1966-02-03

Mr. Speaker:: I trust hon. members will allow me to make a few brief remarks on the tragedy we are commemorating today.

Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the destruction by fire of the original parliament buildings of Canada. The blaze broke out in the reading room at 8.55 p.m. and spread swiftly throughout the building. At the time the house was debating problems concerning the fishing industry.
Hon. members may be interested in the following extract from Hansard of February 3, 1916, as reported at page 578:
9 p.m.
At this time Mr. C. R. Stewart, Chief Doorkeeper of the House of Commons, came hurriedly into the Chamber and called out: "There is a big fire in the reading room; everybody get out quickly." The sitting was immediately suspended without formality, and members, officials, and visitors in the galleries, fled from the Chamber. Some of them were almost overcome by the rapidly-advancing smoke and flames before reaching a place of safety. The fire, which had originated in the reading room, gained momentum with extreme rapidity and was soon beyond control. It continued till the following day, resulting in the almost total destruction of the parliament buildings, together with the loss of several lives.
As hon. members know, the only part of the original building remaining virtually intact was the library. Following the disaster, parliament met in the lecture theatre of the Victoria Memorial Museum and sessions continued there until February 2, 1920, when parliament met in the present building for the first time. Yesterday marked our 46th year in this chamber of our parliament.
Among the casualties of the fire was the mace. A temporary replacement was hastily constructed and was used for several months after the fire, and it is this mace which is in use today.



ANNOTATED COPY OF AMENDED RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE

Mr. Speaker:: Under my direction an annotated provisional copy of the standing orders of the house has been prepared to incorporate certain changes in procedure and practice which are in effect for this session. If it is the wish of the house, arrangements can be made to have this copy appended to Friday's Votes and Proceedings so that it will be available in both languages on Monday next. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether consideration has now been given to the setting up of a judicial inquiry into the Spencer case. When replying to that question would he also let the house know whether investigation has been made by the mounted police into the potential threat made by Spencer to the effect that if any prosecution were made of him, heads would roll?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was asked the other day whether I would consider the possibility of establishing an inquiry of this kind, and I said I would give consideration to it. Mr. Speaker, I am doing that. I am reviewing the complete record in this case. I have already studied it, and when I have finished my review I will make a statement in this connection.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Justice answer the second portion of my question, which does not come under the purview of the Prime Minister? Because that threat is one which carries with it certain implications that ought not to be ignored.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I presume that aspect of the question will be included in the statement.
February 3, 1666

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: This comes exclusively under the Minister of Justice. If he cannot answer, of course that is perfectly all right.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Whether I can answer is not the question. The matter will be considered by the Prime Minister as he mentioned in his statement.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Goquiilam):: have a question which could be directed either to the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Defence Production. I wish to ask whether any request has been received from Saint John, New Brunswick regarding the multimillion dollar contract for repairing
H.M.C.S. Bonaventure on the ground that economic conditions in the area would be greatly helped if Saint John got this contract. I should like to know whether such a request has been received and whether favourable consideration is being given to it.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, a number of representations have been received both by myself and by the Department of Defence Production advocating the award Of the contract for the repair of the Bonaventure, a substantial job, to the Saint John Drydock Company on the ground that this is a competent, efficient and skilful yard which is now faced with some problem of unemployment.
Some time ago tenders were invited from shipyards in a position to carry out this refit, tenders containing price proposals. These were received two days ago and publicly opened yesterday with the following disclosure. The bids, three in number, were from the Davie Shipbuilding Company for $5,768,689; from Vickers for $5,863,341 and from the Saint John Drydock Company for $8,572,928.
In accordance with our normal practice we would expect to award this contract to the low bidder.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I ask a supplementary question, in view of the fact that it was I who asked the original question on this subject. Would the minister take under advisement the great spread between these tenders and see whether there are factors which might not have

been taken into consideration in the original bids? Would he do this and report to the house?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: One of the purposes of the public opening of tenders is to enable bidders to satisfy themselves that they have entered correct bids; also, that they have all been bidding on the same thing. I did not ask this directly of the manager of the Saint John Dockyard yesterday, but to the best of my knowledge Saint John Drydock are satisfied.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister give us every assurance-I know this is in the contract-that there will be no extras on this job?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not want to mislead the house. I can assure the hon. member, however, that the contract will be entered into in accordance with the terms of the tender.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Are
these firm price bids, or are they in some other form which to some extent involves the actual cost plus a percentage for whoever is doing the work?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The work can be divided into two parts. One, the major and more costly operation, involves a precisely defined and specified set of alterations to be carried out to the Bonaventure. In respect of this work, which is adequately and completely described, firm total prices are set.
In addition to this there will be work the exact nature and extent of which will not be known until the ship is docked and the various mechanisms opened up for inspection. So far as this is concerned-


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: This is it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the hon. gentleman will keep quiet for a minute I will just explain.


Donald MacInnis: You
cannot explain that.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the hon. gentleman is afraid of hearing this, let him go on interrupting.


Donald MacInnis: You are
not explaining it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: To continue, with respect to the work the extent and nature of which can only be defined when they discover where the repairs are necessary, the shipbuilders were invited to submit an all-inclusive rate per man hour of work involved, and each of them
February 3, 1966	COMMONS
put in a bid per man hour of direct labour involved. This price per man hour includes all the variable elements, direct labour wage rates, overhead, profit and so forth.
The firm price element plus this, based on an assumed figure-and this may be correct or it may not-of 200,000 man hours, will enable an adequate comparison of the tenders to be made.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a supplementary question, what proportion of the five million odd dollars is on the firm price basis?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have not got the figures here but I was told it was the major portion. If the hon. gentleman wishes to know, I will ascertain precisely. This was a public opening of the tenders yesterday.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Will the American investments bypassing Canada be replaced by corresponding credits to be issued by the Bank of Canada? Is the Minister considering that economic possibility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The scope of the hon. member's question seems too great to allow for a reply at this time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SUGGESTED DEPARTMENT OR SECRETARIAT TO MAINTAIN LIAISON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the remarks he made last night in Toronto, when he said co-operative arrangements which would erode neither federal nor provincial authority are demanding a greater degree of mutual understanding, is the government considering setting up a specific department to provide for a continuing liaison between the federal government and the provinces, a department of provincial-federal affairs or a secretariat of similar nature?
DEBATES	637
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a small secretariat for provincial relations now in the privy council office. I know that from time to time suggestions have been made for enlarging it, or setting up a separate department for this purpose, but no decision has been taken on that.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources which has to do with the urgent matter of water pollution. Now that the report of the International Joint Commission on the pollution of lakes Erie and Ontario has been received, what action is the government taking to implement its recommendations?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the first action I intend to take is to read it during the week end.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Apparently I have the wrong minister, so as a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister is the government of Canada taking any action to co-ordinate the whole question of water resources, which seems to have got so badly bound up in several departments of government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a cabinet committee to co-ordinate this responsibility.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meg antic):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the Department of External Affairs or the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources received offers for or discussed with the United States government, or the International Joint Commission, or the state of New York, the sale of water from Lake Memphremagog to the United States, and particularly to the state of New York?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
February 3, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CONSTITUTION	[English]



SUGGESTED STUDY BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since it is obvious that the present formula for amending the Canadian constitution is unacceptable to some of the provinces, will the Prime Minister give consideration to establishing a parliamentary committee composed of members from all provinces in Canada for the purpose of studying this problem and making recommendations to parliament which, it is hoped, will be acceptable to all the provinces and thereby help preserve the unity of the nation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's premise is not correct, because the formula was acceptable to all the provinces except one. That province has said it is acceptable but has postponed consideration of it.
So far as the latter part of the question is concerned, that matter is now under consideration.



REPORTED SPEECH BY MINISTER OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Yesterday, in a speech he made in Toronto, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys stated that he was satisfied with an ill-conceived constitution as long as it was working smoothly.
Could the minister tell us why he is satisfied with the way our constitution is working now?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As for the first part of the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his question is out of order.



NEWFOUNDLAND-REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS DISASTER AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. As the result of the storms that have recently occurred in Newfoundland-Labrador, the worst ever experienced in many communities, causing thousands of dollars in damage to the waterfront premises of fishermen and to federal government property, and in view of the continuing high winds and heavy seas, will the government declare these communities affected to be emergency areas, and will the minister advise the house whether he has received a report of the damage done? If so, what does the government propose to do to assist those who have lost property?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have been receiving reports of the storm damage each day since last week when it first began, but it is much too early to say what should be done about the situation. The damage does appear to be extensive in Newfoundland. There also appears to be damage done in other provinces, including Nova Scotia. The situation involves a consideration of what action should be taken, after we have received more complete information.


James Roy Tucker: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister consider taking emergency action in respect of those places where the damage is continuing to be a hazard not only to private property but to life?


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception. In view of the occasional disasters that occur across this country, such as the one mentioned by that hon. member in his question, does the minister not feel that these disasters warrant the government supporting my private bill for a national disaster fund in order that we can meet these situations logically from this date forward?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in answer to the main question, the information as to the extent of the damage is not yet complete, and it would be quite irresponsible on my part, having said that, to now say that we should set up a national disaster fund to deal with these situations.
February 3, 1966	COMMONS



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether the policy of the government in respect of appointments to and promotions in the civil service of Canada was accurately stated last evening in the speech of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission to the Federal Institute of Management, which was widely reported. If it was, upon what basis does the government or the commission countenance this wholesale departure from the merit system?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I received Mr. Carson's speech last evening just before leaving the building.
I have not yet had an opportunity of reading it, but I shall be glad to answer my hon. friend in due course.



CONSUMER CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, asking whether he has given any consideration to reconstituting the joint House of Commons and Senate committee which studied consumer credit during the last parliament? That committee did a lot of work and incurred quite a lot of expense to the government and the country, but as yet has not had a chance to make a report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That matter was considered this morning by the government, and we hope to be able to make an announcement about it very shortly.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister?
Is it the intention of the right hon. Prime Minister to accept the recommendation of the Senate committee on aging to give all Canadians that are 65 years old and older a minimum income of $1,260 a year?
DEBATES	639
Inquiries of the Ministry [English]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that report has been received and has been considered, naturally, by the government. The procedures recommended in the report for expert consideration will be followed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to ask has been answered.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would inform the house, following the report of the Senate committee on the aged, whether he has now reconsidered his position with regard to old age security, and whether any increase might be anticipated.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that this report is being considered now.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In relation to the information which the minister tabled relating to requirements in determining designated areas, and in view of the fact that for a large section of the province of Manitoba there are no figures available to indicate the unemployment situation, will the minister consider having his officials look into this matter with a view to including the northern section of the province of Manitoba in this program?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that he place his question on the order paper.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on January 26 I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether the government had decided on a
February 3, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry course of action as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada involving Indian hunting and fishing rights on their reserves. The minister was good enough to say that he would take the question as notice. I wonder whether he is in a position to give us the answer at this time.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Kamloops I would say that a committee was set up to study the implications of the rights of Indian people in respect of hunting. This committee has met ten times, and in the light of the most recent judgment it will be able to finalize its report. I expect then to be able to say something to the house.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. What steps are the government taking with regard to removing the 22i per cent machinery tariff so that Canadian car parts manufacturers may compete effectively on the North American market?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, representations have been made on this score, and next week further representations are to be heard. The government is giving active consideration to this problem.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour and ask if he would inform the house whether he or his officers have been meeting with representatives of some of the railway unions and officers of Canadian Pacific Railway with respect to the pension arrangements of that company; and if so, whether he can report any agreement or other result.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. I had a meeting with representatives of the railway unions last week. Officials of my department

and I have met with officials of the railway today and discussions will be continuing again later today. I might also say that this morning my deputy minister and others had further meetings with representatives of the unions.


David Lewis: A supplementary question-


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, before this question continues-


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


William Heward Grafftey: -could I simply state, with due respect, that yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker; I addressed to the minister an identical question yesterday, almost word for word, which was ruled out of order. I would expect that the rules would be similarly applied to members of all parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Heward Grafftey: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, an exactly similar question was ruled out of order yesterday, and I must plead a personal grievance.


David Lewis: A supplementary question to the minister. Could the minister inform us whether there has been-


William Heward Grafftey: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker; can there be a supplementary question to a question that was ruled out of order yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was asking whether the minister could inform the house-and I may in passing say that my hon. friend can consider it an answer to his question as well; I am not concerned about the ownership of the question but about the issue that is involved-


William Heward Grafftey: The rules apply to everybody.


David Lewis: I was asking the minister if he could inform the house whether there are any results coming from the discussions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 3, 1966


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that this situation has developed very suddenly, but it is my impression that when a member raises a question of privilege, as was done by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, it must be given consideration and dealt with at once. May I respectfully suggest, therefore, that until the question raised by that hon. member has been dealt with it is not in order for the hon. member for York South to proceed with the same or any other question.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member that there is no question of privilege unless it is followed by a motion. No motion has been submitted to the Chair. The hon. member has to be reasonable. There are many questions put each day and the Chair cannot claim to remember whether a question was previously allowed or refused. The Chair tries, to the best of its ability, to rule in a split moment on every question put. If an error is made I should think that the hon. member would exercise some indulgence and recognize that that type of mistake can be made, if a mistake has been made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: rise on the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. May I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the question asked by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is not the same question that was asked by the hon. member for York South. A very cursory examination of the question will indicate it is entirely different.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that we should consider the incident closed. It may be that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi will recognize that if his question was the same as the one that was posed yesterday, at least he had the advantage of getting a reply today.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As the members of this house and the Canadian dairy producers want to know, as soon as possible, along what lines the proposed Canadian dairy commission will be
Inquiries of the Ministry established, could the minister tell the house whether he intends to introduce his resolution soon, with a view to submitting this piece of legislation to the committee on agriculture for consideration?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government's dairy policy for the ensuing year is under advisement and will be announced to the house in due course and in the proper fashion.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and I hope he does not take me to be agent 007 because of it. Can the minister tell the house whether Canadian NATO forces are actually involved in the search for the missing bomb, following the crash of the U.S. B-52 bomber off the coast of Spain?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of National Defence):: I could not say offhand.



REQUEST FOR REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ELECTION EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wonder if the Prime Minister can say when he expects to receive the report of the committee on election expenses.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State, who is the minister to whom this commission would report, and I have both been in touch with the commission recently. We are as anxious as my hon. friend is and as other members are, I am sure, to get this report with the least possible delay. I was told this morning it is hoped the report will be completed in April.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Finance whether he had had any discussions with Premier Robichaud of
642	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry New Brunswick concerning the financial implications of legislation recently introduced in the legislature of that province. My question to the Prime Minister is the same.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no such discussions.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: In an
effort to bring my batting average for the day back to an acceptable figure may I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to consider asking parliament for a special grant of a sum of money to the C.B.C. in order to set up a program for the extension of television services to unserviced areas, as has been requested on previous occasions and as was suggested by the C.B.C. in its annual report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think this question should be put on the order paper so it can be given proper consideration. I am sorry to destroy my hon. friend's batting average.


Robert Simpson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister may say that is two out, but I still think the team I am on is winning. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government will give consideration to this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair wanted to help the hon. member's batting average, but I think he should go along with the suggestion that the question be placed on the order paper.



EXTENSION OF FRENCH RADIO AND TELEVISION SERVICES IN WEST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Did the minister take the necessary steps or is action being taken at present so that the C.B.C. will serve the people of western Canada by extending its French network beyond the Rockies?

DEBATES	February 3, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question could easily be put on the order paper.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Because of simultaneous interpretation-it is official now in the House of Commons-there is a delay of a few seconds. Whenever a minister hesitates to answer, you say that the question is not urgent.
The minister only hesitates because of the delay in the interpretation, and we, on this side of the house, are being discriminated against. If you will look at all the questions which have been accepted, you will find that ours are no less in order than those you have allowed in the past few minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I can assure the hon. member for Lapointe that the Speaker does not have to wait for the interpretation of a question put by a member to understand it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I can also assure the hon. member that the Chair is not trying to guess whether a minister will rise before ruling whether or not a question is out of order.
On the other hand, I can assure the hon. member that I am willing to consider with the greatest leniency possible all the questions he wants to ask, provided they are important and urgent enough to be acceptable.


Gilles Grégoire: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it would be advisable that you specify once and for all the criteria you apply before accepting or rejecting a question. I am the second to rise on this point today and I think it is rather important.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, more especially to citation 171 setting forth the criteria for the guidance of the Chair, in order to determine whether a question is acceptable or not, and also to the criteria provided by the Chair and appearing on page 213 of the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for April 15, 1964.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member for Royal indicate what question his question is supplementary to?
February 3, 1966


Mr. Fairwealher:: I can do that, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Solicitor General's forces had anything to do with returning the hon. member for Lapointe from his harrowing capture of yesterday?


An hon. Member:: Why was he released at all?



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Can he tell us if he gave instructions to the income tax inspectors to check the books or accounts of parishes and rectories with regard to receipts for charitable donations for the year 1965-66?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question is of general interest because it calls for information about the instructions given by the minister to his inspectors, instructions which were released to the press, and also deals with a rather urgent situation in view of the fact that income tax inspectors are now going around the rectories to check the parish priests' books.
That is why I feel that the question I am asking the Minister of National Revenue today should be accepted by the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no doubt that the question is very important, but I remind the hon. member that he can get an answer by putting his question on the order paper and, as I pointed out, he can get it within a very short time, 1 hope.


Gilles Grégoire: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Salfsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the concern being expressed by members of the armed services regarding their pension
Inquiries of the Ministry rights under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act if the Canada Pension Plan is made applicable to them, can the minister inform the house and assure the members of the armed forces that the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act will not be amended?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): I should like to thank the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, for giving me notice of this question. The question as to whether the Canada Pension Plan should apply to members of the forces has been under study for some time by officials of the various departments. The matter will soon be considered by the government and a decision made as to whether legislation for that purpose will be submitted to parliament. May I assure the hon. member that any amendment made to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act-and there would be some necessary if the Canada Pension Plan were applied-would not adversely affect the members of the armed forces but on the contrary would, in most cases, provide for additional benefits.


Max Saltsman: Can the minister assure the house that any change made in the act will not be made by order in council but will be brought before the house?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not possible to change legislation by order in council, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him if the government of Canada is represented at the first international congress on the cod fishing industry which, I believe, is going on at the present time in France. Perhaps he could inform the house who is the head of the Canadian delegation, if there is one.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The government of Canada will be represented by a very well qualified scientist in the person of Dr. Yves Jean, from Quebec.


John Angus MacLean: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister if either the federal or the provincial government, or the industry, is represented by anyone from Newfoundland?
644	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am not aware, Mr. Speaker, whether there will be any representative from the industry. However, Dr. Yves Jean, though he is an employee of the government of the province of Quebec and director of fisheries in Quebec, has been invited by the Department of Fisheries to attend this meeting.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him if, on reflection, he can now answer my question of yesterday. Does he intend to get the approval of parliament for the course of action which the government has taken with regard to Rhodesia, with regard to the imposition of sanctions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we are shortly going to have our estimates before the house, and perhaps my hon. friend would agree to let the matter rest until then. Or I could give him the answer right now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to have it right now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have acted under the Customs Tariff. We have acted under the Export and Import Permits Act. In that connection, under that act, as the security council resolution was not mandatory, it was possible to act under the various pertinent sections only provided there was an agreement between Canada and another power and that agreement would give rise to an obligation on Canada, pursuant to which we had authority, according to the law officers of the crown, to act under the Export and Import Permits Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question. What is the agreement with some other power? What power does the minister refer to? What is the agreement? And can he table it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I refer to the United Kingdom. I shall be glad to do that.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Complon-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

DEBATES	February 3. 1966
Although not a member of the O.A.S., did Canada join with this body in denouncing the resolutions adopted by the recent conference of communist countries in Havana?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: This is such an important question, Mr. Speaker, that I feel I should give it the consideration it deserves.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the opposition parties in the house actually represent more Canadians than the party that forms the government, would the government be prepared to give serious consideration to the suggestion of the leader of the Liberal party of Ontario that representatives of the opposition parties be included in the delegations to future dominion-provincial conferences?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to check with the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario to make sure that his statement is being correctly repeated by my hon. friend.


Reid Scott: I say this in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. gentleman checks the statement and it turns out to be true, would the Prime Minister take this as a serious suggestion by the leader of the Liberal party of Ontario?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I take this as a very serious suggestion indeed, otherwise I should not be checking into it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question period has now expired.

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


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
1, Administration, operation and maintenance including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the international organizations detailed in the estimates, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners
February 3, 1966
[Stage Direction]
(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 on estimates. Shall item 1 carry?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, may we expect some remarks from the minister on the first item before other members are heard from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing now with estimates which we considered several months ago. It will be recalled that at that time I made an extended statement. This was followed by a further series of statements in the External Affairs Committee. In the debate on the Address I made a statement and I also made a further statement in response to a speech made in the house by one hon. member. It is not my intention at this time to open the proceedings with a statement. I do, however, intend at some point, when we come to the appropriate item, to say something about the government's intentions with regard to the situation in Rhodesia.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I think most of us had hoped that the minister might have made his statement concerning Rhodesia at this time, because it might have clarified a number of things which are in the minds of many of us and saved a few speeches. However, if the minister would indicate that he will make a statement now, I would be very glad to yield the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I will make a statement with regard to Rhodesia and the government's intentions respecting further measures.
Members of the house will recall that on November 11, immediately after the unilateral and illegal declaration of independence by the Smith regime in Rhodesia, the Prime Minister announced that the Canadian government did not recognize this declaration, the allegedly independent state, or the illegal
Supply-External Affairs regime in Rhodesia which had been dismissed from office by the Governor. At the same time we withdrew our trade commissioner from Salisbury and took certain economic measures against Rhodesia, including the ending of our small aid program, a complete arms embargo, and the withdrawal of Commonwealth preferences for Rhodesian goods entering Canada and of our export credit facilities for Canadian goods going to Rhodesia.
Since November 11 the Canadian government has played its full part in efforts to bring to an early end the illegal situation in that country by non-military means. The British government has taken the lead in these efforts in view of its constitutional responsibility for Rhodesia. In addition, we have also based our actions on United Nations resolutions and in particular on the Security Council resolution of November 20 which recommends that member countries should sever their economic relations with the Rhodesian regime.
Acting in close consultation with Britain, our other commonwealth partners and with other countries with significant trade with Rhodesia, we have progressively introduced further trade measures against Rhodesia. Before today these measures involved an embargo on our main imports from Rhodesia accounting for some 98 per cent of our normal imports from that country. I think in answer to the Leader of the Opposition the other day I said something over 90 per cent.
On the export side, in addition to our ban on the export of arms we had placed a total embargo on the export of oil and oil products from Canada to Rhodesia. This measure was mainly precautionary to prevent transshipments or sales in lieu of other suppliers, since we normally do not export oil or oil products to Rhodesia. Our exports were also inhibited by the suspension of export credits and export credit insurance facilities. If account is taken of the sharp curtailment of trade imposed upon Rhodesia by the effect of the sanctions, including its foreign exchange earnings as well as the inhibiting effects of the uncertainties and risks surrounding trade with Rhodesia, the actual impact on our trade with Rhodesia has been to reduce drastically commercial exchanges in both directions.
In keeping with our position at the Lagos conference in January about which the Prime Minister has already reported to the house, and in the light of the new British measures
February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs of last Sunday, I am now in a position to inform the house that the Canadian government has decided to consolidate and extend its economic measures against Rhodesia by a total import and export embargo with certain limited exceptions.


John George Diefenbaker: What have been the exceptions up to the present?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my right hon. friend permit me to finish and then I will give him the exceptions.
Export permit applications will continue to be considered in the case of food, medical supplies, other goods for humanitarian purposes and goods which are for the essential needs of the Rhodesian railways, Central African railways and the Central African Power Corporation which are operated jointly by Zambia and Rhodesia.
These new measures provide tangible evidence of our strong continued support, in concert with our commonwealth partners and others, for the efforts to bring about an early end to the illegal situation in Rhodesia. We remain in close consultation with the British government, the United States and other countries which have joined in the economic sanctions against Rhodesia, and we believe that our action and similar measures by other countries will make a further and significant contribution toward ending the illegal regime in Rhodesia.
I should like to deal now with the question posed a moment ago by the Leader of the Opposition. I deal first with the situation prior to the decision which I have just announced.
Import bans against Rhodesia on sugar, tobacco, ferrochrome, chrome ores and concentrates, asbestos, and preserved meats affect some 98 per cent of traditional Canadian imports from Rhodesia on the basis of trade statistics for 1964, when total Canadian imports from that country amounted to $4.3 million. The remaining commodities not covered under our present import bans, that is, under the import bans as of yesterday, include only small quantities of green beans, lemon and orange oil, electrical equipment, clothing, green peanuts and food product machinery and parts.
In imposing import bans against Rhodesia we have concentrated, as did the British, on the most significant Rhodesian exports. Before the new British measures were announced on Sunday involving a complete

trade embargo against Rhodesia, British import bans against Rhodesia covered some 95 per cent of total British imports.
On the export side, again as before the announcement of today, the bans introduced affected oil and oil products, and arms, ammunition and military equipment. The ban on oil and oil products was essentially, as I said, a precautionary measure since we do not normally export oil to Rhodesia. Total Canadian exports to Rhodesia in 1964 amounted to $3.1 million.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the statement of the minister on Rhodesia and in a few moments I should like to deal with his remarks and some other aspects of this matter in more detail. In the meanwhile there are one or two matters I should like to bring before the committee for consideration and I shall now proceed with those.
The first matter concerns Her Majesty. You may consider this a rather strange place to bring up the subject of Her Majesty, but since the remarks I have in mind affect other members of the commonwealth I thought this forum the best one perhaps in which to introduce these comments.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
As everyone is aware, the commonwealth is divided into two groups, those countries which recognize Her Majesty as the head of the government and those which are constituted as republics but are nevertheless members of the commonwealth. In addition, there is the state of Malaysia which is a separate, elected monarchy. The countries which recognize the Queen as head of the commonwealth are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Ceylon, Sierra Leone, Malta, Gambia and Malawi. Those which do not are India, Pakistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana, Cyprus, Singapore, Uganda, Zambia and Nigeria.
If Canada is to continue as a constitutional monarchy, and I wish to make it clear that I certainly think we should, we have to bring ourselves up to date. Though it is true that Her Majesty has made many visits to Canada which have been happy occasions, the fact is that she has almost always been involved in very exhausting royal tours which I believe are an imposition on her, and do not really satisfy the requirements that in my opinion should be fulfilled by a constitutional monarch. We agree that Her Majesty has had
February 3, 1966

excellent representatives in this country. I have in mind particularly the present representative and the previous incumbent of that office, both of them Canadians. These are men of whom we can all be proud. But if we are to continue to have a system of constitutional monarchy in Canada we must be honoured more frequently by the presence of Her Majesty herself.
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce that arrangements were now being made to have Her Majesty visit Canada in our centennial year. Again, if this is to be one of those exhausting trips which can do little save injure the health of Her Majesty while at the same time giving her Canadian subjects little chance to see her or become properly acquainted with her, I question the usefulness of such a visit.
The suggestion I am about to make would not have been possible 50, 25, or perhaps even 10 years ago, but because of the revolution in the field of transport many things are now possible which were not possible in the past. I think we should take advantage of these changes and adjust our political and economic system to the achievements of science. Fifty years ago it would have taken Her Majesty longer to get from London half way to the Scottish border than it would take her today to reach Ottawa by air.
It is my feeling and that of many others in this house that Her Majesty should spend more of her time in her Canadian kingdom. There is no reason why Her Majesty could not at least open every new parliament and be in Canada for a specific period of time each year or at least every other year. I would hope that on those occasions Her Majesty would not be pressed to move about the country on exhausting tours but rather that she would be given the opportunity to make more leisurely visits to various parts of her Canadian realm and meet her subjects in a more informal way under much less pressure than in the past.
I bring this up now because, as I indicated earlier, Her Majesty is also the sovereign of Australia, New Zealand and the other countries I mentioned. These countries might wish to make similar arrangements. Also, since the traditional seat of royalty is in the United Kingdom, these matters might well be the subject of consultation between the members of the commonwealths concerned. We have a Commonwealth Secretariat presided over by
Supply-External Affairs a distinguished Canadian civil servant, Mr. Arnold Smith, of whom we are all proud, and this is a matter which might well be gone into.
Some might say: If Her Majesty takes up residence in Canada, where will she stay? I believe the answer is simple. The government could make an appropriation, perhaps by removing a little from the World Fair allotment if necessary, and build an addition to Rideau Hall to provide Her Majesty with permanent quarters when she comes to Canada. I think it would be a splendid thing to be able to announce in our centenary year that Her Majesty would be Queen of Canada not just by representation but by her presence for a few weeks each year.
The next matter I should like to discuss briefly involves our relations with Latin America. From time to time I hear indications from the government that it is just about but not quite ready to join the Organization of American States. This has been a controversial issue in Canada for a number of years. Many of us have held views both ways on the subject.
I believe it would be most unwise for Canada to join the Organization of American States as that organization is now constituted. If arrangement could be made to change that organization it might be advisable to join but in present circumstances it might be very unwise indeed. If any proof is needed, all one has to do is examine carefully what took place when the crisis arose in the Dominican Republic. Had Canada belonged to the organization on that occasion, our membership would have done no good to our relations with Washington or to our relations with the Latin American countries. We would have been caught in the middle of a squeeze play. It would have done us no good at all. At present we have excellent relations, both diplomatic and commercial, with all countries in Latin America and I can see nothing but trouble for us if we join this organization as it is at present constituted.
I know that many who are associated with foreign affairs in this house as well as senior members of the civil service and other Canadians who interest themselves in these matters have, so to speak, had their arms twisted by interested persons both from the United States and from the Latin American countries. Latin Americans have told me, as I am sure they have told other hon. members: We should like to see Canada in the organization because you can explain our situation to
648	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs Washington. Similarly, I have heard our United States friends say: We should like to have you in the organization because you can explain our situation to the Latin American countries. My only comment is that when a third party tries to stop an argument between two neighbours hon. members know who usually gets his head battered.
What I should like to see is an expansion and strengthening of our relationships on a bilateral basis with the countries of Latin America, Mexico in particular. Mexico and Canada, as I have pointed out in this house on other occasions, have much in common. We each have a common border with our great neighbour. Mexico has been increasingly one of our better customers commercially. The tourist business, from the Mexican point of view, has been excellent so far as the arrival of Canadians is concerned. There are a number of ways in which we could improve relationships with countries in Latin America. Some are already under consideration by the government and I hope these efforts will come to fruition in the near future.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
There is another matter I wish to mention having to do with immigration and which is connected very directly to our relations with Latin America. As everyone knows, there is a great shortage of both skilled and unskilled labour in Canada. No one is more aware of this than the former minister of citizenship and immigration, now the Minister of Labour, and it must also be of concern to the new minister who will be in charge of manpower.
One source of desirable immigration to Canada might well be some of the Latin American countries which have economic problems and where increasing populations are a matter of great concern. There are many fine people in a great many Latin American countries and I feel they would adjust well in this country, perhaps not those from the very tropical countries but those from countries like Argentina, Chile and Mexico which have temperate climates. I know that in my own area some immigrants from Mexico have been doing very well, and I pass this idea on to the government. It might help our relations with Latin America, particularly with those countries I have mentioned by name. It is a part of the world from which I believe we have not sought immigration and it is unfortunate that we have not.
The next item I should like to deal with briefly concerns some problems of the United Nations. We all know-I am certain the

DEBATES	February 3, 1966
Minister does-that the United Nations Organization has greatly changed since 1945 when it was established. Not only has the United Nations changed but the world itself has vastly changed since that date.
I remember one of the last conversations I ever had with the late Secretary General, Mr. Hammarskjold, shortly before he was killed in that unfortunate air crash. At the time he was under very severe personal attack by representatives of the Soviet union, but I remember him saying to me, "You know, Mr. Nesbitt, the league of nations was a great success". I recall being somewhat startled. He said, "Oh yes, it failed for reasons we know but, after all, it was the first attempt in human history at some kind of a world organization to deal with world problems. You North Americans tend to look at things in terms of one year or five years but we Europeans and eastern Europeans tend to look at things at a much longer range, in terms of 100 years or 1,000 years." "After all," he said, "the present United Nations has done much better than the league of nations and has been much more successful, but as I see the United Nations at the present time it will likewise fail, as did the league, unless it has the ability to change itself and adjust itself to modern circumstances. However, if it does fail there will be a third organization and then perhaps a fourth, a fifth, and so on." I think the late Secretary General's observations in this regard are very interesting and enlightening with regard to his idea of what kind of United Nations we should probably have eventually.
As everyone knows-perhaps that is not a correct statement-as everyone in this chamber knows, the United Nations is not a world government nor was it envisaged as a world government when it was established in 1945. Rather, as the Prime Minister has defined it, it is a negotiating forum to iron out international problems. I should like to add to his definition by saying it is a place for the launching of international projects for world betterment such as technical assistance to developing countries and programs aimed at the eradication of malaria and the like.
Of course, certain problems have arisen in the United Nations. They are familiar to all. Its financial problems have been a matter of discussion in every country in the world for a number of years. They have been discussed in this chamber. But almost as important as that difficulty, with regard to which I understand there now seems to be some hope it
February 3, 196G	COMMONS
will be solved in one way or another, is the question of the great increase in the membership of the United Nations. I know that the founders of the United Nations originally envisaged an organization that would be quite universal and encompass all parts of the world, which unfortunately is not yet the case. But something the founders of the United Nations never envisaged was a whole series of member states, some of them with populations so small as to be less than half the population of some Canadian constituencies, which are not economically viable.
In this connection I refer to the membership of Malta and more recently that of the Maidive islands. I wish to make it clear I have nothing at all against the people of the Maidive islands or the people of Malta, nor am I opposed to them having some kind of representation in this world body. But it is offensive to almost any conception of common sense, despite the advantages given to the great powers in the Security Council, or at least to the five original great powers, to try to argue that there is any rule of representation by population which can by any stretch of the imagination justify the giving of one vote in the General Assembly to India, the Soviet union, the United States or Canada, for that matter, while at the same time giving one vote to the representative of the Maidive islands which have a population of about 45,000 persons. In such a situation there is not the slightest pretence at representation by population, by reasons or by anything else.
I realize full well the difficulties there would be in trying to change the method of voting under the existing constitution of the United Nations. Nevertheless, if this kind of increase in membership is going to go on something will have to be done sooner or later. I am quite sure the founders of the United Nations never envisioned the fragmentation of Africa by the breaking up of the British and French colonial empires, and in passing may I say I understand there may be another member of the United Nations with a much smaller population than even that of the Maidive islands.
Some kind of arrangement must be worked out to provide at least a floor limit on the population of a country becoming a member of the United Nations. I know these things are much more easily said than done, but I suggest as a project for the minister and his delegates to take up at the next General
DEBATES	649
Supply-External Affairs Assembly that Canada might launch a resolution, supported by some of our friends with whom we work in the United Nations, to get a committee set up to examine the practical problems facing the organization such as membership and voting rights. It could also examine the financial problem though it is to be hoped that by that time it will have been solved.
Time and again I have heard it said at the United Nations and elsewhere that this is not the propitious time, the appropriate time, and that tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow would be much better. However, it would be a good idea if we at least started to tackle this matter and if Canada next year tried to get a committee established to look at the problem of what kind of United Nations we really want in the future, what will be its purposes, and what are the best methods and means of accomplishing these purposes.
This would be a very valuable project for Canada to undertake. We could not expect a full answer within a year or two years, but someone has to start such a project at the United Nations. With the excellent reputation Canada has built up over the years at the United Nations, it should be possible for Canada to make a start on it.
The next item I wish to deal with is the question of Rhodesia. This and the question of Viet Nam are the two matters that have been uppermost in the public mind in recent months and are the two that are perhaps the least clear to the general public. As I see it, through its policy on Rhodesia the government has established a precedent in foreign affairs. It is a completely new departure, certainly in principle, in our foreign policy. What the government is in fact doing is making Canada wage economic warfare on a de facto state on the ground that (a) we do not like the methods by which that state established its independence and (b), we do not like the policies of its de facto government. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that this is in fact what is going on. We are now waging economic warfare by means of sanctions on a de facto state because we do not like the method by which it was set up in acquiring its independence and because we do not like the policies of its government.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This is a new departure in foreign affairs. There have been other similar situations of an aggravated nature in the past, for instance, when the government of Hungary was
February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs set up and displaced by Russian troops. In that instance, we did not sponsor economic sanctions against the Soviet Union. We certainly do not agree with the apartheid policies of the Union of South Africa, which is one of the objections we have to the present de facto state of Rhodesia, but we did not exercise any economic sanctions against South Africa. When the People's Republic of China broke away from the present Chinese government in Taiwan, there were no sanctions imposed against the People's Republic.
While I realize that in the case of the Rhodesian situation southern Rhodesia until recently was a colony of the United Kingdom and a country with which we have had very special and close relationships, nevertheless we are in fact setting a precedent by this new departure in foreign policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This was done in the case of South Africa.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If I understood the minister correctly, Mr. Chairman, he says we did impose economic sanctions against South Africa.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. There was a Security Council resolution, which was not mandatory, to which Canada gave effect, the result of which was that we refused to sell certain goods.


John George Diefenbaker: What goods?


Paul Joseph James Martin: For instance, we would not agree to allow the sale of any military vehicles.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister has now clarified his statement, but certainly by no stretch of the imagination could anyone compare military vehicles with commodities like sugar, tobacco and chrome, which in fact are badly needed by this country.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I do not wish to interrupt my friend, Mr. Chairman, but we did accept in full the provisions of that Security Council resolution which called upon member states to do what they could to prevent the dispatch to South Africa of arms and military equipment. We made an interpretation of that resolution that had serious effects on Canadian industry. We felt it was our obligation as a member of the United Nations to do so.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is all very well, Mr. Chairman, but a military vehicle is one thing and involves sanctions in a limited way. I do not think the minister could rise in his place

and inform this house that Canada in that case sponsored the economic sanctions of the United Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say we
sponsored them; I said we accepted the terms of the resolution passed by the Security Council.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, but only in so far as military vehicles were concerned.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: That is all the
resolution referred to.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In any event, Mr. Chairman, I think the situation is quite clear. There may have been some measure of acceptance of resolutions and steps taken but never before has Canada taken such a complete departure in the field of economic sanctions against a de facto state. There may have been limited measures adopted in respect of military goods against the Union of South Africa but not to any degree in the sense of the sanctions against Rhodesia.
You may very well say, that a new departure in foreign policy is being instituted and then ask what the significance of that is. It is my submission that the government should not have done this without consulting parliament. I have before me a list giving the dates of the measures taken by the present government against Rhodesia and I will deal with them in detail in a few minutes.
The first measure was taken on November 11, 1965, and the last on December 20, 1965. As I have indicated, I do not think any of the measures taken by Canada to this date have disturbed or affected the Smith government in Rhodesia. For that reason I think there was undue haste exercised on the part of this government in instituting these measures. It would have been very much better had the government called an emergency session of parliament on December 15 or 16 before the embargo on oil and oil products was instituted on December 20. Parliament should have been called into emergency session in mid-December. All the election writs were returned by that time and there was no reason parliament could not have been called for one or two days to consider this matter.
As a precedent for calling parliament together, let me state that on at least one occasion since I have been a member of this house this has been done. I refer to the Suez crisis. I think it was also done on another occasion in recent years. Certainly it could have been done on this occasion to give parliament an opportunity to discuss this new
February 3, 1966	COMMONS
approach to international affairs and to consider the measures to be taken. I say this for several reasons, one of which is that in my opinion some of the measures that have been instituted are illegal and have no legal force. If anyone chose to challenge these measures the government would have a very difficult time attempting to enforce them. An emergency session should have been called to consider the matter first and, second to pass appropriate legal measures if it was decided that such measures should be taken against Rhodesia. It is only in this way that they could have legal effect.
There is a question in the minds of many in this country how far we should go in these matters, and I think the government was far too hasty in saying "me too" to the United Kingdom and other countries before looking into the matter. There are a great many questions many of us would like to have answered in detail by the government. Since the government did not choose to call parliament in the middle of December, certainly a white paper should have been prepared for presentation to parliament on this occasion to explain a great many things that have been done.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has suggested that the Prime Minister gave a full report of what took place at the Lagos meeting of prime ministers. In my opinion that report was not sufficiently complete. Certainly I should like to have an opportunity of receiving a much more detailed report by the Prime Minister, either verbally in this house or in the form of a statement in a white paper.
A great many of us here would like to know exactly what proposals were made to the Smith government by the British government and what proposals were made by the Smith government to the British government. All we have received are fragmentary bits of information and biased views as reported in newspaper articles. I do not think any of us here, with the exception of the minister and perhaps other members of the government, are aware of exactly what proposals the Canadian government made to the Smith government and the British government. We do not know what was suggested at all.
In this regard I have an article written by Sir Edgar Whitehead, the former prime minister of Southern Rhodesia, and now resident in the United Kingdom. He is certainly not a friend of the Smith government. This article appeared in the Illustrated London News of 23033-421
DEBATES	651
Supply-External Affairs December 4, 1965. This is a complete report on the situation in Rhodesia which brings some very interesting facts to light of which I am sure many of us were not aware. Sir Edgar Whitehead states, in reference to statements by the nationalist leader in Rhodesia, Joshua Nkomo:
-the position is aggravated in Rhodesia by the fact that the nationalist leader Joshua Nkomo, in practically every speech before his restriction, said he intended to expropriate white farmers-without compensation-
This would involve land which has been held by these families for several generations. Such action is certainly something for consideration and this intention may give people reason to change their views. There are a number of other items I could mention in the same vein.


David Lewis: Do you suggest that this justified Smith's actions?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member for York South can make his own speech.


David Lewis: I politely asked a question.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, could I ask my hon. friend a question just so that I fully understand the position he is taking? Do I understand that my hon. friend is saying now that the government of Canada was wrong in advising the government of Southern Rhodesia that it would not recognize the unilateral declaration of independence, and that this government was unwise in making known that it proposed to take action along with other Commonwealth countries to give effect to such non-recognition of this unilateral declaration of independence?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, the minister cannot have been listening very attentively to what I was saying or he has put a wrong interpretation on my remarks. What I said was that since Canada was now developing and setting forth in practice a new policy in world affairs, we should not establish a precedent in foreign policy by instituting economic warfare against a state because we do not like its unilateral declaration of independence.
I said that this question should have been considered first of all by parliament. I also said that if parliament had been involved in deciding this question at that time there would have been certain things that I believe all of us would like to have known about. We had no proper information on the matter. It
652	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs is all very well lor members such as the hon. member for York South who obviously has sympathies in this regard, and I would not say I in any way disagree with him, to express certain views, but we would like to have the facts. We cannot form judgments on emotional appeals or emotional bias. We are supposed to form judgments on facts.
In the same article Sir Edgar Whitehead, who is of course a great authority on this subject, points out that the African population have been equally as disturbed as the white population by the fact that they can foresee themselves as nothing but second class citizens for perhaps the next 100 years.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that these are matters we should have had presented to us and about which we should have been given some detail. There are a number of other facts set out in this article. I will not belabour them at the moment. The article is on record for anybody to read and I think anyone interested in the subject should read it. Many of the matters dealt with in this article we have heard of before. I certainly think we should have had a white paper on this question.
I should like to mention another matter tht I overheard at the United Nations which has also given many of us some cause for concern. I believe I know from what countries the two representatives I shall refer to came, but since I might be mistaken and it might be country "B" instead of country "A" I will refer to them as two senior African representatives. They were discussing the matter of Rhodesia quite openly and uttered words to the effect that they did not think the sanctions would be very effective but they did think they might weaken the efficiency of the European population of Rhodesia to the point that when the time came to attack them they would be an easy mark.
I am sure the minister knows just what kind of things went on in the Congo and other places when attacks and violence were carried out against the European population. I think it is a matter of some concern that at least in the minds of some people in Africa the institution of sanctions will not be totally effective but will weaken the Rhodesian European population so that they will be easier targets for massacre.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.

DEBATES	February 3, 1968


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is speaking for his party and I think he should be allowed to continue.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank the minister and the committee for their consideration. In concluding my remarks I shall be as brief as I can. I believe this is a matter about which we should be concerned, for if the officials of some countries in Africa are figuring on this kind of scheme it is something that should be given careful consideration. We should consider what should be our future policy in this regard. I know that no members of this house would want to be a party to the same kind of massacre that occurred in the Congo, regardless of whether or not one likes Mr. Smith's actions. There are a great many people in Rhodesia, and it does not matter what one's political views are but rather it is the colour of one's skin that seems to count when law and order break down and murder takes place.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that parliament should have met to consider the Rhodesian affair, especially when one considers what took place in Nigeria which many of us always regarded, I think, as being a country where this could not happen. We regarded the events that took place in Nigeria with horror. Many of us knew some of the people in that state who were murdered. The Sar-dauna of Sokota came here as did Right Hon. Alhaji Sir Abukar Tafawa Balewa and many others. These people were entertained by the government on many occasions and it was with horror that we learned what had happened to them. While Nigeria was, I think, in the opinion of most informed people the country in Africa best suited to independence, we all had a rather severe shock as a result of what took place there.
I think no one will disagree with the fact that eventually members of colonial states should have full independence and there should be no first or second class citizens in those countries. Certainly nobody agrees with the policies of South Africa as a long-range project. But I think on the other hand it is quite clear that sometimes the immediacy of imposing our system of political democracy on other people is not always in their best interests or in the best interests of anybody else.
February 3, 1966

I have heard a number of senior Africans from various countries at the United Nations privately admit that while deadlines were repeatedly demanded from Britain for the independence of a number of her colonies, the people themselves knew that these deadlines were unwise and indeed no doubt positively harmful because the people were not yet ready to take on western style democracy. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we have found that in many other countries outside Africa western style democracy as we know it is not by any means perfect yet. Although we have been practising it for 1,000 years, it cannot be grafted on to people with totally different backgrounds in a period of a few years.
We know that this just does not work. I believe all these things should have been taken into consideration and I think it was a great pity that parliament was not called before some of these measures were instituted in order that a greater amount of information could have been given to us.
In concluding my remarks on the subject of Rhodesia, Mr. Chairman, I hope that during the course of this debate we will receive a complete statement on this question covering the matters I have raised. I believe the government may well be obliged to introduce legislation in the house to legalize some of the steps it has already taken. I shall deal with this matter because some of the steps that have been taken should have been given careful consideration by the members of this house.
Let us look at the steps the government has taken. I have a list of them here. The first one was put into effect on November 11 last. It was the withdrawal of the preferential tariff treatment accorded Rhodesian imports and replacement by the general tariff. This was done by order in council 1965-2016 of November 12, pursuant to subsection 1 of section 4 of the Customs Tariff.
I think there is no doubt that this order in council is perfectly in order, perfectly proper and perfectly legal. There is no quarrel with that. The second step taken was a complete arms embargo. This step was taken on November 11. These measures are listed in the paper I have before me which was supplied by the Department of External Affairs. No authority is shown for this second step and perhaps the minister could tell us what that authority is. I have no doubt that an authority can be found. Then the third step-
Supply-External Affairs


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, is my hon. friend asking under what authority this step was taken?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It was taken under sections 5 and 6 of the Export and Import Permits Act and in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement with Great Britain.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I will come to that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is if there is a threat to the security of Canada.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I will come to that in a moment, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
A third item was the cessation of Canadian technical assistance and of financing under the Export Credits Insurance Act, and that action clearly required no order in council. The government could remove that without any argument.
However, the next items are not so clear. I do not think the government had any authority to carry them out at all. Item No. 4 is the ban on the import of Rhodesian sugar and tobacco, which is covered by order in council P.C. 1965-2134, dated November 30. The action was taken pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Export and Import Permits Act. The same authority was used for order in council P.C. 1965-2211 of December 8 which banned the import of ferrochrome, chrome ores and concentrates, asbestos, and meats of Rhodesian origin. Then, by P.C. 1965-2252 the government put an embargo on the export of oil and oil products from Canada to Rhodesia.
Let us take a look at what the Act says, and I have it in front of me. It is very interesting to look at the background of this act, which is an act respecting the export and import of strategic and other goods. This measure developed originally from the War Measures Act and then the Emergency Powers Act. The legislation was assented to in 1954. The pertinent sections are as originally passed, and when one reads the act one finds that its whole tenor is related to the security of Canada and goods affecting that security, with certain specific and notable exceptions.
Section 5 (b) reads:
(b) to implement any action taken under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the Fisheries Prices Support Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act or the Agricultural Products Board Act, to support the price of the article or that has the effect of supporting the price of the articleg54	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs
And so on. I take it that the section of this act upon which the minister and the government are relying for the measures taken against the de facto government of Rhodesia is section 5(c), which reads:
(c) to implement an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment;
The reference is not to "any" intergovernmental arrangement or commitment but to "an" intergovernmental arrangement or commitment. This is a totally different thing from "any" intergovernmental arrangement. Despite the opinion the minister says he has received from the law officers of the crown, the principle of ejusdem generis applies and this provision could only refer to intergovernmental arrangements which relate to the nature of the act. Clearly, the banning of sugar and tobacco as well as chrome ores and the like has no possible relationship to Canadian security or to the other specific items that are mentioned in the act. It seems, therefore, that these orders in council have no legal effect at all.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I assure my hon. friend that the government did have the advice of the law officers of the crown.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is new and different.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The government may have had the advice of the law officers of the crown but I also had advice before referring to this matter in the house. On the basis of past experience these legal experts are perhaps just as good or a little better.
In addition to the argument to the effect that the measures taken against Rhodesia clearly do not come within the terms of this statute, there is one other item to which I should refer. If the government was implementing an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment, I would refer to subsection (c) of section 5, and may I point out that there is no agreement, commitment or document that the minister has ever mentioned to us.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I think the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked for it and I said I would table it. I will table it. It is an exchange of notes between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: WeU, if the minister in fact has a document it may come within that section of the act and that of course would remove that objection. Even if there is a

DEBATES	February 3, 1966
document, which the minister says he is going to table, it in no way affects the other objection, namely, that this act can be used only for certain specific purposes related to the security of Canada. When one reads the act one finds the provisions I have cited clearly stated.
Certain measures which the government has taken are in order. Measures under the Customs Tariff Act are clearly in order. The measures respecting financing under the Export Credits Insurance Act certainly are in order.
In conclusion, I think that the government has placed itself in a very awkward position in carrying out these measures against Rhodesia on the advice of the law officers of the crown. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that these measures that have been taken are illegal and would have no effect if the government attempted to prevent anyone from doing the things which are prohibited.
What I believe the government should do is to bring in legislation covering these matters. This would give members an opportunity to debate the question in detail and receive answers to a number of the questions about Rhodesia to which I have referred. If this house felt that these measures should in fact be taken, then there would be no question about them and this very different step in foreign affairs could be taken. If someone attempts to defy the government regulations, which he may well do, then the court case could drag on indefinitely. If it were the desire of this house to pass these measures, they would be ineffective in the meantime. I feel the government should introduce legislation to make sure these measures that have been taken against Rhodesia are in fact effective. It is my submission that the present ones are not.
I had intended to make some remarks with regard to Viet Nam which is a matter of great interest to all of us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my
hon. friend a question so that his position will be clear? Do I understand he does not quarrel with the government's policy of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia but he does question the legality of the measures under which we have acted, and would have preferred that the government ask parliament for an expression of opinion before such action was taken? Do I correctly interpret the hon. member's position? Otherwise, the hon.
February 3, 1966

gentleman is in full agreement with the punitive action that Canada has taken against Southern Rhodesia?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I shall be glad to clarify the situation for the minister. In view of the fact that Canada has set a precedent in her relationships with foreign countries, the government should have called parliament to approve or disapprove, as the case may be, of the measures that have been taken against Rhodesia. I submit those measures are ultra vires, at least most of them are, and have no legal effect. In this regard I feel that had parliament been called to look into this matter the government could have provided a great deal of detailed information as to what is actually taking place in Rhodesia.
I am thinking of the offers made by the British government to the Smith government, the offers made by the Smith government to the British government, as well as certain other matters referred to in the article by the former governor of Rhodesia, Mr. Whitehead. This would have enabled the house to pass judgment on whether or not a punitive policy against Rhodesia should be carried out. The members of this house should have received certain information which they have not received but which I hope they will receive before we are finished.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In any event, the policies of the government, even though we have not had an opportunity to approve them, are ultra vires. I am not prepared to say whether I approve or disapprove of these policies until I am made aware of all the facts, and in this regard I think most hon. members in this house feel likewise with the possible exception of the government members. We want to know what are the facts before we approve or disapprove of these policies. Since, as I have said, these measures, or a great many of them are ultra vires, I hope the government brings in legislation, presents it to the house for approval or otherwise, and gives us all the facts at the disposal of the government on the Rhodesian situation so that we can then make up our minds and decide whether or not these policies should be adopted. At the moment most of us do not know enough about the facts-we have not been given them-to decide whether or not these punitive measures should be taken.
I should have liked, Mr. Chairman, to make some remarks on the subject of Viet Nam but since the committee has already been good enough to extend my time I will leave that
Supply-External Affairs subject to my colleagues, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who will have some observations in this regard.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to attempt to deal with the issue of sanctions against Rhodesia. One of my colleagues, the hon. member for York South I think, will be discussing that question later in this debate.
The first item in the estimates of the Department of External Affairs invites a general review of Canada's international relations or at least provides an opportunity to deal with some of the highlights. I do not wish to devote my remarks exclusively to the subject of Viet Nam because we have already had some discussion in the house of that matter but, if I may venture to repeat something which I said earlier in the house, the tragic war in Viet Nam both dominates and poisons the whole international atmosphere.
Last Monday night my colleague and friend, the hon. member for York South, in a detailed and documented speech set out the attitude of this party. I do not propose to repeat what he has said. However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has replied to the hon. member for York South and there are some aspects of his reply which in our view require clarification and others that require an answer.
As reported at page 513 of Hansard for February 1, the minister said:
There are fundamental differences-
I stress that.
-between the policy of Canada and the policy of the United States with regard to this matter.
I asked the minister later in the debate to make clear what are these fundamental differences on a matter so basic that it may well involve the future of the human race, because the people of Canada have the right to get a clear answer to that question. It is perfectly true that the minister went on to mention the 1962 majority report of the international commission, of which Canada is a member. This report, members of the committee will recall, referred to breaches of the 1954 Geneva Agreement by both the North Vietnamese and the government of Saigon as well as the government of the United States. But, after all, this commission was not and is not the government of Canada, and the minister said nothing about any other fundamental differences which he had in mind, fundamental differences between, I would remind the committee, the policy of Canada and the policy of the United States.
$56	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was a different administration then.


Francis Andrew Brewin: At that time, as my hon. friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam points out, it was not the same administration.
I have followed as carefully as I can the speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this question both in the house and before the External Affairs Committee last session and also his speeches made outside the house. As I assess the substance of these speeches it has been that the United States of America was fully justified in military intervention, and the official United States view that this intervention was designed to aid South Viet Nam in resisting aggression was accepted by the minister. He now tells us that there are fundamental differences between the policy of Canada and the policy of the United States.
Later in his speech the minister spoke as if there were only two options before the Canadian government. One, he implied, was to support the position of the United States; the other was, to quote his words, "without restraint to ignore completely the rich opportunity for private diplomacy and to publicly condemn in every particular the government of the United States". At another stage in his speech the minister said that it would be a disservice to the promulgation of a sound foreign policy to resort to irresponsible public criticism. Presumably that means public criticism of the policy of the United States government.
So far as I know, Mr. Chairman, no one is asking the government to ignore private diplomacy. No one is asking the government to speak without restraint or encouraging anybody else to do so. No one is asking the government to indulge in irresponsible public criticism of the United States or to make any other irresponsible criticism. The suggestion left by the minister in his speech is that all public criticism of the policy of the United States is irresponsible, that all criticism is without restraint, that there is no middle course between public silence by Canada on this grave issue and unrestrained and irresponsible criticism. Of course there is a middle course, Mr. Chairman, and it is the course that we suggest.
The most responsible men in the United States today have spoken clearly and emphatically against further escalation of this war. Senator Fulbright, the chairman of the

DEBATES	February 3, 1966
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has spoken out critically and clearly, as have Senator Aiken, vice chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Mansfield who, as my hon. friend from York South reminded us the other day, has just returned from an official visit to Viet Nam and other capitals of the world. All of these men have warned clearly and emphatically against what they describe as an open-ended war, a war to which there is no end in sight but every prospect of disaster. Were these men speaking without restraint? Were they speaking irresponsibly? I suggest to the minister that, however difficult and painful it may be to speak out, irresponsibility lies in silence or evasion of these vital matters.
It is true, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated, that Canada has employed the methods of private diplomacy. No one here is suggesting that this course be abandoned. No one is suggesting that Canada's foreign policy should consist of unnecessary, provocative, extreme or public denunciation of United States policy. But if leading members of the United States Senate can and do express openly their grave disquiet and their criticism of current United States policy in Viet Nam, then surely the spokesmen of the sovereign nation of Canada can do no less.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Of course, it may be that the government of Canada does not agree with these distinguished United States Senators but rather accepts the official line of the United States administration. If this is so, what did the Secretary of State for External Affairs mean? What was he talking about when he referred the other day to fundamental differences between the policy of Canada and the policy of the United States?
What we in this party are pleading for, Mr. Chairman, is a restrained, responsible statement by Canadian spokesmen of where Canada stands on this vital issue. That there are vital issues to the peace of the whole world is made clear by the testimony of two distinguished citizens of the United States who appeared before the House of Representatives foreign affairs subcommittee on the Far East. Hans Morgenthau, a well known expert on this subject, and Roger Hilsman, former Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, urged, in a perfectly clear statement, that the United States should seek to de-escalate the war in Viet Nam. They urged that the United States follow the
February 3, 1966

advice of a distinguished United States general, General James M. Gavin, that the United States limit its military aims in Viet Nam to holding coastal enclaves until the Communists were prepared to come to the conference table.
This is not the policy of the United States. The danger of continued escalation is that it might develop into all-out war with China and the possible involvement of the Soviet Union. Surely in these circumstances we are justified in abandoning private diplomacy, however useful it might be in other circumstances, and telling our United States friends frankly and bluntly what our fundamental differences in this issue are. That there are fundamental differences the Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us.
I do not wish in any way to embarrass the hon. member for Mount Royal, but I cannot express better the views I have than by reading to the house a letter which was sent to me as a member of the house. The letter is dated May 26, 1965, and is signed by a number of very distinguished professors of the different universities in the city of Montreal. I will not read all their names. One of the apparent signatories is the member for Mount Royal who, I think, is the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister as well. I want to read this because it expresses better than I have what our view is in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this before conversion?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I beg your pardon? I think I should leave the hon. member to explain at what stage of his political evolution this letter was written or approved of by him.


An hon. Member:: Was it before the metamorphosis?


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I read the letter:
If the bombing of North Viet Nam continues, it will only increase the determination of the North Vietnamese to resist this aggression, and it will threaten the fragile peace which the world now enjoys. In these circumstances, we cannot approve the American government's tendency to judge all political changes in terms of its own over-simplified definitions of what is Communist and what is not Communist.
For all these reasons, we hereby declare publicly our unequivocal opposition to the bombing of North Viet Nam by the United States government and its South Vietnamese allies. We urge you, in the name of reason and human decency, to do all you can to convince the Canadian government that it should publicly advocate the immediate cessation of military operations against North Viet Nam, and the beginning of negotiations among all the parties concerned.
Supply-External Affairs In so acting, Canada will play its proper role as a member of the United Nations and of the International Control Commission, and will manifest to the world its devotion to the cause of justice and peace.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I commend that statement which was sent to the members of parliament by the parliamentary secretary. This does not talk about private diplomacy nor the pulling of punches. It asks in the name of humanity and human decency and reason that we do all we can to convince the Canadian government to advocate publicly the immediate cessation of military operations against North Viet Nam.
I hope that the hon. member still, despite the change in his circumstances, is doing all that he can, and I have no doubt that he is, to persuade the minister that that is the proper course of action. Certainly it is the course of action that we in this party have advocated. I suggest that it is a responsible, sound and proper course of action.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Mount Royal said "hear, hear" when you were speaking. That obviously means that he still agrees.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am sure he does. I do not think his position on the government benches means that he has abandoned reason and human decency.
I now turn to another aspect of international affairs upon which I should like to hear the observations of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to hear from him a clear exposition of where Canada stands. This is a matter which the Secretary of State for External Affairs, speaking before the External Affairs Committee of the house on June 17 last, described as one of the most important questions facing the international community at the present time, being the danger, as he said, to the peace of the world brought about by an increase in the membership of the nuclear club or, as I should prefer to call it, brought about by the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
We cannot forget, even if we would, the terrible danger to humanity which is inherent in the possession by more and more nations of modem thermonuclear weapons. The present stalemate between the two major powers has left us at least with a partial test ban and a measure of detente. However, this only provides a breathing space. The dangers to humanity are multiplied a thousandfold by

February 3, 1966
Supply-External Affairs the wider dissemination of the control of nuclear weapons. Therefore it is timely that the disarmament conference should be reconvened at Geneva to discuss a treaty on nonproliferation.
Where does Canada stand on this matter? Canada has the ability to produce nuclear armaments and the good sense not to do so, and we hope it will continue not to do so. Of course, Canada stands on the side of the early conclusion of such a treaty. But this mere assertion does not meet the nub of the case. The main obstacle to such a treaty, or so it would appear, is the insistence of the Soviet Union that a condition of the non-dissemination treaty would be the abandonment of any plans which directly or indirectly put the control of strategic nuclear weapons in the hands of West Germany.
In the plans that have been discussed which were designed to solve the problem of sharing responsibility for control of nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy in the western alliance, which is known variously as the multilateral nuclear force or the Atlantic nuclear force, there are parts that are thought, and have been so stated by the Soviet Union, to involve a measure of control of these weapons by West Germany.
It is our view that neither of these plans is in fact practical, practicable or will be acceptable. I know, and I believe it to be the case, that this government has made clear that it does not propose to participate in either of these plans. Once again, however, our United States allies apparently hesitate to withdraw these plans for fear of irritating elements in the government of West Germany.
It is our view that the abandonment of these plans for a nuclear arm in NATO or a nuclear control in NATO is a reasonable price to pay for the obtaining of a non-proliferation treaty. The Russian fear of West Germany controlling nuclear weapons is not without historic justification. The threat that West Germany may at some time control nuclear weapons is the one thing that is calculated to cause other nations of modern Europe who are showing increased signs of independence from the Soviet Union to rush back to the protection of a form of Russian alliance.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is not too much to ask that West Germany, where hope for the reunification of Germany as a whole must rest on a gradual process of entente and military disengagement in central Europe,

should renounce any claim not only for a little control but any control of nuclear weapons and should renounce it in the interests of world peace.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I do hope the minister will be able to tell us whether the government is urging that this step be taken as a means toward securing a non-proliferation treaty. I read what our representative, General Bums, had to say in Geneva and it seemed to me he was leaving this point to one side and simply assuring the Russians that there was no ground for their fears. I believe this attitude is wrong. I believe it is vital that something be done to remove the threat created by this accumulation of nuclear weapons. This is a first step.
I am not suggesting that a non-proliferation treaty is the solution of all problems of nuclear dissemination. However, such a treaty would go a long way toward removing the nuclear nightmare from the world. It would have to be followed by an extension of the test ban into the fourth element so as to bar underground tests and make the test ban complete. It would have to be followed by measures of nuclear disarmament by the four or five powers which now manufacture nuclear weapons. This in turn seems to involve a transformation of the international scene, particularly vis-a-vis China.
But let us take one step at a time. I would invite the Secretary of State for External Affairs to tell us what steps Canada is taking to aid in bringing about a non-proliferation treaty and in particular whether Canada is urging, as I suggest she should, the abandonment of proposals for nuclear sharing in NATO which might prevent such a treaty.
There are other gravely important aspects of international affairs which will be dealt with by members of this party in the course of the present debate. The two points on which I seek an answer from the secretary of state are these: What are the fundamental differences with the United States about Viet Nam and, second, what are we doing to assist in getting a non-proliferation treaty and removing the nightmare of nuclear holocaust from the world?


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, although we are expecting the introduction of the estimates for the coming fiscal year within a very few days we welcome this opportunity to make some observations on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs at the present time.
February 3, 1966

It seems to me that a long time has passed since we had an opportunity to discuss at any length the subject of Canada's relationships with other countries of the world, matters which are of vital concern to us. It is true that on occasion particular subjects have been raised. Perhaps these have been of such importance that we have passed by certain other matters which we believe it is equally vital to consider. First, I should like to refer to the situation in Viet Nam which has been a subject of great concern in the past months to a great many people. Only the other day several hon. members took part in the debate on this issue. Today there have again been references to the situation there.
As I have stated, the conflict in Viet Nam is a cause for real concern not only to members of parliament but to a great many people across the country. From time to time we receive communications from constituents and others who have apparently been giving this question serious thought and have felt it their responsibility to make known their views. It is their wish that we in parliament should give serious attention to what is happening now in Viet Nam.
Without having access to all the relevant information it is extremely difficult to speak with authority on the various aspects of this problem. However, there are some general observations which can be made and possibly certain general conclusions which can be drawn. I think there are three possible alternatives. First, we could give blind support to and acquiescence in the policies followed by the United States. I do not think this would be either constructive or desirable. Second, there could be a hurling of irresponsible and violent charges against the nation upon which has been thrust the leadership of the free world. I do not think this is desirable either. The third alternative is to make a studied and intelligent appraisal of our position as a nation in this picture and how we ought best to act in the dangerous and difficult situation which confronts not only the United States but the world in general.
We must keep in mind, as I have said, that all the relevant information is not at our disposal. Most of it, I suppose, is at the disposal of the government of the day. I do not think it is particularly helpful to recall the unhappy history of Viet Nam or recount the march of events which has brought this
Supply-External Affairs nation to its present dilemma. We have listened to debates on this subject, to the questions which have been asked and the observations which have been made. There are those who would place the entire responsibility for the Viet Nam situation on the shoulders of the government of Hanoi. We are told the major problem is the infiltration of Communist agitators and forces from the north into South Viet Nam. I think no one would dispute that there has been infiltration of this kind. But the question which arises is, can we place the whole of the responsibility upon the government in Hanoi and upon those who are standing at its side?
There are those, on the other hand, who say that the situation in South Viet Nam reflects a spontaneous and local rebellion against the established government. Here again, perhaps we should follow a middle course. I suppose we have to agree that past and present governments of South Viet Nam have left much to be desired. I may have more to say about this subject later. But even though there may be a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with the present administration in South Viet Nam and even some degree of uprising among the citizens of that area, one must also take into account the acts of aggression which have been carried out and the infiltration from the north.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Therefore I would say there is truth but also error on both sides of the picture. What troubles us is what can be done to establish peace and order in that section of the world. There are those who say that relatively nothing is being done to bring peace and order to Viet Nam. In many instances the United States has unfortunately been featured as the bully in this situation. Charges have been levelled against the United States and, as I pointed out previously, in many cases violently and irresponsibly. On the other hand, we have the Secretary to State for External Affairs categorically saying that everything possible is being done to accomplish the desired objectives in Viet Nam. I hope that this statement is correct. I do not agree with those who say nothing is being done and I would like to hope that everything possible is being done to solve the problems in that area of the world.
On many occasions the question has been raised of the possible withdrawal of United States forces from South Viet Nam. According to the Hanoi government, before there can be any room for negotiation the
February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs American forces must be withdrawn from South Viet Nam. I think most of us would agree that this is an unacceptable proposition. In this connection I have here an article from the Christian Science Monitor of December 9, 1965. It is very interesting and I hope to refer to it later.
It seems to me there are some who speak as though all that is necessary is for Canada to stand tall and shout loudly and then the United States will pull up stakes and move its forces back home. But we must recognize that the United States is a sovereign nation. In many respects it has to make its own decisions. Even though we may be able to make our views known, which is our prerogative, I do not think the United States will take such action simply because we make a great noise about it and loudly proclaim that the United States forces should move out of Viet Nam. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that to a considerable degree Canada's responsibility in this situation is in the area of diplomacy. Many times diplomatic methods can be used to solve a problem where other methods would fail.
I should now like to refer to the Christian Science Monitor of December 9, 1965 which contains an editorial headed "Realism On Viet Nam." It reads:
The illusion persists that all that North Viet Nam is waiting for is a suspension of American bombing to rush to the peace table. Although there is not now and never has been any justification for this belief, the National Council of Churches is but the latest to the list of those supporting this well-meant but ungrounded thesis.
The second paragraph is the one to which I would like to draw particular attention:
How unrealistic this proposal is is shown to a long and thoughtful article by a British newspaperman who has just returned to North Viet Nam after 12 years. Carried in the United States by the New York Times News Service, James Cameron's report states that the Communists are totally determined to force American withdrawal from South Viet Nam.
Of course the conclusion is that if this is so the cessation of bombing is not going to accomplish that objective. I am not saying that we agree with the bombing of North Viet Nam. I am not going to say it should have been resumed a short time ago. I am only pointing out the fact that just because the American and South Vietnamese forces might cease the bombing of North Viet Nam is no guarantee that Hanoi would be prepared to come to the conference table and

arrive at a mutually satisfactory agreement on this crucial issue. The question remains, whose move is it now?
It has been stated that the President of the United States is willing to negotiate without any preconditions. If he laid down any such conditions they were certainly very few, but the response on the part of the Hanoi government and those associated with it has been silence.
We all know that the matter has been brought before the Security Council of the United Nations and will be debated in that forum. It is our sincere hope that through such debate some tangible progress will be made toward the solution of this very difficult problem.
I should now like to make two observations in connection with South Viet Nam. Following a reading of the reports and the information that is available, it seems to me that the government of South Viet Nam is failing to sell itself to the people. Perhaps there is no alternative to it. It may be that the best government possible is in control in South Viet Nam, but the fact remains that it is failing in its responsibility to convince the South Vietnamese people that it has a logical and sensible program of reform which can solve their problems and present an adequate alternative to the claims of the advocates of communism.
My second observation is that military might is no substitute for social, economic and political solutions. I should now like to refer to another article in the Christian Science Monitor, the issue of January 24, 1966. The last paragraph reads:
With the growing American firepower to match North Viet Nam's mounting infiltration, there is no longer the threat of imminent military collapse. As long as the United States stands firm, the purely military line can probably be held. But this, to the view of many observers, is merely progress to a negative sense.
The war is not lost. But it has yet to be won.
This emphasizes the fact that if the United States is to accomplish its objectives in South Viet Nam it cannot be done by military might alone. There must be recognition of the fact that economic, social and political problems must be solved because only then can peace be assured in the area.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is great need for intensification of efforts in respect of rehabilitation and reconstruction in order to convince the people that there is something better than what is promised by
February 3, 1966	COMMONS
communism. Before departing from this subject I should like to make one concluding statement. The right of self-determination must be respected and guaranteed and as soon as possible an opportunity must be given for the will of the people to be expressed through free elections.
I should now like to make some reference to the peace keeping operations of the United Nations, with special reference to Canada's position and participation in those peacekeeping operations.
I cannot remember any time when a government of Canada was refused the support of parliament or the people in its endeavours to establish and maintain peace through peacekeeping operations. We are now participating in these operations in the Gaza strip, in Cyprus and in other areas. The question that arises in our minds is: Why is a greater effort not made to effect solutions to the problems that make these peacekeeping operations necessary? As I stated, we have no objection in this regard. In fact, we support the principle of participation in peacekeeping forces when they are required. Even when Canada is called upon to bear the full financial responsibility of maintaining her forces, as we are doing in Cyprus, no particular objection has been raised, although we do feel that a fairer way of financing those operations could be worked out. But we do insist that diligent efforts should be put forth to effect political settlements in these areas so that these forces can be withdrawn and the conduct of the countries left to the nations concerned.
An article in the Ottawa Journal of December 18, 1965, makes reference to peacekeeping operations and reads in part as follows:
In November, the Canadian government expressed publicly a view often expressed privately here: that the presence of UN forces leads to laziness in attempts to find solutions to problems which led to creation of those forces.
Canada told the UN it might not participate in peacekeeping operations any more if efforts to negotiate settlements were not vigorously pursued by the governments involved in the disputes.
I may say that the caption on the article is "Foreign Policy Designed For Viet Nam Peace". It was written by Dave McIntosh, a Canadian Press staff writer.
I think this statement sets forth the views of many people of this country. As I have said, we are prepared and glad to participate in any effort to maintain peace in these areas but we are concerned about the
DEBATES	661
Supply-External Affairs lack of diligent endeavour to solve the political problems so we can bring these forces back to their homelands once again. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs at some later time will make reference to this particular statement and give us his own views regarding the satisfactory working out of solutions to these problems in order that these peacekeeping forces need not be continued.
There was a reference in a newspaper this morning, I believe, to the effect that Greece and Cyprus have issued a communique indicating that union is the only solution in that area. It seems as though a solution is just about as far away as ever in that particular section of our world.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, Mr. Chairman, and it is in connection with our representation abroad through embassies and missions in other countries. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs would indicate whether or not the government is considering establishing any additional embassies or missions in countries abroad. This matter was raised the other day by my colleague with respect to one particular country. There are others I could mention today but I simply ask that broad question in that it falls within our consideration of the estimates covering expenses in respect of these missions and embassies.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might deal with that question at this time. We have already established two new missions in Africa in this fiscal year and I hope by the end of the next fiscal year we will have established two more.


Mr.   Pallerson@: I thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for that information. Perhaps he will indicate the specific countries to which he has made reference. There is one other matter I should like to discuss in regard to our representation abroad through our embassies. Perhaps the minister could indicate the relative sizes of our embassy staffs abroad compared with embassies maintained by other countries in Canada.
We have read articles recently and hear continually a great deal about the expansion of embassy staffs. One might think sometimes that there was a connection with espionage activities. Perhaps it would be of interest if the Secretary of State for External Affairs would indicate the relative size of the staff that Canada maintains in Moscow and the
February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs staff that the Soviet Union maintains in Canada. Perhaps two or three other representative countries could be included in this comparative statement so we will have an idea what the situation is in this respect. There will be an opportunity to take a further part in the debate as we consider the estimates and I appreciate the opportunity I have had of making these few observations.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Chairman, although I am rising for the first time in this house I do so because I think the subject of international affairs and the related problems of war and peace are most important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: I was first attracted to political life because of my interest in international affairs and I was first attracted to this party because of my great admiration for the Prime Minister who during my college years made many significant and important contributions to the solution of these problems.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As a child growing up during the second world war I was particularly struck with the atrocities of war, with its meaninglessness, its negativism and its complete frustration for all men. It was at that time when I was very young that I made up my mind to try to work toward the abolition of war and, as I say, this is one of the main reasons I entered politics.
When I was home during the last few weeks discussing some of the issues with my constituents, they were raising the question of the abolition of the death penalty and I was giving them the reasons for my particular stand on this issue. They said to me, "Well, if you would vote for the abolition of the death penalty for those reasons you would also vote for the abolition of war". I said, "If I could vote for it in the House of Commons of Canada, I would, but unfortunately it requires the consent of many other parliaments".
When the United Nations was established I was full of enthusiasm that it would serve as an effective means of bringing about peace in the world. Although I believe it has done much thus far, I feel it could do much more. The government has indicated so far, especially in the Speech from the Throne, that it intends to take further action in this direction. For this and for all they have already done I want to congratulate them.
During the past year two significant events took place in the world which directed attention to the importance of the United Nations

and the work it can do for peace. One of these events was the visit of Pope Paul to the United Nations in which this man who is a non-political figure pleaded with the world to try to refer more and more of the problems of war and peace to the United Nations and to work toward the prevention of war.
During the same year a large and prestigious conference took place in the United States known as the Pacem in Terris Conference. This conference gathered together eminent scientists, philosophers, journalists, politicians and other experts from all over the world to discuss the problems of war and peace from an objective point of view, a non-political point of view, and to try and find some real solutions. They also brought these problems to the attention of the public in general, and I think that today more than ever before it is important and legitimate that the public be interested in these questions which in the past have only been dealt with by politicians and experts. I say it is legitimate that the public in general be interested in these questions today, Mr. Chairman, because today politicians can involve total populations in wars, which could be disastrous for all of us.
I know that the younger people of Canada are particularly concerned about these things and they often wonder if they are not being asked to build a new and greater Canada and a new and greater world only to have them destroyed in a senseless war. I hope our government will continue to act with initiative and courage in these matters and that it will work to support programs that will make the United Nations an effective forum for world peace. I hope that steps will finally be taken to see that all of China is represented at the United Nations, that steps will be taken to provide the United Nations with a more permanent, effective and properly financed police force, and that there will be increased efforts toward disarmament and a greater reference of international disputes to the World Court.
I took note earlier in the session, Mr. Chairman, of the remarks made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke when he cited the percentage of our budget spent on defence and military matters. He pointed out that in Canada we spend approximately 25 per cent of our budget on defence and he also pointed out that many other countries of approximately the same size spend on an average 15 per cent. He cited figures in this respect. France spends 23 per cent of its budget on
February 3, 1966	COMMONS
defence, Great Britain spends 27 per cent and the United States 52 per cent. It would appear that Canada has spent a greater amount of money than would seem reasonable in this respect, but I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Sherbrooke and many other hon. members of the house the great contribution that Canada has been making to the United Nations peace forces throughout the world. I understand that although this money is spent under our defence budget a great deal of it is spent in the maintenance of peace. Our government has also mentioned increased foreign aid and has referred to specific items in the Speech from the Throne.
1 believe that without such aid all other initiatives for peace are meaningless and cannot be fruitful. Two thirds of the world's population are underfed, underclothed, undersheltered and to a great extent illiterate. Unless these people are soon helped their despair will not be confined to Asia, Africa or South America but its violence will pour over into Europe and North America. Frustrated hunger will not respect superficial international boundaries.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege with other members of the house of visiting the site of Expo '67 and I was greatly impressed with the enormity and imagination of this great project. Those men associated with it should be congratulated. Already 70 countries have expressed their desire to participate and I believe that Expo will provide a great opportunity for Canada to meet the world and for the world to meet Canada. I believe that through this Exposition Canada can make a significant impact on all humanity.
However, I believe the Exposition could do much more than sell goods and exchange cultures. I believe it could be a great occasion to make a major breakthrough for sustained peace and world order. Significantly, the Expo theme is "Man and His World". I believe it would be very appropriate to establish at Expo a program designed to relax international disputes and permit peaceful settlements, perhaps with a conference somewhat similar to the Pacem in Terris Conference which was held in the United States. Alternatively we should have a model United Nations of young people from all over the world because these are the people who have to live in the world of the future. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, scientific, economic and commercial projects could emphasize the
DEBATES	663
Supply-External Affairs need for assistance and co-operation between the developed and underdeveloped nations and dramatically bring public attention to this whole question.
I should also like to refer to the Company of Young Canadians, which I think can make a significant contribution to peace within Canada and abroad. I note that some students and student groups in Canada have objected to the creation of the Company of Young Canadians because they feel it is an intrusion into an area already occupied by CUSO, Canadian University Services Overseas. It is my hope that the legislation setting up the Company of Young Canadians will provide for co-operation with CUSO, with the World University Service and other groups interested in these same matters. I was pleased to note that the new chairman of the Company of Young Canadians was formerly with CUSO. I think this indicates that the government is taking many steps in the right direction.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It also occurs to me that there are many people who are no longer young who would also like to work both in Canada and abroad for the unfortunate people of the world. These would include retired persons, widows, unemployed and others who are still in the prime of life and who may be willing to dedicate a year or two of their lives to this great work. Perhaps the government may be able to find some means, through legislation similar to that which will establish the Company of Young Canadians, to provide these people with an opportunity to contribute to the solution of the world's problems. Although the house may pass many items of progressive legislation, Mr. Chairman, I think that we would all agree that if we cannot work with the nations of the world to maintain peace, then everything else will be meaningless.
ITranslationl


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, rest assured that it is not an expert on international matters who is taking the floor, because when I sat here between 1958 and 1962, I ventured to make a speech on a problem of world importance and that might explain why I was then relegated permanently to the position of backbencher.
However, it is very pleasant today to make some remarks in the debate on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs because the head of that department is such a
664	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs charming, pleasant and friendly man. I congratulate him for the manner in which he represents our country in all circumstances. He does it with quiet dignity and diplomacy.
When I see in this house the minister (Mr. Martin) talking with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), I wonder who is the greatest diplomat. They are both well qualified but who would win the title of best diplomat? I think we will have to wait for the verdict of history to get an answer to that question.
If, today, I have some words of praise for the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada, it is not to get a personal favour like, for instance, an appointment shortly or later as ambassador to the Vatican.
Speaking of the Vatican, I would like to point out to the minister that it would look good and be to the advantage of Canada to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican State, as several other countries have done, especially in this ecumenical age when the Vatican has proven to be a centre of international relations and a source of accurate information. Such a nomination would enable our country to extend even more its international relations.
If you will allow this levity, I would suggest a few people as ambassador to the Vatican. If the minister wanted to play a good trick on Bona and Jean-I mean the Hon. Bona Arsenault and the Premier of Quebec-he could appoint Hon. Leon Balcer or, to push the joke a little further, he could appoint the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) who could pray there on the tombs of the first martyrs to get the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) to believe in the particular status which Quebec is asking for as a condition for the survival of the Canadian federation.
Enough fantasy. I want to make some remarks and I ask the minister for his comments in his reply.
I wish to speak about federal and provincial jurisdiction in international matters. This is very much discussed in Canada at the present time, as it will be also in the near future. I was reading in La Presse this afternoon, that on February 5 next, an important symposium will be held at the Laval University faculty of law on the relations between Quebec and foreign countries. Of the papers to be presented, may I mention that of Claude Morin, on the interdepartmental committee, and that of Mr. Sabourin, on Canadian presence abroad.

DEBATES	February 3, 1966
There, then, is one topic which is very much discussed in Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec. In this connection, Mr. Chairman, we face two alternatives. That of the central government and that put forward for the past 12 to 18 months by Quebec and especially by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Cultural Affairs of the province.
The central government maintains it alone can deal with international matters because of precedents or constitutional principles. The Quebec government, through the two ministers I have mentioned, asserts in great detail and with much conviction that a province can, without the authorization of the central government, establish relations, carry on negotiations and sign treaties in fields which come under its exclusive jurisdiction.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Here is how the Quebec government logically explains its attitude. Any province has the right to do so because it can legislate in matters under its jurisdiction. Therefore, the right of negotiation precedes the right of implementation.
What about the principle behind those two opinions, those two attitudes? In the first place, who has the right to negotiate with foreign countries? According to international law, when international principles are involved, you have to refer to the constitutional law of the country in question, because this concerns the internal legislation of that country. Now, under the Canadian constitutional law, what governments can negotiate treaties in the field of international relations?
Before 1867, the Colonial Office in London was negotiating and signing treaties on behalf of Canada.
From 1867 to 1931, the Canadian constitution was strong and meaningful due to section 132 enabling only the federal government to perform international obligations entered into as part of the empire. For the information of hon. members, I shall quote section 132 which reads as follows:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British empire, toward foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
Therefore this section is clear: only the central government, as part of the empire, could perform obligations.
But in 1931, under the Statute of Westminster, this section lapsed and became ob-
February 3, 1966	COMMONS
solete when our country became a sovereign and independent state, with the various attributes of a sovereign country.
Later, in 1937, the privy council in London ruled in the Labour Convention Case that the central government cannot, in areas of specific provincial jurisdiction, commit the provinces. That decision followed upon certain regulations set up in connection with decisions or rulings of the International Labour Congress.
But section 132 having been obsolete and void since 1931, due to the new constitutional changes in the country, there is no longer any section in our constitution to guide us on this point. On the basis of the wording of sections 92, 93 and 95 of the constitution, it should nevertheless be noted that when the provinces joined to create the central government, in 1867, no apparent provision was made by which the provinces reserved for themselves certain areas of jurisdiction as far as relations, negotiations or the signing of international treaties were concerned.
If Quebec presses with great vigour the argument that I mentioned a while ago, and more particularly in the last couple of years, it is not so much because of its provincial status but rather because of its special status. Quebec, in addition to its ordinary provincial status, is asking for a special status, because it is the national homeland of all French Canadians in Canada and, indeed, in North America. It is under this special social and cultural aspect that the government of Quebec claims a status and responsibilities in the field of international relations.
I cannot see, Mr. Chairman-and I call the minister's attention to this-how it can affect the latitude and the responsibility of the central government to recognize international jurisdiction for the provinces. It seems that some provinces, like Ontario for instance, for a number of years and apparently without any authorization from the central government, without any previous agreement being reached or without any master agreement, have established relations with different countries in the educational, scientific and commercial fields.
If, in Quebec, there is talk of international jurisdiction it follows mostly from the special status of the province. I do not see how it could be harmful to a well-planned and well-implemented Canadian federalism that Quebec should have the right to negotiate treaties with other countries in certain fields
DEBATES	665
Supply-External Affairs which come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction such as education, health, certain aspects of labour and even certain matters of trade. In other federations in the world provision is made for such a system. A number of Swiss cantons and "landers" in West Germany have, without authorization or preliminary agreement, signed treaties with other countries.
I would be in favour of that. The minister should consider the matter and give us some definite information or his views as to how the question should be approached. In accordance with the facts supplied by the Lauren-deau-Dunton commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, we have everything to gain by revealing, both inside and outside Canada, this aspect of a bilingual and bicultural country. English speaking Canadians of various racial origins had the opportunity to travel in South America or elsewhere and told us afterwards about the warm reception they received, especially in South America, and how glad people were to meet them because they came from a country where French is spoken and which has a Latin background, in short, a bicultural country.
The province of Quebec could, for that reason, have a representative even at the United Nations or on international commissions dealing with education, health, culture, arts and even labour. That would take absolutely nothing away from Canada, but would characterize our country and enrich it all the more.
I am not at all in agreement with the statement made recently by the former mayor of Ottawa, and I am of the opinion that such people, regardless of what group they belong to, have never helped national unity and understanding. Miss Charlotte Whitton said she would rather see Quebec become a separate and independent state than have French Canadians dominate Canada. Hon. members know full well that we nourish no such dream of domination; on the contrary, we have been dominated for so long.
Have a look at Quebec in the riding of Sherbrooke and see to what extent all ethnic groups are all on an equal footing. The same situation should exist right across Canada.
The English speaking population is on an equal footing in the province of Quebec. Our English speaking fellow countrymen are not subject to double taxation, etc. Consequently, that statement by Miss Whitton is absolutely reprehensible and unfortunate. Her attitude may be due to being single too long or to
February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs badly organized solitude. I advise single men who might be so inclined to take initiatives in order to comfort her.
The genial minister knows very well that we would like to hear his comments or to know the attitude of his department with regard to the important meeting that is to be held on February 5 next.
I could present some suggestions about exclusive provincial responsibilities. As far as I am concerned, I feel that the Quebec government can negotiate international treaties without the approval of the central government. But, in order to strike a proper medium in the implementation of true federalism and to enable Canada to put up a peaceful front before foreign countries, I would suggest that the Quebec government inform Ottawa of its initiatives so that Canadian policies do not appear incongruous and incoherent abroad.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In the field of shared responsibilities which are mentioned in section 95 of the constitution such as agriculture and immigration, the Quebec government should discuss these matters with Ottawa and come to an agreement beforehand concerning the division of responsibilities.
Finally, where responsibilities lie exclusively with the federal government, Quebec should submit its request to Ottawa and the matter should be decided jointly with the province.
I humbly submit those few suggestions to the minister and I sincerely hope that he will make his own suggestions when he speaks on this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the Secretary of State for External Affairs wanted to speak now? I know how trying it is for him to sit silent for such a long period and I do not want to see him suffer. If he wants to speak now I would gladly relinquish my position.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I will let my friend do his suffering for now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you. I should like the minister to explain how the $155 million in the estimates has been spent during the course of this fiscal year and I am wondering about the supplementary estimate for which he is asking.
Although he has made two speeches on external affairs in the course of the session so far, we are now embarked on a close study of the expenditure of money by his department.


I had thought he would have made some exposition with regard to the $155 million that is listed in the estimates for the fiscal year. Of course, for that amount he has had a blank cheque for a 10 month period. Perhaps he would like to explain how that blank cheque has been used. No doubt we shall hear from him later.
My purpose in speaking today is chiefly to deal with the situation in Viet Nam, although I am very keenly interested in the action which the government has taken with regard to Southern Rhodesia and which it has not indicated fully to the house. I think the hon. member for Oxford was quite correct in saying that this action was a departure from our normal diplomatic relations in the world and that it has set a precedent for the future. The background to the arrangements and the steps that have been taken could have been more clearly set out to parliament. I submit as a matter of fact that parliament should have been called into special session before Christmas to deal with the matter. I doubt very much that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is on sound ground in the action which he has recommended to the government. However, that he will have to explain. We shall give him plenty of time to do so.
I am very much interested in the position of the government with regard to South Viet Nam. In that regard I should like to examine the minister's statements. May I submit that we are faced with this position concerning Southeast Asia. There has been trouble there for 20 years now and it is not going to go away by wishful thinking. This trouble has become of increasing importance within the last year and is rapidly reaching a crisis.
Under the circumstances, what are we to do? I listened very carefully to the minister a week ago when he was setting out Canada's position with regard to that conflict. I have also read with a great deal of interest the statement he made to the External Affairs Committee on June 9 and 10 last in which he gave a comprehensive review of the situation in South Viet Nam and the historical background. Those who are interested in the subject should refer to that. I have credited the document to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but of course his officials had prepared it for him. However, it has been very well done and gives the picture clearly. Where do we go from here? That is the question I have been asking myself ever since listening to the minister.
February 3, 1966

On January 25 he spoke in the house with what I considered to be unusual vigour and determination. He spoke rather clearly too, which was delightful, and we were able to follow him. As I say, I was amazed at the vigour with which he dealt with the subject up to a certain point. I think it is important to recall what he said when he was answering the question which is in the minds of all of us, namely, how important is the struggle in South Viet Nam? This is what he said on page 234 of Hansard:
We must ask ourselves what the failure of United States efforts in Asia would mean to us as well as to that country.
That is a very good question. It is in the minds of a lot of people.
We must ask ourselves what it would mean to India, to Thailand, to the island countries, the Philippines, New Zealand and Australia. We must ask ourselves what it would mean to many countries in Asia and Africa which, although critical of the United States, would be deeply concerned over a Communist victory in Viet Nam. I ask what would be the concern of the Soviet Union in these circumstances. I must ask the house whether Canada's real interest would be promoted by a United States defeat. I must ask the house what such a defeat would mean by way of encouragement to an aggressive brand of political action. It is because of these considerations for Canada and other countries that we cannot deny the importance of this conflict in Viet Nam to us all.
I was impressed by the summary that the minister gave up to that point. Looking back at his report to the committee on external affairs last June, I found that he then took a serious view. If I may I will read a short quotation from pages 32 and 33 of the committee report. He was asked by the hon. member for York Centre:
What do you consider would be the consequences of an American withdrawal at this time?
The document reads:


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think no doubt that there would be a complete overrun of the whole of Viet Nam by the north, and by the Viet Cong. The consequences of what the position China would be, I do not know. But the most serious part of all would be the consequences for Thailand, Burma, India, New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. What it would mean for us would be that the barriers would be brought closer to home, perhaps right to our own doorstep. While we must recognize that Asia must be allowed to work out its own destiny, and that it has great prerogatives, and that these must not be usurped by the west, nevertheless there is involved in this tragic situation the deepest implications for us, and for many countries with whom we have the closest ties.
That shows how serious the situation is in the mind of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I presume that he is express-

Supply-External Affairs ing the feeling of the government in that regard.
Attached as an appendix to the report of the minutes of the proceedings of that committee is a statement by the Minister of External Affairs for Australia, Hon. Paul Hasluck, given on the 23rd of March 1965. Australia is involved actively in the conflict in Southeast Asia. The Australian foreign minister said, and I quote from page 102 of the report:
In the circumstances that now exist, the United States could not withdraw from South Viet Nam without abandoning the responsibilities that belong to power or the principles they are trying to uphold. The United States could not withdraw without necessarily considering the world wide impact of such a withdrawal on the broader strategies of world politics.
If the United States did withdraw, the same conflict would be renewed somewhere else. Within a brief period the struggle now taking place in South Viet Nam would be shifted to Thailand. If there was abandonment of Thailand, it would shift to Malaysia-to Indonesia, to Burma, to India and further. Nothing would be ended and no stability would be achieved by yielding in South Viet Nam.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
There are other quotations I could give from the very able address by the Australian foreign minister. He viewed the matter with the greatest seriousness. And Australia is participating in the action in South Viet Nam.
What is Canada's policy? What did the minister say to us on January 25? He said that after he had drawn our attention to the seriousness of the situation he would turn to consider the policy he thought it right for Canada to follow in relation to that conflict. He dealt with our membership on the international commission. He stated there would be no sending of Canadian troops to Viet Nam. His words were as follows:
The government has no intention to recommend at any time the commitment of our forces to Asia unless pursuant to an obligation under the charter of the United Nations.
He went on to say:
Our policy has been intended to help bring the present conflict from the battlefield to the negotiating table.
I think those are the three main points of the policy he enunciated on that occasion. I put this question. If we accept the statement of the minister, supported by that of the Australian minister, that there would be the gravest consequences to the peace of the world if the United States were to withdraw from South Viet Nam and that our whole future would be affected by such a withdrawal, what is Canada's position with regard to this conflict?
February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs
Is it sufficient for us to hide behind our membership on the international commission?
The international commission was set up about 11 years ago. It operated in both North and South Viet Nam. At one time it had mobile teams which went about the country to see what was happening. I gather that for the past year the commission has been immobile. The teams were withdrawn from North Viet Nam and I doubt very much that anyone can move about either in the north or in the south without being in danger. So the international commission has not much scope for activity. The minister relied on a report of the commission in 1962.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As did the previous administration.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I beg your pardon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As did the former government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It showed that forces were being infiltrated to support those who were in rebellion in South Viet Nam. Then the minister drew attention to a report of February, 1965, when some contact was apparently made by the international commission with the government of North Viet Nam. But that is about all the commission has done in a period of almost four years. I wonder whether it can serve any useful purpose in the future. The minister says it gives us representation in Viet Nam and keeps the door open in case the situation can be brought to the negotiation table. But I do not hold out much hope of that while there are other forces at work and countries more powerful than Canada engaged in attempting to solve this problem.
The minister shelters behind our membership on the international commission. The Minister of National Defence, answering a question I put to him the other day, shielded himself behind the international commission.
I asked him whether the government was considering sending military observers to South Viet Nam to see what methods of warfare were being used in that area. I was not referring, as one correspondent suggested in a letter to me, to discovering how to kill women and children or to torture prisoners. That is nonsense. But if our armed forces are to reach peak efficiency as fighting forces they must be informed as to modern methods


of warfare, and the use of helicopters in South Viet Nam by the United States forces is something which should be studied by Canada. Military observers should be studying the methods used in waging jungle warfare and fighting against guerrillas. I do not think Canadian forces are trained sufficiently to take part in warfare of this type though some time in the future in some part of the world we may be compelled to engage in guerrilla fighting or jungle warfare.
I think we should not be sheltering behind our membership on the international commission. The minister makes a great point of bringing matters to the negotiating table. Everybody would like that to happen. No one is under any obligation in this day and age to say he is against war or that he is shocked by the horrors of war. I have heard for 50 years about the horrors of war. We do not need to beat our breasts and say "It is terrible". It is terrible. We have been afflicted in the twentieth century by warfare, and we still are. I do not know anyone who advocates war in order to kill people off. But we are faced with the necessity of looking at the realities of the situation. We are not free from the threat of war. We hope the balance of terror will save us from atomic and thermonuclear warfare but we are not safe from the perils of war by so-called conventional methods such as are now being used in South Viet Nam.
I see, Mr. Chairman, that private members' hour has come upon us. I will continue my remarks later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I table the documents I promised the hon. gentleman I would table, the exchange of notes between the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Canada and myself?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It would surely be more appropriate if the documents were tabled while the Speaker was in the chair.
It being six o'clock it is my duty to leave the Chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I now table the exchange of notes between myself as Secretary of State for External Affairs and the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in Canada regarding an arrangement to cooperate between the two countries in the matter of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia.
February 3, 1966



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: It is my duty, in conformity with standing order 39A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), Canadian centennial -reported failure of a Quebec publication to mention federal participation in certain projects; the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), income tax, examination of receipts for charity gifts; the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent), agriculture, nomination of a dairy product commission.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Richard Albert Bell: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports, briefs or other documents or communications received by the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General or the Department of Justice from the Law Society of Upper Canada relating to Mr. Justice Leo Landreville; all replies made to any such reports, briefs or other documents or communications; all letters or other communications addressed by the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General or any officer of the Department of Justice, since the first day of January 1964 to Mr. Justice Leo Landreville; all replies made by Mr. Justice Leo Landreville or by any solicitor or agent on his behalf, to any such letters or other communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was called yesterday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) opposed it on grounds which I submit are both specious and evasive. I will deal succinctly with those grounds that he mentioned at that time because I do not intend to debate the matter at any length. I seek to have this motion come to a vote and let the free will of this house decide.
The independence of our judiciary is one of the most precious aspects of our constitutional heritage and this motion, Mr. Speaker, is designed not to violate it but to uphold it. That is its precise purpose. No member of this chamber has greater respect for the judiciary of this country than I. In this
Motions for Papers
chamber, and in the courts and elsewhere I shall always seek with all the diligence at my command to uphold the independence of the judiciary, its integrity and freedom from political interference. But I do not concede that the judiciary is above and beyond this high court of parliament.
It is not the conduct of Mr. Justice Landreville with which this motion deals. Let me make that abundantly clear. That will now be reported on by a commissioner, albeit I believe that royal commission to be a forum substituted improperly for this high court of parliament. What I am interested in is the conduct of the Minister of Justice and of his predecessor, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau), the men responsible to this house, and I am not ready to let them hide behind any judicial cloak, any cloak of a royal commissioner or any phony argument about attacking the independence of the judiciary.
There is no doubt the Minister of Justice or his predecessor received a document from the Law Society of Upper Canada commenting upon the fitness for judicial office of Mr. Justice Landreville. Some members of this chamber have seen that document. There is no doubt a reply was sent to that document. The minister has stated this publicly on many occasions and he has consistently expressed willingness that the Law Society of Upper Canada should release the document.
Now the minister asserts that because I seek to have this document tabled in this high court of parliament I would be interfering with the independence of the judiciary or prejudicing a fair hearing for Mr. Justice Landreville. He has had no complaint about the governing body of the legal profession making the document public, but when a representative of the people seeks to end the mystery, the cloak and dagger atmosphere built up around this document-oh, well, that is very different. Oh, consistency, thou art a jewel.
The Minister of Justice has publicly stated that he asked Mr. Justice Landreville to resign. Did that public announcement from the Minister of Justice prejudice the independence of the judiciary? Did it prejudice a fair hearing for Mr. Justice Landreville? Oh, no, it is perfectly all right for the senior law officer of the crown to announce to the world that he had taken such a dim view of Mr. Justice Landreville's conduct that he had asked him to resign, but if a representative of

February 3, 1966
Motions for Papers
the people of Canada seeks to draw back the curtain of mystery and intrigue in the conduct of the Minister of Justice himself, that is very different. Poor Mr. Justice Landreville will suffer. What crocodile tears the minister weeps on his behalf.
How dreadfully his Lordship will be prejudiced before Mr. Rand, a jurist of the very highest repute, if this motion carries. What arrant nonsense do we hear from the lips of the very man who himself gaily announced to the world that poor Mr. Justice Landreville had been asked by him to resign.
No, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that his motion is not designed in any way to relate to the hearing now abdicated by this parliament to a retired judge. It is designed to get to immediate grips with the incompetence and inconsistency with which the Minister of Justice and his predecessor, the President of the Privy Council, have handled a vital matter affecting so delicately the whole principle of the independence of the judiciary in such a shoddy way. I say that in all ways the present Minister of Justice seems to have modelled himself on the President of the Privy Council, and he can be sure of the result that will attend upon that.
I want to point out that even in respect of this motion the Minister of Justice could not refrain from playing politics. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) had a notice of motion on the order paper dealing with this subject and covering the first part of my motion. It was listed as No. 21 and therefore was on the order paper preceding mine, which is No. 39. But yesterday there was arranged the standing of the motion of the hon. member for York-Humber who is a supporter, though sometimes a maverick supporter, of the minister's party, in order to deal with this later motion by an opposition member. Is there anybody anywhere in this chamber who has any doubt of the reasons for this?
I have no doubt the minister will again seek to argue that the conduct of a judge may not be called in question under our rules except upon a substantive motion. There is no doubt about that being the case. It is stated in Beauchesne in citations 149(j) and 152(4). But as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out yesterday, I am not calling into question the conduct of any judge.
It is the minister and the government with whom I am concerned. When Mr. Rand

has reported there will be an opportunity again to concern ourselves in this highest court of the land with Mr. Justice Landreville.
Whatever I may think of the technique of the Minister of Justice in appointing a royal commission, I am now as anxious as any member of this house to ensure that Mr. Justice Landreville receives a fair and impartial hearing. No matter what happened, it could not be otherwise before a jurist so distinguished as Ivan C. Rand. But I am determined to hold the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, who is now Minister of Justice, accountable for his conduct of the whole affair. For that reason I am asking hon. members in all parts of the house to support this motion, to strike a blow against the arrogance-I use that word deliberately- of the Minister of Justice, and his specious attempts to deprive this house of information to which it is genuinely entitled.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the members of the Official Opposition feel that by speaking loudly and fast they can in this way convince the rest of the house to support their very poor arguments. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) speaks in very eloquent words of how he respects the independence of the judiciary. But no matter what he may say, the conclusion which he seeks, of having tabled in this house a report that concerns the activities of Mr. Justice Landreville, is in fact engaging in an exercise which does not respect the independence of the judiciary.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
One of the things I wanted to avoid in this case was the sounding of any political note; yet the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) managed in the short time he spoke to introduce this political note by claiming that arrangements had been made to eliminate motion No. 21 in order that the other hon. member's motion could be considered. In any event, one way or the other, the answer would be the same. As a matter of fact the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), who is also the deputy leader of the house, had confirmed with the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) that he would not be here. It is for that reason the hon. member's motion came up. Is that a crime or something which, in respect of an important issue such as this, the hon. member should have mentioned?
It is all very well for the hon. member to speak of the arrogance of the government and the attitude of the Minister of Justice in
February 3. 1966

respect of a matter such as this, but does the hon. member realize that this is the first time since confederation the activities of a high court judge have been put into question? The procedures we are to apply now are extremely important. I would not, as Minister of Justice, want to introduce into this house a precedent which is contrary to what we have always believed in, the independence of the judiciary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: We are breaking new ground and we have had to go to British parliamentarians to discover procedure and to find out how to deal with this question. We should not, and this has not been the practice, discuss in any way the activities of a judge of the high court unless there is a substantive motion before the house which contains allegations of wrongdoing. I would not, as Minister of Justice, want to make allegations against Judge Landreville or any other judge until I was absolutely sure that something improper had in fact been done.


Richard Albert Bell: Why did the minister ask him to resign?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I will go into that later. Mr. Speaker, the logical purpose of having an inquiry into this particular case is to enable us to have an independent inquiry made and to allow a consideration of all the aspects of the question, including the report of the Law Society and the negotiations that were involved.
I suggest it would be improper for us, Mr. Speaker, to bring this issue before this house before that inquiry was completed and unless the commissioner's report contained allegations of impropriety. At that time, and only at that time, could it be proper for a government and its minister of justice to come before this house with specific allegations of impropriety and a request for the establishment of a parliamentary committee composed of both houses, to be followed perhaps by a recommendation to the Governor General. That is the way, the fair way and the only way of handling this situation.
The hon. member has asked why I asked Judge Landreville for his resignation. I spoke with Mr. Justice Landreville some time last autumn and I asked him whether he did not think that in the circumstances it would be
Motions for Papers
advisable for him to resign. In reply he said: "Why should I? I have done nothing wrong." I did not pursue this any further.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Except to make it public.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I made the statement public then and I am making it public now. I am not hiding the facts and why should I? What I am trying to do is make sure that the Law Society's report is considered on its face value and that Judge Landreville has an opportunity of having his say in court.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind hon. members that Judge Landreville did not have an opportunity of appearing before the Law Society in order to make his position clear.


David Lewis: Just like Mr. Spencer.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is exactly the same.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Let us take these cases one at a time. There seems to be on the part of members opposite, particularly those who shout the loudest, some hypocrisy in this matter. What has been the attempt of this government? We have attempted to see that Mr. Justice Landreville has a fair hearing. We do not feel that we should in this house question the activities of Mr. Justice Landreville until we have received a report from the commissioner, Mr. Justice Rand.
I cannot see any reason, Mr. Speaker, why any member opposite should object to the procedure we have followed. I cannot see why they feel we are trying to hide something. We are not trying to hide anything. The government has nothing to hide in respect of this matter, nor does the government have to jeopardize uselessly the reputation of individuals to maintain its political image. In spite of the very eloquent plea made by the hon. member for Carleton, he has not convinced me that this report should be tabled. I believe we should wait until we receive a report from Mr. Justice Rand and then decide what this parliament should do in respect of Mr. Justice Landreville.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, what we in this house are worried about is, of course, the pattern that is emerging from the actions of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin). If we could believe that an employee in Vancouver, Mr. Spencer, would get the same type of treatment that is being afforded Mr. Justice Landreville, we might not feel quite so much like crying hypocrisy on this side.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Would the hon. member permit me to ask a question?

February 3. 1966
Motions for Papers


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: By all means.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In reference to Mr. Spencer, does the hon. member not realize that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I shall have to interrupt the debate at this point. I do not think there is any necessity at the moment for me to remind members of the very narrow limit of this debate. The issue before the house is whether or not certain documents should be tabled. While I recognize there must be some arguments dealing with the case before us, I feel that any argument in respect of any other case is quite out of order on the motion now before the house.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, what I was trying to do was draw a conclusion from a disquietening pattern that a good many of us feel is being exhibited by the present Minister of Justice for Canada, the person who should be the real guardian of the rights of citizens and who should protect those rights with as much vigour as he has displayed in his attempt to protect the judiciary. In any event I defer to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
While we are speaking of unfairness, what does the minister really say about his conduct in publicly announcing that he asked the judge to resign? I think we are entitled to some consistency on the part of the minister and I think we are entitled to view his conduct with some disquiet.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
If the minister is not on television announcing the surveillance of a citizen, he is rushing to the newspapers to announce that he has asked a judge to resign. This is the pattern that disturbs us, a pattern emanating from the one man who should remove himself completely from this type of sordid conduct. The minister speaks of secrecy. I should like to remind him that on an earlier occasion in a debate about secrecy I had occasion to draw the attention of the house to a small book called "British Government Observed". The minister said he had to go to British precedents to find out how to deal with this judge. Perhaps he would like to go to a British professor of political science, who has written this small book, to find out about secrecy. I am going to remind the house of the conclusions of Professor Chapman:
It is only half the remedy to instil a more selfconscious feeling of public service into senior civil servants, and a more responsible attitude into

ministers. Both civil servants and ministers are inhibited by the habitual secrecy in which they are accustomed to carry out their operations, and which they must realize is at variance with any interpretation of public service. Honest and energetic men in government have an interest in opening up government, but they are required by the system to claim that it is impossible.
Just as the minister does today; he rushes to take refuge behind a rule.
They are therefore condemned to inaction, inefficiency, and permanent frustration.
This frustration, of course, is found in this house because of the minister's cloaking of his actions behind this rule.
This passion for secrecy has some constitutional support, but it clearly has much profounder psychological and sociological origins. Secrecy in public life panders to a craving for a sentiment of selfimportance, of belonging to an inner circle.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say very much on the motion before the house except that I agree with the position taken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) that this type of correspondence should not be made public at this time.
Like many at the bar, I have grave doubts about the wisdom of the Law Society in Toronto ever getting into this matter in the first place and purporting to pass judgment on a member of the judiciary. There is considerable doubt that this was the wisest course the society could have taken and there may be occasions in the future when they will have cause to regret it.
It seems to me-I am not purporting to speak for my party but only for myself- that the publication of documents of this kind at this time, particularly since this matter concerns a member of the judiciary, would probably create an even greater political climate around the whole question and would certainly greatly prejudice the work of the judicial inquiry under former Mr. Justice Rand, for whom all of us have a great deal of respect.
Speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the bar I am quite happy to wait until Mr. Justice Rand makes his report. I would not want to see anything done in the meantime that would in any way make more difficult the already very difficult and tenuous task that he has undertaken. I also think the minister has adopted the correct procedure in another regard. There was a discussion at one time whether this question should go before a committee of the House of Commons. I cannot think of anything that would have been worse, in my judgment, than to have referred this matter to a committee of the house. The
February 3, 1966

committee could not have helped devolving into a partisan wrangle, and notwithstanding some of our earlier qualms I think the minister is right in the course of action he has taken.
We are all very reluctant to deal with the whole problem of the judiciary and I think at this point the best course of action we could follow is the one the minister has followed, namely, appointing a highly respectable person to inquire into this question and leaving the whole matter and the correspondence involved out of the public purview until the commissioner has had a chance to report.
[Translation1


Mr. Ovide Lailamme (Quebec-Monlmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate and thank the hon. member who has just resumed his seat for expressing calmly, sensibly and without any partisanship whatsoever his views on a subject as important as the one under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, the house of commons constitutes the legislative power and the judicial power belongs to our courts of law. Those who sit here are legislators who legislate for the public good and not accusers who try to criticize individuals, whoever they are.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the house the remarks made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell); by provoking a debate on the conduct of someone outside this house, he is trying to damage the reputation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin). And yet, he must know that under the rules of the house he can call a meeting of the committee on privileges and elections and, if he has charges to make concerning the conduct of the Minister of Justice, he should have the courage to make them directly where they should be made under the legislation and the procedure. What is this-


Richard Albert Bell: How arrogant you
have become.


Ovide Laflamme: That is the only thing we hear, Mr. Speaker, that we are arrogant. But here I must rely on some arguments of hon. members opposite. I want first to read from that great bill put before the house by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was Prime Minister of Canada. This was a bill that at the time commanded some degree of respect. This bill is to be found in the Statutes of Canada, 1960, 8-9 Elizabeth II, Volume 1, Chapter 44
230.33-43
Motions for Papers
and it is entitled "An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", usually referred to as the Bill of Rights. When we look at section 2 we see the following:
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to . . .
(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Let us look in Hansard to ascertain what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said when he first introduced the bill in the house. I refer to Hansard for 1960, Volume V, page 5646, where I read:
Mr. Speaker, that is very necessary. There will be some statutes in existence which will have to be changed and which will be interpreted accordingly.
He was talking about the Bill of Rights.
If we pass this legislation it will put an end to a trial within a trial-a trial outside the trial- which denies to the individual concerned those constitutional rights which are the basis of freedom. To continue further, no one shall-
It goes on to refer to what I have just read. I should like to remind hon. members of a reference in the Encyclopedia Britannica, page 772, article III, which is entitled, "Proof of Guilt and Fair Trial."
CTranslation]
That is what we have inherited from the British tradition, the principle that a man is considered innocent until proved guilty.
Mr. Speaker, when attempts are made, in the course of this debate, to have correspondence produced which concerns an individual's reputation, which can be damaging to his reputation, when this individual's acts are being discussed when he is not given a chance to be heard, I feel that we are transgressing the Canadian Bill of Rights, and the sacred British principle it was necessary to recall today, that every man is presumed to be innocent so long as his guilt has not been proved.
Mr. Speaker, judging by the tone of voice he used a moment ago, the hon. member for Carleton, whom I do not know personally, appeared to have been shocked about this.

February 3, 1966
Motions for Papers
As far as I know, Ontario has an attorney general who is responsible for taking legal action. Ontario also has judicial powers that could be exercised, but I wonder why the house insists on finding out what the Minister of Justice did personally in this matter. I definitely object to my hon. friend's assertions, for I do not think this is the way to handle the matter, and no doubts should thus be cast on the reputation of any member of this house.
Mr. Speaker, the conduct of the Minister of Justice is being criticized. Heaven knows it is easy to jump to conclusions and whatever the attitude of the minister in this matter, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Carleton would have taken the opposite stand. If the Minister of Justice had introduced a motion to the effect that through the joint action of both houses judge Lan-dreville should be removed from office, what would have happened? Then, the Leader of the Opposition would have referred to his Bill of Rights, to the British Magna Carta and also to the Encyclopaedia Britannica and we would then have heard all the great speeches that the Leader of the Opposition can deliver; he would then have lamented over the shabby treatment handed out by the Minister of Justice to an individual, to a judge.
The rush would have been on to defend the judicial power. Under the circumstances and to be serious, I wonder if it is even necessary to remind hon. members that they have a most important power which has become difficult to exercise. I refer to parliamentary immunity.
Any member of this house has the right to say anything that may cast aspersions on the honour, integrity or reputation of an individual, but I wonder in all sincerity if that power should not be used only conscientiously, serenely and on the basis of facts and evidence, not merely of doubtful allegations one cannot answer logically and factually himself.
Mr. Speaker, here is why I also intend to oppose the adoption of the motion. First, because a commission has been established. We are told that the intention was for the commission to hold public hearings and now the hon. member for Carleton is wary. In opening the debate he was quite careful not to reflect on the honour and integrity of a judge; he digressed and suddenly it is the behaviour of the Minister of Justice which has become the lot of Justice Landreville.

I sincerely wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this emphasis by the hon. member for Carleton is sincere. I think there exists and there must continue to exist in this house a mutual recognition that those who are responsible for administering the public affairs do so honourably. When Hon. Justice Rand was asked to act as commissioner and to report on this matter, I think that was the one and only wise decision that could be taken, in face of all the implications that this could involve.
That, Mr. Speaker, is why I not only strongly object to tabling in this house of documents which were surely exchanged, but why I also object to the tone and wording of the speech made by the hon. member for Carleton. I also wish to inform the house that I have known the Minister of Justice personally for many years and that we can be proud and happy to have at the head of this important department a man who is extremely loyal, sincere, and who works in the best interests and for the respect of justice and the honour of all Canadian citizens.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on this motion. At the outset may I say that I fully appreciate the difficulties that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) has to face. I am not accusing him or anyone else of anything but the utmost sincerity in arriving at their conclusions. There is obviously a great deal of lucidity in the position he has expressed as well as in the position which my colleague, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), has expressed.
I am also a member of the bar of Ontario and I am as concerned as any other member of the bar or any other citizen of Canada about the independence of the judiciary. I should like to suggest to the minister, the members of the government, my learned colleague and all other members of this house, that there is another issue involved which seems to me to be at least as important as the issue of the independence of the judiciary. I refer to the way in which a citizen of a democracy looks upon the manner in which justice is administered in a democracy.
The administration of justice in a democracy depends, as almost everything else depends, on the consent of the people. The consent of the people depends on a conviction that every person in society is treated equally by the law and under the law. This seems to
February 3, 1966

me a much more important consideration than some other considerations which have been placed before this house.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
If you look at this motion, Mr. Speaker, what does it deal with? It asks the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) to table a report about which there has been a tremendous amount of discussion across the country. It is a report which some members of this house have seen. Not I. I am not a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada but certain members of the Law Society have seen it. The motion asks the minister to table correspondence in relation to that report.
I respectfully suggest that the minister in refusing to table it arouses a great deal more suspicion in the minds of the Canadian people about the administration of justice than anything could which may be in that report, and I say that even though I have not seen it.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Would the hon. gentleman permit me as a layman to ask him a question?


David Lewis: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If he feels as he says he does about the publication of this report, what does he think of the action of the Law Society in keeping it a secret document?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the reason for that. As one member of the Law Society I have often wondered why they have not made it public. I have not had the opportunity of saying anything about this in any other forum. In my opinion, if the executive of a body makes a certain recommendation, and I assume the report does make a recommendation, then I as one member of that body have a right to know what that recommendation is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: From the society.


David Lewis: From the society. But if the society does not make it public that is no reason why we as members of this house should not ask for it to be made public.
The only reason I rose to speak on this matter, and the only reason that I find I cannot in conscience go along with the position taken by my colleague, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), is that when you refuse to publish this kind of document you suggest to the ordinary layman's mind that you are trying to hide something. I am not
Motions for Papers
saying that the minister is trying to do this. What I am saying is that the people who all of us here represent, our constituents, are saying in their minds that here is a judge, a lawyer, getting special treatment from the Minister of Justice. I suggest that you do not do the administration of justice good by doing this.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in my respectful submission, despite the difficulties which the minister naturally has in mind and despite the validity of some of the arguments he presented, he would serve the concept of justice and equality in this country better were he to say: These are the documents I have and here they are; nobody ought to deal with them in an improper way in view of the fact that the whole matter is before Mr. Justice Rand but I want to make sure that no one in Canada thinks that this government or this minister is trying improperly to protect something that should not be protected. I think he will serve his position and the cause of justice better if he says that.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very conscious of the fact that I am probably the only speaker so far in this debate who is not a member of the legal profession. This does not somehow give me an inferiority complex; perhaps it should.


David Lewis: No, it should not.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I believe I have listened with an open mind to the debate which has taken place since six o'clock and I find, perhaps to my surprise, that I agree to some extent with the mover of the motion.
I was a little perturbed at the rather belligerent manner in which the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) presented his case. I did not have the pleasure of being in the house when the hon. member was a minister, so I do not know whether this belligerence is something which he has acquired during his temporary absence from the house or whether it is characteristic of him. But I cannot help but observe that in his references to the arrogance of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) he left me with the very uncomfortable feeling that the rights of Mr. Justice Landreville, or even the right of parliament of access to documents, which quite frankly I am a little concerned about, were incidental to his belief that he should expose to the House of Commons what he termed the arrogance of the Minister of Justice. I thought

February 3, 1966
Motions for Papers
that in that aspect of his argument he destroyed what was otherwise a fairly valid case for the production of this report and papers.
Another point which the hon. member for Danforth brought up concerns the rights of individuals. Not being a lawyer, Mr. Speaker,
I am afraid that I am not particularly concerned with the so-called sacred rights of judges or of the judiciary. Coming from a working class district and being fairly socialconscious I am just as interested in Mr. Justice Landreville as an individual as I am interested in him as a judge, for the precedent established here this evening could, in a week or a month or a year, affect the undeniable rights of an individual of more modest background.
I do not pretend, Mr. Speaker, to have the answer to a problem which arises periodically in this house, namely, our tendency at times, perhaps in the heat of partisan debate, to overlook, on occasion callously, sometimes unintentionally, the rights of individual Canadians. I can remember standing up in this house last fall, Mr. Speaker, or perhaps it was earlier in the year-the date escapes me-very nervously and very aware of my limitations as a speaker. The occasion was what I often refer to as "the week that was", the week when the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the members of the New Democratic party did their duty and I say their duty-to bring forward facts which in their opinion were being hidden under the table. This is the function of members and the purpose of parliament.
During the course of that debate I remember asking, and I ask again this evening, what about the rights of the people mentioned in that debate? What about the now private member, the former minister of citizenship and immigration, who subsequently was found completely-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I shall have to remind the house once more of the very narrow limits of this debate. I do not think there is any need at the moment for me to present to the house citations supporting the position I am taking. The only issue before the house in this debate is whether or not the papers mentioned in the motion should be tabled. I would hope that the hon. member would confine his remarks as closely as possible to the subject matter of the motion now before the house.
IMr. Mackasey.l


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I am getting to in a roundabout manner is whether Mr. Justice Landreville is a citizen of Canada. If he is, he is certainly entitled in the highest court of the land, which as one speaker has already emphasized is the House of Commons, to be considered innocent until he is proven guilty.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Surely.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I wonder whether Mr. Justice Landreville's rights were protected when the Minister of Justice announced that he had asked him to resign.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think
that question is best directed to the Minister of Justice. If the action of the Minister of Justice was wrong, I never did believe that two wrongs made a right, and I would remind the hon. member for Royal, who is a former attorney general, that perhaps he should be more aware of this fact than I.
This point emphasizes the more the argument I am making, that Mr. Justice Landreville did appear in court and was found innocent. On the surface he had the courage of his convictions to remain in his post as a judge. I would imagine the easy way out for Mr. Justice Landreville, whom we must presume innocent-I keep coming back to that point-would have been to retire from the bench and thus withdraw from the pangs and pressures of public opinion.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
However, assuming that he is innocent, and I am convinced that the members of the House of Commons think that this man is innocent until proven guilty, how do we cope with the prejudice, intolerance and misguidance with respect to this matter that exists outside the House of Commons? The moral aspects of the case involving Mr. Justice Landreville are now to be examined by a royal commission. I am happy to say that nobody in the house during this hour or earlier has criticized the Minister of Justice on his choice of the man who will head the royal commission.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, there is another problem that is fairly fundamental to us, if I can just get away from the subject of Mr. Justice Landreville for the moment. I refer to the policy of production of papers in the House of Commons. This bothers me more than a little, because the question
February 3, 1966

comes up fairly frequently and many members are inclined to do their homework and to demand papers from the government.
From the little research that I have done on the subject, and I think this applies to the matter before us this evening, it has been indicated to me that the procedures, traditions and customs of the House of Commons of Canada are basically derived from those of the parliament of England. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) quoted an excellent authority tonight showing the degree of cynicism that exists in England and the preoccupation of the civil service and members of the government, comprising what is commonly referred to in England as the establishment or the inner circle, in preventing by all means possible the tabling of documents in general.
I found to my interest and perhaps to my dismay that the Official Secrets Act in England is so strange, so rigid and so all-embracing that it not only includes ex-ministers and ex-soldiers but even includes ex-contractors who have had anything to do with the government. The policy in England seems to be that under no circumstances do they give out documents if it is at all possible to prevent it.
Perhaps the time may have come for our own house to investigate the traditional method and to investigate the reluctance of the government at times to table documents. I think that here in Canada, as in England, we are adopting the viewpoint that all documents are private unless otherwise considered public. I think, Mr. Speaker, that once again we could learn a lesson with regard to the tabling of documents which would perhaps apply here, particularly if the case of Mr. Justice Landreville were not before a royal commission, which I think weakens the argument of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr Bell).	'
In Sweden, Mr. Speaker, documents are considered to be public unless otherwise decreed secret. I think that the philosophy of the House of Commons of Canada should be a little closer to the philosophy of the Swedish system than that of England. I am sure you know that daily in the capital of Sweden, in large rooms placed at the disposal of the press, citizens, labour leaders and anyone else who is interested, there are placed all documents with the exception of those considered secret by the state.
I have noted the very enlightened, broadminded and objective attitude of the Swedish government toward the tabling of all docu-
Supply-External Affairs ments except certain categories which are considered and decreed to be basically and essentially secret in nature. Last year the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), I believe, brought forward a particular bill which if it had been adopted would I think, have been very pertinent to the debate tonight. The bill was an act to better assure the public's right to freedom of access to public documents and to information about government administration. Its short title was, "Administrative Disclosure". Obviously, although the bill is rather abbreviated, the hon. member had based it upon the better features of the Swedish system. In that bill, Bill No. C-39, section 2 lays out four different categories which the hon. member would consider, if the bill had been adopted, as referring to documents that are confidential in nature and therefore it would not be in the best interests of individuals or society in general to divulge them with the same degree of freedom that is characteristic of documents outside these four points under the Swedish system.
One of them, Mr. Speaker, concerns documents affecting national security, a subject regarding which it is logical that disclosure of documents should be barred by statute. Then there are matters concerning subjects of private interest to the degree that the right of personal privacy excludes the public interest. The fourth provision had to do with trade secrets and commercial or financial information of a privileged or confidential nature obtained from private citizens.
Therefore I would humbly say to you, Mr. Speaker, that under the British system we should hardly be debating tonight the advisability of making documents public that could be relatively and increasingly important before the royal commission that will investigate the actions of Mr. Justice Landreville. May I say in conclusion, that even the very flexible attitude of the Swedish government would also exclude the request of the hon. member for Carleton because it does invade the private interests of Mr. Justice Landreville.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time for the consideration of private members' business has expired, and the house will now revert to the business interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in Committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including payment of remuneration, subject to the
678	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the international organizations detailed in the estimates, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners (International Commissions for Supervision and Control in 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,
Herman Maxwell Batten: Vote number 1. Shall the item carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, before the break for private members' hour I was dealing with South Viet Nam and with Canadian policy in that connection. I was suggesting that if the government really relies on its assessment of the situation in South Viet Nam-I quoted something said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that the situation is so serious that withdrawal of the United States forces might imperil the peace of the world-then it is important for us to consider what Canada is doing under the circumstances. I would suggest that to be shielded behind our membership on the international commission is not a satisfactory answer to account for our apparent inactivity. Then I was starting to deal with the question of bringing matters to the negotiating table, with which everybody agrees. If the situation can be negotiated and a peace settlement arrived at, that is fine. That was what was done in 1954 when France had spent about 10 years fighting in Indochina. How do you get the parties to the negotiating table? What is Canada's part in that enterprise?
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
I do not detract one bit from the activity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his attempts to bring the parties together, and his constant suggestions that negotiation is the answer to this problem. But I think he is not dealing from strength and I am totally unimpressed by these constantly reiterated statements which tell us how bad war is and

DEBATES	February 3, 1966
how necessary it is that peace should be brought about through negotiation. Anybody can go around the world saying that. I was totally unimpressed by the activities of the Prime Minister when he visited the United States last spring and proposed a pause in the bombing of targets in North Viet Nam. I think he must have had advance notice that the President of the United States intended to make just such a proposition. No wonder the President was annoyed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to interrupt? I assure him that this was not the case.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will take the minister's word for it. I said it looked to me as though it had been done in that way. Information seeps down. I think it was a faux pas in our international relations for the Prime Minister of this country to have gone down to the United States and suggested a course of action to the United States when they are so heavily involved in the war in South Viet Nam.
I reserve the right to criticize the United States on any occasion that seems fit to me. I have not always approved of what the United States has done. In both the first and the second world wars I thought the United States was somewhat reluctant to shoulder its burden. But ever since Pearl Harbour in 1941 the people of the United States have played their part in the world struggle and it is to them that we are looking for our own safety. And it ill-behooves us to criticize the activities of the United States in their present difficulties in South Viet Nam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They may be wrong. Who knows? But they are committed and we are not. They are expending blood and treasure in order to prevent the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. The minister has pointed out the danger to the world should the United States withdraw from South Viet Nam and should those other countries fall into the grip of Russia and China. It is not our job to criticize the best allies we have in the world. We talk about our peace keeping operations. We look with pride on what we are doing- and we are doing very well. There has been general agreement in Canada that we should undertake such operations as we have undertaken in the Congo, in the Gaza strip and in Cyprus. Well and good.
February 3, 1968	COMMONS
The United States and Great Britain have been conducting peace keeping operations ever since the end of the second world war. They have troops deployed all round the world. The United States has spent vast sums in ensuring that our defences against atomic attack are adequate or that our retaliatory effort will be adequate in the circumstances. That is peacekeeping, if hon. members are going to talk about peacekeeping. But for us to be criticizing what an ally is doing in Southeast Asia when we are doing nothing at all seems to me to be wrong. If I were an American I would say to Canadian representations: Put up or shut up. That is the way I would think about it.
My feelings would be as they were in the first world war when President Wilson was saying the United States was too proud to fight, and was writing notes to Germany. We who were over in Europe facing the Germans had nothing but scorn for that attitude. We had the same reluctance about approving the United States attitude from 1939 to 1941; and when the Commonwealth stood alone for an entire year the United States was on the sidelines, just as we are on the sidelines now with regard to South Viet Nam. I think it is wrong for us to get so exercised about what that nation is doing, and give advice to them.
We are terribly exercised about the bombing that is being renewed. I suggest to the minister that if the bombing is restricted to strategic targets, military targets, it is no different from artillery shells being directed against military targets. From my own experience I would rather take my chance with bombs from airplanes than with mortar fire, because airplanes often misdirect their bombs. If the bombing results in the death of women and children, of course that is shocking and bad. But if it is directed at military targets, what is the difference between aircraft bombing and artillery? I suggest to the minister we are not in a position of strength to give advice as to what should be done with regard to negotiation.
In the few minutes left to me I cannot elaborate fully, but I will refer to at least two things we could examine-whether we should take action or not, I do not know. The minister says we will not send troops to Viet Nam unless under United Nations authority. Well, the United Nations is unlikely to be involved in Viet Nam. There are procedures to be followed-technical matters-which prevent it. But why could we not provide medical and hospital services to the troops who
DEBATES	679
Supply-External Affairs are fighting in South Viet Nam. Let us provide them, for instance, for the Australians and the New Zealanders. Let us provide them for the South Vietnamese who are carrying the main burden of this struggle. Surely this is a gesture we could make right away. The minister said we are talking to the Red Cross about it. But let us make the offer. Surely, we have people available, people who would volunteer and who would run risks. Canadians have always been ready to run risks around the world.
If this cannot be done, why not enlarge our commitment of forces to NATO and release United States forces for the operations in South Viet Nam? Why do we not play some part in this struggle? If we did, we could sit down at the negotiations and, with some reason, urge the United States to do this or do that. It is not enough simply to stand on the sidelines and say war is a horror, which it is, and that the parties should not be fighting, while at the same time acknowledging, as we do, that if the United States were to withdraw we should face greater perils perhaps than we faced in 1939.
This is the way I see the situation. We are not being directed forcefully enough with regard to this struggle. If we reject the whole thesis upon which the United States is engaged in South Viet Nam, that is a different proposition. I do not reject it. I think that when our greatest ally is committed and is spending blood and treasure in this effort, and when our own government says this is important and that our future depends on the success of the United States there, we should be doing more than we are doing at the present time.
We are standing on the sidelines when we could give some assistance. I put it on this basis. Let it be non-combatant assistance- medical and hospital services. Or let it be increased forces in NATO so that United States forces can be released for duty in the Far East.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, much as I am tempted to continue with the debate on Viet Nam, particularly in view of the rather novel apologia for the bombing in North Viet Nam on the grounds that it is probably rather inefficient, I propose to deal with what I think is a more serious consideration of the needs for peace keeping in the world and the need for controlling and opposing totalitarian regimes.
680	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs
I want to deal this evening with our external aid program, and in doing so I want, at least tor the start, to put on one side the moral and humanitarian aspects of this, although I am sure they must be toremost in the minds of most, and stress the more material and economic aspects of it. In fact, I think it is rather regrettable that most of our appeal to the public in connection with external aid has been based on the moral and humanitarian aspects. For instance, there was the remark of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), I think it was at the eleventh winter conference of the Canadian Institute of Public Affairs, when he said he thought we should not consider external aid at all on a commercial basis. That is, he came down heavily on the side of its being a moral and humanitarian issue.
I regret this, not because it is not a moral and humanitarian issue, but because when we place it in that category it tends to be placed in the category of charity and philanthropy, and it is unfortunate that most people regard charity and philanthropy as something they do to salve their own consciences without disturbing themselves too much, and thus it gets a low priority. It gives rise also to some misconceptions in the public mind.
I am quite sure every member of parliament has had letters, as I have had, from people who protest Canada's expenditures on external aid on the grounds that we have a great deal to do at home and that we should be looking after our own people. These letters come from people with a rather defective knowledge of the operations of a modern industrial economy. I suppose they have in their minds some sort of concept like this when they read of Canada's external aid program-they see us providing $1 million to some country and they have a picture in their minds of our shipping one million one dollar bills to that country. It does not occur to them that actually what we are shipping there are goods and services produced by Canadian citizens and from which Canadian citizens derive their livelihood.
I read today in the report of the Canada-Japan Trade Council that the council had calculated that the number of persons employed to produce Canada's exports to Japan in 1963 was 63,640. Similarly, the Financial Post of March 20, 1965 headlined a story on Canada's bilateral export credits as follows:
One locomotive exported means jobs and income for 300 firms.
(Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).]
DEBATES	February 3, 1966
Presumably, and I think this was the case, the reference there was to steam locomotives for which there is virtually no market in Canada but for which there is a market in some of the less developed parts of the world. Similarly, there is a market in undeveloped parts of the world for many other commodities which could be produced in Canada and could provide employment for Canadians, such things as simpler and less sophisticated agricultural equipment for countries which are not yet able to handle the more sophisticated types of agriculture equipment that we have in this country.
We have to get across to the general public the idea that it is of value to us, in a purely selfish way, to expand our external aid program, that it will have very profound repercussions on the Canadian economy, as well as serving the useful purpose of overcoming some of the difficulties of some of the underdeveloped countries of the world.
I would like to deal with our external aid because I feel that we are not pulling our weight in this field and are not seizing the opportunities that are presented to us. Our external aid takes more than one form. One is the outright grant of capital or equipment, of food or some other commodity. Another is the provision of technical assistance. Yet another is the provision of credits on strictly commercial terms; that is to say, they have to be repaid and the interest rates are the going interest rates. Then, in 1964 we embarked on another program for which the government is to be commended. That was the program of what are known as soft loans, interest free loans, with a very long period of repayment, perhaps only just falling short of being outright grants.
But the total of all our external aid when stretched to cover every possible aspect of it, every possible item that could be included, amounts to some $226 million a year, and I recall reading in the press that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a speech in which he stated that he himself was of the opinion that Canada's external aid should be brought to the level recommended by the United Nations, that is to say, 1 per cent of our gross national product which, at that time, would have been in the neighbourhood of $400 million. I also recall that he said, "This is merely my opinion, and being a member of the government I have no opinion." So, it was left rather up in the air; but I hope the minister still has his opinion and that he will be pressing it upon his colleagues
February 3. 1966

in the cabinet to get them to take some steps in this direction to widen the scope of our external aid program.
We have a very serious problem in the world today and there is not very much use of our talking about one world, about the rule of law, about the brotherhood of man, if you like, when we find that the gap between wealthy nations and the poor and undeveloped nations is widening continually, when we have for instance this situation, that the national income per head in the United States is on the order of $3,221, followed by Canada where it is on the order of $2,284, and then goes down to $59.30 in Haiti, and $49.36 in Indonesia, the figures between those tending to be much closer to the bottom level than the upper level, and when this gap is widening.
I would suggest that this is going to pose an increasingly difficult problem for the world. The United Nations, for instance, suggests to us that by 1970 the poorer countries will face a foreign exchange deficit in the order of from $10 billion to $12 billion, and that that deficit is bound to increase unless the relative positions of the poorer countries to the wealthier countries is improved. We have also, for instance, figures from the United Nations to the effect that one half of the children in Latin America die before the age of six years.
If one wants to be cold blooded about this he may say, in face of the population explosion, that perhaps this is a very good thing, but I submit this is a cold and brutal method of coping with the population explosion. Surely we should be considering giving aid to such countries in order to prevent this tremendous increase in population for which they have no possible food supply and no possible economic foundation.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
In respect of the question of how these countries will receive aid there is a very difficult problem. I recall telling the delegates from Asia and from Africa, at an international conference held in Europe a few years ago, some rather pointed home truths in this regard. I observed that virtually every delegate from Asia and Africa was a Ph.D at least once, and sometimes two or three times over. They were without exception much more highly educated than the delegates from Canada or from any other country in the world.
I suggested to those gentlemen that, while I congratulated them on their academic
Supply-External Affairs qualifications, unfortunately a modern industrial society could not be run by a handful of Ph.D's, but that this required individuals trained in the thousand and one skills needed in the whole structure of a modern society. It is extremely difficult for these countries to develop people with these skills.
We in Canada have had some experience that might point the way to a policy which would help these people to overcome this problem, and I refer to the policy which Canada implemented with remarkable success during the war years. It was a result of the Commonwealth air training plan that Canada was able to make a contribution to the war effort for out of all proportion to our demographic and economic situation. We trained the pilots of all the allied countries. Perhaps this is an area where our economic aid could be greatly increased-by the provision of technical training not only for people from those countries, but for Canadians who are prepared to go to those underdeveloped countries to help in the development of their economy.
One of the criticisms I noticed the other day of the United States peace corps-and I anticipate it would be applicable to the Company of Young Canadians, if that organization ever gets off the ground-was that the United States was sending to these countries, in the main, graduates from the humanity faculties of universities, imbued with high idealism but without a clue as to how to do a plumbing job, without a clue as to how to do all these pedestrian sorts of jobs we take for granted in our society.
Many of these countries have appealed to the United States to make sure they send competent artisans and competent technically trained people who can teach their people how to construct buildings and carry on various construction works. I think this could be greatly stepped up in Canada. In that process, just as in the process of extending industrial production to meet the material needs of these countries, we would undoubtedly have almost the same result we had from the Commonwealth training plan-the development of a large body of extremely skilled people and the development of a large personnel capable of teaching such people.
We would have to have a tremendous expansion in our technical training facilities, because at the present time we have not got enough to turn out the people of this calibre that we need in our own economy. This is surely an area in which we could make a great effort toward the development of underdeveloped countries.
February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs
Mr. Chairman, I said at the outset that I wanted to put my arguments on the basis of practical economics and to leave aside for the time being the moral and humanitarian aspects. I should now like to put it on another basis which is neither economic nor humanitarian, but the basis of straight selfpreservation.
The most explosive and dangerous focal points in the world today are those areas in which people live at appalling levels of existence. Sometimes we in North America in the midst of our affluent society do not understand how people are living on the other side of the world, and do not understand how explosive and how dangerous this kind of situation is.
Just over a month ago I was in a country which was the focal point of world dismay, fear and consternation, because of a confrontation which took place between the United States and the Soviet Union. I refer, of course, to Cuba. I was there for some weeks. I am not going to describe too much about my experience, for various reasons except to say that here is a very sad situation.
The situation there arose fundamentally because at one period we did not care what was happening to the people of Cuba. Most people when they think of Cuba go back no further than Castro's regime; but Cuba was in existence long before Castro. The people of Cuba for years and years, decades and decades have suffered from one obscene oppressive dictatorship after another with the result that the mass bulk of them were reduced to abject poverty. We were not very concerned about them until finally the situation erupted into a successful rebellion which trampled on the toes of North American business and led, step by step, to that frightful confrontation when, one evening in this house, we wondered whether that was the end of things.
We should be aware that the world is full of potential Cuban situations. These can be found throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America. It is mere self-preservation and common sense that suggests that you and I who live in an affluent society had better take account of these situations before they, too, erupt into a situation such as that which obtained in Cuba, creating other confrontations; because these confrontations will inevitably take place when conditions are ripe for fishing in troubled waters.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the government that it should listen very
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowlchan-The Islands) .1
carefully to the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he says that in his opinion-that is, if he had an opinion, which of course he has not because he is a member of the government-the Canadian contribution to external aid should fall in line with the United Nations suggestion of 1 per cent. I would also suggest that I know of no reason why we have to limit this to 1 per cent. There is no reason why, in regard to external aid, we should follow the overly cautious and careful policies that our governments have always followed, being careful never to get one half a step ahead of any other country, waiting until another country says it will put up a nickel before we will put up a nickel-not even to mention six cents. I suggest that we do not consider what others are doing, but that we consider our own capacities for making the contributions that are required.
It is my suggestion to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that in this way we might perhaps be making a more worth-while and positive contribution to world peace, to the containment of totalitarianism, to world stability, than we would be engaging in a war of the kind I am not going to describe because it has been described time and time again, day by day, by competent people all over the world as a brutal and useless war.
We might perhaps learn from the history of post-war Europe. It is the opinion today that there was a decisive development that ensured the peaceful development of Europe after the war, a decisive development that prevented the spread of totalitarianism throughout Europe. This was the inspired Marshall plan. I suggest this is one of the aspects of our history that we should bear in mind when we consider this question of external aid.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: We might have a Martin plan.


Colin Cameron: My colleague suggests that we might have a Martin plan. I would be delighted to be able to acclaim the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada (Mr. Martin) for having inaugurated a Martin plan to at least point the way to a saner method of dealing with world tensions and world dangers.
I know that there are many technical obstacles in the way of expanded trade and aid for the undeveloped countries. I am well aware of the problems created by shortage
February 3, 1966	COMMONS
periodically of international exchange, and I have been cheered lately to note that the Big Ten have been considering this problem, realizing that until it is solved there is not going to be too much hope of narrowing that gap between the developed and undeveloped countries.
I was particularly cheered the other morning to hear on the air that Canada is making some proposals along this line. 1 do not know yet what the proposals are but I presume they are designed to take the world in general out of the strait-jacket in which it now finds itself, a strait-jacket that is in most respects very similar to the strait-jacket in which domestic economies found themselves before we moved into the era of managed currencies. This, as I say, is one of the things that has to be done in order to ensure that we can make these contributions to external aid and world peace of which Canada is capable. But again, Mr. Chairman, I would urge on the government that they should sell this external aid program to the Canadian people not merely on the humanitarian and moral basis but to drive home to Canadian people that this is an essential program for our own prosperity and expanding economy.
It is unfortunate perhaps that appeals to humanitarianism tend to fall, if not on deaf ears at least on ears that are hard of hearing.
It is unfortunate perhaps that moral gestures tend to remain merely gestures. It is unfortunate, I suppose, that our acquisitive society has so conditioned our people that they feel that care and consideration for other members of the human race must take second place to their own personal, selfish interests.
It is unfortunate but it happens to be true.
However, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us here have a responsibility not merely to stress the economic benefits but also to go out on a limb, if we have to, and stress the moral and humanitarian aspect. But we will have a hard time doing it and I hope the government will include in its campaign-and it has to have a campaign to persuade the Canadian people of the need for doing this-some very clear pictures of the beneficial economic results of an expanded external aid program for the people of Canada as a whole and for the world in general.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we are taking up the study of the main estimates of the Department of External Affairs, which amount to $133,153,674, but do not include, of
DEBATES	683
Supply-External Affairs course, many other expenditures we are making outside Canada, such as, expenditures from a national standpoint that are made by other departments whose estimates we shall be examining later on.
But today, external affairs have become very important, and we can no longer be unconcerned with the other nations of this world, as might have been the case 25, 30 or 40 years ago. We can no longer shirk our responsibilities in the concert of nations which make up this world.
We have a Minister for External Affairs who does what he can, and I am happy to admit it, although I do not share all his political views. However, a fact remains; the minister does Canada proud wherever he goes in the world, and I think that all corners of the house are unanimous in recognizing that he has the qualities needed to represent a country like ours.
We must admit that what Canada is striving for now is international peace, world peace.
We must admit, faced with the facts, that Canada is called more and more to play an important role in international peace. Great countries, larger than ours with regard to population, if not from the standpoint of the area covered by their territory-turn to Canada, asking, urging Canadians to intervene in this and that situation, to make their influence felt so that peace can be maintained.
I am convinced that the Secretary of State for External Affairs does whatever he can, and he has not disappointed us to date; if such was not the case I would say exactly the opposite. However, I think that we must, as Canadians and not as politicians, be proud to see what our minister has done to date, not only in Canada but in every country where he represented us.
Mr. Chairman, efforts to maintain peace have been made in the past and will be made in the future, and what disturbs us now is the way things are going in some countries, especially in Viet Nam. I read in the February 1, 1966, issue of L'Action, an article from Saigon. I quote:
Efforts for peace in Viet Nam.
The liaison office of the Archbishop's palace in Saigon has just sent to the newspapers report No. 5 which deals with the efforts now being made to bring peace to Viet Nam.
Here is the gist of it:
In reply to the urgent appeal from Pope Paul VI, and confronted with the danger of a long war
684	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs
that might spread if present efforts to restore peace are unsuccessful, the liaison office at the Archbishop's palace in Saigon notes:
(1)	Peace is the most ardent wish of the Vietnamese people, in the South as well as in the North. At a time when many countries which are not involved in the hostilities endeavour to find a peaceful solution for Viet Nam, the Vietnamese, more than ever, are those who must endure the terrible consequences of the war, and they have the right and the duty to find a way out for their people.
In view of the people's desire for peace, the Liaison Office realizes that the exploratory contacts and present activities of friendly countries are logical and reasonable; it realizes that through direct contacts with the Vietnamese people a peaceful solution can be of value only with the participation and assent of a government representative of the South Vietnamese people.
(2)	An ideal peace must be a harmonious state where all Vietnamese can live in their own country, with their duties and their rights. In spite of differences of opinion, faith and ideology, the Vietnamese can respect one another on the basis of race, as human beings, and build a fair and loving society.
That is the high ideal every man of goodwill wishes to achieve through an independent, free and united Vietnam.
But in the present circumstances, peace can only be based on a balance of the military and political forces likely to prevent any danger of supremacy by one side and destruction of the other. The re-establishment of this balance in South Vietnam is the most practical way to restore peace, if that peace is not to be an unconditional surrender by one or the other party.
Although such a peace cannot be complete under present circumstances in the country and abroad, it would be a realistic solution likely to be used to end a fratricidal and murderous war and stop any attempt at beginning a new military adventure.
Mr. Chairman, I think this message is of the utmost importance. It puts forward basic principles of humanism that would allow mutual understanding among men and would engender good faith among people of goodwill. It would make people want to live in harmony and mutual understanding.
I think the federal government has at this time the heavy responsibility of trying to explain how important peace is to Viet Nam and to other countries now engaged in armed conflicts.
Mr. Chairman, over the past several months the United States has often been strongly attacked in this house; Americans are represented as unscrupulous investors trying to throw their weight around and control everything. But we have heard very little about the other side. One side is stressed while the other seems to be forgotten.
[Mr. Caouette.l
DEBATES	February 3, 1966
On January 10, La Presse published a news report from the Reuters agency (U.P.I.) issued in Moscow and entitled:
Soviets Attack American Policy in Viet Nam.
Any hope the U.S.S.R. would support the American "peace offensive" in South East Asia seemed to have vanished yesterday when Mr. Shelepin, in Hanoi, branded the war in Viet Nam as one of the most serious and inhuman crime committed by American imperialists.
Mr. Shelepin, that is, No. 2 in Soviet Russia, says this:
The Vietnamese will win their fight with the wide support of socialist people and of all progressive men.
Mention is made of communists. He further said:
The events in Viet Nam show that the whole socialist world must be united and interdependent, added Mr. Shelepin, stating that the communist party and the Russian people are confident in the strength of this unity and make every effort to increase it.
When a free and a great country wants freedom to be honoured throughout the world, such people are called shady capitalists and Americans. When the Russians take a stand and suggest that all socialists throughout should unite against such a thing, no one dares to speak up and say that the communists are still thinking of taking every country in the world under their sway, their control and their dominion. Russian imperialism is not mentioned, but those who want liberty to be honoured all over the world are being attacked.
We visited Russia last year and although those people have had the same system of government for 50 years, that of Canada, the United States or the free countries of Europe is more efficient. I think that after 50 years, under our system, development of this country is at least 30 years ahead of communist Russia, thanks to the freedom we have known in Canada and which the United States also enjoy.
I do not share all American opinions, when we are told we should go to Viet Nam and force American views on them.
I am in favour, for instance, of helping, on the international level, all underdeveloped countries in the world. No doubt it is because we lagged behind in our help to those countries that Russia moved in before us. The Russians are attempting to take these countries over by infiltrating the economy, while we lag behind. Years ago we could have helped those countries. I do not mean that we should force our way of life upon them, but we could help them by enabling
February 3, 1966	COMMONS
them to develop according to their own aspirations through technology, theories and practices adapted to their own ways and customs.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
For us, or for the Americans, to ask the Vietnamese to be Canadians or Americans would be useless. It would be useless to ask the negroes to be white; they could not become white.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to recognize that the help we give those countries, whether financial or technical, whether in food or clothing is not sufficient; we must give them the means to grow, to learn, to manage their own development, according to their potential.
In that field, I think, Canada is in a most exceptional position to help these countries, to advise them, to do them justice at last, within its means.
Mr. Chairman, let us hear no more of these violent attacks against the Americans; the United States are facing an aggression in Viet Nam; a Russian aggression from the North, I say it without hesitation. The Russians said as much in their own statements when they were in Hanoi; they admitted sending armaments to Viet Nam. Do we not supply something else? We supply any kind of things, economic assistance, financial assistance. We supply those to fight those bad Americans.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if it is to be wished that the United States withdraw their troops, their armed forces, from South Viet Nam, it is also desirable that the Russians withdraw from North Viet Nam and go back home to their country. We should be shown both sides of the picture; as I said earlier, let us look at the other side of the picture. The Vietnamese should be left alone, once and for all, so that they can govern themselves, according to their own ideas and as it pleases them and them alone. By following that course, we would show true respect for individuals, for a race, for a people; we would respect liberty.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak much longer at this stage of the study of the budget for External Affairs. But I should like once again to insist that the Minister continue to be a true mediator between people who are presently engaged in ideological warfare. Let the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs be in every way a mediator, a man who does everything in his power to bring together the various antagonistic groups or people and lead them to hold round table
DEBATES	685
Supply-External Affairs discussions. Then Canada will be universally admired, because it will be the number one peace agent in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I am confident that our Secretary of State for External Affairs will pursue his efforts toward conciliation and continue to try in every way to bring together those who are now fighting throughout the world, be it in Rhodesia, Viet Nam or anywhere else. Then, as I said before, we shall be respected, we shall earn the respect of all those people; the North Vietnamese, the South Vietnamese, all of them will be inclined to respect us, because such is our wish, and above all we shall prove that our sincere wish is for peace, a just peace, a durable peace, a peace that will allow human beings not to cut each other's throat and tear one another apart, in short, a peace that will enable all men of good will to unite for the greatest good of every human being living on this planet earth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, I know how anxious the government is to carry this first item, but it is only the silence of the minister that prompts me to take part in this debate.
The portfolio of Secretary of State for External Affairs is a very important one. The minister is leader of our nation among other nations. This house has been in the habit of hearing a long summary on the state of the nation by way of introduction to his estimates. This is what we expect, but what do we get?
The minister tries to hide himself behind the argument that he made several fragmentary statements on Rhodesia, Viet Nam, and a few other matters. These piecemeal reports to the house, even if put together like a jigsaw puzzle, do not give us a proper picture of Canada and its role among other nations. And I believe Canada's role is a very important one.
The minister has been silent on this, and before this item passes, Mr. Chairman, I feel that he should make a statement to this committee. I think he owes a statement to the committee, a statement to which the Canadian people are entitled, dealing with matters which concern us greatly.

February 3, 1966
Supply-External Affairs
For example, I feel we should have had a statement from the minister on the situation in Cyprus. What is the present-day situation there? Is there a stalemate? How far have negotiations progressed to effect a peaceful settlement between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots? Is there any hope of a settlement of the problem? How much has it cost the Canadian people to date to keep the Canadian contingent on this island? How much longer does he anticipate that Canada will have to carry this burden? I think such matters should have been part of his report to this house on the state of the nation.
I feel we should have had a statement on the situation along the Gaza strip. How much longer are our boys going to be serving as a police force keeping the peace between the Arab states and the state of Israel? We have not heard very much of late on this subject at all. And there are other areas in the world where Canadians are serving.
Therefore I think that we should have had a statement from the minister. We do not expect silence on his part, but apparently that is what we are getting. I would hope that after all he has heard so far he will make a statement to this committee. He should be prepared to sit in on this item and to make up his mind whether or not he will make a statement.
We should also like to know what are the prospects of Canadians being called on to serve in other parts of the world. If, for example, the United States asks for assistance in Viet Nam, what will be the attitude of this government? What will be the attitude of the Canadian people with regard to giving assistance to the United States in Viet Nam? I for one cannot understand how some members of this house would like to see complete and total withdrawal of the United States. They would like to see a complete disbandment of NATO, which is just what Moscow and Peking want.
Canada has a very important role to play in the world. I know the minister. I have seen his attitude toward the peoples of all freedom-loving nations. I have no doubt that as champion of freedom for all peoples in Africa he is champion of all enslaved peoples in Asia. He hastens as head of his department to give all possible aid to new nations in difficulties. He is in favour of dismemberment of the British empire and giving freedom to those areas which not too long ago were in

the British empire. He did not object to the dismemberment of the French empire. He is,
I would say, a champion of freedom.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I hope my hon. friend would not seriously suggest that the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada is at the present time in any way in support of any dismemberment of the Commonwealth. My hon. friend used the word "empire". Speaking in terms of the present grouping it would be wholly inaccurate, unfair and unworthy of the hon. gentleman to suggest that anything I have said or done, or propose to do, involves the dismemberment of the Commonwealth.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, I made no reference to the Commonwealth of Nations. I am behind the minister on that score completely. What I intended to imply was the fact that he was in complete accord that these colonial peoples were not being given their freedom. That is the point that I was trying to raise.
There is, however, one area in the world outside of Africa and Asia upon which the minister has remained silent. He has avoided the subject. No statement of his has been reported in the records of the United Nations, nor on the floor of this house. I refer to the colonial empire of Moscow in Europe.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me to interrupt him for just a moment? I know that this subject is very dear to him; but would he please refer to what I said in the United Nations General Assembly on the 24th of September last.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I know what the minister has said. But he was not the first to have said, nor was he as emphatic in saying it, as his predecessors were, that this area in Europe is the world's greatest area of imperialist power and that it is run by Moscow. We should now like a statement from the minister as to the Canadian attitude to that. Does the Russian empire no longer exist? If it does not, then let us say so. Can we just gloss over this matter in silence? If the Russian empire does remain, then why remain silent about it? Is Russification in the Ukraine, Byelorussia, Lithuania, Poland, and the Caucasian nations still going on? Is the economic exploitation of all those places still going on? Are the Ukraine and Byelorussia so-called sovereign states? That is, are they really sovereign? If they are
February 3, 1966

sovereign, why are there not diplomatic exchanges between Canada and these two nations? If no freedom of speech and no freedom of worship exists, why is the Canadian government silent about it? Has the Canadian government written off those people? Has Canada forgotten that these people are victims of Russian imperialism?
How do we reconcile this with what we on this side of the house, and hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house-and I think that includes the minister-say when attending independence rallies of various ethnic groups in Canada for the peoples of the Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Caucasian nations in their fight for freedom of their homelands. We praise their efforts on behalf of their homeland. We encourage them; we give them hope. We pray that their efforts will be successful. Mr. Chairman, have we a double standard? Have we one political standard of expediency, telling these people that they are doing the right thing in the free world, and speaking for those who are not free to speak? And are we, as a freedom loving nation who are so concerned with the freedoms of which I spoke, forgetting about these altogether? If we are forgetting these people, why are we forgetting them? If we are forgetting them, then why not tell these ethnic people in Canada, who are Canadians here, to forget their homeland, to forget the lands of their fathers? Why not tell them, Mr. Chairman, that they are wasting their efforts? Why not tell them that it is not worth their while, or that Canada is not interested?
If we do what we are doing, are we doing this for reasons of political expediency? Are we trying to hoodwink these people into believing that we are friends, with a voice on their behalf, or on behalf of the others? The greatest present imperialist nation is trying to hoodwink the nations of the world, and is trying to gain strength in its role of world history.
Now this, Mr. Chairman, I feel is tantamount to political hypocrisy. We should tell the truth. This was not so in the past. May I draw your attention to the fact that we are proud that Canada was one of the first nations to challenge Russian imperialism in the United Nations. In a speech in September of 1960, the present right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) declared that there must be a complete and final elimination of colonial regimes. He mentioned the
Supply-External Affairs fact that France and Britain and other powers have freed so many peoples. He threw the challenge to the Soviet Union, in these words:
How many human beings have been liberated by the U.S.S.R.?... How are we to reconcile the tragedy of the Hungarian uprising in 1956?... What of Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia? What of the freedom loving Ukrainians and many other eastern European peoples?
And he very emphatically stated:
There can be no double standard in international affairs.
Canada's voice was the first to be heard speaking emphatically and outspokenly in 1960.
The right hon. gentleman, now the Leader of the Opposition, was speaking to ethnic groups in Toronto in 1961, and he said:
The Soviet Union, while pretending otherwise, is a colonial power and a colossus of empires.
It dominates, subjugates, and exploits vast areas of Asia and of the Caucasus, initially colonized in the nineteenth century and earlier by Imperial Russia, using them as a source of cheap raw materials, cheap labour, and as a captive market.
He further stated, and I quote:
Soviet representatives will tell us that the peoples of these subject countries invited the Soviet army to invade them because what they wanted most was to become part of the Soviet Union.
No free country in the world invites or encourages invasion, or wants to be subjugated by another power. The right hon. gentleman further said this:
Is the Soviet Union to be the only colonial power remaining in the world? Why should the Soviet empire be more sacrosanct than any other? Different rules do not and should not apply to Soviet imperialists. There must be no double standards in the United Nations.
I might go on further. 1 quote from the records of the United Nations from the speech of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) of November 23, 1962:
But what about the position of subject peoples within the Soviet empire? Assessments may vary but there are about 96 million people under Soviet rule who have never been permitted to exercise the right of self-determination which the U.S.S.R. so loudly proclaims for others. It is a unique and disturbing phenomenon at this time in world affairs, when one of the highest aspirations of mankind is the peaceful and orderly evolution to viable freedom for all dependent peoples, that the U.S.S.R. should continue to deny the rights of free election and expression to subject nations under its domination-
Mr. Chairman, that voice was not the only voice at the United Nations. May I quote here several sentences uttered by the late president of the United States. John Kennedy said
688	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs in the fall of 1961 at the sixteenth General Assembly:
But that is why there is no ignoring the fact that the tide of self-determination has not yet reached the Communist empire, where a population far larger than that officially termed "dependent" lives under governments installed by foreign troops instead of free institutions.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Yet we in Canada are so happy to see these cultural exchanges with this so-called free nation, where everything is muzzled and where every nation associated with the so-called U.S.S.R., supposed to be a union, is exploited. We are silent. Is it because we are weak or because of other reasons? The President of the United States was not afraid to make the statement he did. The late Mr. Adlai Stevenson spoke the following words at the United Nations: "The right of self-determination has never been accepted within its own dependent areas by the Soviet Union.''
I feel that the Canadian people, the ethnic groups which are making such an effort to continue the fight for the freedom of their homelands and who hear such masterful orations from each one of us at their rallies, are entitled to hear what Canadian policy is on this subject-if we do have a policy. If we do not have a policy we might as well say so.
I associate myself with the hon. member for Oxford. I think that in the course of his address he covered many areas of the world which the minister chose to forget. Apparently we have no policy in these areas or, if we have, the minister preferred not to say anything about them. I think we are entitled to hear the minister's views on all the subjects which were raised by my hon. friend before the first item of these estimates is passed.
I agree with the minister that this is a subject near to my heart. This is not the first time I have spoken on it. I believe that in his heart the hon. gentleman agrees with me. But being a statesman is one thing and being a man who believes in the freedom of men seems to be another. I hope he will make a statement on this subject to this Canadian parliament. Otherwise, I will ask him these questions again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member not do me the honour of saying he has read the statement to which I made reference-the statement made by myself as Secretary of State for External Affairs in the General Assembly on September 24?
[Mr. Mandziuk.i
DEBATES	February 3, 1966


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I do not have the statement with me. I knew the minister had made one.
I am trying to point out that we are pussyfooting in these matters which are of such vital concern to a large number of the Canadian people.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, one usually begins a speech of this kind with a congratulatory preface about the minister's address. We cannot do that on this occasion. However, we can, I believe, congratulate the hon. gentleman upon his still being there. When one thinks of the great changes which have taken place in the cabinet to which he belongs one is reminded of a comment made by a member of the British house in similar circumstances when he congratulated a minister for "keeping his head while all about him were losing theirs". That is really an achievement. We are happy to see the hon. gentleman in this place and I am looking forward to hearing him speak, as he usually does, so eloquently, so well and so laconically.
A debate on the subject of external affairs is usually interesting, and this one, I believe, has been particularly so. As usual, hon. members have expressed a good deal of idealism. There is a tradition of idealism in the typical Canadian discussion of international questions. May it always be so. Great international movements have been founded on such idealistic sentiments as we have heard today. But also-and this, too, has been reflected 

there is an increasing recognition that we do live in an imperfect world among imperfect institutions and that international relations constantly reflect those imperfections. So we have to do many routine things in an effort to translate our ideas and ideals into the tangible results to which we all aspire.
As we look over the history of international institutions I think we have become more realistic while not losing sight of our goals. I am not old enough to remember the birth of the league of nations. But it was called, then, the hope of the world and there was a great deal of idealism attached to it. After its tragic failure and collapse, the new organization, the United Nations, was founded in an atmosphere of greater realism. I think the recognition of great power status, although we are often distressed by its manifestations, was a practical and realistic acknowledgement of the underpinnings of Realpolitik in the international field.
I was proud of the address given by the hon. member for Oxford. I know his merit in this field. He gave to the minister the benefit
February 3. 1966	COMMONS
of his experience, his knowledge and his concern. I suggest to the minister that he take careful note of what my hon. friend had to say. We would be very unwise to become too flippant about means, even though we realize there is a general unanimity as to ends.
The hon. and gallant member for Winnipeg South Centre spoke with his usual forthrightness and I think he hit many nails firmly on their heads. He raised some questions which many Canadians are raising. I was delighted that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace should have made his maiden speech in the field of international affairs. I congratulate him on that, and on his speech. My hon. friend from Sherbrooke made some interesting comments. With one of these I heartily agree; with another, I resolutely disagree. I think it would be a most useful and helpful step for Canada to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican. I say this as one from a proud background in a section of the reform movement, Presbyterianism, which was rugged in its reformist tendencies.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Don't forget I showed you the monument to the reformers.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Supply-External Affairs states. So, I am pleased the present Prime Minister went to Lagos and gave the leadership he did.
I am happy that we are developing more missions in Africa; but I would suggest that we do more, that we increase our interest and advance our priority to that important continent. I was shocked to read the other day that a request from Nigeria for documents, statutes of the Canadian government, had been refused. This was a shabby performance on the part of a Commonwealth state toward a proper request from a sister Commonwealth state, a federal state grappling with some problems for which they wanted this very small but practical bit of help. I condemn whoever was responsible for that particular little slip-up.
We are all distressed about Nigeria. There are many things in Africa that make us unhappy, but I think nothing is gained by those people who go about saying, "These people are not ready for self-government. They should hold down for a while until they are ready." Some would never be ready if they waited for the assistance that should have been forthcoming long since from those who had the opportunity to give it. No matter how feeble may be their efforts, as compared with our standards in administration of government, there is no gainsaying what I heard one of the representatives say some years ago at the United Nations-and he was quoting John Stuart Mill-that good government is no substitute for self-government.
We are faced with a problem when these people are yearning for self-government. They are able to attain it, and they will. Therefore we must make our adjustment. We must be as helpful as we can and not despair, and not too frequently project our own standards into theirs.
I heard a great statesman a very few years ago-I know the minister knows him well, a former President of the United Nations General Assembly, Ambassador Boland-say that the future of the world will be decided by the people who live south of the equator. I believe that to be the case. The rapid developments that are taking place there are a bit overwhelming. They overwhelm our understanding, and perhaps at times they may challenge and overwhelm our capacity to assist.
This brings me to the question of Latin America and the O.A.S. I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs will expect me to say that I disagree on this matter with my

hon. friend from Oxford, and I know there are other members in my party who have views similar to his. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and the hon. member for Yarmouth-Shelburne-Clare are both anti-
O.A.S., but I am with the minister, or at least with him as he used to be, as one of those who believe that there is an opportunity for us.
Just because there is difficulty, and just because there is the possibility of our differing with the United States, these things alone should not be sufficient cause for Canada to withdraw, forever to stay on the sidelines from an area of the world whose future will affect us whether we are members of that organization or not. Any eruption of major proportions in Latin America will not be magically sealed off at the 49th parallel just because we would not take out membership in the O.A.S. Therefore I would say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that if he and his government are interested in making a move along this line, here is at least one member of the opposition who would be prepared and willing to support them. They have been able to get by on tougher issues with only five of a majority. In this case there might be four others over here. Also, members of the N.D.P. who used to be pretty strong on this issue. Therefore I think it would not be a hazard and might even be an easy thing.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
We have been discussing the O.A.S. for a long time. I think we have been able to disagree with the United States and survive, and I think we are now sufficiently mature in the field of international diplomacy to move in and accept our responsibilities. If we wait until all these problems move away; if we refrain from joining because they make mistakes in their organization and because it is imperfect, we will never join and we might as well withdraw from all the other organizations of which we are members because there is a great deal of imperfection in all of them. I think the opportunities and challenges are sufficient to prompt us to want to join, and I am looking forward to the great opportunity of supporting my hon. friends on this matter. However, I do have the feeling that I will not have that opportunity soon to stand up, perhaps alone among my friends, to join with them. However, if they present the opportunity I will present myself as living testimony of faith in the movement toward the

February 3, 1966

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, during his very trenchant speech discussed Viet Nam, as other hon. members have done. I may say that I was surprised by the reply the Prime Minister made to my hon. friend, the leader of the New Democratic Party, on January 24 when he said:
I can also assure him that there is no possibility of military aid being sent by Canada to Viet Nam.
I do not look forward to Canadian military aid being sent. I do not relish the prospect of Canadian youth being there. I pray to God they never will have to be there, but I submit that the Prime Minister overstated the case when he spoke as he did. It is sadly conceivable that situations may arise where the interests of Canada and her people, and the foreign policy to which we are dedicated, may require tangible assistance on the spot. I think the Prime Minister overstated the case in ruling that out in advance. I would by all means commend to the government the course of action advocated by my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. We should be sure, knowing the possibilities of outbursts of this kind, that our armed forces are capable of playing their part if, heaven forbid, that becomes necessary.
Wishing that Viet Nam and all its problems would go away is just about as futile as imploring the United States to leave. Some people advocate that as a solution if only the Americans would withdraw all would be well they say. It is said about the United States, with its complexity and its vastness, that it is a diificult country to govern. If only their leaders could come to Canada and stay a while they would be told very simply how to do it. Big business in Canada tells its government how to conduct their economic policies; big socialism tells them how to conduct their diplomacy and, as if that were not enough, we now have provincial politicians telling them generally how to do everything. How simple it all is north of the 49th parallel.
I know that we all join with equal sincerity the utterances of hon. members and Canadians outside of this house who deplore the war in Viet Nam. What kind of people would we be if we did not have that kind of reaction in the face of intense suffering and loss of life. Of course we deplore it, yet we find it very difficult-at least I do-to join the chorus of those who would point to the United States as the culprit in this affair.
The United States has shown, especially in recent weeks, much restraint and wisdom. A while ago there was a pause, and that was
Supply-External Affairs supposed to solve all things. That pause lasted for nearly six weeks, but the response from the other side was not very encouraging. I think the United States is to be commended for bringing this whole situation to the United Nations. I know the purists talk about the fact that Geneva is the only avenue and that communist China could be there, but now we have the Viet Nam situation at the Security Council. We have had a pause and we have now had a statement from the United States, that leader of the free world, welcoming, seeking, beseeching and negotiating a settlement. I am never distressed, as some are, that Canada does not disagree more with the United States. Disagreement for the sake of disagreement would be a very immature concept of Canada's role.
I say to the hon. minister that in his general attitude toward the major aspects of world diplomacy and the leadership of the United States he speaks for the great majority of Canadians as represented in this house. He follows quite a tradition. I had the honour of seeing his two predecessors in action, Howard Green and the late Dr. Sidney Smith. They were men of stature, men of vision, tough men when they needed to be tough, and he is following generally in their steps. He is following not as quietly at times but, as Mr. Green once said, he is a good internationalist. I hope that in this area, where we do not want foreign policy to become party policy, he will heed carefully the advice of those who have spoken. I think he will agree that his government might have avoided many pitfalls in the last good many months had they heeded better what the opposition said.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
So I say to him that we wish him well. His task is not easy. He has made mistakes and they have been pointed out, but I believe our country still holds the good opinion of the world. Sometimes we are perhaps a bit selfrighteous about how good we are, but as a middle-sized, moderate country prepared to take its share we may well be proud of Canada in the discharge of its international obligations.
Mr. Chairman, because everybody is yearning to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I am sure there are other hon. members who wish to contribute to this debate, I shall follow his example of today and be brief and sit down.
February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs [Translation]


Mr. Canlin:: Mr. Chairman, some hon. members may recall their days in high school when they had to figure out a Pythagorean theorem, where a man is trying to catch up with a turtle a few feet ahead of him. Logically, the man could never catch up with the turtle because every time he took a step forward the turtle was also stepping ahead a few inches, and therefore the two would never meet. However, some sort of intuition must have suggested to this logician that the meeting would occur in spite of the mind's objections.
It seems to me that the international situation to-day can be compared to that theorem. Since the end of World War II, countries have united to launch, this time, the peace offensive.
As in the theorem, however, these common agreements would or should have brought peace. Yet, since the end of World War II, in one corner of the earth or the other, not a day passes without war. Yet, an inner feeling tells us that the great objective of peace always remains a possibility.
I humbly feel that a link is missing, or rather a dimension without which world peace cannot be achieved. This dimension to my mind, is the entry of Communist China into the United Nations. It would be futile to recall the powerlessness of the United Nations Secretary General, of his Security Council on the Viet Nam question.
That is why, and it is the only aim of my intervention today, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to use all his influence to secure the agreement of the United States to the admission of mainland China to the Council of Nations, the first step, I think, toward a solution to the Asian war.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, as will become more evident, we are not here as experts. However, as one who has been interested in the methods that this house adopts to get its point of view across to the public, I have been a critic-I must say not a very severe one-of a good many debates on this important topic because I think many times, I suppose because of the crush of business, we have really not had a debate but we have had a series of position papers, if you like that expression, from the representatives of the parties that make up parliament. So I welcome an opportunity to say one or two things that have been on my mind about this awesome topic.
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
I should like to do so by first of all reminding the committee that really we are part of a world that is in what might be classified as a three-way split. First is our world, representing as it does 700 million people, about 20 per cent of the total world population. Then there is the world that represents about 30 per cent of the world population that is under the domination, if you will-although this is perhaps an old-fashioned term-of Communism; anyway, it is part of the Communist ideology. I think that in any discussion of this part of the world we have come to learn that this term does not mean the same thing to different countries, and I welcome the fact that this has become now clearly part of the United States understanding of world affairs.
Then surely on our minds must be the third part of the world, that part that I know concerns the Secretary of State for External Affairs as it does all of us if we are responsible members of parliament. I refer to that immense area of this globe the peoples of which are still living in the most abject poverty, with a gross product representing only about 15 per cent of the world's productive wealth. Surely we should continue to think about this fact and remember the potential danger-it has been mentioned by other speakers-if this split, if that is the term, or this divergence should become escalated. I suggest that this is really the context in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs discharges his very awesome responsibilities.
Now, Mr. Chairman, to come from that soaring introduction to one or two practical things that are on my mind, I should like again to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the officers and staff of the Department of External Affairs across the world still have not the opportunity to vote in elections. Surely by this time a simple method could be worked out whereby these people could exercise their franchise. Surely it is a paradox that in so many of our embassies the military personnel attached thereto are able to vote, and yet our distinguished Canadians who are ambassadors, senior officials, attaches, charges d'affaires, and so on, cannot take part in this democratic process.
I have heard the excuse used that a good many of our people in other parts of the world do not know what is going on-perhaps I should not use that expression but should say they are not conversant with attributes of the various candidates. Surely in this age of
February 3. 1966

improved techniques of communication it should not be too difficult to rectify this situation. I am sure that each of us would be glad to cut down his budget at election time to make available information that our embassy people need to have before making up their minds with respect to choosing candidates. I hope that the minister will quickly set in motion amendments to the Elections Act so that this reform can take place.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Then, there is a letter to which the minister recently subscribed his name replying to a request for funds for the Canadian Peace Research Institute in the modest amount of $35,000, by means of which the institute would set up a peace research abstract system. I understand that UNESCO gave this worthy group some $6,000. Surely, with our huge defence budget and our other budgets, the modest request of this most worth-while group could be met gracefully by the minister. I am sorry that he has not seen fit to do so.
We have heard a great deal, and quite properly, about Viet Nam. I am not going to add very much to the knowledge of the country about this tragic war, except to say that generally I agree with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) when he says it is extremely easy for us in Canada to criticize. It does seem to me that the auspices for President Johnson's request for action by the Security Council would have had much more validity had he been able to continue the break in the bombing of North Viet Nam until he or his ambassador had made that presentation. I do not suppose it takes a very learned or expert person to think of this, but I say it for what it is worth.
One of the things that has worried me a little bit about our United States friends and their debate on this topic has been that, up until recently, it has been considered almost an act of treason-I use that word advisedly in quotes-if one took issue with the views of the President. This makes me think back to the days of the second world war when in Britain, even though Sir Winston Churchill headed a coalition government, he insisted that parliament continue to comment upon and criticize the government's prosecution of the war and its resultant foreign policy. I do not know how gracefully he insisted, but he did insist. I think it is a refreshing thing for the friends of the United States to see that distinguished senators are able to dissent. It
Supply-External Affairs was not too many months ago that the only dissent a good many of us were able to discern was the peace marches, estimable as they may be, and the editorials of the New York Times, as well as the remarks of that great pundit Walter Lippmann.
I think it is refreshing to note that the chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and other senators, have been taking an independent position in what must be a terribly serious thing for our friends in the United States.
The people in this land have different ideas about Rhodesia. I share those expressions about our Prime Minister's trip to Lagos, and the worry about the advisability of our Prime Minister being in Lagos and being seen to the plane by the Prime Minister of that country, who was to be executed within hours of the Prime Minister's leaving. I suppose nothing really in recent history has been of more comfort to Mr. Ian Smith than the events in Nigeria. Some years ago, I had the privilege of visiting Rhodesia and meeting and admiring, as I am sure we all do, Mr. Garfield Todd.
I often think back to those days and wonder whether anybody who was in Africa five or ten years ago could ever have imagined that, for instance, Kenya would prove to be a model of the evolutionary process from colo-nialsim and that Rhodesia would be otherwise. I just add this for the record. One of those in Africa with me was Mr. Edward Heath, now the head of the Conservative party in Britain. I remember so clearly one man saying: If the governor would make me a colonel and let me raise an army, I would solve the Rhodesian problem. Mr. Heath quite quickly said, what colour shirts would your army wear?
I think that when we reflect on the views of our friends in the United States about world affairs we should commend Senator John Pastore's resolution in the United States senate, in which he seeks to curb the proliferation of nuclear arms. I think that these are the types of positive United States beliefs that we in Canada should support.
I just want to read to the house two of the prime purposes behind Senator Pastore's resolution. They are:
A provision requiring non-nuclear states to accept international safeguards over all nuclear activities; a provision also requiring nuclear states not to transfer nuclear material to other nations for civilian purposes except under international safeguards.
6S4
February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs
In addition this resolution hopes that steps will be taken to bring chemical reprocessing plants under international inspection.
I have one other thing I should like to mention, and I apologize for bringing in another personal reference. Last June it was my privilege to be in San Franscisco attending a small meeting preliminary to the twentieth anniversary meeting of the United Nations. This meeting was held under the auspices of a great United States citizen-I think he is anyway-Mr. Maxwell Stanley. He is active in the world federalists. With that generosity that is so typical of the people of the United States, he invited some 15 people from various countries of the world to take a look at the UN a decade hence.
People like Carlos P. Romulo, formerly the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations and past president of the Philippines, Sir Safrulla Khan, whose name will be known to the minister as a president of the assembly and also now in his second term in the world court of justice, attended. I will not bore the house by referring to each of the participants. After four or five days of deliberations in a pleasant atmosphere detached from the pressures of the day, several conclusions were reached. These were presented by Carlos P. Romulo at this meeting of world federalists. The text was a belief that we cannot wait for greater understanding and brotherhood to bring us these freedoms, but we must begin now.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Changes were suggested in the United Nations, one of which was referred to by the hon. member for Quebec South a minute ago.
I am sure these changes would have widespread approval in this house. The UN would have to be greatly strengthened to provide these essential requirements for peace.
The changes suggested were, first of all, complete and enforced disarmament of all nations, in carefully controlled stages. When the disarmament process is complete, each nation would retain only strictly limited and lightly armed forces for internal order. Significant progress in disarmament will not be possible without parallel progress toward the provision of international security through the United Nations.
The second requirement would be a permanent UN peace force to maintain international peace and security; and an effective


UN inspection system to supervise disarmament. Again that is an objective which I am sure would find favour with all of us.
The third requirement would be a general assembly empowered to adopt binding rules and regulations in respect to the peace keeping functions of the strengthened UN and implementing the disarmament plan; and in the opinion of most but not all of the conferees, a revised voting system appropriate to the strengthened UN, including abolition of the present "veto power" in the Security Council.
The proviso in this submission was that a good many countries are faced with the paradox of having equal representation, no matter what their population. This fact is well known to the minister and to most members here. For example, we face the situation that Iceland, say, with somewhat less than 100,000 people, and India with somewhat more than 400 million people, have equal voice in the United Nations. This is a situation that we politicans have had to look after in this country for our own benefit through the means of redistribution. Quite how this would work on a world scale I am not sure, but perhaps there would have to be a weighting of votes. No country would have less than one vote, but perhaps the great powers would agree that they have, say, 30 votes. This is a fact of life which must be faced in any event.
The fourth proposal was a strengthened court of justice empowered to interpret the UN charter and decide all international legal disputes; a system of regional courts; and other tribunals and agencies to settle international disputes which are not capable of decision upon legal principles. Membership in the United Nations should carry with it the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the international court in all international disputes.
The fifth requirement would be a world development program. As a matter of human survival, the world must use a substantially larger share of its resources to promote the economic and social advancement of the less developed nations. Expansion and better coordination of existing development programs are urgently needed. A major part of the savings from disarmament should be used for a large scale development program administered by the United Nations.
The sixth requirement would be a reliable and adequate revenue system for the strengthened UN. Surely one of the tragedies of current days is the hat-in-hand manner in which the United Nations has to circularize
February 3, 1966
the nations in order to carry on their peace keeping activities in Cyprus and in so many other parts of the world.
The seventh requirement would be safeguards to prevent abuse of power by the strengthened United Nations, and a clear reservation to the member states and their peoples of all powers not granted to the UN under the revised charter. Hon. members who are constitutional lawyers can imagine that the Canadian delegate to this meeting, as well as the Americans, wrestled with this one a little longer than did those from other nations of the world to whom the semantics of constitutionalism mean very little.
The last requirement would be eligibility of all nations for membership in the United Nations. Disarmament will not be possible unless all nations are subject to the enforcement system.
These are the unanimous recommendations of the conference I had the privilege of attending. It was a conference on the United Nations as we foresaw it in 1975. I would conclude by saying that I subscribe to these proposals. I am convinced that they have validity, and I hope that the minister, when he is thinking of what should be done to ensure peace, will keep them very much to the front of his mind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have had a wide-ranging and useful discussion. I feel that I owe it to the committee to deal with one matter put before us in respect to a current situation. It was introduced by the official spokesman for the Conservative opposition in this house. Because the matter is current I propose to address myself to it now. I will deal with other items as they come up during the course of my estimates.
I must say that in view of the widespread and almost overwhelming world support of the position taken by Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom with regard to the illegal government in Rhodesia, I was a little surprised at the position adopted by the hon. member for Oxford. Whether he was speaking for his party is perhaps not clear. In any event, he was its first spokesman. Because of the importance of the question and the challenge which he laid down to the government both with regard to the authority under which it had acted and his implied criticism of the reasons for its policy, I owe it to the committee to make a reply.
His statement today was made in the context of a rather regrettable situation which
Supply-External Affairs has persisted now in Southern Rhodesia for over three or four years, during which time the parliament and the government of that country has adopted a number of acts providing for detention of political opponents of the regime, contrary to what we in Commonwealth countries regard as the rule of law.
Under these acts nationalist parties have been outlawed and a number of leading political figures, both African and European, have been detained or restricted as to residence without a trial or hearing. There has been an extended form of racial discrimination, not of the identical character of apartheid, but of a character which, in face of the present evolution of world opinion on the position of the human being in society, cannot be condoned.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
One form of racial discrimination is the franchise which, as a result of financial and other qualifications, enables the small minority of Europeans to have the predominant voice in the legislative body of Rhodesia. Other legislation reserves much of the best agricultural land in Rhodesia to the use of white settlers, providing a form a discrimination which, in light of what we regard as the current standards of enlightenment and acceptance of human personality, cannot be condoned, and is not condoned I think by the vast majority of the people in this country. Nor can it be condoned by the vast majority of the members of this house, or by the vast majority of the peoples of the commonwealth.
Since last November, or since the unilateral declaration of independence, the Smith regime has imposed a press and radio censorship which to a great extent insulates the people of Rhodesia from outside news and which enables the regime to give unchallenged its own version of events.
It is not as though the government of Canada had acted without careful consideration and anticipation of this decision. It will be noted from our records in this house that long before there was definite indication that there would be a unilateral declaration of independence, both the Prime Minister and I had indicated what our position would be in such an event.
At the prime ministers' conference in London, in June of last summer, the Commonwealth prime ministers without exception indicated their opposition to the threatened unilateral declaration of independence. I may say that well over two years ago I, myself,

February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs had received as Secretary of State for External Affairs two ministers of the then government of Southern Rhodesia in my office in the Department of External Affairs. I had explained to them our attitude toward events in that country, events which were discussed not only at Commonwealth meetings, but in the United Nations itself. May I say that as a result the government of Mr. Smith was not taken unawares by the action of the government of Canada.
While I have no right to speak for other governments in the Commonwealth, it is a fact that these governments likewise made their positions known, both at the conference of prime ministers, and bilaterally. I might add the record will show that the Prime Minister of Canada had urged in private communications, as I did, that the government of Rhodesia should take full consideration of the implications of the step which it took some time last November.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman in his implied criticism of this position by the Canadian government, questioned at the same time the authority under which we have acted, and sought to indicate that this represented a departure in Canadian foreign policy. I will admit, with him, that it represents an approach that has not been practised by Canadian governments until recently. Certainly, any action of a punitive kind within the commonwealth must be examined with the greatest care. Indeed that has been the situation in the particular instance. However, this is not the first time that we have acted in this way. It should be noted that in this instance we have acted pursuant to a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations, just as we did in the case of South Africa. Our action then was based on a resolution passed by the Security Council in 1963.
Because the matter does represent, even though it may not be the first precedent, an important development in Canadian foreign policy, I think it might be worth while to remind the hon. gentleman of the action that Canada took toward South Africa pursuant to the resolution of the Security Council in 1963. The house will recall the statement I made on October 21, 1963 with respect to the export of arms from Canada to South Africa, to the effect that the Canadian government would not permit the shipment of arms to South Africa. We had not been permitting arms exports to be used against anyone for the enforcement of the policy of apartheid. In

1963 the Security Council passed a resolution that was not mandatory, but that did recommend that all states should cease the sale and shipment of arms, munitions and military vehicles to South Africa. We took that into account, and as a loyal member of the United Nations and wishing again to express our disapproval of the South African apartheid policy the government felt that it should not authorize the acceptance of any new orders from South Africa for items of military equipment, or permit the shipment of such equipment to South Africa. That was done not long after the action taken by the government of which my hon. friend was a supporter, which represented Canada during the prime ministers' conference, following which South Africa took action resulting in its withdrawal from the Commonwealth.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No. They withdrew before. That has no bearing on it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I respectfully say to my hon. friend that this has a great bearing, because my hon. friend has put himself in a position different from that of his leader.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Oh no, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: His leader expressed at that time some of the sentiments of the people of Canada. I want to be very clear on this, because it is important.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Then you will have to try harder.


Paul Joseph James Martin: His leader at that time took a strong position. I am not saying that his leader's acts led to the withdrawal of South Africa from the Commonwealth, but he did join with other prime ministers in expressing what was then, in my judgment, the view of most people in this country and the Commonwealth. In this day and in this age the policies of discrimination as practised by South Africa cannot be condoned.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No one says that they should be.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend says no. I am saying that the action that he has taken in his utterances today with regard to Southern Rhodesia are inconsistent with the position taken by the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was prime minister, with regard to South Africa.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the minister not think that there is a difference in that situation, inasmuch as at the time when South Africa
February 3, 1966

became a republic, and automatically left the Commonwealth, and had to seek to return, there was a question of whether South Africa should be admitted back into the Commonwealth in view of her policies. Would that not show that there was some difference in the position from the standpoint of Rhodesia's withdrawing from the Commonwealth?


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say to
my hon. friend is that if we want to preserve the unity of the Commonwealth, and I believe that it is a vital organism for international collaboration, we cannot in any way give any comfort to those who, by implication or otherwise, seem to support a policy of racial discrimination.
With regard to the sanctions that the government did impose on South Africa, which was a precedent for the development of Canadian foreign policy, may I say that in 1964 there was a call by South Africa for tenders for certain military vehicles. In light of the announced Canadian policy, no Canadian company responded to the tenders called for these vehicles. This was a result of Canadian government policy based on a resolution of the Security Council. All trucks capable of being used for military purposes, came within the meaning of the resolution.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This course Canada took, notwithstanding the fact that one or two commonwealth countries continued to allow corporations within their jurisdiction to tender for the sale of this equipment in South Africa in a way we felt and continue to feel was unfair to the Canadian position and to the clear interpretation of the Security Council resolution.
The government's policy with respect to military assistance to Portugal was announced in the house on June 25, 1963. This related to certain kinds of equipment. We have delivered no mutual aid to Portugal since November, 1960. Earlier shipments to Portugal as to other NATO countries had been made on the understanding that they would be used only to strengthen the defensive capacity of the organization. Likewise, we have stood in the way of sales of equipment to that country except for purposes involved in its obligations under the NATO agreement. So the situation taken with regard to Portugal is consistent with the position we have taken with regard to South Africa and the position we are now taking with regard to Rhodesia.
Supply-External Affairs
The hon. member today questioned the wisdom of the sanctions upon which the government has decided. Not only did he question this, but he doubted whether we had the authority to impose them. He indicated that parliament should have been called to express an opinion before they were imposed. I ask him to consider the circumstances in which these sanctions were applied. The parliament of the United Kingdom had been sitting and was sitting at the time. The British government did not hesitate to announce to the U.K. parliament that it had adopted a particular course based on acts which were in some respects similar to ours. It left to the parliament of the United Kingdom the opportunity to reject or approve the course the government had taken.
But our parliament was not sitting. We had to act quickly. We were amongst the very first countries to act. I can well envisage what the hon. member would have said had we waited unduly long before imposing sanctions when there had been a call for us to do so by the government of Britain.


An hon. Member:: Why was parliament not called?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: In any event the measures were taken immediately after the illegal declaration of independence announced on November 11. They consisted of nonrecognition of a regime dismissed from office by the lawful authority, the governor of Rhodesia. A number of allied and appropriate actions were included in these measures. We withdrew our trade commissioner. We ended our small aid program, imposed a complete arms embargo and withdrew the British preferential tariff rate as well as export credit facilities for Canadian goods going to Rhodesia. These measures were essentially direct and natural consequences of our nonrecognition of an illegal regime which had been dismissed from office. They were taken in accordance with similar measures taken by the British government, which we recognized as being constitutionally responsible for Rhodesia.
The action we took was similar to that taken by the government of the United Kingdom by executive authority, acting within the legal powers of that government. Similarly the action taken by other countries such as Sweden, Australia, and New Zealand, countries in NATO and outside, was taken pursuant to the authority they had. If their

February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs parliaments were sitting, they had I presume an opportunity to deal with the matter.
We would have been accused by the hon. gentleman of undue delay had we failed to act as quickly as we did. The hon. member questions the legality of the ban on the export of arms. It is the policy of the government not to permit the shipment of arms and military equipment to troubled areas such as Rhodesia. Because of the illegal declaration of independence we felt the export of arms would be wrong. I may say by way of parenthesis that long before the unilateral declaration of independence was made by the government of the country concerned, it received an intimation of the course which would be followed by this and by other commonwealth countries. By order in council under section 3(A) of the Export and Import Permits Act our export control list has been in existence for some time now. The effect of this is to make the export of sensitive goods subject to permit for shipment to any destination. This was the legal authority for refusing to ship arms to Rhodesia. As to the withdrawal of export credit facilities, it is entirely within the discretion of the government under the Export Credits Insurance Act, as amended, to decide whether a particular country is eligible for financing under section 21 (A) of that act.
We now come to the second phase of Canadian measures following the Security Council resolution of November 20 which, as I mentioned earlier, recommended the severance of all trade ties with Rhodesia under the illegal regime. It was pursuant to this resolution that our subsequent economic measures were taken, namely the export and import bans and the withdrawal of insurance facilities for exports. This was in accordance with the established Canadian policy of acting on Security Council recommendations and, in general, of giving strong support for United Nations action in situations with serious international repercussions.
I want the hon. member to know that the action we took with regard to Rhodesia was, as in the case of South Africa, pursuant to recommendations made by the United Nations itself. The hon. member has said that these export and import bans were illegal.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Only some of them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says some of them were. Shortly after the passage of the November 20 Security Council resolution and in keeping with our policy of acting in concert with Britain, with was

constitutionally and legally responsible for the territory of Rhodesia, we concluded an arrangement with the British government providing for close co-operation in the application of further economic measures against the illegal regime of Rhodesia. This arrangement took the form of an exchange of notes on November 26 between the Canadian and British governments-actually between myself and the British High Commissioner. As Secretary of State for External Affairs I asked that the Department of Justice be consulted. We were advised that an exchange of notes between Canada and Great Britain, the latter as the sovereign power in Rhodesia, providing for the application of economic sanctions against Rhodesia, was an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment within the terms of the Export and Import Permits Act.
So we have been advised by the law officers that the course we have followed was legal and warranted under the legislation. The hon. member will, I am sure, take note of what I have said tonight. And if he thinks that what I have said or what the law officers have put forward is wrong, he will no doubt give the house the benefit of his learned opinion.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Myself and others.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As for insurance of exports of goods or services to a particular country, the Export Credits Insurance Corporation has authority under the act to insure or not to insure at its discretion.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
My hon. friend referred today to the various orders in council and I want to assist his researches in that regard. PC 1965-2016 of November 12 provided for the withdrawal of preferences and the application of the general tariff to imports from Rhodesia pursuant to subsection 1 of section 4 of the Customs Tariff.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is all right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend said that one was all right. In one breath he says we acted illegally, and now he says in regard to that particular order we acted within the meaning of the law.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If the minister had looked at the remarks I made-he could have seen the blues-he would have found I said that two or three of the orders were perfectly legal. It was those under sections 5 and 6 of the
February 3/ 1966

Export and Import Permits Act that I questioned. I questioned the legality of them. That was the embargo on sugar, tobacco and chrome ore.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Do I understand he does not take exception to the legality of PC 1965-2134 respecting the imports of tobacco and sugar of Rhodesian origin?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have done so.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: PC 1965-2134 of November 30 provided for the addition to the "import control list" of tobacco and sugar of Rhodesian origin, pursuant to section 5 and 6 of the Export and Import Permits Act, and to implement an intergovernmental arrangement between Great Britain and Canada.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That was one. I questioned the legality of it, not the one under the Customs Tariff Act.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Well then, my hon. friend takes issue with the position we have taken and the advice we have been given. I think it is clear, reading the act, and assuming the existence of an intergovernmental arrangement such as the one I have tabled between the government of the United Kingdom and Canada, that it is self-evident we followed the proper legal procedure.
PC 1965-2211 of December 8 provided for the addition to the "import control list" of the following items of Rhodesian origin: chrome ores and concentrates; ferrochrome, asbestos and meats, pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Export and Import Permits Act; and likewise in conjunction with the intergovernmental arrangement between Britain and Canada, I submit we had the legal authority for this course.
Finally, PC 1965-2252 added Rhodesia to the area control list pursuant to sections 4 and 6 of the Export and Import Permits Act. I take it my hon. friend does not take exception to that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Am I right in concluding that the minister is relying entirely upon the phrase "intergovernmental arrangement" for his authority?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, it is clear that the resolution of the Security Council was not mandatory. The only way in which we could act under the Export and Import Permits Act would have been with regard either to a mandatory obligation or in respect of an intergovernmental arrangement. We had an intergovernmental arrangement. My

Supply-External Affairs hon. friend has a copy of it in his hand. Our action was brought clearly within the Export and Import Permits Act. This was the advice of the officers of the crown.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a further question, because this is very interesting. The letter from the British High Commissioner, in the second paragraph, reads that he is authorized to confirm on behalf of the government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that they think it desirable and important that they and the government of Canada should arrange to co-operate closely in this field. Do I take it that the minister considers the phrase "to co-operate closely in this field" is the "governmental arrangement" to impose sanctions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend, I think, has stated the case admirably.
Finally, the reference to an intergovernmental arrangement in the paragraphs I have related, meant that the Export and Import Permits Act could be used, as the hon. gentleman has just said, in relation to an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment which was duly entered into between the government of Canada and the United Kingdom. Such an engagement was entered into between the two countries through an exchange of notes which have been tabled and which, in the opinion of the law officers of the crown, meets the exigencies provided for by the phrase "intergovernmental arrangement" referred to in the act.
So, as a result of the addition of Rhodesia to the area control list, all exports to Rhodesia, with minor exceptions which have been authorized by general permit, require the issuance of individual export licences. It is pursuant to this that the exports of oil and oil products were barred.
Today I have announced that in addition there are embargoes with regard to exports and imports which represent 100 per cent of our total trade both ways, so that we have now taken action to provide for a total embargo.
On the question of substance, namely as to whether the course we have followed is right, this government believes that the unity of the Commonwealth, our relations with African countries, and the evolutionary events in our time require the kind of action that all Commonwealth countries have taken, including Canada.
My hon. friend spoke earlier about the visit of the Queen to Canada. We all welcome and we all look forward to the visit of the Queen,
February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs the Queen of Canada; but let us not forget the events that occurred during the first week of December last, when African Commonwealth countries joined with other African countries in an ultimatum placed at the doorstep of the British government, to the effect that if more effective measures were not taken by Britain toward Rhodesia, these countries would withdraw their missions in London.
It was because of that situation that the conference of Prime Ministers took place in Lagos in the month of January, and the record will show that the government of Canada, realizing what this meant to the Commonwealth, urged certain countries, notably Tanzania and Ghana, and other countries that might have been considering withdrawing missions, to give serious consideration to the implications of such a step for Commonwealth unity, recognizing at the same time that these countries would not, by withdrawal of missions alone, thereby necessarily withdraw from the Commonwealth.
Therefore I am saying to my hon. friend- and I am not saying he is not sincere in the position he has taken today; I know he is -that it is a minority position. I am sure it is not one that is conducive to do what he would want, namely to promote the unity of the Commonwealth and afford this country and other countries like Britain, Australia and New Zealand, to join with the majority at the countries of the world in recognizing that we have faced up to certain necessary decisions. The international community cannot stand by when there is discrimination against people, merely on the ground of colour.
That is what is involved in this problem and that is why the government has taken the position it has. That is why I am asking this house, by the reaction it takes to these measures, to clearly indicate that the course we have taken in support of Britain and other Commonwealth countries, with the aid of countries outside the Commonwealth, was a course of wisdom, a course of courage and a course that represents a necessary development of our foreign policy.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Does the minister consider that the imposition of sanctions calculated to cause economic distress among both whites and coloured people in Southern Rhodesia is the type of kind Christian act that this country should adopt?
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that one would wish it had not been necessary to take such a course. I want to say to my hon. friend-and I do not like to put this on the basis of Christianity or any other form of religion-but on the basis of high morality, surely if one has to make a decision of this kind, there can be no doubt that the morality of the action we took will stand the test as compared to the kind of morality involved and the kind of discrimination that has been practised by governments in some countries of the world toward people who are not white.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to attempt to show the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) how to run his department, how to orient Canada's external affairs policy. I simply wish to add a few words by way of contribution and possibly, make a suggestion.
As a newcomer, I have listened closely to the remarks made in the course of this debate by the members of the various parties in the house, and I must say that, with a few exceptions, I have been very favourably impressed by the tone given at the onset of the debate. It has been understood that the issue here is, actually, the old biblical principle as to whether or not we are to be truly our brothers' keepers. In particular I admired the praiseworthy generosity and spontaneity with which the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) congratulated the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the excellent work he has done.
I was particularly struck also by the remarks made by an hon. member of the opposition, I think it was the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie). If I am not quite in order, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will let me know-but I hope we will get as soon as possible a list of the names of members with the number of their seat and the riding they represent, so that new members like myself can identify their colleagues.
As I was saying, I admired the high minded speech made by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) who, although in the opposition, deemed it necessary to correct some impressions or opinions of his Conservative colleagues, in the name of sacred unity, a principle that binds us in the matter of international relations. But I feel I have to correct just the same a statement made by the hon. member when he said that he did not accept the point of view expressed this afternoon by
February 3, 1966	COMMONS
the hon. member tor Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) who stated that the province of Quebec should be able to sign cultural agreements, with France in particular, without prejudice to the federal jurisdiction. The argument of the hon. member for Sherbrooke struck me. He is a professor of constitutional Law. He knows what he is talking about. He backed up his statements with arguments which seemed very sound to me. Since the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) seems very sincere in his attitude, I would suggest that he meet a few times with the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I have the impression that it is only a misunderstanding between the hon. member for Sherbrooke and the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) on that matter of cultural agreements that the province of Quebec can make with some countries, France in particular, under a formula which is perfectly acceptable to the officials of the Department of External Affairs and which in no way lessens their prestige or their authority.
I have been following for years now the progress of the external policy of my country and I find it most interesting. I told you I wanted to say a few words of congratulations: I think personally that the Leader of the Government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are a team particularly well prepared for the important mission they have to carry out as arbitrators in many a conflicts we have in this agitated and seething world, where so many countries might, at any moment, lose their bearings, if I may be allowed to lapse into the vernacular. I do not rely on my own opinion, but quoting a most convincing all-round viewpoint, expressed by some American and Canadian journalists whom I have been seeing for the last few months and who could observe at the United Nations or in Lagos on the occasion of European conferences either the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, journalists are not inclined to be enthusiastic over just anybody, but more than one told me on several occasions how proud they were to see the prestige enjoyed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs with foreign diplomats, and the respect in which they are held. Their suggestions and proposals are often readily accepted by foreign diplomats.
I think it is important that this be said in the circumstances-because I am one of those who believe that if there is an area very
DEBATES	701
Supply-External Affairs important to the heightening of Canada's image and the securing of the widest possible influence in international relations, it is the area of External affairs. We should eliminate petty and destructive criticism and attempts should be made to keep the discussions on the high level maintained today by most members of this house.
That is at a highly constructive level. Quite properly, they were careful to avoid giving other nations who read reports of our discussions in the press, the notion that we might be divided on foreign policy in a way that could eventually be disastrous to our influence.
I also enjoyed the speeches of those who loudly proclaimed that we should be bound to our allies in the confrontation of these two worlds, and to those who share our ideals and understand the duties of solidarity. Occasionally constructive suggestions may be submitted. It is normal. But in most cases substantially, constantly and definitely, we should close ranks to avoid defeat by the communist ideology striving to absorb nations too weak to fight off this nefarious influence.
Mr. Chairman, this is the suggestion I should like to make to the house. In the field of external affairs, members must always show constant concern for the sacred union, to maintain Canada's image as large and as bright as possible, and make it larger still, so that Canada may increase her influence for peace and assist in the progress of nations which expect a lot from us and look to us with hope, as we all know.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I should also like to make a contribution, but a very brief one, to this debate on external affairs.
view of the fact that time is fast going by, I shall be dealing tonight with only one question, and that is the presence in the United Nations of a score of French language African countries.
In 1960, when I was a delegate to the United Nations, I had been given special responsibility by the Minister of External Affairs of the day (Mr. Green) for establishing contacts with these new French speaking nations.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that Canada is a power that is respected by those young countries. Canada, because of its bi-ethnic character, because also of its cultural duality, has a very special role to play within this group of African states.
These African countries have full confidence in all our possibilities because in their
February 3, 1966

Supply-External Affairs eyes Canada is a country without territorial ambition and without a colonial past, and because we are in a good position to give these countries the benefit of our experience and of our knowledge in all fields.
The Canadian delegation to the United Nations must therefore multiply its efforts and representations so as to consolidate our friendship with these groups of young African countries. To this end, I would ask the minister to instruct our delegation to the United Nations to co-operate very closely with the countries of French Africa in various committees of the General Assembly and especially in the Fourth Commission where the problems of trusteeship are discussed.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Now, I know that at the present time we are very well represented in the Canadian delegation at the United Nations by the presence there of His Excellency the ambassador Paul Tremblay, whom we took the initiative of appointing to that post. I should also like to underline, because we used to work together, the dedication and effort shown by the present Under Secretary of State in 1961, when he headed the United Nations' legal committee. But those efforts and this work must be maintained and increased. Therefore, during the sessions of the General Assembly, the government should send a French speaking member as a delegate because, as I said, the General Assembly being made up as it is, it is essential to Canada's prestige and good reputation that French Canada be represented.
But our efforts and our foreign policy cannot be solely satisfied with establishing contacts with French speaking countries in Africa. Moreover, we must elaborate with respect to these countries a clearly defined policy in every field.
These young countries, Mr. Chairman, are at present undergoing economic development, in spite of the difficulties we know they are experiencing. Their political evolution is rather slow: to wit, the bloody revolutions of recent months.
It is undeniable that these countries are sadly lacking at the management level. They also need, to head their institutions, a greater number of men who are better qualified and more competent. Their natural resources have barely been tapped and even today, experts are called upon to develop them who often belonged to the former government or who come from the countries

which colonized them. Because there are strangers among their politicians, the young people of Africa are starting to doubt the independent status of their countries. This situation gives rise to unrest among the masses, as we have seen but recently.
It is of course obvious, Mr. Chairman, that those African countries may not have been quite ripe for independence. But in Africa, as elsewhere, complete political independence can never be achieved without economic independence.
It is in this sphere that Canada, on account of her bi-ethnical character, has a very special part to play in those French speaking countries. Until now, I do not think that our country has responded adequately to the appeal made by those countries. Here is what I believe the government should do, and without delay: First, contribute to the professional training of the young African people by offering more scholarships, so as to enable those students to attend Canadian universities. The government should also provide those countries with experts and technicians to help them in the development of their natural resources and also to enable them to strike an economic balance in their institutions.
I think also that the government should post commercial agents to these various countries in order that ours might take advantage of the many markets that are being organized in Africa at the present time.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, our government should appoint French speaking ambassadors in important French speaking African countries with a view to the establishment of economic ties and cultural relations through which all Canadians no doubt might be enriched.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Does the committee agree to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
February 3, 1966
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Sala-berry):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago most Quebec federal members received from the secretariat of that province a publication entitled "Quebec's Centennial Projects". Projects planned and to be carried out under the Nation's Centennial Act are well illustrated and include explanatory notes.
The presentation is in very good taste and gives an idea of the large commemorative buildings by which Quebec will mark the Centennial of Confederation. However, many have noticed and deplored the fact that the federal government's contribution is not too clearly indicated. It seems that, for every project, Ottawa's contribution-several million dollars-has not been made crystal clear.
It is true that in each case, the total cost, Quebec's share, the Centennial's share, and that of the promoter, as the case may be, are mentioned. The use of the word "centennial" to define Ottawa's contribution can easily cause some misunderstanding, more especially as in the first pages, reference is made to a centennial committee established by the Quebec government and made up solely of provincial representatives.
I might be urged to read the introductory notes and the legislative provisions appearing at the beginning of the pamphlet and not to impute motives unfairly. I agree, but I suggest that it would have been easy to be more specific, so as not to minimize the contribution of the federal government.
I have in hand, Mr. Speaker, the introductory notes as well as the legislative provisions and looking upon these two pages I realize that for the Quebec conservatory of which I shall speak later, the Ottawa and the Quebec governments will each contribute an appreciable amount. But in the other explanations, a centennial committee is mentioned which was created by the province of Quebec, and it is said that the province will co-operate with the Centennial Commission through the provincial secretary's office but nothing is said about the total federal government's contribution.
In the legislative provisions, reference is made to an act adopted by the province of Quebec. In the implementation of the act, co-operation is mentioned time and time again.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
One wonders, in glancing at this text, whether the province of Quebec has not, once again, preferred the opting out formula, all the more so that later on they even succeed in saying that to all those projects the province of Quebec, for its part, contributes $1 million more than the centennial commission.
I do not want to talk any longer about all these details, but it seems to me that a little more effort could have been made to further define our contribution.
All the more because it is obvious that in some counties, members of the provincial legislature have sought for themselves all the credit and publicity for those centennial projects. In the county of Beauharnois, among others, where the project comes under the responsibility of a private corporation, the member went all out so that there would be no reference to the federal government and even less to the municipal level of government. He sought to give instructions to the local committee in fields that were none of his business and even threatened to block the project if things did not go as he wanted them to. As for us, it is true that we do not have a member just like the others. But I know that other members of Parliament have had cause to complain of the lack of cooperation between the two levels of government.
Some will be under the impression that Quebec is always trying to monopolize the headlines and to take all the credit.
Mr. Speaker, how is it that federal representatives are more often than not treated like poor relations when joint projects are inaugurated? How is it that no federal representative was officially invited when the first shovelful of earth was turned up to mark the beginning of the construction work on the Quebec conservatory? Is not Ottawa contributing a sum of $2,800,000 to this centennial project in the capital of Quebec?
It is true that nowadays the onus is left to Ottawa and it seems quite fair to say that, if things are going badly, it is Ottawa's fault, but when things are going well, it is because of Quebec.
The purpose of my question to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) is not to start a controversy, but rather to underline a situation that could easily be remedied and to achieve thereby a better understanding and co-operation, especially on the eve of the centennial of confederation.

704	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, I think I should begin by referring to the publicity to be given to centennial projects, especially those undertaken under agreements with the ten provincial governments.
Those agreements include two clauses concerning the matter of advertising, but which make no provision for printed matter, whether releases, tracts or pamphlets, such as those mentioned by the hon. member. All they stipulate is that the contribution of both governments be mentioned on signs erected on the building sites, as well as on the permanent plaques and signs affixed as an indication of sponsorship.
Although it is not provided for in writing under the agreements mentioned, printed advertising has nevertheless been the subject of an unofficial agreement between the federal centennial commission and the proper provincial bodies. They have agreed that in all printed matter, appropriate mention will be made of the contribution of each government.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I may admit that the federal centennial commission is not entirely satisfied with the publicity given to the role it must play in these various projects. That is a general complaint not limited to any single province. Although I have not enough time to get into details tonight, I may say that the centennial commission is now taking action to correct the situation as far as possible.
A basic problem arises here, however, because to a certain extent, the federal commission is the last, among the parties concerned, to see the various projects in question and, consequently, cannot take part in the publicity given to any of the projects at certain initial stages. Any municipality, for instance, may announce its own decision as to the projects it intends to submit to the province. If the federal centennial commission sought to take part in the publicity at that stage, it would prejudge how the project would be received even before it had been officially submitted to the federal government for approval and financial contribution. It is the same thing at the next stage.
Again, at the second stage, the federal centennial commission is not in a position to announce the project, since it has not had the opportunity to decide about the project officially.

DEBATES	February 3, 1966
It is only when a request is issued by the province concerned and is received and approved by the centennial commission that the federal office is in a position to make known its decision to contribute financially to that project.
Every time, the decision is mentioned in a press release signed jointly by the Secretary of State and the provincial minister concerned.
If I may deal briefly with the objection raised by the hon. member concerning the publication entitled "Quebec's Centennial Projects"-
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.
[TranslationI


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, today I raised a very important matter which concerns all the members who represent rural areas. This matter and the way it will be treated, will determine the future of the dairy producers of Canada.
We know that this government will have to find means of providing a minimum price of $4 per hundredweight for industrial milk and this, at the very beginning of the next dairy year, that is next April 1.
To this end, the government has announced the following in the Speech from the Throne and I quote:
Legislation to establish a Canadian Dairy Commission will be placed before you.
Hon. members do not know yet the main points of that project; they are not yet sure if that new dairy policy which will be announced shortly will reach the minimum goal of $4 per hundredweight of industrial milk asked for by all dairy farmers in Canada. Let me tell you right away that this goal is reasonable and that we, on this side of the house, support it.
I would like to quote many speeches made during the election campaign, and the stands we took on that matter, views which we will fight for to the bitter end. That policy to pay $4 per hundredweight, we want to know what it is today, or as soon as possible.
If the minister intends to submit that resolution to the house shortly, I feel that it should also be studied in committee.
February 3, 1966
The minister should make it a point to explain the general purpose of such a bill to the committee if it is to make suggestions to him.
Moreover, I would ask the minister to submit to the committee the new dairy policy to be announced shortly, and here is why. This would not only afford him the opportunity of ascertaining the views of the members representing the various sections of the country but also help him to prepare the best possible bill, not for one but for many years to come.
This would also enable the committee to study the new dairy policy coming into force next April 1. I think the minister should accept this suggestion immediately, for he would thus have the co-operation of all the hon. members and the farm associations of the country.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would raise a question at this time, very briefly, as to the propriety of this question being on the late show, when objection was not raised at the time the answer was given, or at the time the Chair ruled that the matter was not urgent. In my reading of the rule, it is quite clear that oral notice must be given at that time.


An hon. Member:: No.


John James Greene: If that is not so, then whoever wrote out the wording of the rule does not know much about the English language. And I hope it was not the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Certainly, if that is not the meaning of that clause, there are a series of redundant words in it. However, that is beside the point. I am only too happy to attempt to answer my hon. friend's question. But I do think there should be some definitive ruling on these questions. In my opinion the meaning of the section should be worded much more clearly, and I would be pleased to discuss it with my hon. friend, to determine the meaning of the rules.
In regard to the question of the national dairy commission, and the dairy policy for the ensuing year, I would point out first of all to my hon. friend that we are discussing here the average price for manufacturing milk across Canada. In the previous year, before we came to office when the government of his party was in office, that was something like $2.84 per hundred. During this current year the average price, through policies that this government has instituted, in-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion eluding the supplementary payments and the deficiency policy, is at a national average of $3.50.
I would point out that this very appreciable improvement has been brought about in the short time we were in office, through the good policies of this government, which have, I think, appreciably improved the position of the farmer and of the producer of manufacturing milk.
I agree with my hon. friend that we have to do even better, and that is what we intend to do. I would point out also to my hon. friend that there have been discussions and negotiations with the provinces which have been directed to the end that there will be a national dairy policy. That policy is one that dairy people have been advocating for many, many years.
During the past year the province of Ontario has passed a Dairy Products Marketing Act, and I am very happy to relate, as the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario Hon. W. A. Stewart, recently stated, that this act was drawn in conjuction with, in co-operation with and after discussions with our federal officials, to make sure that the legislation would fit in with the principles and with the objectives of a national dairy commission.
I am also very happy to see that the province of Quebec from which my friend hails has announced in its Throne Speech that it too will pass legislation which will create a provincial milk marketing board. This will permit the setting of prices now in the province of Quebec, as well as in the province of Ontario which, in conjuction with federal policies, will enable a better price to be obtained for the manufacturing milk.
I can assure my hon. friend that to the best of my ability I am going to push the question of the national dairy policy and the national dairy commission. I hope that I will have the co-operation of my hon. friends opposite in this regard, and in respect of the national dairy policy of this year, which comes into effect on April 1, so that we will have that policy before this house in good time to give adequate and ample notice to all our farmers, that they may in turn make their own decisions in regard to production this year.
I will be very happy to take into consideration my hon. friend's suggestion that this matter be discussed by the agriculture committee of this house.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

707

Friday, February 4, 1966