or trade union is entitled to make contributions to elections campaigns and to political parties. The necessity for this provision arises out of legislation in effect in at least one province, British Columbia, in which there is a limitation placed upon contributions that may be

February 4, 1966
Canada Elections Act
made by a trade union. This is not only in respect of contributions to candidates in provincial elections, as one would have thought, but also applies to federal elections.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I might :say that the Supreme Court of Canada, as some hon. members will know, by a majority of five to four held that this legislation was valid and within the powers of provincial legislatures in the absence of federal legislation dealing with this matter. I point out to hon. members that if provincial legislatures can restrict trade union contributions to federal election campaigns they can similarly deal with contributions made by corporations or other types of organizations. This could also be implemented by provincial legislation.
I am aware, as I imagine most members of this House of Commons are, that the government has appointed a committee, composed of very distinguished gentlemen, to inquire into this whole matter of election expenses. I was very much interested to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) state that he hoped the committee would be making its report available in April of this year. I am quite certain that report will be of great interest to all members of this house. No doubt it will contain recommendations that will attract the attention of the house, and precipitate legislative steps to deal with this matter.
It is my hope and belief that this report and this matter will be referred to the committee of this house on privileges and elections. Nevertheless, it is my view that there are certain basic principles important to our democracy contained in the bill now before us and in respect of which this parliament is responsible. These things cannot and should not in any way be delegated to a committee made up of individuals outside this house, no matter how experienced or knowledgeable they may be. I doubt if there is any subject upon which all members of this house can claim to have more practical knowledge and experience than the subject of campaign expenditures. This is something with which we are all concerned. Let me say to hon. members that whatever suggestions or proposals may be made by that committee, some of the principles contained in Bill C-5 are essential if we are really to tackle this problem.
The following are the requirements: First, a limitation on campaign contributions; second, publicity in respect to campaign contributions; third, adequate accounting and enforcement of the legislation and fourth, the only way this can be done is by limiting
IMr. Brewin.]
those expenditures to official agents who can account for the funds, and to political parties.
In respect of the second requirement, the need for publicity, information telling where the parties get their money from is far more essential to a genuine democracy than information as to the origination of contributions made to individual candidates. Democracy is something that did not just happen, like an edict suddenly produced. Democracy is the result of design, effort, change and improvement, and required the removal of certain abuses that existed. We in this country of ours, in common with those in the other so-called democracies, have not achieved a perfect or absolute democracy. We still have difficulties and imperfections in our system.
The greatest difficulty in our democracy I suggest is our method of running elections on the basis of large and secret financial contributions from hidden sources not known to the public which is asked to elect representatives. The purposes of this bill are twofold: One, to prevent the buying of political influence by sinister forces in the country and, two, to ensure more fair and independent elections by limiting the amount of brainwashing that can be done by vast expenditures of funds on advertising campaigns designed to sell political parties and political leaders, like soap, to the elector. I believe all those dangers can be dealt with through the provisions of this bill. [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
That there is a real danger of political influence being bought by secret campaign funds was forcibly demonstrated to this country in the report made by Chief Justice Dorion. Mr. Rivard and his associates were able to get men prominent in the political life of this country to try to exercise their influence on the administration of justice. Why? Chief Justice Dorion makes it abundantly clear. They were able to do that because they had contributed to the funds of a political party. I will not name the political party in the pacific and non-partisan atmosphere that prevails in the house at the present time, but I believe that political party was very much embarrassed by what happened. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the election campaign did not fail to call attention on several, and I think repeated, occasions to this matter; but I am not interested in dragging up scandals-although scandal after scandal in Canadian federal history
February 4, 1966

76t
has been tied up with secret political contributions and until we deal with this cancer on our body politic we will not have an effective, functioning democracy.
We talk about organized crime, Mr. Speaker, but one of the ways to remove the influence of organized crime is to remove the possibility that people like Mr. Rivard can buy influence through the contributions they make to campaign funds. This is one way of dealing with the problem. Anyone familiar with organized crime knows that these syndicates set aside substantial portions of their ill-gotten gains for the purpose of buying influence in political parties. The way to destroy that is by way of publicity, and effective publicity. Does anybody want to see in the published list of contributions, "Mr. Rivard, famous narcotic smuggler wanted in the United States"? I think not, Mr. Speaker.
I have heard it argued that if you have publicity of political contributions it will dry up some of those contributions. Precisely. That is exactly what we want to do, namely dry up some of these contributions. I believe there are enough honest people in this country genuinely interested in political parties, genuinely interested in the welfare of their country, who are indeed willing and not ashamed to have their names associated with the contributions they are ready to make toward running political parties.
I know it is necessary to have money to run our political parties. The particular party to which I belong succeeds in running its campaigns a good deal cheaper, I gather, than some of the other parties represented in the house; but we know, notwithstanding this fact, that there are certain basic and necessary expenditures.
However, Mr. Speaker, why should the people who contribute these funds be ashamed? I think they should in fact receive an income tax deduction to encourage them to do this. I know of no reason why any Canadian citizen should be ashamed to say, "I have contributed to the Liberal party" or the Conservative party, the New Democratic party or the other parties of my hon. friends to my left. I know there is some argument in certain quarters as to whether they are parties, but in my opinion they are certainly parties and are entitled to receive just the same consideration as the rest of us in this and other matters.
I do not think it would benefit the house to enlarge on this matter at great length. The
Canada Elections Act
principle that is involved is fundamental. I challenge the so-called new guard of the Liberal party, and all those Liberal reform elements that we read about sometimes, to make sure that this needed reform is carried out.
I do not suggest for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that this bill contains every useful suggestion in this regard. Many good suggestions have been made, and no doubt will be dealt with by the committee. One suggestion, for example, is that certain basic services in connection with campaigning should be provided free-perhaps certain television and radio time, perhaps one free mailing of campaign literature. Some of these things could well be provided as a free service to bona fide candidates. There are many suggestions of that sort that could usefully be carried out. However, Mr. Speaker, I want to say as clearly as I can that until not only contributions to individual candidates are fully disclosed but the sources of party campaign funds, no real reform will be made and there will be no real dealing with this particular problem.
As we all know, it would be the height of optimism for me to imagine that this house would suddenly at this moment abandon what to my mind is the rather stupid practice of talking out every bill brought before the house by a private member. I am not that much of an optimist that I expect my bill to be passed by the house, even though there are so few of us here, and I am sure all the members who are here are quite intelligent enough to agree with the principle of the bill, and pass it. As I say, I am not that optimistic that this is actually going to happen. This bill will probably be talked out. But I cannot see any good reason why, if the principle means anything to the party forming the government, they should not refer the bill to the committee on privileges and elections. I suspect that this bill will receive the same fate in the house as other private members' bills. But whatever the fate of this particular bill may be, I hope that this parliament-and by "this parliament" I mean this parliament -will see to it that the major and fundamental reform as embodied in the bill is enacted into law during its life.
If we fail to do this, we will be failing democracy; we will be failing to take the opportunity that now lies before us to deal with this problem. The whole of the Dorion report will be wasted if we do not do what I have suggested. That report does not just

February 4, 1966
Canada Elections Act
deal with the question of political abuse, scandal and political embarrassment, but is a revelation of something that it is our duty to clean up. This is a way to test the genuine determination of this parliament to clean up the situation revealed by the Dorion commission report. We have our opportunity in this parliament to make Canadian democracy healthier and more effective. I hope we will take it, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat I wonder whether he would permit a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly.


Stanley Ronald Basford: My question to the hon. member is this. In view of the fact that Mr. Paddy Neale, who is the secretary-treasurer of the Vancouver and District Labour Council, informed me in the course of the last election campaign that the New Democratic party in British Columbia had for the first time in that campaign surreptitiously received $20,000 from the United States headquarters of a United States union, would his bill cover the full reporting of that sort of contribution?


Francis Andrew Brewin: It would cover the reporting of all contributions, Mr. Speaker. I know nothing of the facts of which the hon. member speaks, but this bill would certainly cover such a contribution. I can assure the hon. member that as far as my party is concerned we will not be the least ashamed of disclosing -as indeed we have disclosed to the committee-the full details of our campaign expenditures.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In view of that answer, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member can explain why Mr. Neale would say that, if I ever stated this as a fact, he would deny it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what Mr. Neale has said. I am not responsible for Mr. Neale and I do not know whether he said that. I do not propose to be dragged into answering a question regarding a statement I know nothing about.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has already made reference to the fact that a committee has been established to consider the question of election expenses, a committee made up in part by the former leader of the Socialist party in Canada. Therefore my first remark about the hon. member's bill

would be that surely the more intelligent approach to have followed would have been to await the observations which this committee will make.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I dealt with the question of the committee.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I listened to the speech of the hon. member and it seemed to me that he did not deal adequately with that question. In my opinion the hon. member knew very well the weakness of his argument and was trying to justify his bill with a little broader reference. But surely, Mr. Speaker, it makes better sense to have a committee study in particular detail the practices of political parties in connection with campaign expenses, and before we enact legislation in this house we should have the report of the committee.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The hon. member has said that each member of this house, if he knows anything about any subject, is certainly aware of election campaign financing. In a limited sense that is true. However, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that the committee has the advantage which no member of this house has, and it is an advantage that has not existed before. It is not only to make this investigation into what is involved in financing election campaigns, but that of having received very full statements from the representatives of all the parties in Canada as to the practices followed in this regard in this and other countries. I suggest really that, while remarks relevant to the principle of the bill may be made at this time, we should await the report of the committee before we attempt to enact legislation, especially when the bill has the imperfections which the hon. member's bill has.
I should like to touch on what I feel is one of the major shortcomings of the bill. Several of my colleagues have other observations to make on this point. The hon. member appears to have come to the same conclusion which is so often found in the press, that in some way there is something necessarily bad about a candidate making expenditures adequate to bring before the electors of his particular constituency his own background, and to bring before the electors the proposals for which his party is standing. Certainly there was a time when, theoretically, a man could run for office on a dollar. This was in the village pump days of Canadian politics and of politics in every democratic country. It was
February 4, 1966

not necessary for a man to have access to the expensive public media, to have access to extensive amounts of printed material, to make known to the electors his background and the position of his party.
In those days the electors knew the candidate on a first name basis. These were people who could see him every day of the week. Obviously this time has long since passed. For example, the province in which my constituency and that of the hon. member is will have an average population of about 70,000 people per constituency. Obviously in the period reserved for an election, or even if that period were twice as long, it would be impossible for the candidate to make personal contact with more than a fraction of the people he is to represent. It becomes essential, therefore, for one to use all the written material he can to make known to the electors just what he has done before and what his party proposes to do if and when elected to office.
There are some obvious methods of communication today with which we are all familiar. I refer not only to the party pamphlet but the personal pamphlet which is to be presented on a door to door basis by one's canvassers or sent through the mail to one's electors. All of this costs money. In the large urban type of riding which I and the hon. member represent, this kind of campaigning is perhaps the least expensive of the various modes available.
In recent years, there has been a development for a greater opportunity to make one's merits and one's points of view better known. I refer to such media as radio and television. As the hon. member well knows, in a city such as the one he and I represent, it is virtually impossible for an individual candidate to avail himself of these electronic means while carrying on a campaign. I am leaving out of the question at the moment the problem of free time broadcasts and the allocation of those between the parties. The cost of even spot advertisements enabling candidates to address the public over radio and television is such that where the station reaches 25 or 30 ridings, there is little point to it.
I know there will be some hon. members who will disagree with my view, but I am firmly of the conviction that there is little merit in buying a full page advertisement in a newspaper. I cannot think of any statement I might make in this house that is more
Canada Elections Act
likely to prejudice me with the members of the press gallery.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are not many up there to prejudice.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is one thing about the press gallery upon which you can rely. If the attendance of the members of the gallery were as good as that of the members of the house, I would be assured of a much better audience in the gallery.
I was making a point that it is not worth while for a particular candidate to buy advertisements in a large daily newspaper. What is really involved, as I have said, is for a candidate to have a biographical statement prepared for him to be delivered on a door to door basis or through the mail. If there is to be comprehensive coverage on a matter like this, then inevitably one runs into a considerable expenditure.
I of course cannot judge the expenditures made by the hon. member's colleague who ran against me in this last election. I know that he made scarcely any presentation to the riding by way of printed material. I am sure that the candidate was prejudiced a great deal by this fact. I am sure the hon. member would agree that if a greater expenditure could have been made the candidate's prospects would have been much better.
Mr. B re win: I wonder if I may ask the hon. member a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: By all means.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wonder if he realizes that under the principle of the bill a candidate could expend up to $10,000? I was able to get elected with an expenditure of only $6,000. I feel that an expenditure of $10,000 would be ample to get biographical material across.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can speak from personal experience. I know that in my own constituency a pamphlet of this kind for mailing, containing the biographical details and leaving out altogether the question of proposed policies or points of view, could run up to $1,000 an issue. If one is to put before the electors in an intelligent way the proposals one purports he is going to put before parliament, and the policies one is supporting, then I do not believe the 10-cent limit the hon. member has in his bill is anywhere near adequate. I suspect my N.D.P. opponent would probably agree that with a much larger amount than that it would not be unreasonable to think he could have made a much better presentation of his point of view.

February 4, 1966
Canada Elections Act
The objective ot the hon. member is to set a reasonable limit on election expenses. I am saying that expenses in this regard vary tremendously from riding to riding. I put it to the hon. member that the expenses of someone from a small city, such as the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Benson) or the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) would, of necessity, be much less because they would have the advantage of being in a centre where all the public media would be focused on them. As the hon. member knows, and as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) behind him knows very well, in a large metropolitan area with 25 or 30 ridings, it is clearly impossible for a member to have an opportunity of this kind for the presentation of his views, or even to establish his identity as a local candidate.
Now, the hon. member has said that he feels with a limitation on expenses there could be a more intelligent assessment of the candidates and a more intelligent comparison of competing parties. I have a little difficulty reconciling the hon. member's remarks in that regard with the remarks of his leader, or the remarks attributed to his leader, early in the campaign. He was announcing triumphantly that the N.D.P. would have more money to spend this time. I have forgotten how many millions of dollars they were to have, but it was an increase from the election before. Surely, this means that basically the gripe seems to be, not that there is anything wrong with spending money on a campaign, but that at the moment that particular group has not had it. It appears their philosophy would be different if they did.
I do believe it is right that there should be an opportunity for someone to put his views before the public. I feel there are specific ways in which he could be assisted financially. I am sure hon. members are familiar with one of the suggestions in the brochure put out by the committee on election expenses to the effect that there should be free mailing facilities for candidates. Personally, I would endorse that to a limited degree. I agree it could be abused. I agree with the hon. member in his suggestion, and I would be prepared to support legislation which would provide for some part of election expenses being financed by the state. The problem there, of course, is a question of definition, of deciding who is to get a contribution from the state and who is not.

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The difficulty, as I see it, for a candidate, a difficulty which could apply, as far as I know, to rural as well as urban ridings-is that a candidate is not engaged in outshouting another, as much as he is engaged in trying to shout his presence into the attention of a society with facilities already geared to engage attention in many other things. Candidates are involved in trying to attract the attention of the electorate at the same time as exponents of sporting events and people talking in other areas of public affairs are seeking that attention; and people engaged in commercial activities are also trying to attract attention. What is necessary for a particular candidate is to be in a position to make such presentation to the public that can be recognized among the din of conflicting claims on their attention by other media.
I think that my principal comment on the hon. member's bill is that I do not think its terms are realistic enough. As far as I know, and I suspect as far as the hon. member for Greenwood knows, he has no real idea whether the limitation would be effective for, for example, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), or whether it would be effective in Port Arthur, or what effect it would have on the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the hon. member has mentioned my name would he permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: By all means; it is always a pleasure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before he gets too near the end of his time would he comment on the essential point of my colleague's bill, namely that there should be publicity given to the source of election contributions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would not like my time to run out without saying that I would share with the hon. member for Greenwood his concern not only for the individual candidate but also the party apparatus behind him. Here I am referring to an established political party, such as he and I respectively are both members of. It is important that the central apparatus should have to make its expenditures and its source of funds clear, just as it is important for the individual candidate to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that not the point of the biU?
February 4, 1966


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is certainly one of the purposes of the bill.
On the whole I do not disagree with the hon. member's objectives; what I am saying is that the methods used are defective. Other hon. members may have something to say about some of the shortcomings of his proposals, but I would merely point out that the difficulty in which most candidates are involved, as I have said, is that of attracting attention to their candidacy in face of a modern society which is already making great expenditures on advertising, and in which there are other competing interests to attract attention. For this reason I do not feel that the limit imposed by the hon. member in his bill is realistic.
I shall look forward to what the committee on election expenses recommends in this regard. I strongly favour an amendment in the system, not only so that we can have publicity of the kind to which the hon. member referred but also so that we can have, as he has suggested, the benefit of an income tax deduction very much like the charitable deductions which are now available under the Income Tax Act.
In this regard I would not confine the right to deduct necessarily to candidates for federal office. My proposal would be up to $100 a year by way of deductions for any particular individual, and whether the contribution be made to a candidate for federal office, to the central function of a political party, to a candidate for a school board, or for any recognized candidate at any level of government.
Finally, I strongly favour a provision, which I believe is now law in the province of Quebec, whereby some aspect of the expenses incurred by candidates in elections can be paid out of the public purse. However, in the achievement of this I would be concerned that the provision be equitable and that the procedure to be followed, as recommended by the election committee, shall be a practical one and one which really can be carried out.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which purports to bring to Canadian elections what I suppose is a square deal principle. However, as the bill is worded I do not see how it can bring to our election system a square deal unless tremendous changes are made to the bill as it now stands.
If we take the bill at its face value, the proposed section 62A suggests that you be allowed expenditure according to population.
Canada Elections Act
In Yukon Territory, where the population is approximately 20,000, the limit for a party would be $2,000 and the limit for a member himself would be $4,000. Whereas if you were contesting the constituency of York-Scar-borough, where I believe the present population is something like 250,000, the sum of $25,000 would be allowed on behalf of the party and $50,000 to you as candidate. On the face of it, it is ridiculous that one candidate should be allowed to spend $75,000 to get himself elected but another candidate should be reduced to spending not more than $6,000 to be elected.
What are the difficulties involved, Mr. Speaker? The man in Scarborough would probably be relying on mass media-on television programs, radio and the daily papers. It might cost him $500 or more for a program lasting a quarter of an hour. Are we to deny the man who wishes to be elected to the Northwest Territories or to the Yukon mass media of the same proportions? The more I look at this matter the more difficulties I find in the way of this square deal which the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) is doubtless honestly and sincerely attempting to bring about.
I suggest that this is one more encroachment upon the rights of the individual. If we encroach on the rights of individuals to get support from wherever they may find it, to get money in as large an amount as they are able to command, we are not helping individuals but hindering them. Not only that, but we are encroaching on the rights of the people of Canada to support the candidate of their choice or the party of their choice as fervently and generously as they wish.
Although at times a member may be elected to the House of Commons because he represents Imperial Oil and they put $50,000 into his campaign funds, I do not think there are many members in the House of Commons sitting here today who owe their seats in parliament to any one corporation, and in some cases not even to the party which supported them. We have had cabinet ministers, and good cabinet ministers at that, who at times have come down a cropper. Perhaps large sums of money were spent on them in trying to get them elected. I do not think that the amount of money spent in their campaigns necessarily had anything to do at all with whether or not they took their seats in this house.
If we were to put through this bill, even on a unanimous vote, I do not think we would

February 4, 1966
Canada Elections Act
protect the right of individual members running for parliament, or even the welfare of Canada or the individual rights of the voter himself, the contributor to party funds, by setting an arbitrary limitation on the amount of money he should be allowed to spend on the person or party he wants to support.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I think the right to contribute in any amount should be left to the individual. It might well be that a good man, who is unknown except to a small circle of his friends, might require a large contribution from ten others to give him an opportunity to run. It is passing strange that this objection should come from the corner of the house where they rely on so broad a base to be elected. Is the hon. member for Greenwood so innocent as to think that members of his party have not a decided advantage, if we are trying to level out the rights and privileges of being elected, in being able to partake of what I call saturation campaigning. Without money it is possible to get members of unions, members of unions ten thousand strong, to go up one side of the street and down the other with their representations, and do that with donated time. Is this not a contribution to the party? Is this to be assessed in terms of 10 cents or 20 cents a head?
Am I to think that the hon. member for Greenwood will say that we shall have an independent commission set up to determine how much donated time is worth 10 cents, and how much is worth 20 cents? Because certainly the unions of Canada have been responsible for electing many members of this house by donating their time.
I think that there might be times in my own career where I would have welcomed 10,000 voluntary workers marching about in Athabasca, waving handwritten or perhaps printed pamphlets, ready to shake by the hand the uninitiated or the uninformed and give, as they do, that personal attention which is so necessary to get certain members elected to the house.


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


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, certainly.


John Gilbert: If my hon. friend is opposed to the limitation of the amount that is contributed, is he opposed to making public the amounts people do contribute, if the corporations and unions and individuals have no objection to publication of the contributions they make to a candidate.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Again, in theory it would be very nice to publish the list of those persons who supported any particular candidate. But I think that here we are putting a premium on. dishonesty. A candidate who printed honestly the list of his contributions and where they came from might put his friends on the spot, politically and economically. This would work against him in many cases.
On the other hand a candidate who was not ashamed to sign a false affidavit, who had no respect for the oath and who would not publish such a list, would be in a different position, and his friends and supporters would remain anonymous. I say that he who signed such a true affidavit would be at a disadvantage politically.
I think this is a situation where we could leave well enough alone. I do not think Canada is suffering at the present time by the method in which money for election purposes is raised. If large corporations produce large amounts of money in certain cases, and if the people of Canada are ever alarmed, it is not impossible to raise sufficient money in almost every electoral district in Canada, where the people are alarmed, and where the people want to put forward a man of the people. If the voters of Athabasca got together, and incidentally there are 28,000 people on the voters list, and they each contributed $1, you see what you could get. Incidentally there was nothing like the $28,000 spent. Twenty eight thousand dollars would be only a contribution of $1 per head.
I think my friends are complaining of a situation which does not exist. I am not imputing in these remarks anything improper to certain techniques which I might call saturation campaigning, where certain members enlist thousands of union workers; because that is a very effective way of running a campaign. In my opinion it is more effective than the contributions of large sums of money from any individuals or large corporations.
The technical difficulties are great. Again, if I carry this same line of reasoning into the other arguments, how do you say what is the most valuable? Is it television coverage, or radio coverage, or the use of newspapers or the use of photography? Some members of this house are very photogenic, and their pictures may be reproduced and passed around. This may or may not cost as much as television coverage, or radio coverage, and I merely say this because I could go on making these comparisons until six o'clock.
February 4, 1966

Therefore I do not think that this bill in its present form will accomplish the purpose for which it is designed. If you ever get to the point where hon. members can ever sort out all of their problems, and arrive at a value to be based on political campaigning, then this bill would be as thick as the Canada Elections Act itself.
If this bill purported to cut out some of the other anomalies and inadequacies of our electoral act, I should support it with a full heart. However there is one thing that I might say: What about the rules regarding elections in the armed forces? If the hon. member for Greenwood will sponsor a bill to reform that act, then I will support it with a full heart. I think that you could drive a four-horse team through that act. Certainly without very much imagination it would be possible to find out exactly how every member of the armed forces voted. Secrecy of the ballot is a fundamental right, but how every member of the armed forces voted could be found out. It would not cost the nation anything to reform that part of our electoral act. We should give to the members of the armed forces the right to secrecy of ballot which is enjoyed by every citizen of Canada.


Mr. Walker:: May I ask a question, sir. This is a very interesting subject and I agree with the basic idea, but how would you distribute those votes, without the secrecy of a ballot? I mean, how would you distribute them when they came back to Canada?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I think the question of distributing the ballots, collecting them, and putting them out to the districts where they go can be got round very easily. What I object to most under our present electoral act regarding the armed forces is that a man is expected to write on the ballot paper in his own handwriting the candidate of his choice.


The Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I realize that I was off the direct subject, but I was answering a question.


The Deputy Speaker:: We shall come back to the question perhaps later.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I think I have stated my main objections. This bill would be extremely complicated, if we were to attempt to produce the result which I think the hon. member had in mind. What he wanted to prevent, I think, was lobbying by money, and by television coverage, and so on and so forth.
Canada Elections Act
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
There are other objections as well. For instance, to a man in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon Territory or in my own district, election expenses-and I will speak briefly in this regard-are largely taken up with travelling expenses, and not for paying for the mass media with which you hope to affect your constituents. My district is the size of Great Britain. It has 70,000 square miles and has very, very poor transportation facilities. If I want to get to the other end of my district and see a few trappers or bush-workers it might cost $500 for one day. But these people have a right to see the candidate of their choice, regardless of the cost.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wonder whether the hon. member has noticed, when he talks about expenses in these northwestern constituencies, that the candidate's costs for lodging and food are excluded? Did the hon. member notice that?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, but it illustrates the difficulties of this plan. I might have to take affidavits myself-affidavits relating to travel, cost of meals and so on. Would the hon. member accept the affidavits I produce to show that money spent, say, on hiring halls, was actually paid out? Some of these difficulties might be removed if a government commission were set up to run an election from A to Z. Any time on the air would be paid for by a government official. Then what would hon. gentlemen on my left say? They would say the whole election was being run by the minions of the treasury bench. They would certainly not trust these people to run their campaigns for them. Neither would I.
So, I say again, leave well enough alone. Our election system, by and large, is adequate. We have a democratic right to support the candidate of our choice with as much money as we feel we should give. I do not believe the average member here is brought into his place by the expenditure of money. Indeed thousands of dollars were spent in my constituency to see that I was not returned. I welcomed it because the people of my constituency were sickened by the wanton spending of money, the source of which was unknown to them. One reason I am here, one of the lesser reasons, is because a money campaign does not always pay off. On the other hand, I do not see why I should disclose the name of every constituent of mine who sees fit to put his dollar into the plate to

February 4, 1966
Canada Elections Act
ensure that I have an opportunity to try to fight this type of dollar campaigning which the present bill purports to try to avoid.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there are many members of this house who would not agree with the principle of this bill. One thing it .does is to take cognizance of the very high .cost of campaigning, a cost which has grown over the past few elections.
While we can agree that something ought to be done in regard to this matter, we should also take into account the fact that a committee has been set up to do this very job. I hope the committee will be able to report to this house before too long in order to provide hon. members with an opportunity to study its findings and recommendations.
I am sure most reasonable members of parliament who view these things objectively would agree that the conduct of politics and public affairs should not be placed in the same category as selling soap or automobiles, where campaigns are effectively based on repetition and simplicity. This is the whole concept of good advertising in these fields. Unfortunately there seems to be a high degree of effectiveness in "selling" candidates at election time along these same lines. As far as I am concerned, speaking from my own experience, we in this group do not seem to have as much money to spend on election campaigns as either one or the other of the so-called old fine parties. In some areas within the range of mass media we find there are very important differences in support because of repetition over television and radio and in "the newspapers. I hope something can be done about it.
I agree with the contention of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the sponsor of this bill, that it is important we should try to do something to remove the opportunity for buying influence during election campaigns. Mr Justice Dorion drew attention to this problem in his report. Many of us know it is not confined to the personalities of whom he was speaking.
However, there are some weaknesses in the bill. There is much talk about limiting the amount of the contribution which can be made by a company, a union or other organization. Surely if this is to be effective there should be some way by which the whole amount, equivalent to 10 cents or 20 cents per elector, could not be paid by one organization. Any organization putting up the whole amount would certainly be in the position of

the man who pays the piper: It would expect to call the tune. A candidate who had been elected after a campaign in which the whole of his expenses had been paid by a single organization, whether a corporation or a union, or by a single individual, would certainly be beholden for his support.
The bill talks about limiting the expenses of a party. Yet our election system does not recognize parties at all. As far as I know there are no papers handled by the chief electoral officer which identify parties.
Surely, this house must pass Bill No. C-85 sponsored by my hon. friend from Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson), to allow for the inclusion of the entity known as a party under the Canada Elections Act, before we could give effect to what the present bill says in at least one of its clauses.
I agree, and this party agrees, that something ought to be done about this problem. We take cognizance of the fact that some progress has been made by setting up a committee to study the situation. I hope this committee will recommend some kind of legislation which will achieve at least some of the objectives which the mover of the present bill has in mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: On Monday we propose to call interim supply. After this has been disposed of we will immediately take up the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I should add that at the request both of the government and the opposition it has been agreed that the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce shall not be proceeded with in the order indicated by me last Wednesday, but that they shall be taken up at a later date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does this mean the Department of Transport follows External Affairs?


George James McIlraith: The list appeared on Wednesday night:	external affairs, transport,
defence and agriculture.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It will be transport.


George James McIlraith: Yes. I would be in communication with the house leaders, if any such communication should be required. There may be a question relating to the defence estimates. However, I shall keep the house advised.
February 4, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	769
Business of the House


An hon. Member:: For the time being, it Mr. Mcllrailh: And some of the opposition will be transport.	members, I regret to say, too.


Gordon Minto Churchill: 


[Stage Direction]
Try to keep your colleagues At six o'clock the house adjourned, without in Ottawa.	question put, pursuant to standing order.
771
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 7, 1966