1966-02-08

THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Yes, Mr. Speaker.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa, February 8, 1966
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today at 5.30 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to a certain bill.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as the question I am about to ask covers more than one department I will direct it to the Prime Minister. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has been made aware of a report which has been carried by U.P.I. Far East wire to the effect that Ho Chi Minh has written to India suggesting that that country, in its capacity as chairman of the International Truce Commission, take steps to bring about a peace conference on Viet Nam; and has a similar message been received by the Prime Minister on behalf of Canada.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I heard of this report only over the radio news during the lunch hour. I have no other information concerning it. Perhaps I should point out that the utilization of the commission in this respect has been something that the government of Canada has been considering and indeed has discussed with the representatives of other governments on the international commission for some weeks now.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say in addition to what he has already said whether Canada is among the neutral countries that have been approached by the Vatican in the last few days with a view to membership on a neutral mediation commission to bring about a settlement in the Viet Nam conflict?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs had had some discussion of the proposal made by His Holiness in this regard.


John George Diefenbaker: Has that discussion been with a representative from the Vatican?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: May I address a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him if his attention has been drawn to a warning issued by Mr. Louis Rasminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada, in which he says that it would be dangerous to ignore the warning signals of rising prices and increasing costs. May I ask the minister if his department is giving any thought to setting up the kind of administrative machinery that would make it possible to review these increases in the cost of living, with a view to ascertaining whether these increases are warranted or whether they are due to administered prices being taken advantage of by corporations that enjoy a near monopoly position.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks tSe Prime Minister and I have called for restraint in both prices and wages, which I think is the kind of advice that ought to be issued; because under these circumstances of great prosperity in which there is so little spare capacity, inflationary forces are increasing. The hon. member may recollect, too, that some time ago the government asked the Economic Council to make an inquiry into the relationship between prices, particularly in the administered field or what might be an administered field, and the general problem
February 8, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry of inflationary pressures in the economy as a whole. We are still waiting for that report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May 1 ask the minister when he expects to get this report of the Economic Council, and whether in the meantime his department is doing any research to ascertain whether these prices are warranted and justified in the light of the economic facts.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this department and other departments of the government have been watching these developments very closely now, because they are, as the hon. gentleman has said, of very great importance. I do not think it is necessary or desirable for the government, in view of the existence of the Economic Council, to set up any new machinery for this purpose.


Hon. J. W. Monieiih (Perth):: Would the minister table a survey of Canadian economic conditions published Monday by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if we have copies available we shall certainly do so. My colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs says that we shall have copies available. I shall see that copies are tabled.
[Translation1



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Can the hon. minister tell us if the statement in Colonel Jackson's letter, to the effect that all correspondence with air force headquarters must be written in English only, represents the policy of the Department of National Defence, and also if he is looking into the matter?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the statement I read yesterday in Hansard is indeed astonishing. I know of no such rule at the present time. I am looking into the matter and feel that, if there is such a rule, it should be changed.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of

Agriculture. The question is this. In view of the number of complaints from farmers who have not as yet received last year's milk subsidy cheques, can the minister tell us how soon all these cheques will be issued, and can he estimate how many remain to be issued?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: To date 125,370 cheques have been issued and, under the policy of this government, a total of $17,713,792 has been paid to the farmers of this country in supplementary milk payments. An additional 3,800 claims are in the final stages of processing and it is anticipated that cheques will go out by February 14. Another 3,000 claims are currently under investigation and are being processed. The handling of claims is a continuous process; at the present time an average of approximately 250 claims come in each day.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the minister in a position to tell us why so many of these payments have been so long delayed?


John James Greene: There is the question of propriety in making out the forms, the necessity of these forms being correctly filled out. Then there are all these applications coming in for the first time. When one considers that for the first time, under the policies of this government some $17 million is being paid to the farmers and that some 125,000 claims have been processed, I think hon. members will agree we are doing an extraordinarily good job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[Translation^


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us approximately when the second payment will be made to farmers, under the terms of last year's dairy policy?


John James Greene: I did not catch the whole of that question.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question: Could the minister tell us on what date the second payment will be made to farmers in accordance with last year's dairy
policy?


John James Greene: The second payment is, of course, not the same thing. It is a deficiency payment, not a supplementary payment. If the hon. member wishes to place a question on the order paper I will be pleased to answer it.
February 8, 1966	COMMONS



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Does the government now believe it possible to consider the repeal of the 11 per cent tax on building materials and production equipment in view of the report yesterday that the cost of house construction increased in the last year by 9 per cent?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have said on several occasions, I will take all representations made by the hon. gentleman just as seriously as I take those of all the hundreds of others who are making representations concerning the budget.



EXPO '67 PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT FLOODING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: I hope you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to preface my question by a brief explanation. Last Friday I addressed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He told me he would take it as notice. Yesterday I questioned the Minister of Trade and Commerce again. The question was transferred to the Minister of Transport, but in the end no answer at all was forthcoming.
The question was this. The island now in preparation for Expo '67 in Montreal, commonly known as Tile Ronde is, according to some engineers, in danger of being flooded this spring because of the high water level which exists at this moment, and which has existed since last fall, being equal to the normal spring level.
In view of the fact that $67 million of the Canadian people's money will be spent on this, I wish to ask the minister whether any measures are being taken by the government to correct the situation and prevent a disaster that could very easily happen in the spring through a rise in flood waters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member is referring to a situation that might only happen in the spring, I suggest the question be put on the order paper.


Raymond Langlois: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that might happen in the spring but the only time we could prevent it is now, and I do not see how the Minister of Transport could answer
DEBATES	871
Inquiries of the Ministry the question yesterday unless he decided to drink the St. Lawrence river. It is a matter that the government should take under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Raymond Langlois: The government should make improvements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Ontario.


Raymond Langlois: May I have an answer, Mr. Speaker? What is the government going to do?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can have an answer if he places his question on the order paper.


Mr. Boulanger:: A question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. No supplementary
question can be allowed in the circumstances.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
With regard to the floods in Pointe aux Trembles and Repentigny, as well as the risk of flood at lie Ronde, on the site of Expo '67, did the Minister of Transport not receive this morning from the cities of Montreal and Pointe aux Trembles a telegram saying that everything is under control, and that the risk of flood no longer exists in Pointe aux Trembles, Repentigny and lie Ronde?


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out, in all fairness, that another hon. member put a similar question earlier which was ruled out of order. I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, may I now put a question, following the statement made by the member for Mercier?
Has the Minister of Transport received a telegram, or some other message from the authorities of Expo '67 with regard to the water level at ile Ronde?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I would have to inquire about that, Mr. Speaker.
February 8, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



INCREASE IN CANADIAN DEFICIT UNDER AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of reports that are now available, to the effect that after the first year's experience of the Canada-United States auto pact the Canadian balance of trade deficit in this area has increased substantially instead of being reduced, what does the government intend to do to rectify this situation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, it will be apparent from the answers furnished to the house yesterday that the deficit caused by the automotive trade in Canada is very much less than it would have been without the advent of this agreement. The agreement has been in operation so far for a very limited period of time. The house will have noticed that the rate of increase of exports vastly exceeds the rate of increase of imports, and if this trend continues there will continue to be an improvement in the balance of payments position.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, if the objective was to reduce the imbalance of trade in the automobile industry by some $260 million, how can the minister achieve that objective if the deficit is increasing under this pact?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the question is argumentative and perhaps the first one was also, to some extent.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, it requires an explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it requires an explanation, but it does seem to me that the hon. member at this time is proposing an argument to the minister.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. While my question is of urgent local importance it is also of national significance. Has the minister received a brief and a petition from the Nelson Rod and Gun Club through the B.C. Wildlife Federation, requesting the government of Canada to establish a definite
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
anti-pollution policy with reasonable haste? If so, would the minister inform the house of his response to this petition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is also a very important and perhaps urgent question but it is perhaps more of local interest, and I would invite the hon. member to place it on the order paper.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. gentleman assure the house that the Board of Broadcast Governors will be brought to full strength before the sale of the CTV network and before the proposed transfer of channel 3 from Barrie to Toronto?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that we hope to fill the two vacancies on the board very shortly.
ITranslation1


Clément Vincent: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Has the right hon. Prime Minister considered the possibility of appointing a French speaking Canadian as vice president of the Board of Governors?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the decision that the Board of Broadcast Governors will make with regard to channel 3 and the sale of CTV, would the Prime Minister not consider it vital that the board be brought to its full strength on a permanent basis to ensure the political impartiality of any decision it may make?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question in respect of a general policy statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to interfere if the Prime Minister feels that the question should be answered, but I suggest at this time that it is of a rather general nature and should not be considered at the moment.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was on his feet ready to answer.
February 8, 1866	COMMONS DEBATES



HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday in answer to a question posed by the hon. member for Ontario he informed us that the commission report with regard to hate literature was in his possession, that it was being studied and that it would take a couple of months before it could be printed. Will the minister consider filing copies of the English and French versions of the report before it is printed so we may know what is contained in it?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, steps have been taken in an attempt to get the report printed by private enterprise. I will give consideration to the hon. member's suggestion.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I am not at all surprised that the printing job has been directed to private enterprise by the hon. minister, but this job may still take as long. Will the minister give to the house at least a summary of the recommendations contained in that report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a proper question, as it is of too general a nature.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka asked the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys what action he would take on the report of the International Joint Commission on pollution of the great lakes and the international sections of the St. Lawrence river. The minister stated that his first action would be to read the report over the week end. That is a commendable precaution. The week end having now intervened, is the minister in a position to indicate what action the government intends to take and, particularly, whether it proposes to institute talks with the governments of Ontario and the United States in respect of a solution to this very urgent problem?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was busy over the week end on
873
Inquiries of the Ministry something else which was also very profitable. May I take this question as notice.


Michael Starr: Did you say "profitable"?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister may still like to take my question as notice, but it would be interesting if he would elaborate on the activities he engaged in over the week end if they were more important than a consideration of this report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I gave him notice. When he replied to my motion for the production of a letter from the President of the United States to his government he said he would have to follow the proper procedure and obtain the consent of the President in this regard. Has he requested that consent, and has he received it as yet?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated yesterday that we had asked for that consent but that we had not as yet heard from the President.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister.
On a previous occasion, last September, did not the Secretary of State for External Affairs seek permission to table that letter and was he not denied this permission, again in September 1965, by the President of the United States?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising to ask a supplementary question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister inform the house when he asked the President for that consent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the department, employing the usual methods, did so shortly after the motion was accepted. I do not know the precise time.
February 8. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether he is aware that the Board of Transport Commissioners announced today that they will not require or order the C.P.R. to run its Dominion transcontinental passenger service this summer. If that is so, will he consider the propriety of the Board of Transport Commissioners making such an announcement at a time when there are petitions for appeals of this judgment before the Governor in Council?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the board announced that it had made a decision in this regard. The board is, of course, a court of record, and I am sure every hon. member would think it wrong of me to attempt in any way to direct its activities. It did occur to me that perhaps the decision coming today would not assist me much in getting my estimates through.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Are negotiations taking place at the present time between Canada and the United States with a view to increasing tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway? If this is so, can the minister assure the house that there will be an opportunity for public hearings on this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that at the present time discussions are going on between the two entities, as is required under the agreement with the United States. I do not believe they have yet reached the stage of negotiation between governments. I do believe that there is provision-perhaps I should not be speaking from memory-for public hearings.
[Translation1



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.

Is the minister currently inquiring into the effects on Canada of the new American monetary policy and if so, could he report on the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is quite general in scope and I would suggest he put it on the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE RESTRICTION OF INSTALMENT BUYING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, could I address a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister assure the house that no steps will be taken to restrict instalment buying, as was announced yesterday by the British government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, of course I cannot commit the government forever, but at the moment the government has no such intention.



TEXTILES-VALUATION FOR DUTY ON IMPORTS FROM CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has had time to consider my question of last Wednesday, February 2, concerning the valuation for duty of textiles imported from mainland China.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not yet received a report, Mr. Speaker, but as soon as I do I shall answer the question.

I should like to answer a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and the answer is as follows. Last week the hon. member inquired about the valuation for duty being applied to imports of textiles from mainland China, and asked whether the valuation for duty applied to Hong Kong might be used instead of the one applied to Japan.
My colleague the Minister of National Revenue has informed me that imports from mainland China, of a class or kind made in Canada, are being valued for duty on the same basis as similar Japanese goods or their equivalent. Where Japanese values cannot be established, the goods may be valued on the basis of the values of similar Hong Kong goods. The Chinese export corporations are,
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
of course, fully aware of this practice and, indeed, agreement has been given on their behalf to this procedure. I am advised that the agents of Chinese corporations may consult the Canadian customs authorities prior to importation, and the Canadian authorities stand ready to consider their views at any time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the answer the minister has given, I wonder if it would not be helpful at this time to invite the mainland Chinese to set up an office in Canada such as they have in a dozen other countries around the world, by means of which they could handle these problems more efficiently.


Mitchell William Sharp: The question of the establishment of offices, other than political offices, has been under consideration from time to time. This is a matter that is involved in our general relations with that country.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the information revealed in the Auditor General's report that fraudulent practices and irregularities have existed in the winter works incentive program, and in view of the fact that the province of Quebec refuses to have auditors examine their books in this regard, what steps has the minister taken to rectify this situation?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be reminded that the administration of the winter works program is not my responsibility.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Then may I direct my question to the appropriate minister. I presume that responsibility for this program has now been transferred to the minister of manpower.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I am waiting for the Auditor General's detailed report so we will know exactly what is wrong. We shall have to review the whole program in order that we can improve its effectiveness. The irregularities to which the hon. member has referred will be looked into. We will take the necessary steps to have irregularities corrected, and even to recover funds where they have been misused.
DEBATES	875
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
1Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the future minister of manpower.
By irregularities to be corrected, does the minister mean that the inspectors of the federal government will have to audit the books of the Quebec government, or else the federal government will not make any payment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is stated in the agreement signed with the provinces that the federal government can audit the books of the municipalities, and I fail to see why that should not be done everywhere.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister another supplementary question. Will the inspectors of the federal government audit the books of the municipalities or those of the Quebec government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, under the agreement-we know that the agreement is administered by the provinces-we get reports from the provincial auditor who is supposed to audit the books of the municipalities, but under the agreement, we also have the power to audit the books of the municipalities. The provincial governments agreed to that condition and it is only a matter of having it accepted.


Clément Vincent: too, Mr. Speaker, should like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell us if Quebec municipalities or the Quebec government objected to having their books checked?


Jean Marchand: No, the only thing I read in the report, Mr. Speaker, was that "they were reluctant to"-


Clément Vincent: Who was?


Jean Marchand: The province of Quebec.



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that March 31 will be here within six weeks and because of the situation that exists with regard to the municipal development loan fund, would the minister now tell us whether he has arrived
876	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry at a decision to extend the date of this program beyond March 31?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I expect within the next few days to have an interview with some of the provincial ministers who have asked for an opportunity to make representations.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. After that meeting will the minister advise the house of his decision?


Mitchell William Sharp: Immediately, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Ontario asked the principal part of my question, but would the minister give serious consideration to the fact that a number of people are planning to build hospitals in the province of Nova Scotia and had hoped to take advantage of the municipal development loan fund program?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it is quite clear from this sort of inquiry that the government would be most reluctant to change its policy, because if it did so it would mislead many people who had decided they could not take advantage of the scheme before March 31. If we change the rules now, these people are going to be disappointed.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the reply the minister has given, has the government made up its mind not to extend this program beyond March 31?


Mitchell William Sharp: I replied to the question in that way, Mr. Speaker, because I have already said both in this house and outside that it would take very strong arguments to convince the government to change a decision it had made, and I would not want to mislead anybody in the house if in fact the government confirmed its decision.


Michael Starr: To date has the government received what they consider strong arguments in favour of extending this date?


Mitchell William Sharp: It may be that stronger arguments will be presented by the provincial ministers. That is why I should like to hear them.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the fact that sometimes the planning of a hospital extends over a period of a year to 18 months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

DEBATES	February 8, 1966



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Has any decision yet been made by the government with regard to the setting up of a judicial inquiry into the Victor Spencer case? Is this man under surveillance at the moment, and has he made application for a visa to leave Canada?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: am not aware that Mr. Spencer has asked for a visa to leave Canada. As far as surveillance is concerned, as I have mentioned on several occasions surveillance is maintained on Mr. Spencer as the case requires. No decision has yet been made as to whether a judicial inquiry will be held in this case.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister assure us that before his estimates come before the house a decision will be made with reference to a judicial committee to look into the case of Victor Spencer?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when my estimates will come before the house, but I do know that the matter of holding a judicial inquiry is being studied, particularly by the Prime Minister.



SUGGESTED CHANGE IN METHOD OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice of which I have given him written notice. In view of the concern of the public and the Canadian Bar Association regarding the method of making judicial appointments in the past, is the government intending to introduce legislation or to appoint a committee to make representations concerning the appointment of county and supreme court judges on the basis of merit and ability, regardless of political affiliation?


Mr. Speaker:: I am just wondering if this question is acceptable at this time. I ask the hon. member to consider placing it on the order paper.
February 8, 1966



COMMONS DEBATES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question either to the Solicitor General, the house leader for the government or perhaps the Minister of Justice. Anyway, has the minister any report to make to the house concerning the meeting that took place among representatives of each party in this house regarding the way the debate on the death penalty will be dealt with?


An hon. Member:: What about your bill?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: No, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Transport, and it has to do with current television licence applications. There is a great trend toward chain ownership of television stations, and the policy of the department has always been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not give information, he should ask a question.


Barry Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I will come to the point. Will the minister not reverse the usual policy of his department by making available to the public information as to who owns what in the private broadcasting sector?


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


Barry Mather: After ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that an application has been made to the Department of Public Works for permission to construct a retaining wall around some illegal fill in the metropolitan Toronto area, can he assure the house that this will not be acted upon until
Inquiries of the Ministry the estimates of his department come before the house for consideration?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I can hardly give such assurance because I cannot control the time when my estimates will come before the house. I hope they come very soon. In any event, I will look into the matter.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of press reports that the Prime Minister is preparing a list of 14 new senators, I wonder if he would consider_


Mr. Churchill:: You are not on the list.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to catch all the interjections, but perhaps I can get to my question. Will the Prime Minister consider leaving empty the seats in the Senate which are now vacant as a means of reforming the Senate by getting rid of it?


Michael Starr: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-
Tisdale): I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. He made a statement in the house that he would like to see the standing committee on agriculture investigate farm machinery prices. Since the standing committees are now constituted, would he recommend right away that this committee investigate the cost of farm machinery in relationship to the price farmers receive for their products?
John James Greene: The question is under active consideration, Mr. Speaker, and I hope to have some word for the house very shortly.
878	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PARTICIPATION BY OPPOSITION PARTIES IN FUTURE CONFERENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['My right hon. friend says it has been continued too long. I reply that in the absence of a solution I do not believe it has continued too long. That is my view. I agree with him it is regrettable that this peace force has had to be continued for so long. However, I would sooner see Canada contribute moneys out of its treasury for the maintenance of peace than see an armed conflict that might bring disaster to the world.\nThe statement made the other day in the name of the governments of Greece and Cyprus-I am not now saying that there was an official statement but I have seen the report and I have my reason for putting it that way-attributing to both governments an agreement that the solution of the problem was enosis was objected to strongly by the government of Turkey. I would only hope that the restraint shown by Greece and Turkey in similar situations, will apply this time. The situation in Cyprus has remained relatively tranquil now for almost 12 months.\nProgress reported.']
Reid Scott: Last week the Prime Minister told me he was going to check into the suggestion of the leader of the Liberal party of Ontario that opposition parties be represented at dominion-provincial conferences. I wonder if he has had a chance to give consideration to that suggestion and whether he has reached a decision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I have checked into it, and I have discovered that in the past, provincial governments who took part in these conferences have been very reluctant indeed to have opposition members added as part of the provincial delegation. This attitude goes back many years and even includes the government of Saskatchewan, so I do not believe there is any purpose in pursuing it.

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



[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the 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; payments 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.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, last evening at ten o'clock I was indicating that over the period of time that NATO has been in existence there has developed outside of NATO itself trading blocs reflecting the understanding that nations in Europe in particular have

DEBATES	February 8, 1966
concerning their self-preservation, namely, that they can best accomplish stability and growth in their economies by way of entering into trading relationships with other nations. As a result we have seen the development of the European Common Market, the European Free Trade Association and lately the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. This was one of the concepts envisaged for NATO on its formation in 1949 but it was one which was never permitted to develop within NATO because of powerful voices in NATO, notably that of the United States, which insisted that it remain purely a military organization and military machine.
So far as Canada is concerned, we have remained aloof from this growing economic relationship between countries. We have maintained our attachment to NATO only in the military sense and have not had any significant relationships with the trading blocs which have developed with the exception, of course, of being a member of the Commonwealth which dates back some years. I doubt very much that Canada's continued participation in NATO beyond the 20 year period will bring any measurable benefit to Canada itself. Because of the declining importance of maintaining a military machine in western Europe I doubt very much that Canada's continued participation in NATO will be of any great value to western Europe.
It seems to me, inasmuch as the expiration of the NATO agreement is approaching that Canada should be considering what its role should be in regard to NATO, and it also seems to me that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should give his opinion to the committee at this time as to just what Canada hopes to do when the 20 year period of NATO's existence rolls around in the spring of 1969. True, that is some three years or more away but that is not too long a period of time to start planning for our relationship with an organization such as NATO.
These are purely my own opinions, but inasmuch as there has been a complete failure because of lack of forcefulness on the part of certain nations in NATO, Canada being one of them, to develop within the NATO structure any form of economic alliance which would establish a stronger bulwark against intrusion by the Soviet bloc nations, it seems to me that our participation in NATO has come to an end and that it would serve no useful purpose to continue it beyond 1969.
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
I would seriously recommend that the government think in terms of withdrawing from NATO at that time and for the reasons I have outlined, namely: First, there has been a complete failure to develop within NATO any sort of economic interrelationships between the member countries. Second, this is the strongest bulwark which can be developed against intrusion by the Soviet bloc. Third, we are serving no great purpose for ourselves or for western Europe in remaining in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
NORAD is an entirely different sort of international relationship. The term of the agreement will expire some time in the spring of 1968, just two years hence. Likewise, I think that the government of Canada has a responsibility here first of all to outline to the house and to Canada what its feelings are with respect to continued participation in NORAD and, second, to take whatever steps it can to obtain the particular end which it has in view.
Again, for my part I think we are serving no valid function within the NORAD structure except to place our armed forces under the authority and dictation of another nation, the United States, which is the other party to NORAD. There are no pretensions about NORAD; it is purely a military structure. There were no thoughts in any way about its activating itself in any economic or social manner; it has a purely military structure. Its effect is to place Canadian troops under the control of United States military personnel and under the control and authority of the United States government should that government decide it is necessary to bring into play the military forces of the strategic air command and other sections of the United States national defence structure.
I would say that nearly all of the parties in Canada, some to a greater extent than others, have periodically over the years sought to advance the concept of participating in an international military sense only through the United Nations. We sought to advance the concept of a so-called world police force to assist in dampening altercations which arise between nations, to assist in preventing difficulties between nations from developing into global war, and to attempt to expand our concept of law enforcement within the nation to a world concept. I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has this concept in mind and certainly his predecessor, Mr. Green, also had it in mind. Many attempts have been made in the United Nations to
DEBATES	879
Supply-External Affairs
establish the type of world police force to which I am referring.
Having that goal and objective in mind, it seems to me we are going in the opposite direction if we continue our participation in the North American air defence structure. This participation runs counter to what we envisage by way of a world police force.
I have outlined these two ideas, as I said earlier, purely in a personal way. To me they are extremely serious considerations. One concerns the growth of economic trading blocs in the world from which Canada has remained completely aloof. As a result we are noticing that our economy is becoming controlled to an increasingly large extent by other nations, notably the United States. The second is that our participation in NORAD runs contrary to our ideas and hopes for a world police force.
I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he takes the opportunity to wind up this debate, to make some comments about these proposals. I for one am interested, as I am sure other hon. members are, and certainly the people of Canada are interested, in what is going to happen so far as Canada's relationships with NATO and NORAD are concerned.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, before this item and the other external affairs estimates are passed I should like to make a few observations relating to a number of crucial matters concerning foreign affairs. The first is that I believe a great many people in this country will be astonished and dismayed at the position which the Conservative members of the house have taken with respect to the application of economic sanctions against the illegal and racist government of Ian Smith in Rhodesia. My good friend, the hon. member for Oxford, who sits across the aisle from me and for whom I have a great respect, began this debate by saying that he thought the government was too hasty in saying "me too" to the United Kingdom and other countries before looking into this matter. Yet, Mr. Chairman, he seems to have overlooked the fact that the United Nations called upon its members to give support to Great Britain in seeking whatever economic measures could be applied in order to bring this illegal regime into line. It is astonishing that the government of Canada should be accused of saying "me too" to the United Kingdom and other countries when, indeed, it was following the request of the United Nations. If ever
February 8. 1966

Supply-External Affairs we are to have peace in the world, then surely it will have to come as a result of united action by the members of the United Nations in applying whatever economic sanctions are necessary in order to prevent an outbreak of war.
I can well imagine the furor there would have been from the same gentleman if the government had refused to support the recommendations of the United Nations.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would my hon. friend mind not asking it just now or at least waiting until I have got to the end of my remarks? I have only a limited period of time in which to speak.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition, at page 752 of Hansard, asked the question "whether any nation of the Commonwealth has the right to say to any other nation within the Commonwealth that what they are doing is wrong." This comes strangely from a man who, when he was Prime Minister, was applauded by all of us for supporting the ouster of South Africa from the Commonwealth because of its apartheid policies.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege to say that that statement is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. At no time did I indirectly or at all support the removal of South Africa. At no time was such a stand taken. South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth when it became a republic. At the time it withdrew it was agreed that if South Africa wished to rejoin the Commonwealth the question whether it should be admitted would then be considered. The hon. gentleman, I know, quite unintentionally completely misrepresented what took place.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of being diverted by a legal quibble.


John George Diefenbaker: By the truth, sir, by the truth.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are many nations in the Commonwealth which are republics. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition, in the position he takes, says he did not vote to oust South Africa. Certainly he was opposed to having South Africa readmitted to the Commonwealth on the ground that it was pursuing the policy of apartheid. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the principle is exactly the same.
The Leader of the Opposition says that of course South Africa was different, and I

agree with him. This case is worse than South Africa. In the case of South Africa it at least was a self-governing dominion that was dealing with a matter under its own jurisdiction. The Ian Smith regime was a quasi-colonial regime in which the governor, as the Queen's representative, had wielded very extensive power. Ian Smith and his regime seized this power and flouted and humiliated the governor. They took over powers to which they had no constitutional right and did so not in order to secure independence for the people of Rhodesia but in order to seize power on behalf of less than 6 per cent of the population of Rhodesia and in order to enforce their will upon the other 94 per cent of its population. Therefore when the Leader of the Opposition says that it is not the same as South Africa I would agree with him. It is worse than South Africa.
As found on page 753 of Hansard the Leader of the Opposition had this to say:
What authority has the Prime Ministers' Conference of the nations of the Commonwealth to say this thing has got to stop, when it is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of one of the nations of the Commonwealth?
The British government, Mr. Chairman, has always maintained that this matter came exclusively within its jurisdiction. Prime Minister Wilson, appearing before the United Nations, asked the United Nations to leave this matter with Great Britain but to give Great Britain every possible support in applying economic sanctions in order that force might not be necessary.
I would remind the committee that both the Prime Ministers' Conference representing most of the nations of the Commonwealth and the United Nations pledged themselves to support Great Britain in applying these economic sanctions. Surely the prime ministers of the Commonwealth have the right to say on behalf of their respective nations that they disapprove of an illegal seizure of power and that the imposition of racial discrimination by 6 per cent of the population upon 94 per cent is not right. Surely they have the right to pledge themselves both on behalf of the Commonwealth and on behalf of the United Nations to impose the necessary economic sanctions to bring down an illegal regime.
It is understandable for the Conservative party of Great Britain to have a secret sympathy for the Smith regime. The Conservative party has always had that sympathy. The right wing of the Conservative party in Great Britain is led by the Marquis of
February 8, 1968	COMMONS
Salisbury whose grandfather was prime minister of Britain during the period when they were fighting the Zulu war and during the period of the Jameson raid in the South African war, all of which have left scars which have not yet healed. We are still paying part of the price for these unfortunate military adventures. I can well understand that the Conservative party in Great Britain has this sneaking liking for the small white minority which wants to impose its will upon "the lesser breeds within the law".
That, surely, Mr. Chairman, should not be the attitude of the Conservative party in this country, the party which has been handing out signed copies of the Bill of Rights, which has talked a great deal about the equality of all men, irrespective of race, creed or colour. It is illogical for that party now to stand up in this house and criticize the government of Canada for imposing economic sanctions and supporting Great Britain, the Commonwealth and the United Nations in trying to upset an illegal regime in order that a government may be elected there that will give to the people of Rhodesia the rights to which they are entitled, the right of self-determination and the right of equality before the law.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I think our friends have to realize that the world is changing. It has moved a long way from the days of the white man's burden. In the United States the negro is successfully winning equality of rights and status. The Afro-Asian nations are moving along the road toward the right of self-determination. They will make mistakes of course, as our forefathers made mistakes in working out the process of democracy. The coloured people of the world are not going to be dominated by small white minorities.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek told us we ought to stop apologizing for being white. I am not asking any one to apologize for being white. But if any one would take the trouble to read the history of Africa and Asia over the last century he would apologize for some of the things which have been done by the whites. When members stand up in this house and by implication give their support to an illegal, racist government they are demonstrating how far out of step they are with the times in which we live.
It is not enough for the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek to describe the remarks of the hon. member for York South as being subtle Communist propaganda, there
DEBATES	881
Supply-External Affairs are a great many people in the world today who are not communists but who are demanding equal treatment for all men irrespective of race, colour or creed. It is significant that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek should have said he was ashamed that Canada did not support Great Britain in the Suez crisis but is now against supporting Great Britain when that country is trying to protect the rights of the African majority in Rhodesia. I think it is significant that when Great Britain was trying to hold on to its colonial empire in Egypt the Conservative party was prepared to back those efforts but that when Britain is standing up for the rights of the black people of Rhodesia members of the Conservative party say the Canadian government was too hasty in following a policy of "me too" and applying economic sanctions against the illegal regime in that country.
The second matter on which I should like to say a few words is Viet Nam and recent developments in connection with the conflict there. The subject has already been covered extensively and I do not wish to make any extensive reference to it.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman tell us whether he agrees with the attitude taken by the British government on Viet Nam?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The answer is simple. I have answered that question in the house repeatedly. I am opposed to the position which is taken by the British government with regard to Viet Nam and I do not agree with their support of United States foreign policy. I have spent many hours discussing this matter with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and he knows my views. My views are shared by a great many people in Great Britain in both the Labour party and other political parties.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are safely on both sides of the fence now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can understand the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre being safely on both sides of the fence. He has been straddling the fence so long that he has some of the spikes in his soul. We are not concerned about being on both sides. We are concerned with being on the side of what we think is right irrespective of whether that coincides with the view of the British government or any other government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Wait till Harold Wilson hears that.
February 8# 1966

Supply-External Affairs


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The meeting which has been taking place in the past tew days in Honolulu between President Johnson of the United States and Prime Minister General Ky of South Viet Nam and the statements which have emanated from that meeting have been far from reassuring. I do not think anyone can read the reports published so far without feeling we have entered a stage where a further escalation of military activity in Viet Nam is likely. I wish to urge the government again to make the strongest possible protest against military escalation at this time because I believe that in the not too distant future, the United States will have passed beyond the point of no return.
It is often said the great danger is that the United States will come into confrontation with China. This, of course, is a real danger. Some of her best military experts in days gone by have warned the United States against becoming embroiled in a land war in Asia.
But there is another danger which has not been so readily recognized. This is the danger of a confrontation with the Soviet Union. Recently, Mr. Shelepin, the Soviet representative in Hanoi, announced publicly that the U.S.S.R. would honour its commitment to North Viet Nam in the event that Hanoi, Haiphong and the industrial areas of that country were bombed. The great danger as I see it is that if as a result of the negotiations now going on in Honolulu the United States decides to escalate its bombing of North Viet Nam in the Haiphong and Hanoi areas this will leave the Soviet Union with only two alternatives. One would be to ignore the situation and be accused of deserting its friends. The result would certainly be a loss of face in Africa and Asia. The second would be to give active military assistance to North Viet Nam and this could bring the two nuclear giants into confrontation. If this were to happen we could be embarked on a period of homicidal madness which might well menace the survival of mankind.
I think we have to appeal to the United States to stop the bombing in North Viet Nam and be prepared to accept two conditions essential to any successful peace negotiations. The first is that we must be prepared to treat with the National Liberation Front which at the present time controls some 60 per cent of the area of South Viet Nam and over 50 per cent of the population. It will not be sufficient for the United States to say that the National Liberation Front can have some representation on the delegation from North Viet Nam.

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
If the National Liberation Front speaks for a substantial section of the population of South Viet Nam, surely they will have to be included officially as representatives, not necessarily the sole representatives, of the people of South Viet Nam. This, it seems to me, is a prior condition to any successful negotiation, and one which the United States government has never yet explicitly spelled out.
The second condition is that the United States must be prepared to forgo its oft-repeated statement that any negotiations must result in an independent, sovereign state of South Viet Nam being established. That is in complete violation of the commitment contained in section 7 of the 1954 Geneva Accord to which the United States itself on July 21, 1954, gave unilateral concurrence. That agreement provided that the temporary military line of demarcation was to be provisional subject to a free vote to allow the Vietnamese themselves to decide whether or not the temporary boundary would become a firm boundary or whether the people of Viet Nam desired to have the North and South amalgamate into a single state. There can be no hope of any successful negotiations until the United States is prepared to return to the spirit of the Geneva Accord to allow the people of Viet Nam to decide for themselves whether or not they want South Viet Nam to remain as an independent state or whether they want to merge these two countries into the position they were in prior to 1954.
In his newspaper article last week Mr. Charles Lynch said that he had information to the effect that the United States embassy in Ottawa was seriously contemplating lodging a protest with the government over the speech made by the hon. member for York South a week ago today. I do not know whether or not Mr. Lynch's information is accurate. I hope it is not, but I want to say that our friends in the United States embassy should know that they are not located in South Viet Nam or in the Dominican Republic. They are located in a free, independent, sovereign nation and we, the members of this House of Commons, reserve the right not only to criticize our own government but to criticize any other government or any policy, especially when we think that the future peace and security of the world is involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
February 8, 1966	COMMONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The other matter I wish to say a word about concerns Canada joining the Organization of American States. As I pointed out in a previous debate, the Prime Minister in recent months made two references to this matter, one at Banff, Alberta, and the other in Kingston, Jamaica, in which he indicated that the government is very favourably disposed toward Canada becoming a member of the O.A.S., and the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself has said that he believes it is in Canada's best interests to join that organization. If the government feels this way, it ought to tell us why it is in Canada's best interests. It ought to be frank with parliament and with the Canadian people and tell us what its intentions are with respect to this matter. Above all, we want to know that we will not come back to a new session of parliament to be presented with a fait accompli and find that Canada has already become a member of this organization.
I have some recollection, as do most hon. members, of the fact that the government signed a treaty with the United States to place Bomarc missiles on Canadian soil. That treaty was never referred to parliament. There was not even a resolution asking parliament to endorse the government's action in this regard. As a matter of fact, had the members of this party not moved an amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne there would have been no opportunity for us to discuss and debate that very far reaching decision and the action taken by the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was a non-confidence motion. It was all right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was a motion expressing our regret that the government had taken this action. We did not claim that it was a non-confidence motion. We simply asked for an expression of the opinion of the house regarding the government's action in this regard. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre might be well advised to read the debate which took place on that occasion and see how he spoke and voted.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I supported you then. You were good then.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a matter of fact, I can imagine that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was very glad to vote for that amendment, because I think the record of his party with reference to the Bomarc missile incident and the events preceding the signing [DOT]of that agreement are things he would prefer
DEBATES	883
Supply-External Affairs to forget. I urge that the government give some clear statement to the house. I hope the minister will do it in this debate or when his estimates for the next fiscal year come up.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, let us have it now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I ask for such a statement because uncertainty prevails in the country and we do not want to have the government take action and afterwards ask us to place our stamp of approval on something it has done without consulting parliament.
I believe it was the hon. member for Royal who asked the minister whether something could be done with respect to the franchise for Canadians who are employed in embassies overseas. I want to compliment the minister and say that he and his predecessors have been extremely fortunate in the high quality of men and women who have occupied Canadian embassies throughout the world. We have good reason to be proud of the kind of people who represent us in the different nations of the world but I have never been able to understand why we deprive these able citizens of the right to exercise the franchise.
Our military personnel overseas are quite properly given the opportunity to cast their votes in an election; yet here are men and women trained in public affairs, familiar with political science, interested in political questions, highly intelligent, who wish to cast their votes but are denied the right to do so. It does not seem that there are any serious technical difficulties involved in enabling them to vote.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
If we are able to collect ballots from military personnel scattered around the world, surely it should also be possible to collect ballots from our various embassies. I know that the minister has had a great many problems on his mind since he took office but I do hope that this is one of the things to which he will give some attention and that he will recommend to his colleagues that the Canada Elections Act be amended so that those who represent Canada in various parts of the world will be able to feel that they have some part in our democratic procedure and some voice in electing the government they serve.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take part in this debate but I was stimulated into doing so in the last few minutes while listening to the leader of the New Democratic party. I was rather happy to
February 8. 1966

Supply-External Affairs hear him clarify his position as to the attitudes taken by Prime Minister Wilson. On the one side of the fence in reference to the problem in Rhodesia he was in support of the British government. On the other side of the fence in reference to Viet Nam he was opposed to the position of the British government.
The leader of the New Democratic party referred to the sort of ultra-Conservative atmosphere of the Conservative party. I have heard him do this on other occasions during his term of office as premier of Saskatchewan. I have heard hin go back two or three hundred years in referring to the Conservatives in Great Britain. I speak for myself as a Canadian born in Canada. I am a Conservative and I am a Conservative Canadian. I believe that on occasions individuals such as myself should stand in this House of Commons and remind parliament and the people of Canada about the attitudes expressed by those people steeped in socialism who call themselves the New Democratic party.
It might have been of value to the leader of the New Democratic party had he attended that meeting at which Prime Minister Wilson asked the leftwingers of his party: Do you want the Communists to win? I ask the leader of the New Democratic party today whether he has any leftwingers in his party. He talks about the rightwingers in our party, but sometimes when I listen to some members of his party it seems to me that they are more sympathetic to the viewpoint opposed to the west than otherwise.
You may ask, Mr. Chairman, why I make that statement and what is my premise. Prime Minister Wilson looked at some of his leftwingers one day, when they were taking the same position that has been taken by the leader of the New Democratic party, the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and asked them whether they wanted the Communists to win. That question seemed to satisfy the leftwing members of the Labour party because they supported the prime minister by their votes in the British House of Commons. I think it is high time the leader of the New Democratic party directed a similar question to some of the members of his party. Perhaps he should ask them which side they are on.
I listened last evening with some interest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. She referred to the horrible atrocities of war, the bombing and all the inhuman things that

accompany war. There is not a member on either side of this house who does not sympathize in this regard, but surely we must be realistic.
Like other members of my party, including my leader, on many occasions I have been critical of United States policy. Around Christmas or New Year's the United States launched what they called a peace offensive. They sent out feelers in an attempt to get both sides together to discuss and find a solution to the Viet Nam problem. They did this with the hope that the bombing would not be renewed and that the war there would not be extended throughout Asia. We all have this fear and hope that this will not occur.
I am sure the minister will agree with me when I say that the United States commenced a peaceful offensive at that time. Perhaps that term as used by newspapers and periodicals is not the term the President of the United States wanted used, because one wonders whether peace can be attained by an offensive action of any kind, but the fact is that the United States did, to use that term, inititate a peaceful offensive.
Following the action taken by the United States, did the rulers of Hanoi and the people of Peking get together? Did they attempt to do anything to discuss the problem in Viet Nam? Are the people of South Viet Nam and other parts of Asia going to succumb to Communism? One only has to remember the days when no one in Europe did anything about the Nazi threat. Hon. Ramsay Macdonald, at that time prime minister of Great Britain, Baldwin and many others peddled peace talk throughout Europe and the world just as salesmen sell life insurance, but eventually Naziism took over practically the whole of Europe. Great Britain and the Commonwealth stood alone during those years.
We must learn from the mistakes made by others in the past. Surely we are not going to make the same mistake in Asia as we made in Europe. If we do, Communism will eventually spread into Cambodia, Laos, South Viet Nam and perhaps Australia. Where do we stop these people and when do we stop them? Is there not some onus upon us to do so now? I wish the leader of the New Democratic party would stand up and tell us whether he believes there is some onus on those who believe in the Communist philosophy to sit down and discuss these matters.
Some of the members of the New Democratic party seem to be sympathetic to the
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
viewpoints of the Communist propagandists across the country. I am not going to call them Communists by any means. That would be the last thing I would do.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I have not participated in the discussions on foreign affairs, but I want to appeal to you in this regard. Is there no way by which members of this house can protect themselves from cheap McCarthyism smear tactics such as displayed hy the hon. member?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member has a question of privilege. As soon as an individual stands up for what he believes and sets forth the western philosophy, all these people who are pseudosocialists shout "McCarthyism". If ever an individual had an honest question of privilege I have one in this regard, but I do not intend to get into the niceties of that argument.
As soon as a man like myself stands up and states the things about which many people of this nation are thinking these socialists pin a label on him. The leader of the New Democratic party has stated that he has some idea of public opinion in Canada. Let me point out to him that the people of Canada are seriously worried about what is happening. They are afraid that the Communist and United States authorities are not sitting down together to discuss these problems and iron out their differences.
I should like to ask what the government's position is in this regard. On several occasions I have asked the government about the contents of a letter written by the President of the United States to the Canadian government. I have asked what assistance was requested of Canada by the United States government, whether it was economic, moral or military. During the election campaign the hon. member for Davenport, the former minister of finance, said that the Canadian government had been asked for military assistance. When I asked the Prime Minister early in this session whether the government had been asked for military assistance he said that there had never been any request for such help.
I have continued to search for this information by way of a notice of motion for the production of documents. The Secretary of State for External Affairs now says that he must obtain the consent of the President of
DEBATES	885
Supply-External Affairs the United States before tabling that information. Let me ask the minister how it was that the former minister of finance and member of the privy council gave out that information during the election without that consent. The only conclusion I can draw is that that man, a former member of the government and a privy councillor, is a man of integrity and that he would not give out that information without the consent of the President of the United States. Surely one cannot believe that he would break such a confidence.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Chairman, I have said that we must obtain the concurrence of the President before tabling this information. We have not received that concurrence. I am sure my hon. friend will accept that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Why do you and the
Prime Minister disagree on the interpretation?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, that is the point. Why did the Prime Minister disagree?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am sure my hon. friend will accept my statement, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Both sides are mad at me now. I have never refused to accept the illustrious and distinguished minister's words, because they are always subject to many interpretations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: However, I say to him it is
a strange thing that in the house the Prime Minister said there was no request for military help and during the election the former minister of finance said that the President had asked Canada for military aid. I should like to hear the minister clarify that contradiction. I know the minister could give some clarification because his understanding and comprehension of these matters is much deeper than that of many members of the House of Commons. However, it seems such a strange contradiction. It seems very strange that now, a former minister of the crown having already given us information with regard to this letter, we have to go back to the President after the secret has been disclosed and ask if it is all right to make it known after all. Those are the two points I wanted to make in reference to Viet Nam, Mr. Chairman.
February 8. 1966

Supply-External Affairs
Finally, 1 should like to say a few words about the position taken by the New Democratic party members who seem to be very sensitive in this regard. The former member for Port Arthur said frequently that my attack was against socialists. I have looked through Hansard and I find that I made one speech against socialism. I have never really quite appreciated whether the New Democratic party was a socialist party, a new party or what it was. But they are the same people who in Saskatchewan believed in socialism and tried to implement it. They are the same people who were preaching this kind of propaganda in 1937, 1938 and 1939 with reference to what happened in Europe. They took the same position then as they are now taking with regard to Asia.
However, Mr. Chairman, as soon as the whole of Europe fell under the Nazi heel and the Nazis made their attack in June, 1941, on Russia, the war became an honourable one for them and to them a crusade for the freedom of the average man. This is the point I wish to make this afternoon: Is there not some onus on the other side? Is there not some onus on the Communists to assist the United States in calling a conference so as to terminate the bombing in Viet Nam? Are the United States soldiers to continue to allow industrial centres to be stocked with military and industrial goods that will be used to take the lives of those soldiers fighting against Communism? Is there no way of stopping this situation from developing? That is the question I ask this afternoon.
If war is not ended in this part of the world, have not people got to come to grips with the situation? Can you have a partial war? If you could agree not to bomb and not to do this and that, you might get right back to using bows and arrows, and if you could get that far you should be able to bring about peace. I ask, Mr. Chairman, does that party want the western world to use that kind of weapon while the Communists use the other kind? Any thinking person wants peace, but peace can only be brought about by mutual agreement and a little give and take by both sides.
I think it is time that we put the United States viewpoint forward in this House of Commons. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I have not always agreed with the position the United States has taken with reference to various matters. But they are now in Viet Nam. I should like to hear what the Leader of the New Democratic party has

to say about this. Does he believe that the United States troops should pack up and get out of Viet Nam?


Mr. Bigg:: Yes, he does.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the United States gets out of Viet Nam and the Communists go into Cambodia and finally Australia, does he believe they should be allowed to go all the way to America? Those are the questions I ask. We can be great philosophers in debate but when you begin asking cold, realistic questions you puncture those socialist arguments. I believe they are sincere men. I think some of them get up and really believe that what they are saying will accomplish peace. But I should like to ask them this question once more, Mr. Chairman. What do they believe should happen? Should the United States pack up and leave Asia to the Communists? Where do we stop Communism? When do we sit down and talk and when do we stand up and fight?


Mr. Priflie:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member for Bow River a question before he concludes his remarks? Would he include his colleague, the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona, in that general condemnation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have known the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona for some time. He is a good friend of mine and I have always respected his opinion. I know also that he is the kind of man who would respect my opinion. Where everybody thinks alike there is no thinking, and there is some thinking in the Conservative party.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I was in Mexico a few weeks ago and while there my wife bought some presents for our grandchildren. Among them were a number of small straw men which we brought back. I regret that I have not one in the house today but I would be delighted to give one to the hon. member for Bow River.


Robert Muir: Funny.


Colin Cameron: I have no particular objection to being called a Communist; I have been called a Communist on many occasions. I also had no real personal objection to the Mexican authorities attempting to take a photograph of me and my wife when we were proceeding to Cuba. I did protest against it, however, as a Canadian citizen and pointed out that the Mexican government had given me a visa to-
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
go to their country, that I had not broken their laws while I was there and as far as I was concerned it was none of their damned business where I was going after that, and I refused to allow photographs to be taken. However, as I say it does not concern me very much if they take a picture of me and have it put in the files of the F.B.I.


An hon. Member:: What would happen if you went to Russia?


Colin Cameron: I do not know; I have not been to Russia. But I have been to countries which are under what are called Communist regimes and I find I have very little in common with them. We use these terms very loosely today and no one uses them more loosely than the hon. member for Bow River. I have been in countries that are under what are called Communist governments. I do not like what I see there, but the one that I found most-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Would he be prepared to tell us if he considers that the forces of North Viet Nam are influenced by the Communists?


Colin Cameron: Do I what?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does the hon. member feel that the forces of North Viet Nam are influenced by the Communists?


Colin Cameron: Of course they are.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All right. Then we agree.


Colin Cameron: Of course they are. Who would for a moment deny it? As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, I have been in a number of countries that are under the control right now of Communist regimes. The one in which the circumstances of life for the people are to my mind such as to be least unattractive to us is a country which has not permitted any infiltration or interference in its internal affairs either from the east or the west. I am referring to Yugoslavia.
I was most recently in a country that is now ruled by a communist government, namely, Cuba, and I found the situation there extremely sad. The saddest part of it was that the actions of the United States had completely destroyed the influence and the power of the Cuban people who were in sympathy with the Castro revolution and its
DEBATES	887
Supply-External Affairs original aims and had cut the ground completely from underneath them.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Explain.


Colin Cameron: Here is one of the prime examples in the world of the attempt to control a social and economic development that is not compatible, shall I say, with the immediate business interests of the more important capitalist countries of the world. It is an extremely sad situation that Cuban citizens who were in accord, as every decent, intelligent Cuban citizen had to be, with the aim of the Castro revolution to overcome the appalling situation of the Cuban people under Batista and to advanced reforms that must be taken by countries where conditions such as those existing in Cuba-
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Colin Cameron: Not just now, no. You will have plenty of time to ask questions or speak yourself later. I just want to point this out. Here was an attempt, admittedly not by armed force except in a rather halfhearted manner but an equally devastating attack on the Cuban people and the Cuban revolution which was attempting to solve some of the problems of the Cuban people, and the result has been the imposition of a Communist regime in that country. As I say, the results are extremely sad.
I suggest that we must regard the situation in Viet Nam from the point of view of the Communist half of the world. I have never been among those who consider it is the intelligent thing to adopt a position of certainty. You and I do not like Communist regimes. We object, and quite rightly from our point of view, to the suppression of human freedoms and human liberties that takes place under such regimes. On the other hand, who are we to tell the people in another part of the world the sort of regime that will suit their particular conditions? How do we know what suits them? Before we do that, we had better look very closely at some of the results of our own society. I think we should ask ourselves this question: How is it that we were able to accept-I found it rather difficult myself to accept but I noticed that members of the Liberal and Conservative parties did, with the exception of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona-the proposition that the United
February 8* 1966

Supply-External Affairs States had a right and duty to prevent a different type of economic and social organization being established in the western hemisphere without at the same time according them the right to prevent a different kind of social and political organization being established in Asia?
What is the difference, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, from the point of view of an objective observer of human affairs? What is the difference in right between the Communist half of the world refusing to accept the presence of belligerent forces from North America, upholding and seeking to spread a certain tye of economic and social organization, and the United States taking the position that they cannot allow a Communist form of social organization to gain a foothold in Latin America?
I suggest also to those who are today telling us that we must at some point stand up and fight to oppose the spread of Communism that they should consider just how successful that is likely to be. I suggest to them that surely it is only realism to grasp the fact that you cannot destroy an idea by violence. You can destroy men, women and children and the means by which they live but you cannot destroy an idea. The only way you can overcome an idea is by the successful demonstration of a different idea.
I am convinced that if we of the western world had been able to demonstrate to all the world that the form of society which we have now is always, in every circumstance, the most desirable one for human beings, then the Communist idea could not have taken root. The Communist idea grew up and grows up today in every area where there is a serious economic condition which denies a decent livelihood to human beings. I think we must admit that some of the examples we offer the rest of the world of the manner in which our society operates are not such as to cause other peoples without our traditions to decide that our ideas are the ones they wish to follow.
I merely remind you of some of the great sores in our so-called free enterprise system. There is the fact that even though you and I live in the second most wealthy country in the world, people who are not Communists tell us that 25 per cent of our people are living at or below the poverty line. Do you think that escapes the notice of people in the Communist half of the world? Do you think it escapes the notice of those people that we 
appear unable to cope with the corroding influences of delinquency in our society?
Do you think our society has been revealed to all of these people as the apogee of human achievement, that this is the best way in which people can organize themselves? Why should it? I again urge the members of the house, Mr. Chairman, to think very carefully before they too rashly endorse some of the policies that are now being pursued by the United States of America. I ask them to think before they endorse them in the face of the grave doubts and misgivings of some of the most responsible people in public life in the United States of America. Surely we arrogate to ourselves a greatly superior wisdom when we say we know better what is best for the world, best for the United States of America, that we know better than such people as those who have opposed in recent weeks and in recent months the policies of the administration of the United States. These are people who are day by day in contact with the actualities of that policy.
Does any member of this house take to himself the right to say he knows better than Senator Mansfield, better than Senator Wayne Morse, better than Senator Fulbright, better than one of the best informed columnists in the world, Mr. Walter Lippmann? Are they Communists? Perhaps they are. I do not believe even the members of the Conservative party would dare to call such people Communists. I suggest to them now is the time for a certain measure of humility on the part of Canadian citizens and Canadian members of parliament in the face of these ringing condemnations of the policy of the United States government, which our government so supinely supports and which the Conservative party vigorously and vociferously supports. I suggest this is an example of arrogance and ignorance which does no credit to the people of Canada.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, as this debate is drawing to a close I could not help but notice during the last few moments the supersensitivity of the members of the New Democratic party with respect to the allusions that some of them may have been sympathetic to Communist foreign policy.


David Lewis: You do not really believe that, do you?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I said that some people seem to be very sensitive about the fact that accusations had been made that some members of that party were sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.
February 8, 1966
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
However, Mr. Chairman, if anyone has brought these comments on themselves it has been the members of the New Democratic party, particularly the leader of that party and the hon. member for York South. They did so because in two very capable and eloquent speeches they rather mischievously and certainly not very innocently tried to impute motives and to put suggestions by implication into the mouths of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, myself and others to the effect that we were sympathetic in some way or other to Mr. Ian Smith and what he is actually doing. This sort of political horseplay is all very fine and I do not blame them for trying, but when they start that kind of thing and they get something back in return I do not see why they have to start weeping and grieving. If you indulge in this sort of activity you must expect something in return.
To get back to the facts, there have been a great many questions asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this debate by members in all parties and I suppose that the minister will answer these questions before this item passes. Otherwise I am afraid we might have to ask the questions again. The minister has spoken twice in this debate. On the second occasion he made a very eloquent speech of the kind that only the minister can make during which he purported to answer a number of questions which had been asked, particularly by me.
I am reminded, Mr. Chairman, of a speech I heard about 12 years ago in this house. I had asked the late Right Hon. James G. Gardiner a question about butter and I received an eloquent and detailed answer on the subject of cheese. That is just about the kind of answers I received from the minister to some of the questions I asked him. He became very impassioned on the subject. He said he was against sin in general and race prejudice in particular. But he did not get around to answering some of the principal questions I put originally. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will become a little more specific before this item passes. The reason this debate has been so prolonged, apart from the fact that there is very great interest in Canada in the subject of foreign affairs regardless of one's particular views, has been that the minister some time ago in this debate did not make certain commitments to this committee.
Supply-External Affairs
The principal objection of this party, which is apparent on reading the remarks made by various members including myself, is to the method employed by the government in its handling of the Rhodesian problem. We could go back about a year to the government's handling of another very important matter in Canada's foreign policy; I refer to the automobile pact with the United States. Here was a very important treaty affecting large segments of the economic life of Canada. This treaty was entered into by the government under authority which I think is a little more certain than the authority under which the Rhodesian proposals were introduced. Nevertheless we have not yet had an opportunity of dealing with the automobile pact in the house except during the question period and on one other brief occasion.
This was not the case in the United States. The pact was not ratified and put into effect until the United States congress had debated it and dealt with the matter. A great many problems which have arisen lately in connection with the pact could well have been avoided. No one is opposed to an automobile pact as such. After all, it was this party which supported this idea in the first place. However, some of the terms in the pact are very unwise. If this pact had been brought before parliament for discussion and sent to a committee where the evidence of witnesses could have been heard, some of the problems now arising might have been avoided. For example, I understand that it has put out of commission quite a substantial business in the city of Galt, Ontario. But no, the government went right ahead without consulting anybody and without consulting parliament in particular.
Now we have the Rhodesian situation. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, this has been a new and unique step which has been taken in Canadian foreign policy and in the methods by which we have applied our foreign policy. The matter was sufficiently important that parliament should have been called and given a White Paper on the facts. A great many members are satisfied with the facts on the one side, as some members of the New Democratic party apparently are. However, I have always found it wiser to ascertain the facts on both sides of a case. Had parliament been called the minister and the members of the cabinet could have had a consensus from the house. I have little doubt that the members of the house would in all probability have substantially endorsed the

890	COMMONS
Supply-External Aflairs activities of the government. That may well be the case. But the fact of the matter is that parliament has not been consulted. We have not yet received information.
I asked the minister, Mr. Chairman, a number of specific questions. What, for instance, was contained in the last set of proposals made by the British government to Mr. Ian Smith? What proposals were made by Mr. Ian Smith to the British government? Is it true that the leader of the Nationalist party in Rhodesia, Mr. Joshua Nkomo, has stated that if he forms the government in Rhodesia all of the property of Europeans will be expropriated without any compensation? Is it also a fact that the British government has not given the slightest indication that it will give any assistance in this regard to the European settlers? Is it true that Mr. Ian Smith has stated that none of the African population will get the vote within 50 to 100 years? These are the kind of matters to which we should have an answer. We should be given both sides of the question, not just one side, so that we can make a proper assessment of the situation.
This cannot be classified material, Mr. Chairman. Surely this information is available. If the government has made its decision then it must have this information, so I do not know why it cannot be made available to the house. There is no reason on earth why it cannot be supplied.
There is another question which has been repeatedly put. Even the hon. member for York South, who is entirely behind the government in this matter and supports them, agreed that the government was on rather shaky and questionable ground legally. We in this party claim that the government does not have proper authority to impose these sanctions. I must say I was likewise rather astonished at the view of the hon. member for York South, who is such a distinguished member of the bar, when he said it was quite all right for the government to do anything as long as we agreed with it even if the action did not have legislative authority. I think that is a very strange observation, but that is by the board, as one might say.
I would suggest to the government, as I have already suggested a couple of times, that they should bring before this house a resolution or appropriate legislation so that there is no question of the legality of what they are doing. Let us have a debate on the matter. Let the government present the facts

DEBATES	February 8, 1966
of the case and then get a consensus from members of the house.
What is going to happen if further questions arise in connection with Rhodesia when, as may be the case, the house is not in session? The government would have no more authority then than it has at the moment. Let us suppose that some kind of military sanctions were required. Is the government going to recall parliament in such event? I would hope so. However, it would be much better and much easier for the government to obtain the consensus on this matter of the members in the political groups in this house now or in the next few weeks. If some emergency arose when the house was not in session the government would not then be faced either with proceeding in an entirely illegal manner or proceeding on the shakiest of legal grounds. I hope that this is a matter to which the government will give consideration very soon.
There are some further remarks I should like to make in reply to some of the observations of members of the New Democratic party but I can see little profit or purpose in getting into arguments at this time about divergent points of view on the subject of socialism. That is not what we are here for; we are here to discuss and to criticize government policy.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
May I say that this party is very critical of the method of handling the whole Rhodesian question. I repeat that I hope the minister will induce his colleagues to bring a resolution before the house to provide for accurate information on what has gone on in Rhodesia and give us background information rather than our having to rely on biased newspaper reports. Let us get the facts and let us have a full expression of opinion. In all probability the government may well get the support of the house in this matter. If hon. members know the story, the government will be able to take action on some future occasion when parliament is not in session if action is required and whatever steps it then takes will be within the knowledge of the members of this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I want to make some brief comments supporting the point of view of the hon. member for Oxford as to the method to be followed in dealing with a problem such as this. Instead of using an example of the United Kingdom may I use the example followed by the twenty fifth parliament of Australia on the 16th of Novem-
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
ber, 1965. The prime minister of that country, Sir Robert Menzies, made a statement on Rhodesia which I estimate took 30 minutes to deliver. In that statement he gave the background of the issue confronting Great Britain, members of the Commonwealth and others with respect to Rhodesia. He set out in this statement the five principles which formed the basis for the discussions between Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Mr. Ian Smith of Rhodesia. In the introduction to his remarks he said:
Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a statement to ~the House. When I have finished it, I will table some relevant documents on Rhodesia. Those documents contain a verbatim account of the communications between Mr. Ian Smith and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. ... At the conclusion of my statement, which will not be very long, I will move that the house take note, not only of the paper, but also of the papers that I will table so that all will be available for discussion in due *course.
At the conclusion to his statement their Hansard reads as follows:
I present the following papers-Rhodesia-Ministerial Statement, 16 November, 1965.
The statement that he had just made.
Documents on Rhodesia, 27th October, 1964-11th ^November, 1965-and move that the house take note of the papers.
Then the debate was adjourned by the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest, Mr. *Chairman, that that is a practice that might well be considered suitable for discussions in this house with regard to problems such as the one concerning Rhodesia. We have been asking for background information so that the debate may be conducted on a good level.
I think it has been on a very good level. We have asked for a White Paper which could have been produced. The method of procedure in Australia makes sense to me. I refer to the ministerial statement, to the background material and the documents laid before the house and to the fact that the [DOT]debate was adjourned and then taken up again the following day or postponed for two or three days. In that way I think we would get a really good debate on a very important matter. Everybody would have access to the same information. It has often seemed to me a bit absurd that we have to press a minister of the crown for information. It is absurd to think of the time that is taken up in that regard. Sometimes, of course, ministers are reluctant to give us that information and we have to press them and finally they perhaps [DOT]do present it.
DEBATES	891
Supply-External Affairs
I support the hon. member for Oxford. I think it would have been far better in this instance to have had such information put before us. May I suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that in future he might consider this course of action. We have not spent very much time on this debate. I have made a hasty check of our Hansard for Thursday, Friday and Monday. Applying a rough rule of thumb of approximately seven minutes per two-column page of Hansard, on the subject of Rhodesia we have spent all told about three hours. Only seven members of the house have dealt with Rhodesia at any length. This is not an excessive time to spend on a problem as important as Rhodesia.
I do not want to prolong the debate. On the basis of the material I have been studying concerning the problem in Rhodesia I could speak for another hour. I do not want to do that for various reasons, but it is only in the way that I have suggested that all the information can be brought forward.
We in the Conservative party have been subjected to some criticism for the stand that we have taken. I think that our stand is very clear indeed. Those of us who have spoken here have said that we do not support the illegal regime of Mr. Ian Smith. Of course we do not. But we question the methods that are being used in order to cause Mr. Ian Smith and his supporters to revert to their former position within Rhodesia and the Commonwealth. We have been asking questions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as to the effect of the sanctions that the government has imposed and we have asked questions as to what would happen if those sanctions failed. The government must look ahead to determine its policy in that regard.
We have questioned the legality of the actions taken, without the approval of parliament, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That, of course, is a technical point and some people think we should not be discussing it. It is, however, vitally important to the function of this institution. It is important that government action be taken after the approval of this institution and not by order in council methods. I will not deal with that now because I dealt with it the other day. I hope and indeed I have urged that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will give us clear and definite answers to the questions we have put before him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, unless there are some other hon. members who wish to speak-
February 8, 1966

Supply-External Affairs


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I am intervening, prompted by two reasons. One is the interesting speech of the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway whose presence in this house is welcomed because she is the daughter of a very distinguished and great Canadian. She was the wife of a very distinguished and great Canadian who was a Canadian of a particular quality in that he was a Prince Edward Islander. It is unlikely that I should agree with everything she says, but I admire her sincerity and her obvious conviction to the cause which she espouses. My other reason for saying a few words stems from what I hope is a misunderstanding on my part of some replies today and yesterday in reference to the initiative at the present time of the Holy Father, Pope Paul.
If I understood the suggestions or the implications, I am much surprised that anyone in the government believes that Canada properly is in a neutral category before the world. We are not an unaligned nation. We are non-belligerent, thank heaven, but Canada long since has made its commitment to one group in what has been for a long time a two power world.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Whether we like that continued status or not, it is generally the situation. We have for good reasons and, indeed, because of factors over which we have no control, found ourselves championing the cause of the leader of the so-called western bloc-the United States. Whether in one or two minutes I shall qualify for the category proposed by one of the members of the New Democratic party by being vigorous, vociferous, arrogant and ignorant, I do not know. But I should like to say for myself that I derive no satisfaction from any denigration of the United States for its actions in the face of such difficult problems as those arising in Viet Nam. Moreover, I doubt that this country benefits greatly from such denigration. The United States is one of the great functional democracies of the world. Every position taken within that country is open to public scrutiny and subject to public discussion and disagreement. Similarly we find that the allies who move with the United States constantly and as is their right discuss publicly the issues and goals they are trying to follow.
For the other side such a situation does not exist. I have heard of very few Voice of Women parades to Red Square. I have heard of few instances of tearing up draft cards in Peking. But the difficulty which constantly

presents itself to the makers of United States policy is that they must function at all times under the glare of public discussion and disagreement.
I think it is obvious to most Canadians that the security of Canada, our institutions and, to be old fashioned and perhaps trite, our way of life, depend on the continued success of the United States. We have seen on occasions in our own lifetime conflicts between great powers at explosive points. These were not resolved by declarations of intent or by mere expressions of good will. They had to be resolved by someone with sufficient strength of purpose and willingness to run a grave risk.
I would ask: What would the situation in Europe be today if the Truman doctrine had not been enunciated and acted upon in Greece and Turkey when the incursion of the Communists came there? What would have been the situation in the days of the Berlin airlift had not the western world, with the United States bearing the heaviest burden, declared and reiterated its intention to run through this blockade with an airlift even though it might be necessary to maintain it for 10, 20 or 50 years? What would have happened in Korea? Here was a reaffirmation of strength of purpose.
It is all very well to point out errors in United States strategy and tactics. Of course there are errors. But we must be mindful of the fact that it is the leaders and the people of the United States who are constantly bearing the burden. I wonder how many of those who criticize have looked at the tax bill the people of the United States are bearing.
I think one of the great fears of the western world is that the feeling might develop within the United States which was so prevalent there a generation ago, that they might accept the suggestion "Yanks go home" made by so many people. I should like to know what would happen if they did go home, if the people of the United States were to ask themselves, must we forever bear such a massive burden for such a large part of the world? I rejoice in nothing which might purposely or otherwise weaken the resolve of the American people to stand firm and to-stand strong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I once had the occasion- such an occasion may never come again-to be close at hand, though not myself involved, in-one of the great crises of our time. I saw Mr. February 8, 1966

Stevenson and Mr. Zorin in their great confrontation at the time of the Cuban crisis. I -was given an indication of what was contained in some of the letters which passed between the leaders of the Russian and American states. The second of those letters was a most revealing document; it was made public only recently. Here we found ourselves brought to the brink. As we stood in New York we realized that possibly within five minutes death and destruction would be upon us, and not by reason of anything provoked by the United States and its forces.
Then we saw the resolve, the personal strength, shown by the leader of the United States. The meeting of strength with strength brought about a solution. It was not a 100 per cent happy solution but it may have ushered in a relationship of realism between the Soviet Union and the United States which will be conducive to more pacific relations between them in the future.
I say there is no monopoly of peacemaking in this house, no hierarchy of peacemakers. We all know about the suffering in Viet Nam. It is something which should affect and move us all. But we all know too that in this crisis the strength of the United States is the greatest barrier we have against the destruction of our way of life. This, I believe, is the underpinning of our whole discussion of foreign affairs.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, I should not like this vote to pass or this subject to be dropped until I clear up a matter which has arisen during the debate. This party has been accused of being constantly pro-American. I suppose the people who have said this would add "pro-imperialistic American," because that is the party line. I should like to put the record straight. I will speak only for myself. I believe in Viet Nam and in democracy. I believe the United States was isolationist long enough. It took the United States a long time to take her place as the policeman of the world. The United States is the only policeman we can rely on today, certainly the only policeman who stands for what I stand for, freedom.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
This is not to say that we blindly follow all the policies of the United States. Far from it. I expect our foreign affairs department to be critical so long as our criticism is positive, and I resent very much being called an American sheep. It is our plain duty to stand up and say what we think should be done in Viet Nam and Rhodesia.
Supply-External Affairs
I know some of the departmental information is classified. I believe they know more about these situations than I do, at least I hope they do, because half the information I get can only come from them. If they do not tell me everything then I cannot know all that they know, but I trust that with the knowledge they possess they will always have the ear of big brother, the United States, and will speak up bluntly and firmly.
I hope they will give the United States the benefit of the views of the small nations in exactly the same way as the Prime Minister did, when he took the views of the Canadian people and those of the then private member, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, to the United Nations and suggested the peace keeping force for which he, the Prime Minister, was personally praised, with Canada bathing in some of that reflected glory.
Canadians have always taken their part in international affairs and the only reason we cannot police the world is that we are not big enough. But I am sick and tired of being called a sheep merely because we have principles and freedoms of our own and are not willing to lie down before the red juggernaut and take our orders from Moscow. I do not think the members of the N.D.P. are Communists but with monotonous regularity they peddle the Communist line. This may well be due to ignorance, for which I feel sorry. They have my sympathy. But I am sick and tired of having it pounded into us that because we agree with the United States in her attempts to keep world peace we are neglecting the little people.
Where was the solidarity when we wanted to feed the hungry multitudes in China? There was no unanimity from that party then and I find it strange that they can change their ideas on international affairs day by day. They do not like the United States Monroe doctrine in relation to Cuba and they present the argument that we should espouse the Communist doctrine of non-interference in Asia.
If we did that we would never interfere in Cuba where the freedom of the little people is involved nor in Viet Nam where their freedom is also involved. I expect the Communists have as much right to interfere as we do but let us get our thinking straight about which side we support. You cannot keep holding on to the policeman's arm when he is trying to keep law and order. If he is not a good policeman, change him.
If we are not satisfied with the way the United States keeps the peace in southeast
February 8, 1966

Supply-External Affairs Asia, are we willing to pay the price ourselves in money, blood and reputation? I expect some of us are. Perhaps I may be a minority of one but I said before and I say again that if it is necessary to stem the red tide I am willing to join the United States forces as a private soldier and go and fight once more for the things in which I believe. That does not make me an American imperialist. It makes me a free Canadian citizen ready to fight for the things he believes in and ready to pay the price.
Was it United States interference in Cuba that caused all the trouble? When I first heard of Castro-I may say I am directing my remarks to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands-I thought that perhaps Castro was some kind of Cuban Robin Hood living in the hills and fighting for the little people, but when he and his men started shooting citizens in the street without a trial I began to think his orders were coming from the hammer and sickle because that is what was done in Russia in 1917 and what is done in every country the Communists seize. I repeat that I do not think the N.D.P. are Communists but I am getting very tired of them peddling the Communist line. If they are sincere about giving the little people of the world a chance, I suggest that once in a while they get behind the policeman and help bring about law and order.
Should atrocities be committed by American troops I would be the first to condemn them, but I am also ready to condemn atrocities committed by red troops, for example, the staking out of American soldiers and civilians. I shall not go into the details. The word "atrocity" puts a chill into anyone's heart. Wherever the Communist forces move we are supposed to back up and give ground. Why? Is it that we in Canada no longer believe in democracy? I think we do. I think all parties in this house do, but I give this warning: Do not be sucked in by the Communist line. Back up that policeman.
United Nations peace keeping forces have maintained peace in a number of areas of the world, notably the Gaza strip and Cyprus. The idea of peace keeping forces has worked. I should like to see these forces expanded many times until they are sufficient to maintain law and order everywhere. Then the United States could go home and provide its fair share of troops to the United Nations for peace keeping purposes.
Until this is done we have got to back up our great neighbour to the south. We have to

give all the encouragement we can to the effort to bring the nations of the world to the council table. We shall have to be willing to pay our fair share to provide adequate police forces so that people everywhere can have an opportunity to speak for those things in which they believe.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not until we hear from the minister. Is he going to reply? We have been waiting all afternoon to hear him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has asked me to reply to some specific questions. I had assumed that in the statement I made on Rhodesia the other night I dealt with all of the questions with the exception of the material which my hon. friend noted had been referred to by Mr. Menzies in another place.
The exchanges between Her Majesty's government in Britain and the regime of Mr. Smith are, of course, matters that involve those two authorities. The documents are all contained in the British Hansard and can readily be made available. I have already given instructions to ascertain whether loose copies of some of the particular documents, particularly the White Paper, can be obtained, and I will see that my hon. friend and other hon. members get these and that they will be available when the External Affairs Committee is sitting.
The problem involved here is that the British government had told the regime of Mr. Smith that it would be opposed to a unilateral declaration of independence. This declaration was threatened because of the insistence by the government of Britain that more progress be made in the removal of discriminations in Rhodesia. That was a matter which Rhodesia said was not the concern of the British government, and Rhodesia further said that if the British government insisted on the removal of these discriminations, or a phased program during which they would gradually be removed, then Mr. Smith would cause unilateral declaration of independence to be made and it is this unilateral declaration, this illegal act, this act of treason that is at issue and not the particular negotiations between the British government and the regime of Mr. Smith.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It is significant in this connection that we joined with the British government in opposing the illegal declaration because we be-
February 8, 1966

lieved Rhodesia should not become independent on the basis of the 1961 constitution without substantial modification. This was the issue. In theory this constitution could eventually produce majority rule, but this is something that Mr. Smith said would never occur in his lifetime. It was as a result of this refusal to recognize the desirability of giving better treatment to the majority of the people in the country, some three million of whom are black as opposed to some 400,000 who are white, that Mr. Smith was confronted, when he did make a unilateral declaration of independence, with the unanimous resistance of the Commonwealth.
As I said the other night, this resistance did not come as a surprise because long before the issue had been discussed formally at the Prime Ministers' Conference and the government of Rhodesia was informed what would happen in the event of such a declaration of independence. No one can suggest that we were going to oppose this unilateral declaration of independence solely because of the particular dispute between the British and the Rhodesian governments. We were opposed to a unilateral act of independence which was illegal and which had serious connotations for the unity of the Commonwealth.
My hon. friends have complained in their argument that the government resorted to procedures that were not in keeping with our parliamentary traditions, that we should have brought this matter first to the House of Commons I have dealt with that question. I may not have convinced my hon. friends but I dealt with it.
I indicated that our action in support of the position taken by the British government-the first action to be taken in support-seemed to us, as it seemed to others, necessary. There would have been no time for us to go through the procedures of calling parliament. The course that we followed was not a unique course. The Australian parliament happened to be in session, ours was not.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I interrupt at this point? Would not the alternative have been, after summoning parliament here, for the government to ask in a proper way for validation of its acts while parliament was in recess?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: My hon. friend and I are not in agreement as to the necessity for this act of validation. We acted within the purport of three sections of the Export and Import Permits Act in respect of which there
Supply-External Affairs is a provision for authority to be taken by the executive pursuant to international arrangements. My hon. friend was generous enough in his remarks, I think of last night, to observe that the technicalities of the act, with which he is familiar because of the fact he was minister of trade and commerce at one time, had been observed.
We resorted to a complete and total embargo because we believed that this was a desirable and indeed the only act that we could take if a development in Commonwealth relations that would have been very serious was to be avoided.
My hon. friend asks, if the economic sanctions do not work, what then? In the first place I must tell him that it is the view of a number of governments, including the British government, that the sanctions will work, that these economic sanctions will have the intended result. I am not going to say that there can be no doubt about this. In these matters no human judgment can be certain or final, but it is our judgment that they will work. I am not suggesting that the sanctions that Canada by itself has imposed would have that result. We are not a participant in the oil sanctions, even though we have an oil embargo, for the simple reason that we do not export oil to Rhodesia, but the steps we have taken together with those of the British government, of the United States government, of the Scandinavian governments and the partial acts of certain countries like France, should have the results that I have indicated it is anticipated will follow.
My hon. friend asked why we removed our trade commissioner. We removed our trade commissioner because we wanted, by that preliminary act, to indicate our displeasure and concern about the act of this illegal administration. We were not the only country to do that. The British acted likewise even though the governor, the real authority in Rhodesia, continues to function as the legal embodiment of power. Other countries withdrew their representatives. We kept our assistant trade commissioner there for a few weeks after the withdrawal of the trade commissioner. I am sure that the course we have taken is the correct one. I can tell my hon. friend that it has not in any way denied us an opportunity of making an accurate assessment of the situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How do you do that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will have to take my statement as one which is the fact.
February 8, 1966

Supply-External Affairs


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think your statement is nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may think that but I can assure him that we do know what is going on in Rhodesia.
My hon. friend says, if we withdraw our trade commissioner in Rhodesia why should we not withdraw our international commission team in Viet Nam? I can tell him that I do not think there is any comparison between the two situations, but since he has said something about the commissions may I say parenthetically that it is not the government's intention to withdraw Canadian personnel from the international commission in Viet Nam. I have already dealt with this but my hon. friend has asked me to deal with the Questions he posed last night and that is what I am doing.
We do not propose to withdraw our members on the Indochina commission because they continue to serve a useful purpose. The commission in Viet Nam admittedly, because of the restrictions put on its operations by North Viet Nam in particular and because of the character of the Indochina conflict, has not had the freedom of movement which is necessary. On that account it has not been able to function in the way which was intended. But it continues to serve an important purpose and, I tell my friend this, a very important potential purpose. If we were to withdraw from that commission now it would run against the wishes of many countries.
Mr. Chairman, I know of no country, including China, that wishes the commissions to withdraw and there is no reason-


John George Diefenbaker: Including China?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Including China.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that mainland China?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is mainland China.


John George Diefenbaker: How would you have communication with mainland China?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, China was one of the Geneva powers. We have had no request nor any encouragement either from China or from the Soviet Union or from anyone that such a withdrawal should take place.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to finish this thought first. Furthermore, a withdrawal
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
should take place if that was desirable, and I do not believe it is, only as a result of agreement among the members of the commission. We would certainly be criticized if in opposition to India and Poland we withdrew from these commissions. I can well understand the criticisms that would be levelled against Canada for such action, particularly since Canada has contributed so much to international efforts in peace keeping.
The commission in Laos, for example, is active and is now serving a very important purpose. Also, as my hon. friend knows, the commission in Cambodia has now been invited by Prince Sihanouk to assume certain additonal responsibilities. Our firm assessment is that if we were to disband the commission in any one of these three countries we would make difficult the operations of the commissions in the other two. For these and other reasons the government has no intention of withdrawing from the commissions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister has spoken at length about the commissions in Indochina but has not answered the argument that I put forward with regard to the trade commissioner in Rhodesia. I said the minister wanted to retain the commissions in Indochina, Viet Nam, etc., in order that he would have a window on the world there and some contact with the opposing forces. I posed this question: Why would the minister not keep someone in Southern Rhodesia in order to have first hand information with regard to the situation prevailing in that country? The minister has not answered that question.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I may not have satisfied my hon. friend, Mr. Chairman, but I have given my explanation of the reason for the course we have taken. I do not believe the two are parallel situations. I would remind my hon. friend that one of the first things the British government did when it began its program of action in Rhodesia was to assert that it would have no dealings whatsoever with the rebel regime. It was announced that the British High Commissioner in Salisbury was being withdrawn and that the Rhodesian High Commissioner in London was being asked to leave.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquar-rie) said a few moments ago that he hoped that in the reply the Prime Minister made today
February 8, 1966

in answer to a question put by the right hon. gentleman he was not suggesting that Canada occupied a neutral position. Of course Canada is not a neutral power. Canada is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an organization in which, I would say in answer to the hon. member for Skeena, Canada continues to believe as necessary for our security. We propose to maintain our membership in NATO for reasons that are no less important than those which brought about the establishment of NATO. So we are not a neutral nation.
That question was not involved in the reply given by the Prime Minister. The question was whether Canada had given any support to the proposal made to the United Nations by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. The Prime Minister noted that I had made known yesterday the view of the Canadian government that this was an appeal that should be supported, and to the extent that Canada is able to contribute by giving its support this will be done. The appeal addressed to the neutral powers was to the effect that they set up arbitration machinery to assist in ending the conflict in Viet Nam. The United States government itself incorporated in the resolution placed by Mr. Goldberg before the Security Council an acceptance of this proposal by the Pope.
Not only has this appeal been made by the Pope, whose memorable statement to the United Nations on October 6 has served to provide very important guide lines in our difficult contemporary world, but the Secretary General himself has been engaged in discussions on this subject with Canada and with other countries. While I cannot go farther at this time, I want the house to know that we continue to do all we can, together with the United States government, the British government, and other governments in seeing that every effort is made to bring about negotiations in this very difficult situation.
Many other questions have been asked during the course of this debate and it would be impossible to deal with them all. When the External Affairs Committee meets we shall have an opportunity of considering these questions. In addition, when the estimates for the next fiscal year are before the house we shall have an opportunity of dealing in some detail with some of the matters that have been raised.
I think the house has been engaged in the past few days in a very vital discussion of 23033-57
Supply-External Affairs matters that are of the greatest moment not only to our own country and not only to the United Nations but also to the peace of the world. While the solution for these problems does not rest with one country, there nevertheless is an obligation on the part of all countries to do their utmost to try to minimize the sources of danger and the danger itself.
I have been in this house many years, Mr. Chairman, and I have not for a long time been moved as I was last night when I listened to the hon. lady, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I well remember her father sitting near where the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is now sitting. I could not help but detect the same constancy and strength of purpose in her plea for peace that we knew him to espouse when he was a distinguished member of this house.
I wish to assure the hon. lady that the government of Canada looks upon the United Nations as one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy. It is not our fault if collective security has not been fully secured in the United Nations during recent years. As the hon. lady knows, we have participated in every one of the peace keeping operations of the United Nations. We shall continue such participation because it forms part of a process which could assist in establishing a United Nations peace force.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
However, the hon. lady should not overlook the fact that Canada has made these endeavours in the face of great frustrations. A conference was held in Ottawa on these subjects which was designed to encourage action by those countries with peace keeping experience. We have repeatedly urged the members of the United Nations to assume collective responsibility for the financial burden imposed on the United Nations as a result of these peace keeping operations. We have not been able to get the kind of support on a sufficiently wide scale and from enough countries to make this possible, but she may be assured that just as we took the initiative in the establishment of a peace force on Cyprus, backed up by this parliament, we shall not hesitate to take a similar initiative in situations where we are able to do so in conjunction with the other members of the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: There are other matters with which the minister did not deal and I should like to have his answer on them. The first is his views about the question of the
8g8	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs Atlantic community convening an informal conference among the representatives of the various nations of the Atlantic community with a view to giving consideration to this question to which I referred as being before the United States congress at the moment.
The other matter upon which I should like some clarification arises out of the latter part of his remarks. He spoke with pride of Canada's contribution to the Cyprus force, which incidentally received the support of all members in all parts of the house and was approved without delay. What is the situation there now? In the last couple of days things have apparently become quite serious in Cyprus. Today Canada has a force there which is financed by Canada and other nations of the United Nations are not making their contribution. One wonders why this is and why this nation, above all others should continue to expend vast sums of money on financing this Canadian force. What has the minister to say regarding the crisis which apparently is developing again between Turkey and Greece?
Only yesterday the Turkish foreign minister, Ihsan Sabri Caglayangil, said that there is a possibility of war between Turkey and Greece and that Turkey has taken all precautions. This is a very serious matter. He told the Senate during a debate on his ministry's budget that a tense situation has been caused by a communique issued in Athens by President Makarios of Cyprus and the Greek government. The communique to which reference was made was to the effect that the only solution to the Cyprus problem is enosis, union of the island with Greece.
The foreign minister of Turkey said:
The question of Cyprus seemingly is leading Turkey to a war at a moment it does not wish, and in spite of Turkey's wanting peace.
At the same time a strongly worded note was sent to the Greek government by the government of Turkey. Will the minister say how he regards what is taking place there and what is the position of Canadian troops in the light of that statement concerning the possibility of the outbreak of war? What is the number of Canadian troops still on Cyprus? Canadians will want to know these things if war is as threatening as the statement by the foreign minister of Turkey would indicate? What is the possibility of such a dangerous situation developing?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are at present 997 Canadian members of the United Nations force in Cyprus. Canada, along with

DEBATES	February 8, 1966
Britain, is the only country which is paying the full cost of the maintenance of our troops. The other countries contributing derive financial support from the UN voluntary fund. We are in this position, not because we believe this is the proper way to finance the operation but because of the attitude taken by many countries in the United Nations. This was the only way in which this peace keeping operation could be carried on or for that matter could be established. I think that we have every reason to feel that the course taken by this parliament in supporting the establishment of the force was a correct one.


John George Diefenbaker: It has been continued too long.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend says it has been continued too long. I reply that in the absence of a solution I do not believe it has continued too long. That is my view. I agree with him it is regrettable that this peace force has had to be continued for so long. However, I would sooner see Canada contribute moneys out of its treasury for the maintenance of peace than see an armed conflict that might bring disaster to the world.
The statement made the other day in the name of the governments of Greece and Cyprus-I am not now saying that there was an official statement but I have seen the report and I have my reason for putting it that way-attributing to both governments an agreement that the solution of the problem was enosis was objected to strongly by the government of Turkey. I would only hope that the restraint shown by Greece and Turkey in similar situations, will apply this time. The situation in Cyprus has remained relatively tranquil now for almost 12 months.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Lt. Col. A. Fortier, Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased
February 8, 1966
[Stage Direction]
to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1966.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. 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 Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Water resources-request for announcement of anti-pollution policy; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), Capital punishment-inquiry as to possibility of early debate; the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), Public works-application for construction of retaining wall.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, public bills.



PRIVATE BILL


Mr.   J.-T. Richard@Ottawa East: the second reading of Bill No. C-lll, to incorporate Bank of Western Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-lll is identical to one which was introduced in this house last year and which received second reading but did not receive final reading because of the dissolution of parliament.
The report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance tabled last year recommends a more open and competitive banking system in Canada. It is the belief of the incorporators of the Bank of Western Canada that the creation of a new bank in western Canada with head office in Winnipeg, Manitoba, will meet some of the problems referred to in the report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance, particularly the dangers of undue concentration in the banking and financial system of this country.
I should like to give a few basic reasons why this bank should be incorporated. First, the growth of Canada and particularly western Canada requires an increase in the banking institutions available to serve the economy. In 1954 Canada had ten chartered banks. Today it has only eight. The gross national product of Canada has doubled in
23033-57J
Private Bills
those ten years. Western Canada should have a bank with its head office, seat of control and management in western Canada. Only in this way will the financial needs of western Canada receive the close attention and understanding that they deserve.
The economy of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia is sufficiently varied and broadly based to support a western Canadian bank without recourse to the capital markets of Toronto, Montreal or New York. The capital needs for western provinces are sufficiently important to the people living there to warrant their asking parliament to incorporate a bank specially devoted to their needs.
Modest branches, economical and efficient service and concentration on small and medium sized accounts will be the keynote of the service to be provided by the Bank of Western Canada. There will be no need to support eastern head offices. The Bank of Western Canada will operate in a much more modest style than some of its eastern competitors.
The former minister of finance told the House of Commons last year that the government was not opposed to further competition in the banking field provided the three following conditions were met: (1) the new bank must be adequately financed; (2) it must be supported by financially responsible people; (3) provision should be made for retaining control in Canada. The Bank of Western Canada meets all three conditions.
The Bank of Western Canada would fill a growing need for a regional financial institution to take care of a regional economic development. Interprovincial co-operation between the four western provinces in the development of water resources, power, irrigation and mineral development point to the need for a financial institution based in the west and geared to the business opportunities that are developing in the west.
As to the bank, its head office will be at the city of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba. All its directors will be subjects of Her Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada. If the bill is approved the special act incorporating the Bank of Western Canada will provide restrictions on the transfer of shares to nonresidents and a prohibition against ownership of the shares in this bank by non-residents exceeding 10 per cent of the total number of shares issued and outstanding.
The capital stock of the bank will be $25 million divided into 2,500,000 shares of $10

February 8, 1966
Private Bills
par value. In addition to the initial subscribers of stock listed as incorporators in Bill C-lll there are now some 6,000 Canadian residents holding trustee subscription certificates entitling them to subscribe for stock in the new bank if and when incorporated by parliament. These trustee certificates would entitle these Canadian residents to subscribe for more than $6-i million of par value of stock in the new bank. In addition, more than 4,000 individual Canadian residents hold through investment companies certificates entitling them to subscribe for over $3 million par value of stock in the bank.
I consider that the proposal to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada should not be delayed because of any suggestion that parliament should await the passage of a revised Bank Act so as to know what conditions parliament might impose on banks in the future. All existing banks will be subject to the Bank Act as and when it is passed by parliament.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Bill C-lll complies with the Bank Act as it now stands. The Bank Act and the Porter Commission report contemplate continuous competition and continuous expansion of the banking system in Canada to meet the growing economy of the country. I respectfully urge members of the house to allow this bill to go before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs where all questions arising in connection with it can be answered by interested and qualified parties.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say two or three things about the measure before us, Bill C-lll, an act to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada.
As the previous speaker has said, a similar application was made to the previous parliament. In my opinion both the bill and the application have considerable merit. If one reviews the history of banking in Canada one thing becomes apparent very early. When the western provinces entered confederation they found at least one arrangement which was securely established, namely, the banks in eastern and central Canada. Private banks such as the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Montreal and the Bank of Toronto were already in existence. I am not speaking for or against these institutions but I should like to draw attention to the fact that if we examine the national economy today we find it is
[Mr. Klchard.l
almost entirely different from what it was then, at the time the banking situation began to "gel". Everything else has changed in this country but we persist in going about many of our tasks and grappling with many of our problems as though nothing had altered.
Certainly the banking structure should be changed. I think it would be a healthy thing if we were to establish in this country a Bank of Western Canada in addition to the two or three large, very rich and very old banking institutions in the central and eastern parts of our country. I think it would be most sensible if there were in the western part of our country a bank especially established there to do business among, with and for the people and institutions of that area, separate and independent from the older banks in other parts of the country.
On the other hand, I must say I would be hesitant about urging approval at the present time of the bill now before us. As hon. members well recall, there was before the last parliament an application of a similar kind from the Bank of Western Canada. There was an application for a charter from the proposed Laurentide Bank and a third application for a charter to operate a bank in western Canada from the proposed Bank of British Columbia. As we all know, the applications of the first two banks, the Bank of Western Canada and the Laurentide Bank, were approved by the other place but the application of the Bank of British Columbia was not approved at that time.
I thought that in fairness to all the banks concerned, particularly the Bank of British Columbia, we should seek to make a decision on the application of all three banks at about the same time so that no one bank would have an advantage over the others.
The Bank of Western Canada has renewed its application for a charter and so has the Bank of British Columbia. I still support in principle the idea of the establishment of a Bank of Western Canada as outlined in the bill before us, but my point of view is that we should not tonight approve the sending forward of this application, at least until there has been time for the Bank of British Columbia application to go forward in the other place where it is now, one might say, on the rails.
Having said that, I will conclude my remarks on this subject. I favour the establishment of this new bank but I would urge that we do not move on with it until there has
February 8, 1966

been a proper opportunity for the other applications to be heard.


Mr. Berl Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in seeing that Bill C-lll is approved in principle so that it may be presented at the proper moment before the Committee on Banking and Commerce. It seems to me that regardless of what we may think about the application of the Bank of British Columbia, which we expect will be forthcoming, we should be consistent when it comes to giving approval in principle to the legislation before us.
I was interested in what the hon. member who introduced the bill had to say about the reduction in the number of banks operating in Canada today. I am wondering whether, after all our work to get new banks established in western Canada, we may not be faced one day by pressure from the larger banks of central Canada to absorb these smaller and more recent institutions. Of course, we shall have to take this into consideration when the Banking and Commerce Committee opens its study of the matter. I merely express the hope that those who support the application of the Bank of Western Canada will give their support equally to the applications of the Laurentide Bank and the Bank of British Columbia if such applications come before us so that we may be consistent in our approach to this whole banking question.
There is something else which I believe we should take into consideration and this too should be discussed in the banking and commerce committee. I refer to the fiscal policy of the government as it relates to those areas in Canada where there is a possibility of inflation and to those other areas where there is a need for credit. These two contrasting situations can exist in Canada at the same time. At the present time we find a blanket policy being applied by the Bank of Canada. Whenever an inflationary trend exists a tight money policy is introduced; yet this policy adversely affects areas where credit is really needed, causing concern and hardship in those areas. It is my view that we must build into our banking policy a flexibility which will enable us to take care of these inflationary tendencies without unduly hampering those areas where expanded credit is required.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
There seems to be a paradox here. When we talk about the balance of payments between Canada and the country to the south we
Private Bills
seem to feel that certain restrictions must be imposed. This may be so but in connection with our fiscal policy I believe the following to be true. We must take into consideration the fact that our policies extend chiefly to areas in which our primary producers operate. These are the people who are our greatest exporters, and the availability of credit under a tight money policy which affects the progress of our primary producers also affects our exports to the United States and as a consequence our balance of payments problem. We need to take a very close look at this particular aspect of the banking situation in Canada.
Another thing we must examine in connection with Canadian banks is their share setup. All too often we hear the claim that it does not matter how much money Canadian banks make, how much they take in, or how much the national debt is because it will be returned to the people in the form of dividends. But this is only true if bank shares are owned by Canadian citizens. When we deal with banking applications in the Banking and Commerce Committee we must give serious consideration to this aspect.
One more thing I should like to mention is the revision of the Bank Act, and at the outset I wish to say that I think in Canada we have the greatest banking system in the world. I believe there is no better banking system anywhere but there are some shortcomings which have allowed the outside world's financial system to draw off great volumes of credit from Canada in the way of dividends for monetizing prospectuses. In other words, a foreign bank can monetize a prospectus-I am thinking now of situations where we have raw materials in abundance- but under the law a Canadian bank cannot monetize it. We shall have to give consideration to that aspect of banking when we are discussing the Bank Act and the position of chartered banks in Canada.
It is ridiculous that I for one or any other person may have in my possession a great deal of raw material alienated from the crown through a lease or by some other method but do not have sufficient money to move in and provide the capital equipment and plant necessary to develop the natural resource involved and convert it into a finished product. We cannot do this in Canada but United States banks, the Netherlands Bank or Barclays Bank can come along and use a Canadian asset and thereby

February 8, 1966
Private Bills
create money with a stroke of the pen to supply funds for a Canadian asset.
Having done so they reap the benefit of the great interest rate that they charge on the money thus provided. I say it is time Canadian banks were given this right so that we can get to the point where we can develop our own resources for our own benefit and not for the interest bearing benefit of foreign banks. I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying we are in favour of this bill in principle and will vote for its passage.


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


Bert Raymond Leboe: Yes.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Did he use the expression "monetize a prospectus" and, if so, What does he mean?


Bert Raymond Leboe: To give an example, I have been in the lumber business so I orient myself to the trees. I was able to get a pulp harvesting licence by virtue of credit which I was able to raise myself and through my colleagues, but I was unable to get the type of money I needed for the development of that pulp harvesting area. I cannot, by taking a good prospectus to a proper bank, get money to develop that pulp harvesting area. The banks today cannot take security on fixed assets leading to capital account in this way, and it is time we looked at our banking institutions and saw to it that in at least some degree they are given the opportunity to advance credit with security on fixed assets.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforth: Would the hon. member permit another question? How does one orient oneself to the trees?


Bert Raymond Leboe: That is when you are badly bushed.


Mr. Jack Davis (Coasl-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill I would first like to make it clear that I am speaking in my capacity as a private member and, second, that I have no particular brief for the Bank of Western Canada.
I should like to see more banks in this country. Certainly I should like to see greater competition among our banking and other monetary institutions, and most definitely I should like to see banks which are more responsive to the needs of particular areas of the country, especially to the western parts of the country. In preamble, however, I should also like to make it quite clear that I believe

the nation must remain in charge of our monetary affairs.
There are various headings under which the nation must remain pre-eminent. These are external affairs, defence, external trade, immigration and, most emphatically, money and banking. It is essential that our financial institutions operate under a set of rules or laws which are national in scope.
It is only by operating under this broad umbrella, and I suggest a single umbrella, that we will have the monetary flexibility necessary to develop this large country, a country which is going to grow northward and westward with the passage of time.
Reference has been made to banks which might be incorporated both privately and by the provinces. I should like to make it quite clear that I believe we can have one publicly owned bank in this country, the Bank of Canada. It already exists. It is the central bank of the nation. Personally I should not like to see our provinces in a position of ownership, in other words, in a position of control of major banks, and by that I mean the chartered banks.
The British North America Act, which is in effect our constitution, is quite clear with respect to the matter of money and banking. Under section 91 it states:

the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated: that is to say-
15.	Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the
Issue of Paper Money.
16.	Savings Banks.
I skip over No. 17 which has to do with weights and measures.
18.	Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
19.	Interest.
20.	Legal Tender.
21.	Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
Later on it makes it quite clear that these matters are not ones which are subject to the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Last year the former minister of finance spoke on this subject and I trust his remarks will be endorsed by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). He underlined that the B.N.A. Act clearly assigns to this parliament exclusive jurisdiction over banking and the incorporation of banks, and he went on to say:
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Even a limited ownership of shares of a bank by another government, whether it be a foreign government or a provincial government, could place such a government in a special position of power or influence in relation to that bank.
February 8, 1966

And further:
Such a situation might lead to differences of opinion between the government and another government, and to confusion over who exercises authority in regard to the bank. In order to avoid this danger the proposed amendments will provide that no shares of a chartered or savings bank may be registered in the name of any government or its agents.
I suggest that this is crucial and that this authority must be clearly identified. It must be clearly identified as the national authority.
The principal argument used by the province of British Columbia last year is that provinces have control over property and civil rights, that shares in any enterprise are property and hence a province can have control over bank shares and can properly buy a controlling interest in a bank. I suggest that many of the operations of such a bank, at least as it was proposed last year, would extend beyond the borders of British Columbia and therefore would certainly go into areas and territories which were not solely under the jurisdiction of the province.
I should like again to emphasize the need for more banks. I have stressed the need for more privately owned banks which are totally responsive to the laws of Canada and subject to the monetary and fiscal laws of this country. As other members have indicated, there have been more banks in Canada's history. I believe in the 1880's there were as many as 40 in number. This number has now dwindled to eight. We need more banks, as I have suggested, banks which are more sensitive to the needs of western Canada.
Western Canada is extremely prosperous. If you take the Manitoba-Ontario boundary as the dividing line, western Canada contains certainly more geography, more territory, than all the rest of Canada combined. It also has a population comparable with that of the province of Quebec. It generates wealth comparable already with that of the province of Ontario. It is of considerable consequence, witness the fact that it generates high incomes and high savings.
The second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, its latest report, at page 101 indicates that the levels of personal income in all the provinces of western Canada are well above the national average. The national average is approximately $1,500 per year. In British Columbia the average income is more than $2,000 per year; in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba it is $1,750, all obviously well above the national average of $1,500.
Private Bills
On turning to pages 120 and 121 of that annual review we see tables which rank our western provinces as first, second, third and fifth in respect of, (a), annual investment per capita and, (b), capital stock of machinery and equipment per person in this country. In other words, our western provinces are right at the top not only in so far as incomes and savings are concerned but also in respect of the need for new capital, the need for more funds and the need for additional banking facilities.
I should now like to say a word about the scale and the size of this proposed Bank of Western Canada. I notice its authorized capital is set out at $25 million. This is a sizeable bank. However, several of the banks in eastern Canada are larger. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, for example, is approximately five times this size.
I should like to throw into perspective last year's application by the Bank of British Columbia, the B.C. government sponsored bank. It had a proposed authorized capital of $100 million, in other words, four times the size of the proposed Bank of Western Canada. That particular bank, if it were to be operated as are other chartered banks, making a reasonable profit or return on equity capital, would have had to commandeer all of the savings, public, private, industrial and personal, in the province of British Columbia in order to make a go of things. That was to be an immense undertaking. Perhaps western Canada could sustain a bank or banks of that size in years to come. I am all in support of a Bank of British Columbia if it is a private bank. I am for such a Bank of British Columbia even though the initiative came or may come from the premier of the province of British Columbia. My only concern is that the controlling shares will not be held by a provincial government, including the present provincial government of the province of British Columbia.


Reid Scott: Why?


John (Jack) Davis: If this bank of the province of British Columbia could be sponsored and thrive as the result of the initiative taken by the premier of the province of British Columbia that would be fine, but it must be a private bank totally responsive to the laws of the nation so that our national banking system can continue to survive. I would hate to think that we would have 10 separate provincial banks, each of which dominated all the financial activities of its particular province. There

February 8, 1968
Private Bills
would be little room left for the Bank of Canada.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I wonder if the hon. member would answer a question?


John (Jack) Davis: I should be glad to in a moment but I want to finish my thought.


Bert Raymond Leboe: This is the time I want to ask a question.


John (Jack) Davis: Would the hon. member wait a moment? Imagine ten different provincially owned banking systems, and this is not stretching the concept too far. Not only has the province of British Columbia shown a definite and tangible interest in this field but Hon. Eric Kierans has made comments in this direction in respect of Quebec. I can therefore visualize a bank of Quebec being incorporated the moment a bank of British Columbia owned and controlled by the province of B.C., was set up.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


John (Jack) Davis: I believe a member of the N.D.P. asked "why not?". This is certainly stretching one's imagination a great deal but I would ask him to visualize his leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) as prime minister of this country trying to determine monetary policy in circumstances where his influence was limited to the Bank of Canada. He would have to negotiate with the ten provincial premiers. If he had to do that today he would be sitting down with ten premiers who are certainly not members of the New Democratic party. He would have a great deal of difficulty in developing monetary policy which was consistent with his own ideas of how things should run.
Under such circumstances the Prime Minister would be in great difficulty. There would be a certain amount of horse trading going on at these federal-provincial conferences. I can imagine the province of British Columbia saying, for instance, we will go part way on a tight money policy if you will turn over your offshore mineral rights to the province of British Columbia. That is the sort of thing that could happen. One might call them political considerations or say that they were considerations extraneous to money and banking, but they would be injected into these federal-provincial conferences with the result that you would not have a really effective, non-partisan, non-political banking system in this country. I want to see one

system, not ten different systems or eleven competing systems if you permit the national government to remain in the field.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
There have been experiences elsewhere in this regard. The N.D.P. members have suggested there should be provincially owned banks. I notice that in the United Kingdom the Labour government has not sought to nationalize any of the chartered banks. It has used the central bank, the Bank of England, as the principal authority through which it can carry out its banking and monetary policies. It has used the leverage which that central bank has on the commercial banks in order to put its policies into effect. In the United Kingdom there has been no problem of divided jurisdictions, of regional banks, certainly not regional banks which were autonomous in their field.
I suggest we would do well to note what the Labour party has done in the United Kingdom in this connection. Members of the New Democratic party in this house indeed might care to comment on the success the Labour party has achieved with one central bank, that is, one nationally-owned bank and no other government-owned banks.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about another matter which the Porter Royal Commission raised with respect to banking and finance. I refer to the limitations placed on our chartered banks in respect of, first, the interest rate ceiling and, second, the funds which they have to deposit with the central bank, the Bank of Canada, measures which from a financial point of view present a limitation on their activities.
I have not made up my mind whether I should like to see the interest ceiling removed. I am inclined to say that I should like it removed if only because it would generate greater competition among the chartered banks, the trust and loan companies, etc. I should like to point out that our chartered banks have not been growing as rapidly as other institutions in the monetary field. In other words, our chartered bank business, to which the Bank of Western Canada should be admitted, has not grown as quickly as has the business of the mortgage, loan and trust companies, caisses populaires and credit unions.
Indeed, in scanning through the report of the Porter Royal Commission I find that chartered bank deposits since 1945, that is, in the post-war period, have a little more than doubled. The mortgage and loan companies'
February 8, 1966

assets have risen more than sixfold. The trust companies' assets have gone up about seven times. The caisses populaires' and credit unions' assets have risen more than fifteenfold. In other words, these other major categories of financial activity have grown faster, I suggest very much faster, than the business of the chartered banks.
Therefore the Bank of Western Canada is entering a field but it is a limited one, a field with certain requirements, stipulations and limitations. It is entering a field which is clearly subject to federal jurisdiction but a field that is not growing as rapidly as the other financial institutions and lines of financial activity in this country.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to see some of the dividing lines between the different categories of financial activity removed. I should like to see greater competition between these different financial institutions, and I should certainly like to see them more responsive to the needs of different parts of the country. This will come about, I trust, as a result of the incorporation of more banks like the Bank of Western Canada.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating the second reading of this bill for a third time. It was perhaps a tragedy for those people who support the incorporation of the Bank of Western Canada that this bill too was a victim of the premature election called last August, because the Committee on Banking and Commerce had given its sponsors an undertaking that it would be dealt with in committee last September. Notices were actually published so that interested parties could prepare briefs and in order that public representations could be made with regard to this and other banks the incorporation of which was being sponsored by private members. But all this was washed down the drain by that rather quixotic act of the government in calling an election.
However, be that as it may; there is no point in crying over spilled milk. I believe we must show some consideration for those people who have invested their money in this commercial proposition. They are entitled to the same consideration as anyone else. They have the complete right to be heard and heard promptly. It behooves us to get on with the second reading of this bill and send it to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs because I believe the house has now reached the point where it believes that matters of this kind are better discussed in
Private Bills
committee where we can hear public representations and question witnesses.
There are many questions we shall ask on this matter. I do not wish to prejudge the yeas or the nays in respect of this bank. I find that its name is rather euphemistic because its control remains in central or eastern Canada. It has for its own purposes enlisted the support of many people in the prairie provinces but their participation is technically nominal.
We want to know why there is this attraction to the eminent gentlemen from Toronto and so forth in the name Bank of "Western" Canada. Whether it is a sop to their conscience for past conduct I do not know. In any event it is one of the matters we should like to examine when this bill is brought before the committee.
As one of the members of the committee I shall limit my discussion on the principle of the incorporation of the Bank of Western Canada to these few words and hope we shall discuss it before the committee in the very near future.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, speaking at the same level as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), since he demoted himself for the time being from his role as parliamentary secretary I believe one or two comments are necessary with respect to his remarks. On balance I suggest his was a most interesting speech, well documented and well larded with references and statistics. It was perhaps more appropriate in a debate on the Throne Speech or on the Bank Act than on the bill before us because the hon. member ranged rather far afield in his implications.
I do not wish to transgress the rules of the house and hope I shall not be called to order if I make reference to some of the points mentioned by the hon. member. He referred to the question of competition and his desire, as I gathered, to see a greater degree of competition in the banking industry. He coupled with that the suggestion, as I understood him, that if there was an increase in the interest rate permissible under the Bank Act this would beget an increased degree of competition.
I do not know whether at that point he was referring only to banks under the Bank Act or to the whole field of lending which includes trust, loan companies and the like. In any event, the concept of competition among banking institutions in this nation is a fallacious one and anyone who advocates the idea

February 8, 1966
Private Bills
that there will be more competition among banking institutions is advocating something that is incorrect in fact.
I say this because banks that are chartered under the Bank Act are controlled by a piece of legislation of this parliament and are not permitted to deviate. There is interest rate limit now and presumably there will be a limit later when the Bank Act is revised. Perhaps the limit will be higher on the interest rate which can be charged. Who knows? There is universal application of the interest payable on savings accounts and so on.
The only type of competition, as I have said before, that exists in the private chartered bank industry is competition in smiles on the part of managers and competition in the form of the fronts of the banks themselves, whether they consist to a greater or lesser extent of glass. The competition is in the form of architectural design, in the form of modern furniture, paintings and the like within banks, both main offices and branches, that have been built in recent years. But in terms of competition in the sense of dollars and cents from which the bank customer benefits there is no competition. I submit that any argument that there will be more competition does not refer to competition in a sense that means anything to the average customer of our banks.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
The hon. member also painted an extravagant picture of the situation which might prevail if provincial governments were permitted to invest in the shares of banks. He indicated that if such were the case there would be chaos in the nation. In fact, he said we would have ten or eleven banking institutions competing with each other and presumably the chartered banks which exist at the moment would be driven out of business if we follow his argument to its conclusion.
I submit that the falsity in that sort of reasoning is that the hon. member presumes there will be no authority or control in the hands of the Bank of Canada, that there will be no authority or control in the Bank Act regulating the operations of private chartered banks. He seems to presume that this control will be abdicated in favour of provincial governments if provincial governments are allowed to invest in the shares of banking institutions. This is just arrant nonsense. All the hon. member is trying to do is justify an anticipated announcement by the minister

when he introduces amendments to the Bank Act.
The hon. member is also trying to justify the position taken by the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), as well as the vested interest expressed by the members of the Senate when they turned down the application of the Bank of British Columbia. This was done for political reasons and because some senators had a vested interest in that they were directors or had invested in shares of chartered banks. They were acting from self-interest rather than in the interests of British Columbia. These are facts. We do not need the hon. member for Coast-Capilano or any other apologist for the government to tell us about this matter. The facts are there for everyone to see.
As a result of this action the economic development of British Columbia, to which the sponsor of this bill paid such glowing tribute, has been hindered. This selfish interference has been buttressed by an announcement from the former minister of finance. Presumably the way is now being paved by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and others for pressing the Minister of Finance to introduce amendments to the Bank Act which would interfere with the jurisdictional authority of provincial governments under the British North America Act.
One of the interesting aspects of the hon. member's remarks was the tender approach he made to an increase in the interest rate. I do not know if this was a forewarning of things to come in the budget but if it is and if he has any intimate knowledge I think it was incorrect for him to even leak the possibility that there might be an increase in the interest rate of the private chartered banks.


John (Jack) Davis: That is my own personal opinion.


Frank Howard: This is his personal opinion. However, it is the opinion also of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Louis Ras-minsky. Last night, speaking at Halifax to the Board of Trade, he also tenderly put out the thought that this would be good for the nation.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada left the impression that there should be an increase in the interest rate under the Bank Act. I presume Mr. Rasminsky is not expressing his own opinion. After all, he is the Governor of the Bank of Canada and there is a rapport between him and the cabinet. Since
February 8, 1966

the Coyne affair I have thought that when the Governor of the Bank of Canada spoke he spoke with the authority of the government behind him. Let me quote Mr. Rasminsky's words with respect to the question of interest rates:
The extent to which it is appropriate for the monetary authorities to permit credit conditions to tighten in any given circumstances must inevitably be a matter of judgment and I have been interested to note that in its submission to the Minister of Finance last week, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce expressed the view that in present circumstances it would be appropriate for Canada to pursue "a more vigorous monetary policy and impose more monetary discipline".
This is just one quotation from the remarks of Mr. Rasminsky in which he is presaging the budget and presaging the introduction of amendments to the Bank Act. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano, expressing his personal opinion as he just did, is also leading us in that direction.


John (Jack) Davis: May I ask a question?


Frank Howard: Gladly.


John (Jack) Davis: I did not note any reference to interest rates by the Governor of the Bank of Canada in that statement.


Frank Howard: I suggest that the hon. member read it. I have quoted only one part to indicate that he delicately left the impression this was a necessary thing to do. I will gladly send the hon. member a copy of this speech later. It was distributed in the press gallery last night.


John (Jack) Davis: There was no reference to interest rates.


Frank Howard: February 8, 1966
Private Bills
Laurentide Bank on a retail-wholesale basis in dealing with money was being questioned, and I think properly so, in this chamber, and they did not want any closer public scrutiny of this relationship.
I think that the Laurentide Bank or Laurentide Finance Company is probably awaiting the introduction of the Bank Act revisions, hoping that they will reflect one of the provisions contained in the bill last year, namely, that in the future banks can be incorporated by letters patent. Then Laurentide Finance Company, with its connections with the Liberal party, will be able to apply for incorporation of the Laurentide Bank and become involved in the wholesale-retail process of dealing in money, and will not have to subject that relationship to public scrutiny in parliament. If that is the course on which they intend to embark, I suppose the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will accommodate them when he brings in the revisions to the Bank Act, following the action of his predecessor last year, and will give them that opportunity to get in by the back door inasmuch as they are afraid of public scrutiny of their relationship and their structure.


Mr. Barnett:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Skeena in his interesting speech but I should like to place before Your Honour a point of order. By consent when somebody else was in the Chair we agreed to commence private members' hour at five minutes to six. I notice it is now five minutes to seven. I am sure it would not be the wish of the members of this house to deprive the Secretary of State for External Affairs of any of the time he would like to devote to consideration of his estimates. Therefore I am wondering whether Your Honour would consider that we now call it seven o'clock and proceed with the business that was interrupted by consent before six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to call it seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lefebvre:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear some objection. The hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: In one sense I am rather pleased because I do have so much more to say about this bill, Mr. Speaker, which perhaps will have to wait for another time. Tomorrow is a rather important day in the life of the Bank of Western Canada and the Bank of British Columbia. Because we in the

New Democratic party believe in the principle of togetherness we think that the applications of both banks should proceed at relatively the same speed through parliament so that one will not have a leg up on the other when it comes to incorporation and getting down to business.
I understand that tomorrow it is hoped that the Bank of British Columbia bill will be introduced in the Senate for first reading. This will give us an opportunity to see what its proposed structure will be. We do have some friends in the Senate and we will be able to consult with some of our friends over there.


Mr. Orlikow:: Who are they?


Frank Howard: I am asked to name them but I do not want to embarrass the hon. gentleman.


David Orlikow: I would not be embarrassed.


Frank Howard: We will be able to assess whether or not the Bank of British Columbia bill will be given favourable treatment by the Senate. If it is, all well and good. The Bank of Western Canada legislation now before us will also be given favourable consideration. If there is the possibility of a hitch or hold-up or delay or defeat of the Bank of British Columbia bill in the Senate, then the same course of action will have to be followed here in the house and every means possible used to defeat the Bank of Western Canada legislation, because we believe in the principle of equality of treatment and no favouritism.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Frank Howard: Could I submit this thought to you, Mr. Speaker? It was our intention to proceed through to seven o'clock and this will be done either by me or by some other member.


Mr. Winkler:: Seven o'clock.


Frank Howard: May I call it seven o'clock now that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is here?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house wish to call it seven o'clock now?


Thomas Lefebvre: No.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am rather surprised at the usually genial member across the way who seems to be in such a bad mood. He appears to be trying to prevent the Secretary
February 8, 1966

of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) from concluding his estimates expeditiously. I recognize that the bill before us is a very important one and requires very full consideration by the members of this house. At the same time, I think we realize the desire of all members of the house that the main estimates for the current fiscal year pass as expeditiously as possible.
Therefore it seems to me that this delay in the consideration of the estimates of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is perhaps a bit unseemly, caused as it is by somebody sitting on that side of the house. However, if it is the desire of hon. members and others over there I am quite willing to proceed to make some observations which I feel I should make on the important matters proposed in the bill which is now before us.


Some hon. Members:: Seven o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of 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 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; payments 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: Shall item 1 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in his penultimate intervention before the dinner hour the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when
Supply-External Affairs he started out-not that I want to detract from all of his peroration-was falling into that plea for a general absolution that we recognize for sins of omission and commission and what have you. May I say that such a plea for absolution was most apposite because his omissions were legion, and they may have been venial as well as mortal. I think he recognizes what I mean.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
[Translation1
In any case, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been able to check the facts mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition the other day. I can wait.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am listening.


Mr. Lamberi:: Absent-mindedly.

I know that opinions are bifurcated sometimes, but I hope to have the full and undivided attention of the minister in this matter.

As I was saying, did the minister check the facts concerning the 30-odd students from France now in the province of Quebec, at least so we are told. The minister was not too sure the other day, saying they were civilians. Then, according to press reports, they were supposed to be servicemen on a study tour here in Canada, under a cultural agreement, or providing military training.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: No, no, they are teaching history, economics, chemistry.


Norman Platt Lambert: Very well. The minister is telling us now that soldiers turned civilians are teaching in the province of Quebec. But is that an official version?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Those are young Frenchmen who must serve their country through compulsory military service, but they are exempted from military service as French government officials. They came here under an exchange program between France and Canada.


Norman Platt Lambert: Are those young men here with the authorization and co-operation of the government of Canada?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Certainly, under an agreement with France.


Norman Platt Lambert: Then, the minister might not be aware of the situation, since he claimed
February 8, 19G6

Supply-External Affairs the other day to know nothing about their presence and their status in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I was not
aware of the situation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is proper that this should be said because I will now give the minister a version that appeared today in a La Presse editorial signed by Guy Cormier. I am told he is well informed on matters concerning the provincial government of Quebec and Liberal party interests. I shall read the second paragraph of the editorial. Stating that Mr. Diefenbaker has asked a question, Mr. Cormier writes as follows:
Mr. Diefenbaker is pulling our leg. Canada and France are members of NATO. Even if there were now, in the province of Quebec, soldiers of the French army who have come to train under the co-operation agreements between NATO member countries, there would be no grounds for surprise or scandal.
Now, according to the argument advanced in the editorial, those young Frenchmen are in the same position as the members of the British forces who come each year to train in Canada, as the American troops which carry out manoeuvres here, and as the German troops which recently came to Manitoba, causing much scandal to our hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). All those operations are part of the NATO agreements.
Those British, American and German troops come here with the co-operation of the Canadian government, not of the provincial governments. Then, that those young people are soldiers and that they come here under the NATO program-and this is the first time we hear about it-the minister, is shaking his head, to indicate that he denies that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are here as civilians.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If they are here as civilians, they are not French soldiers. That is under NATO.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are here as civilians and they teach non-military subjects.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then what Mr. Cormier writes is not the truth?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not read the article.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, I have read it, and I should like the minister to comment on this claim.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman-
IMr. Lambert.]


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister let me finish? Since the article is based on the title "Diplomacy and hallucinations", in the light of the minister's explanation, I believe the hallucination is in the writer's mind and that he tampers with the facts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe Mr. Cormier is talking about something else, is he not?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not at all. I suggest the minister should read the article. We have two versions and there was a third, that of Mr. Gerin-Lajoie. The other day, when the Leader of the Opposition read the statement in La Presse, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie and the minister already had different opinions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not so.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We have therefore a third version and I urge the minister to look into it and to give us the explanation that is called for. It is impossible to have three versions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are right.
There are about 30 young men who came here as civilians, but they are here under a cultural exchange program established between our two countries.
Mr. Cormier is no doubt speaking about something else. At any rate, I will read his article.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This afternoon the minister did answer quite a number of inquiries in this debate. Quite a few still remain, however, that he has not answered. I think that it would shorten this debate very considerably if the minister could give us more answers to the questions he is asked. There are quite a number of items outstanding that he has not mentioned as yet.
Will he provide to the members of the house a White Paper on the facts of the Rhodesian situation in general? As the minister indicated this afternoon, it was because of the internal situation in Rhodesia that Canada is participating in these sanctions. I think we all know, Mr. Chairman, that undoubtedly the real reason why this whole matter came before the United Nations, as a matter of great concern, was because of the pressure of peoples in the African countries and because of the treatment, or the alleged treatment-and we have not been able to find the exact facts as yet-of the very large majority of African citizens in Rhodesia.
At an early date will the minister undertake to provide the members of the house
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
with a White Paper dealing with the tacts? I realize that it will take a while to prepare, but it would answer some of the questions I brought up on several occasions during this debate.
The question is whether in fact it is true that the leader of the nationalist group in Rhodesia would expropriate all lands of Europeans without compensation. Is it true that the present leader in Southern Rhodesia, Mr. Smith, has indicated that he will not provide any kind of representation or vote for the African majority in the area? As I say, the minister partially replied to the question of what are the terms of the offer of Mr. Smith to the British government, and vice-versa. He has answered some of these things, but I think it would be much better if, in this case, there were produced a White Paper by the Department of External Affairs which could be made available to members of the house.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
This leads to the next question. What is going to happen if this house is not in session and it turns out that economic sanctions are not entirely satisfactory or do not achieve the desired effect. What does the government intend to do then? Will it go further? I still maintain, for this party, that the actions taken by the government were illegal. In support, the hon. member for York South indicated that they were undertaken on a somewhat shaky legal basis. But should the government consider it necessary to go further, what legal authority would they have? Will the minister present some kind of resolution to the house, after a White Paper has appeared, so that hon. members could either give the government authority to go ahead, perhaps with certain reservations, or else deny that authority? Could the minister give us some indication of what the government intends to do?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I have in my hands a document relating to negotiations between the United Kingdom government and the government of Southern Rhodesia. This is available in the library. I will see whether I can get extra copies for the hon. member for Oxford and others who may wish to have them.
I will give consideration to the request concerning a White Paper. However, we are dealing with an event which has been amply covered by the documentation provided by the colonial power in respect of questions
DEBATES	911
Supply-External Affairs which are, essentially, between it and the government of Rhodesia.
I would like to point out, in answer to one of the questions asked, that the Smith government made its illegal declaration apparently because it had become clear, after lengthy negotiation during which, as is well known, successive British governments explored every possibility of compromise, that the British government was only prepared to grant independence on a basis which would assure the achievement of majority rule in a relatively short period rather than the very long, almost infinite period contemplated by Mr. Smith and his colleagues. The British had also insisted that any arrangements for independence would have to receive the consent of the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
As to the use of force, we believe that, in view of the dangerous situation which could evolve, this is something one should look at with the greatest care. Certainly, that would be the position of Canada. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked whether we would support the use of force, should sanctions fail. This was the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre as well as by the hon. member for Oxford a few moments ago. Our view is that economic sanctions are greatly preferable to the use of force. We are doing our best to see that these sanctions succeed. We think they will succeed. It is hard to see how the Smith regime can continue when its supporters must fully realize that their exports, imports and sources of finance have been cut off and will remain cut off. The British have not precluded the use of force in order to restore law and order in Rhodesia, according to declarations made by the British government. This was made clear in the communique following the Prime Ministers' Conference in Lagos. It is also a fact that the British government has declared itself unwilling to use force in existing circumstances. Canada agrees with this position. The matter is, of course, in this regard entirely one within the responsibility of the government of Britain.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I take it from what the minister has said that he has no intention of presenting any kind of resolution to the house in order to gather the concensus of hon. members regarding the action the government should take. Since this is now, apparently, water over the dam, I suppose there is very little we can do about it.
February 8. 1966

Supply-External Affairs
Perhaps he could enlighten us on this point. In the event that the minister should recommend to his colleagues that further action of some kind is necessary with respect to the Smith administration, action which might involve the use of force, or something of that nature, would he assure us that he will recommend that parliament be called, supposing it is not sitting? There is a reasonable possibility of this situation arising. I ask this believing the government has erred in failing to call parliament earlier with respect to this matter. Will the hon. gentleman assure the house that parliament would be called in the circumstances I have outlined?
There is a further question I should like to ask. One of the prominent members of the hon. gentleman's party appeared recently on television speaking on behalf of the Liberal party-I refer to the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard-and he made a statement here in the house the other day, during the present debate, to the effect that he hoped the government would impose sanctions against Spain. I cannot see how Spain would figure in this question at all. Spain has no colonies adjacent to Southern Rhodesia; perhaps the hon. member's knowledge of geography is a little misty. I am wondering whether the minister, or the government-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did he not speak of Portugal?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No. I think the hon. gentleman mentioned Spain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He also mentioned Portugal and South Africa.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Well, I should like to know whether he is contemplating sanctions against Portugal, one of our NATO allies, and South Africa.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before this vote is carried I want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that though I support the general point of view held by our party on external affairs, I dealt particularly in the speech I made earlier in this debate with one question, that is, the secrecy which was observed in regard to the training of German troops in Canada and the concern this caused to a great many people.
In my opinion we are entitled to a reply from the minister on the floor of the house rather than have this matter shunted off to the Committee on Estimates to be dealt with whenever that committee discusses the estimates of the hon. gentleman's department.

Would the minister answer these questions? I know he is very good at answering. Why was there so much secrecy with respect to the training of these German troops in Canada? I happen to know that the army public relations staff did not issue any bulletins on this subject until they were obliged to do so as a result of certain incidents. Why the secrecy?
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
In the second place, I should like to ask him this: In view of the attitude taken by the Soviet Union in circumstances where these troops were being trained in Canada for winter warfare in subzero weather, and in view of the wish of Canadians to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union, does he not admit that this was a diplomatic blunder? Then again, after the Soviet Union had expressed opposition to this training plan does he consider it wise to have allowed an unknown spokesman in the department to reply to the Soviet representations rather than recognize the importance of this issue by replying directly himself? Would he tell us who was this anonymous spokesman for the Department of External Affairs? We are very interested to know who he was because we have got his statement, and we want to know is that statement by the anonymous spokesman supported by the minister.
Some reference was made to the agreements between the government of Canada and the government of West Germany with respect to the training of these troops. Would the minister mind tabling these agreements so that members of the house may know exactly what the Canadian government undertook to do? Finally, some time ago the Prime Minister stated that Canada would undertake negotiations to get out of its present nuclear role and commitments. Would the minister mind telling us how far we have proceeded with these negotiations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, when the NATO review is over it will be possible to give a more definite reply with regard to the last question.
With regard to the question that agitated my hon. friend from Oxford, it was a United Nations resolution which provided in effect that arms were not to be shipped to Portugal. Canada respected this to the point that it has been the policy of the Canadian government since 1960 not to permit the export to Portugal, and territories under Portuguese administration, of any arms and equipment which in our opinion could be used for
February 8, 1968	COMMONS
military purposes in the Portuguese overseas territories.
With respect to the allegations of the hon. member for Kootenay West, to my knowledge there has been no secrecy about the cold weather trials. As far back as August 12 of last year the Department of National Defence issued a press release announcing that cold weather trials of German armoured vehicles would be conducted this winter at Camp Shilo by a team of approximately 100 German army and civilian experts. The press release gave details of the equipment to be tested and explained that the purpose of the trials was to determine the operational capabilities of the equipment, in accordance with NATO standards under low temperature conditions.
To show how little secrecy was involved, later a press conference concerning the trials was held at Camp Shilo-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On what date?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: On December 16, which was approximately two weeks after the main body of German personnel arrived there. Also, on December 22, while I was away from Ottawa, an official of my department elaborated further on the purpose and nature of the trials at Camp Shilo. This is the spokesman, I suppose, to which my hon. friend refers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Who was the spokesman?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I do not know. It was the official in the department who had that responsibility.
The use of the military facilities of one NATO country for equipment trials and training of forces of another is an established form of co-operation between NATO partners, and the Canadian government considers such co-operation with its NATO allies to be an integral and important feature of our general defence effort. Under the NATO air crew training program, for example, some 6,000 personnel from a number of countries including the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg have been trained in Canada. Just recently a group of U.S. marines completed cold weather training at Camp Gagetown.
When my hon. friend asked this question some days ago I said I perfectly understood the feelings of some persons in Canada regarding this matter and we took this into account, but we also took into account the fact that we have obligations to a NATO partner and we do not apologize for having taken this particular course.
DEBATES	913
Supply-External Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister not consider this a diplomatic blunder in view of the sensitivity of the Soviet Union, knowing that any troops training in Canada for winter warfare must be training for warfare on the Soviet Union and adjacent countries, in the years ahead?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend perhaps would be a better judge of what is a diplomatic blunder than I am. I do not think it was a diplomatic blunder. What was done here was to treat one NATO partner as we expect ourselves to be treated and as, in fact, we are treated.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister kindly tell me who was the unidentified spokesman?


Mr. Martin (Essex Easl):: I am sure whoever it was in my department, it would be one who would commend himself to my hon. friend.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister does not know who this spokesman was?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This was done without the minister's authority?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said I was out of
the country at the time, but whoever did it made the correct statement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But the minister does not know who it was?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It might have been my hon. friend.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am sure it was not, but the minister stands behind the statement that was made even though he does not know the person who made it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I stand behind it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And you do not know who it was?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I answered that three times.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You do not know who it
was?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said it was a correct statement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this is an amazing thing. The minister does not know who made the statement on behalf of Canada, when he was away, in reply to a great country like the Soviet Union.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.
February 8. 1966

Supply-External Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is a deplorable state of affairs, that people like this can make statements when the minister is out of the country and he does not know them. Really, Mr. Chairman, this is amazing that someone speaks for Canada and the minister does not even know who it was. Possibly his assistant knows. He has got a very legal mind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I find he does not know either.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, he does not know either.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this is the mystery of the session: Nobody knows.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to pursue the line of questioning that has been followed by my hon. friend from Kootenay West even though the troops under discussion tonight happen to be located within hailing distance of my native city of Brandon, Manitoba. It was interesting to note when the troops first arrived in that area, there was quite a flurry of interest in the local press as well as in the Winnipeg press, with letters to the editors pro and con the wisdom of bringing representatives of the German army to train in Canada.
I can tell the hon. member for Kootenay West that so far as the weather was concerned Manitoba gave these troops a very cold reception, with the prevailing temperature being down around 40 and 50 degrees below zero most of the training period. But on the other hand the citizens of the city of Brandon gave them a very warm and cordial reception.
It has been interesting to note that various groups within the city, including church groups, have been extending hospitality, largely because under the NATO program there are some 28,000 Canadians located in the city of Soest.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
No one who has visited that community would come to any other conclusion than I did, that it looks like a little bit of Canada located in West Germany. I may also say that during the previous winter elements of the British army were located at Camp Shilo undergoing the same type of training. They also had a very cold reception as far as weather is concerned, but at the same time they received a very warm response and were extended the hospitality of the good citizens of the city of Brandon. At the commencement of my remarks I stated that I was


not going to pursue this subject other than to indicate that this is a reciprocal arrangement we have accepted under our obligations as a member of the NATO alliance.
In my comments I wish to give the minister an opportunity to accentuate the positive. The discussion to the present time has placed him in a position where he has had to take a negative attitude. He has been chastised for bypassing parliament with respect to the actions of the government relating to Rhodesia. There has also been some criticism that the minister has been a little too closely allied with the United States with respect to Viet Nam policies. In respect of the subject I wish to deal with briefly I suggest that the minister has not followed the United States example as closely as he might have, and I refer to the subject of foreign or external aid. I think he will agree that notwithstanding the faults of the government of the United States, their initiative and generosity in sponsoring the Marshall plan during the very critical period of post-war European development has been one of the great examples of unselfish and disinterested generosity on the part of a modern nation. I do not think it has any parallel in world history.
Canada has been following a far off policy, as it were, in respect of that example established by the United States government. I know the minister has this matter at heart, and that is why I am providing him with an opportunity to accentuate the positive. He has already made several speeches on this subject. I recall that just last June, for example, in a statement made in Toronto with respect to Canada's obligations in the field of foreign aid, he suggested that we should be contributing some $400 million, which is about twice the amount that was being expended by Canada in respect of all the various programs that had been launched up to that time. I can assist him in being positive because the gentleman who now holds the responsibility for the exchequer, the man who has the keys to the treasury-the new Minister of Finance-thinks precisely along the same lines as the Secretary of State for External Affairs in regard to this matter.
At a conference held in Toronto in 1961, known as the conference of the Canadian National Committee on UNESCO the present Minister of Finance made the following statement:
There is one good and sufficient reason for international aid, and that is that there are less fortunate people in the world who need our help. If they are grateful for our help so much the better.
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
If by reason of the aid they receive they become bigger customers for Canadian goods and services, better still. If our aid helps them to achieve what Professor W. W. Rostov calls "take off'' to set their feet firmly on the road to higher standards of living, without resort to communist dictatorships, the benefits to us are beyond measure. But the inspiration must be essentially humanitarian and unselfish. If it is not, if the primary purpose of our aid is to help ourselves rather than to help others we shall probably receive in return what we deserve and a good deal less than we expect.
That is part of the speech made by the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Eglinton. In the light of that statement I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs will receive the warm support of the Minister of Finance in respect of his statement that Canada's commitments could be readily increased from the present $200 million to $400 million. As I say, Canada has been following far off in its policy in this respect.
In 1960, as I recall it, we had a conference on this subject. Shortly after that conference the external aid office was established in the Department of External Affairs. For a short period of time there was rapid expansion in the number of programs in which Canada participated. Most of them are well known to members, but perhaps I can just refresh their memories by referring to the special fund that was established in 1959. Then there was the original program, to which Canada contributed a substantial amount-the Colombo plan.
The special fund came into effect in 1959; the Canada-West Indies program came into effect in 1958.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex (East: The special fund was another program altogether, and our pledge has been doubled.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is the type of information we will be seeking in the minister's reply.
The Commonwealth fellowship and scholarship plan came into effect in 1960; the French speaking African education program came into effect in 1961; the special Commonwealth African aid program came into effect in 1960; the world bank program and the export financing program were launched in 1961; the world food program got under way in 1961 or 1962. This represents quite a large expansion in Canada's participation during those years following the establishment of the external aid office, and particularly after the conference held in 1960.
DEBATES	915
Supply-External Affairs
The outstanding event in international affairs in the twentieth century I think has been the awakening of two thirds of the world's peoples to the fact that a better life is possible for them. Perhaps even as many as 80 per cent of the world's population is included in that category. While the immediate crises that have been under discussion for the past few days during our consideration of external affairs are important, and must be given the immediate attention of the government, namely the problems in respect of Viet Nam and Rhodesia and other troubled spots around the world, the minister has indicated in his remarks that in the long run, he regards this more positive approach as the most important contribution Canada can make toward better understanding in a world that has become a veritable whispering gallery.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
I am wondering whether in his reply the minister would bring us up to date with regard to how some of these plans are functioning and how close we are to the target of $400 million which he has mentioned in several public statements.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I begin by expressing my disappointment in the attitude shown by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As he said this afternoon, this has been one of the best debates on external affairs in years; and that has been my experience in this house, which is not as extensive as that of the minister. However, since coming to the house I have always followed external affairs and without doubt there is a much greater interest shown in this subject than there used to be; more members participate, more members attend to listen to the debates.
During the last two or three days we have been dealing with matters of prime importance to Canada. The war in South Viet Nam, which is escalating and may eventually affect us very seriously, is a matter of the gravest importance to Canada. The events in Southern Rhodesia are of grave importance to the Commonwealth and again-who knows-perhaps to the peace of the world because if trouble breaks out there, we become involved.
There are other subjects, of course, in external affairs-it covers a very large field
February 8, 1966

Supply-External Affairs -but it so happens that on this occasion we have had these two major matters under discussion. I say to the minister that although he accuses me now and again, as he did the other evening, of being too belligerent-I am a man of peace, actually-we have conducted ourselves reasonably and sensibly during the course of what has been a serious debate.
Any participation on my part in the course of the last three days has been occasioned by a serious interest in the subject and based on a fair amount of research and study. Therefore I have not been putting idle questions to the minister; I have not tried to embarrass him. There have been some occasions when I have, but not during the course of this debate.
I have been trying seriously to obtain answers to questions which I think are important. I am sure other people consider them important, also. The minister has now reached that critical stage in the committee's consideration of his estimates where he is on the verge of losing the co-operative attitude of this side of the house.
During the years I have been all through the mill in this respect, sitting on that side of the chamber and this, and I know on what a narrow balance the passing of estimates hangs. I was government house leader for too long not to know the difficulty. Let me tell the minister, who has been here longer than I and should have learned more but has not, that he has now reached the stage where his estimates are not as likely to pass as they were just a few hours ago.
I will tell the minister why I say this. Instead of accepting our serious questions in the way in which they were put forward and giving us serious answers, the minister has adopted some of that arrogance of old, and carelessness. I was thinking just before the supper hour that dealing with the Secretary of State for External Affairs is like nailing jelly to the wall.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Picking up mercury with a fork.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You make an effort, and nothing happens. Let me show you, Mr. Chairman, how this arrogance appeared just this afternoon. I was asking the minister about withdrawing the trade commissioner from Southern Rhodesia. I copied down his answer and my subsequent question. Let us look at them. This is what the minister said about that trade commissioner, "I am sure that the course we have taken is the correct

one". Well, this man can do no wrong. Then he said, "I can tell my hon. friend that it has not in any way denied us an opportunity of making an assessment on the elucidation of further facts".


Michael Starr: Explain.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, explain. You have to have an interpreter for that answer. However, what the minister was trying to say was that the fact we have no such Canadian official in Southern Rhodesia does not make it any more difficult for us to know what is going on in that country. I hope he is not indirectly insulting our trade commissioner and the assistant trade commissioner who were there in the past. Were they not able men? Where is the Minister of Trade and Commerce to defend them? I interrupted the minister and asked, "How do you do that?" Here is his answer, "My hon. friend will have to take my statement as one which is the fact".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Does my hon. friend think that I could give any other answer? Does he want me to give in this house the source of our information?


Gordon Minto Churchill: These are diversionary tactics.


Jay Waldo Monteith: As of old.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am suggesting it is arrogance on the part of the minister to say, "My hon. friend will have to take my statement as one which is the fact". So the house humbly has to accept the statement of the minister. We must bow down to him and say, "Yes, my lord; your word is our gospel". Well, Mr. Chairman, I will not take that at all from this minister, or anybody else. Now he uses the diversionary tactic, "Do you want the minister to divulge to the house the source from which we get our information?" Let us get hold of James Bond, Agent 007, and find out just what is going on. This is mysterious; this is cloak and dagger stuff. We must not know the source because the Russians or the Chinese might find out. We now have a secret source, the minister said so, in Southern Rhodesia from whom we get the facts with regard to that country. Isn't that astonishing. Is he on the payroll?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is there something in the estimates with which to pay him? Is there no expense involved with regard to him? Surely
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
the minister is not being serious in the matter. Now he has disclosed his arrogance and the diversionary tactics which he uses. He may fool some people but he cannot fool us. I have been associated with him in this house for 15 years.


Michael Starr: Too long.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is too long an association, yes.


An hon. Member:: On both sides.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In the course of that time I have been able to understand the minister. Newcomers to this house are impressed by him; they think he is a wonderful man.


Michael Starr: They don't know any better.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They think he has great knowledge, is courteous and kind. And he comes over to our side of the house from time to time. He even goes behind the curtains and talks to the boys.


George James McIlraith: There is nothing wrong with that.


An hon. Member:: He does that to get information.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, he is looking for information; but when we see him coming we send the signal down the line, "Look out". We are not fooled by the minister. Now I shall come to the really serious part of this matter, and I want the minister to give us answers to these questions. I asked him some questions yesterday. I was not doing this just to cause trouble for the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard; I wanted to know whether he was speaking with the knowledge and consent of the minister when the hon. member was advocating, suggesting or hoping that Portugal, South Africa and Spain would have sanctions applied against them if they were not going to assist us in applying sanctions.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Does the minister approve of that suggestion? Is this the policy he is going to follow? Surely he can say yes or no to that question. When the hon. member for Oxford was dealing with the same point, the minister evaded. If the minister is going to evade, we are very patient on this side of the house. We will wait until he changes his mind with regard to evasion. We like to discuss his estimates. Last night, I asked the minister, and I was not being facetious about it, if that were the policy of the government.
DEBATES	917
Supply-External Affairs
A second question was raised by the hon. member for Oxford. If sanctions fail, and this has come up several times now during the debate, what course will the government follow? As I understood the minister when he replied, he has committed the government to the application of force, or support for the application of force if sanctions fail. This is the stand the minister has taken. It is not the stand taken by the Prime Minister of New Zealand or the Prime Minister of Australia. I did not read that into the remarks of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, although the opposition there said he had left a loophole open for him to escape from his commitment. It is not up to me to decide that. We know now where this government stands if sanctions fail. Force will be applied.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just said the opposite. I was replying to the hon. member for Oxford and I said that the Prime Minister of Britain had indicated that if economic sanctions fail-and we do not expect them to fail-then the British government would give consideration to the use of force. I said that we did not believe in the use of force; that is what I said. If one hon. member in this house, expressing his own views, takes another position, he obviously is speaking for himself. However, I do not believe he took that position.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does that last sentence apply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe he said that. The hon. member for York South did say that he would be prepared to support the use of force and my hon. friend may be thinking about him. We have never said we were in favour of the use of force.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister is trying to make the situation very confusing. He now states the government's position, that they are not in favour of the use of force. Am I stating that position correctly?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Canadian government is not in favour of the use of force if sanctions fail?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I dealt with this and I took great pains to do so when I was replying to the hon. member for Oxford. I said we believe that economic sanctions will work. The British government believes that
February 8, 1966

Supply-External Affairs they will work. The British government had been urged by some countries in Africa to use force at the outset as the only effective way of dealing with the situation. This was not the view of the British government, nor was it our view at that time, nor is it our view now.
There are before the Security Council now proposals which have not yet been disposed of. If these proposals are adopted they would involve mandatory action. Thus far UN action has been confined to recommending economic sanctions. If the United Nations decided on a United Nations peace keeping operation, all countries in the organization would have to consider their position. We believe the way to settle this problem is to do what the British government and other governments have done. My hon. friend, who is a serious student of these matters, knows that this is a potentially dangerous situation. None of us would want to say in this house at this time anything that would be misunderstood in Africa or elsewhere. It seems to me that the course of prudence for us in Canada is to recognize the limitations, in a situation like this, for the use of force.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister does not realize I am trying to assist him. I want the minister to say, as these other prime ministers have said, that Canada is opposed to the use of force if sanctions fail; but he will not say it. I want the word to go out from here, just as Sir Douglas Home suggested in the British house that word would go out from that parliament, that Britain was interested in conciliation and negotiation, not the use of force. This is the word I should like to see go from this House of Commons. However, I cannot get the minister to come around to that point of view.
With his diversionary tactics, he talked about the Security Council and the resolution before that council concerning the use of force in Rhodesia. He did not go on to say that Great Britain is a member of the Security Council and that the veto is applicable in that council. Could you expect that Great Britain, a member of the Security Council holding a veto power like the other nations, would agree to a Security Council resolution demanding the use of force against a colony of Great Britain that would be mandatory, as the minister has said?
Then, we were treated to more diversionary tactics. If the United Nations, not the Security Council but the United Nations, came to an agreement that force should be


used in Southern Rhodesia, then the minister was careful not to say this would be mandatory. He said the countries would have to take a look at it. It is not mandatory coming from the General Assembly of the United Nations, but would be mandatory coming from the Security Council. I do not know why he had to go into that. I understand what he is talking about and I am still trying to assist him. He has not clearly stated the case in so far as Canada is concerned, and I think that is regrettable. I do not know why he cannot state that case. I do not know why he has taken such a severe attitude with regard to Southern Rhodesia. I think that the conciliatory approach would be better under these circumstances.
It is no comfort to anybody here that an illegal government has been established in Southern Rhodesia. It is no comfort to anyone here that four million Africans in Southern Rhodesia are denied their political freedom. However, there is some mutual ground. I should like the minister to tell us, now that we are on that point, does he favour the suggestion of one man one vote, which is a proposition put forward by a great many of the African nations? Is the minister prepared to answer that question? Does he favour the step by step process whereby political freedom emerges along with greater training and more education in Southern Rhodesia?
These questions have been the dividing line between those who have been opposing each other on what should be done in Southern Rhodesia. Does he say one man one vote now, which would mean the withdrawal of the Ian Smith government, the withdrawal of control by Great Britain, immediate independence granted-and you may have the blood bath occurring that some people have talked about?
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
The alternative course is the course of steady progress toward the emancipation of those who have not political freedom in Southern Rhodesia. Where does the minister stand on that matter? What course of action does he suggest? In response to the speech I made last night I should have thought that surely the minister could say yes to some of my suggestions. He could say yes, the Canadian government, the Canadian people, want to see the end of an illegal government in Southern Rhodesia, but that they want to see a progression toward complete independence. They want to see complete political freedom in that country carried out in stages
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
which will be acceptable to the experience and educational advance of the native population.
Everything does not have to be done all at once, Mr. Chairman. There is surely some responsibility on our side toward the Europeans who are living in Southern Rhodesia. We are not going just to throw them to the wolves, no matter how concerned we may be with regard to the native population of Southern Rhodesia. I do not know why nowadays we are so keen for everything to be done hurriedly. Unless my memory is faltering, I think centuries elapsed before it was a case of one woman one vote in Canada. The women of this country may say that things were terrible before this happened, but the men may have a different opinion.
How many centuries elapsed in this country before the native population, dispossessed by the French and the English, were given the right to vote? How many centuries elapsed before a representative of the native races of this country had a place in the other chamber? Why the great haste regarding some of these other countries in the world? Who are we to talk, in terms of doing things immediately, when we did not do these things ourselves in this country for a great many years?
I was hoping that the minister would enunciate a program of conciliation and negotiation to settle this problem; that he would stand firmly against the idea of one man one vote, now, and that he would support the idea of a progression toward majority rule, which has to come eventually in Southern Rhodesia but not necessarily tomorrow or this year. Why could the minister not have given that as a guide to parliament and as a guide to the Canadian people in this trouble that concerns us? Why could the minister not have kept a Canadian representative in Southern Rhodesia so that we may know at first hand from a Canadian what is going on in that country, instead of using some mysterious source from which the minister gets his information?
That was the argument I made with regard to the international joint commission in Viet Nam. The minister says that that commission stays, that we need somebody there who will contact the opposing forces and give us the information and the facts, but that in Southern Rhodesia we do not need anybody. I do not think that is logical at all.
Why does the minister not tell us the cost of the airlift of oil that is being undertaken
DEBATES	919
Supply-External Affairs by Canada to Zambia? Should that matter not appear now? We are on estimates and the government is involved in an expenditure. Does it come under External Affairs or the Department of National Defence? How long is that airlift going to continue? How many people are involved? How many aeroplanes are involved? What is the cost to the Canadian taxpayer? We foot the bill, let us have the facts.
These are some of the things the minister might have told us. I am prepared to sit down now and let him answer some of these questions if he will do so. If not, I have some other matters to put before the committee. Does the minister wish to reply at this stage?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my hon. friend that he has never been in better form than when, in the early part of his remarks, he undertook to tell me how to comport myself. I want him to know that I have listened with great interest to what he has said. He may find that the lessons which he gave me will be observed perhaps even more strictly than he anticipated was possible.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Never too late to reform.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend and I obviously do not agree on this question of Rhodesia. We have had certain exchanges and I have stated the position of the government. I indicated that we were opposed to the unilateral declaration of independence; that we had stated so long before the event took place and that we were not alone, that this was a Commonwealth position. I also stated that the arrangements between the government of Rhodesia and the government of Britain were something which were the responsibility of those two governments alone. Commonwealth involvement arose because of this unilateral declaration of independence, which we said long before could not be accepted, and for a number of other reasons. First came its implications for Commonwealth unity; second, this step involved a form of discrimination which could not be accepted and was not being accepted by the great majority of the nations in the world.
As to the particular situation with respect to the treatment of blacks and the treatment of whites in that country, that is a matter which involves negotiations between the two entities, one of which is now illegal, and the other now the colonial power. If my hon. friend would look at the White Paper of
February 8, 1966

Supply-External Affairs September 21 he would find there the five principles laid down by the British government, with which I am sure he is familiar.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I am.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These five criteria had to be observed before there could be any independence accorded by the colonial power, Britain, to Rhodesia. These five criteria have not been observed.
The consequence of this is the action that we and other countries have taken. When the government of Mr. Smith falls, the government of Britain alone will have to determine which is the authority which will evolve out of the present power of the colonial authority. Britain will have to determine what conditions it will lay down for the successor to the present illegal regime in terms of removing discriminations. But to ask us-I say this with great respect to my hon. friend-to say what conditions could now be accepted by the British government would be an intrusion in its affairs in a manner which that country quite properly would resent, and with reason.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I am sorry if I cannot satisfy my hon. friend with regard to what would happen in the event of sanctions not succeeding. I cannot go any further than I have already. We do not believe that force is the way to settle these problems. We believe that the suggestion made at the outset for force to be used in this situation, in the middle of December, was undesirable. We continue to take that view, and we are not alone in that. That was also the view of the British government.
In the event that the sanctions do not work, then the British government undoubtedly will review the matter. The Commonwealth committee set up at Lagos is at this very moment noting the progress being made in the sanctions program.
The Lagos conference committee will decide, by another decision at the end of a particular period, whether there will be another conference at which the matter will be reviewed. I say this without in any way giving the impression that I am not confident in the outcome of the present program of sanctions. I do not believe in the exercise of my responsibilities that I can take any other course or make any other statement than the one I have made. I would say to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Oxford, that under section 33 of the National Defence Act no troops can be dispatched without calling parliament.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1


Mr. Pugh:: I have a short question, Mr. Chairman. Could the minister let us know just how far we are committed with these sanctions? I wonder if any form of reconciliation is going on with the present illegal government in Rhodesia. Is it possible that Canada might be put into a poor position by going along with the British government on the sanctions?
Britain has laid down the five points which she says will have to be satisfied. It might be that Canada could reach a point of saying that the present illegal government in Rhodesia had made a conciliation, to a point. I want to find out from the minister whether Canada is bound to keep to these sanctions until Britain lifts them?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: We have imposed these sanctions for a definite objective. We have established, through the Prime Ministers' Conference at Lagos, a committee of Commonwealth countries that will examine the effectiveness of these sanctions as time goes on. We shall have to review the situation in the light of events at the appropriate moment, and on the basis of recommendations to be made to governments in this Commonwealth committee.


David Vaughan Pugh: The minister speaks of the effectiveness of the sanctions. I want to know if all governments imposing sanctions have agreed to stand together until the bitter end. In other words, might there be some form of conciliation in Rhodesia going on which it might be suitable for Canada to accept, but not for Great Britain, because all five points are not agreed on? In other words, is Canada bound to go to the bitter end until Britain lifts the sanctions? That is the question I want to ask.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: So far as Canada is concerned, there is a committee on which Canada is represented. That committee is observing the development of the sanctions program. So far as countries not being in the Commonwealth, and thereby not being on the Commonwealth committee, I cannot speak for them. They have voluntarily imposed sanctions. I mention countries such as the United States, the Scandinavian countries, Japan and some others. In the light of time they will have to determine whether they wish to continue. I can say without hesitation that those countries that have imposed sanctions have done so because they believed that this was essential to try to bring about tranquility in that part of the world.
February 8, 1966	COMMONS


David Vaughan Pugh: What I should like to know from the minister is whether Canada is bound until the bitter end to go along with this. Are we steering our own course, or do we go in the same direction as Britain? Is there a point at which we can break off, or have we agreed with Britain to go along to the bitter end with the sanctions?
I know that the purpose of the conference was to inquire whether these sanctions are successful. There is only one answer to my question. To be successful, sanctions must strangle the country they are imposed against. If they are successful the government of that country might well be brought to its knees, and thereby be in a better position for reconciliation. This parliament may feel that reconciliation has reached a certain point where we might say yes, whereas Great Britain might say, "No, that is not far enough. We want the five points. We want all or nothing." Are we bound with Britain to go the whole hog as far as Rhodesia is concerned? Do we keep on with sanctions until the bitter end? Can we break off as long as Britain wants to go on? That is what I am asking. Can we negotiate an "out" ourselves at any time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Any sovereign power at any time has the right to decide on any course that it wishes. We have an agreement now with the British government, which I tabled the other night, to co-operate in sanctions against Rhodesia. I am sure that it would be the wish of the people of Canada to co-operate in the terms of that agreement.


David Vaughan Pugh: There is a parallel in this in the earlier example of the American colonies. The minister used the word treason, and I would think that what the American colonies did might be treasonable, when they broke off from Britain. The question is, when does treason start, and when does common sense come in and accept Rhodesia as a nation. I think this is the point that my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre was trying to make. We have to keep our eyes open, if we feel at any stage that Rhodesia is fulfilling her democratic duties. We should then be able to pat her on the back and say: "There it is. That's fine." I am asking, are we bound all along the line to abide by the agreement to the bitter end?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Among the answers that were asked for there is one that seemed a trifle unclear, and that is whether the government of Canada was planning to use economic sanctions against Spain, Portugal and South
DEBATES	921
Supply-External Affairs Africa. I presume that there must have been some mistake when Spain was mentioned by a prominent member of the government party, because I cannot see how Spain came into the question at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I made no reference to Spain.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize that the minister did not, but one of the prominent members of his party, who was speaking on Saturday last, I think did mention that. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said that the government should use economic sanctions against Spain, Portugal and South Africa.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
We would like to know, and I think we should know what the government has in mind, because one of these countries, at least, is an ally directly. We do have friendly relations with Spain. A good many Canadians visit that country. And we still carry on relations with South Africa. Is it the intention of the government, under the same section of the export-import measure as they have used against Rhodesia, to bring in economic sanctions against Portugal or, presumably, what is considered as being an integral part of Portugal, namely Mozambique, and the Union of South Africa? I think we should know whether the minister is planning to do this should these countries not co-operate.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have a question about a Commonwealth matter. It is not in the Rhodesian sector of Africa. I believe we are constantly trying to translate Commonwealth sentiments into Commonwealth realities. I was therefore surprised to learn the other day that a great Commonwealth state in the continent of Africa had submitted a modest request and that this request had been turned down. I mention this so that the minister will see that such a thing does not happen again. I refer to the request from Nigeria to this country for a copy of the Canadian statutes and the Dominion Law Reports.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I remember the hon. member asking this question the other night. There was some mistake. The statute books have been sent forward. This was done before the hon. member spoke.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I hope the minister is up to date. I am referring to an article signed on January 28 by one of the leading professors in international law in this country. If the minister now tells me that this oversight has been corrected I am extremely happy. I know he would be as sorry as I am-
922	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Canadian Criminal Cases were sent in 1961 and the Dominion Law Reports in 1964, and other legal reference works have also been furnished.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall this item carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. I want to record the fact that we have now had a direct answer from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This changes the course of events this evening. It had to do with documents and books sent to Nigeria. But we have not had a direct answer with respect to Southern Rhodesia and I think this is most regrettable.
When he was replying earlier to my plea that Canada should state its position concerning the future course of events in Southern Rhodesia the minister got behind Great Britain again and said this would have to be decided by Great Britain, and we would be intruding in British affairs if we stated any position with regard to what might be done in the future in Southern Rhodesia. Well, I do not know how much more involved we could get with Britain in Rhodesia than we are now, and I do not see what could be wrong about the minister's expressing an opinion concerning the way in which developments might take place in Southern Rhodesia leading to complete political freedom and eventual majority rule in that country. What would be wrong about the minister's giving an opinion on that, I asked him a direct question-whether he favoured the proposition put forward by some countries of the world advocating one man one vote now for Southern Rhodesia. The minister will not answer this question. This thought went through my mind: Is he talking to us here, or is his ear attuned to people somewhere else. Let us think that one over. Why can he not answer a question here in this Canadian House of Commons?
Where does Canada stand? Is it going to be a peaceful, not too delayed process toward one man, one vote, or is it to be one man, one vote now? Surely the minister could tell us here in the Canadian parliament what he thinks about that: But, no. Of course, the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not talk just to the House of Commons. Every word he says is read in embassies around the world. These are earth-shaking statements by the minister and he has to be very careful about what he says. In the debate the other day when he was dealing with this point he
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
DEBATES	February 8, 1966
mentioned that Canada had to be sure we did not offend-I have to paraphrase his words-people in, say, the West Indies. Well,
I do not think we are likely to offend anybody by suggesting a course of conciliation in the trouble in Rhodesia and a course of steady progress toward full self-government. In this we can draw on the experience of Canada as the senior member of the Commonwealth. But the minister will not answer this question. Why will he not answer it? I need a secret agent such as he has in Southern Rhodesia to get an answer to this question.
Who would be offended if this Secretary of State for External Affairs comes out in favour of the steady progress that I suggest and opposes the proposition that there should be one man one vote now? Who would be offended? I leave it to the House of Commons to mull this over. I will never get an answer from the minister. The only direct answer he gave tonight had something to do with books for Nigeria.
Then there is the other question which I raised and which my hon. friend from Oxford raised. The minister will not repudiate the statement of the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Burrard, so it is left open that the government may impose sanctions against Portugal and South Africa if they do not impose sanctions against Rhodesia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I interject? The hon. gentleman would not want that statement to stand for the very reason that he knows that such a statement might be misunderstood in certain places where it would not be desirable to have such a misinterpretation. The fact that one hon. member makes a statement in this house is his responsibility.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The circumlocution of this minister. Why could he not simply say that he does not agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard? That would be clear and definite and the issue would be closed. But he goes round and round and round. He takes us on a global tour and we still do not get an answer.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Would the hon. gentleman expect me as the foreign minister of this country to say that in no circumstances we would not?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, we will just leave it at that. The minister is now prepared in certain circumstances to impose economic sanctions against countries other than Southern
February 8, 1966

Rhodesia. I hope he has advised the Minister of National Defence about this, because if you start imposing sanctions against some country a little too close to us you are on the verge of rather rough action. Southern Rhodesia happens to be a long, long way away. However, we will just let the minister's statement rest at that point.
Can the Minister answer the question I asked earlier? What is the cost to the Canadian taxpayer of the airlift of oil to Zambia? How many planes are involved, how many personnel, what are we paying for it? We represent the taxpayers of Canada and we are taxpayers ourselves. What is the cost of this?
We like to help out Zambia, but we hope the oil being airlifted there will not be smuggled across the border. Any Canadian who has a recollection of prohibition days on the North American continent will know that smuggling is not an impossibility when you prohibit articles of commerce. Will the minister answer that simple little question about the cost of this airlift?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There are four R.C.A.F. Hercules aircraft being used in the airlift to Zambia and the estimated cost would be roughly $.5 million per month.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much. That is the second question which has had a direct answer and I am sure it is very pleasing to the committee. Now I would like to ask something about Viet Nam.
If the minister recalls my introductory remarks earlier this evening, so far as I am concerned the whole course of the debate up until tonight was on a most serious level, and anything I said about South Viet Nam was in the interest of gaining information. I am no warmonger. I have had enough of that in my lifetime, but I am disturbed about the situation in South Viet Nam. I am also very disturbed about the fact that Canada has been talking so loudly about South Viet Nam. Across the country some are in favour of support for South Viet Nam and some people reject the United States action there. Canada is suggesting that a great many things should be done with regard to South Viet Nam, yet what are we doing ourselves?
The other day when I talked about South Viet Nam I put a proposition up to the minister and I saved him the embarrassment of urging that we send combat forces to South Viet Nam. He said earlier that the government was opposed to sending forces to
Supply-External Affairs South Viet Nam and I am not suggesting we should. We are rather widely spread around the world undertaking peace keeping operations here and there. In any case, the people I would be inclined to send to warfare nowadays would be men over 40. They are the ones who should go. They have had their lives and their fun, and why should they not do the fighting, instead of the young fellows? However, I am not going to get into that. I would suggest, however, that if we are not sending combat forces to South Viet Nam, could we not send non-combatant forces? I throw out the suggestion that medical personnel and hospital supplies might be provided for the fighting forces there, the New Zealanders, Australians, and South Koreans, and perhaps we could provide that kind of assistance also for the civilian population of South Viet Nam.
Then I made an alternative suggestion. I said that if the United States wants greater assistance than that-I did not put it in those words then, although I do so now-should we not enlarge our peace keeping operations in northwest Europe and release United States troops from NATO to serve in South Viet Nam?
Subsequently the minister said he was considering these two propositions and I waited patiently for him to give an answer. I ask him now, will he answer?
I add another question. At the NATO ministerial meeting in December last year was a suggestion made that members of NATO should provide medical assistance in South Viet Nam and, if so, what was Canada's response at the time and what has been Canada's response since? I ask a supplementary question: Did Great Britain make an immediate response to that request and send mobile medical and hospitalization assistance to South Viet Nam? Will the minister deal with these questions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I indicated the other night we have been in touch with the Red Cross with regard to medical assistance to Viet Nam. The Red Cross has pointed out that, acting on its own initiative, it has already provided assistance to Viet Nam.
We have been in touch with the government of South Viet Nam and are now waiting for them to place at our disposal facilities for a children's rehabilitation centre. We would be prepared under our external aid appropriations to provide equipment and the services of a medical team under Dr. Gingras of the Montreal Rehabilitation Institute.
February 8, 1966

Supply-External Affairs


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is answer No. 3 tonight. We are really making headway. I now turn to the question of the international commission that has been functioning in Viet Nam. I am looking at the details of the estimates at page 98 of the blue book. I find that the expenditure for that operation in 1962-63 was $274,723; in 1964-65 it rose to $602,300, and the estimate for 1965-66 is $637,000. Has the minister an explanation for that?
This international commission had a mobile capacity in 1962 but that mobile capacity no longer exists. The mobile teams had to remove themselves from North Viet Nam, and I do not see how they can move around in South Viet Nam with a war taking place there. I suggest to the minister that he is overstaffed in this respect. I do not know how he is going to account for the vast increase in expenditure, almost three times what it was in 1962-63. At that time the commission had teams which moved about the country, which observed and made reports. Since 1962 they have become increasingly immobile, yet the expense has increased.
In addition to the civilian personnel from the department will the minister tell us how many people from our armed services are serving jointly with our Canadian mission in that enterprise? Is it correct that there are 100 or more people from the Department of National Defence serving with this international peace commission?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If that is the case, what is the cost of this commission? Someone has estimated that the cost might be well over $1,500,000. I think that is excessive and extravagant and that we are not getting our money's worth. This shows the weakness, which I pointed out on another occasion, of giving a blank cheque to a government, voting interim supply for 11 months of a fiscal year. This government is not being careful with our money. Our job here during the study of the estimates is not only to determine from the minister what the policy is, department by department, but also to ascertain that the money is being wisely utilized. I suggest in this case that this is an unwise use of the money. I do not know how the minister can justify the tremendous cost of that commission, nor how he can justify retaining the size of the commission, to say nothing of increasing it by five in the last year during a period of immobility. This commission may have made some interim reports, but it has only made two major reports, one in 1962 and the other in 1965. The minister has

repeated on several occasions that he is determined to maintain that international commission and he has advanced his reasons. I suggest that he reduce the size and the cost.
I should like to hear from the minister in this regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have already had an exchange on the utility of the commissions. I believe we must maintain these commissions in these Indochina countries for the reasons I have already stated. It would certainly be wrong for Canada to withdraw from participation in these commissions at a time when so much emphasis is being placed on the possibility of negotiations for settlement. The actual and potential roles of the commissions on this account are very significant.
I have the figures with respect to these commissions for the years when my hon. friend was in government. I am not making or drawing any deduction from them, but the fact is they were not very different then. For instance, in 1962-63 the net cost to Canada was $908,473 for both national defence and external affairs. The net cost to Canada in 1964-65 was $1,078,379. In 1961-62 I find that the communications costs were almost as high as in 1964-65, but considerably lower, however, in 1962-63 and 1963-64. The reason for the increase in the costs, in some years, is largely attributable, apart from the increases in pay and allowances, to the cost of communications.
In 1964-65 the increase to $1,078,379 for both departments was largely due to the reactivation of the commission in Laos which, as my hon. friend knows, was revived as a result of action taken by the Geneva powers, including Canada, in 1962. The personnel on the Laos commission at present is as follows: 5 civilians and 21 military personnel. In respect of the Viet Nam commission we have 23 civilians and 45 military personnel. In respect of the Cambodia commission no military personnel are assigned permanently, these requirements are being met by the commission in Saigon, but there are 4 civilians in Cambodia. I may say that the present military personnel in Laos is considered inadequate at the moment to discharge the responsibilities which are being faced by the commission.
I am certain that every care is taken to make sure that there is no unnecessary waste. Treasury officers make regular inspections, as do the treasury officials both in external affairs and in the Department of National
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
Defence. There is no doubt that these operations have given rise to considerable expenditures since 1960-61-in fact, since the commissions came into being, but I think this is an imposition that a country like Canada and countries like India and Poland are prepared to accept in the discharge of international responsibilities placed on them by the Geneva accord powers in 1954.
It would be very satisfactory if these expenditures were unnecessary. It would be very satisfactory for the world if there was no need to spend any money whatsoever in the effort to maintain peace, but I would sooner be able to speak in support of expenditures for the maintenance of peace or for an attempt at the maintenance of peace than to have to ask the house to pass expenditures involved in the prosecution of war.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the minister a question. When the minister was referring to the number of personnel at the commission in Viet Nam, did he say it was considered to be adequate or inadeqate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was referring to the 21 military personnel in Laos.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Did you say this number was adequate or inadequate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is considered to be inadequate at the moment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the minister says he prefers to spend money for peace keeping rather than for war. I agree with him in that preference. That was a fine emotional ending to an answer in response to a practical question regarding the expenditure of money in relation to external affairs. I did not ask for an emotional outburst from the minister, but that is what we got. Perhaps he thinks that is an answer to my question.
I want to ask the minister this question, and I intend to use the figures that he has given. If there are 68 people serving in Viet Nam-23 civilians and 45 military personnel -what are they doing in order to preserve peace there? There is a war going on in South Viet Nam. It has been going on with increasing danger for one solid year. It has been accelerating for the last 12 months. Is the minister suggesting to us that these 68 people in South Viet Nam are doing anything to preserve the peace in that country? That is just nonsense, and I am not going to listen to that type of nonsense on the part of this minister or anybody else.
DEBATES	925
Supply-External Affairs
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
What are these 45 military personnel doing in Saigon, or wherever they are established? I suggest to the minister that this staff should be reduced before some of these people are killed unnecessarily. Why should they be subjected to dangers in that country? They are not there and cannot be there to preserve the peace at this time. Perhaps they were doing that in 1960, 1961 and 1962, but it is plain nonsense to suggest that these people are now doing anything to preserve the peace in South Viet Nam. Why should we spend over $1 million in this way? I would rather spend a million dollars on medical and hospital services for the people of South Viet Nam, or for the soldiers serving there. That is how I would spend the money. But just maintaining a staff of 68 people in Viet Nam under war conditions, and pretending to us that they are doing something toward keeping the peace, is nonsense. If the minister wants to keep somebody there to maintain contact and wants somebody out in the open and not a mysterious, unknown individual such as he has in Southern Rhodesia, that is all right; let him maintain someone in Saigon or elsewhere in South Viet Nam with five or six people to assist and send his messages back. But what in the world are we doing with 68 people on this commission in Viet Nam, running up this expense? It has almost trebled in the last three years, and in that period that commission has been virtually immobile and has not achieved its purpose. That is the situation.
I plead with this minister not to be so stubborn. Why couldn't he have said to me, "Yes, we will reduce the staff in South Viet Nam. We think it is overstaffed"? Instead of that he becomes emotional and says he would rather spend money on peace keeping than on war. Does he imply that I would rather spend money on war than on peace keeping? I hope not. Let us spend this money in the proper way.


An hon. Member:: We are.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just be quiet, my friend, or I will be dealing with you, too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As I say, Mr. Chairman, let us spend this money in the proper way. We are spending $1 million of the taxpayers money to support an organization in a war-torn country where these people cannot achieve the purpose that was intended. We are just being bamboozled by the minister.
February 8, 1966

Supply-External Affairs He said that I gave him instructions earlier this evening and he is going to pay attention to them in the future. I do not like to be giving instructions to a senior member of the house. This is the dean of the House of Commons. Salaam!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should not say anything to the dean. But unfortunately as Secretary of State for External Affairs he has some responsibility and is responsible to the taxpayers of this country. Let us use our money usefully and not carelessly; this is what I am saying. I hoped the minister would have said, "Yes, we will reduce the staff by half and we will try to get on with that number".
If the situation in South Viet Nam improves, the war diminishes in intensity and there has to be supervision during a truce or when new lines of demarcation are being drawn, that is fine; we would say, "Yes, maintain this staff". This has been our attitude with regard to the Canadians we have in Kashmir, in the Gaza strip and all around the world.
We would consent to this staff being maintained if that were the position. But this is a waste of money. We hoped the minister would come half way and say, "Yes, we will cut down this expenditure". But oh no; he goes back to the period when we were in office and says that the expenditures were high-however, he did not give us the figure. I would point out that at that time the commission was active, it was mobile, it was moving around the country. What is it doing now? -just sitting in Saigon. Is the minister prepared to reduce this expenditure or is he going to force me to move a motion that the expenditure be reduced?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot accept my hon. friend's suggestion. I agree with him that there should be no expenditure made that can be avoided. I may tell my hon. friend that I have also looked at these estimates since being in the department and have put forward an argument such as my hon. friend so ably put forward tonight. He looked at me, I thought, a little too sternly, but I hope he does not-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am your friend, you know.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: My hon. friend says he is my friend and I can assure him that he has no greater friend than me. I would simply point out that the present

immobility of these teams in Saigon is due to the fact that about seven months ago the North Viet Nam government instructed the commission that the five teams made up of six or seven persons operating in the north should come back to Hanoi to avoid any danger. We know perfectly well that there was no danger at that time; this was a device to cause the commission to be unable to discharge its role of assessment. But we have an obligation under the terms of agreement with the Geneva powers which we accepted in 1954. We have had to deal with situations as they arise.
My hon. friend is quite right; at the moment it would not be possible to put teams in certain sections of the north, but I can say that attempts are being made to put teams in certain areas of the south. I am advised that we may not have enough military personnel to discharge such a responsibility. I am told that our military personnel number less than the Indian personnel. I am told that the strength of our military personnel is comparable with and slightly lower than that of the Polish personnel.
I assure my hon. friend that if I thought there was any way in which we could reduce these expenditures and at the same time discharge our international responsibility, reductions would be carried out forthwith. The stimulation I have received this evening would certainly cause me to act with alacrity.
We may have to use a larger force. I told my hon. friend today about the suggestion that there be a greater role for the commission in Cambodia, at the invitation of the government of that country, with regard to its border dispute and, as my hon. friend says, the allegation of infiltration into Cambodia by both sides engaged in the Viet Nam war. If that obligation is to be assumed in Cambodia there will have to be an increase in strength. That may have to come from the personnel in Viet Nam; I do not see how it could possibly come from Laos. But I assure my hon. friend that I will carefully bear in mind his strictures of this evening and I shall do my best to see whether any revision can be carried out. I would hope that this assurance of careful attention would at least win for me at this particular moment the complete endorsation of my dear friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, having wiped a tear from my eye I think we should divide the committee on this matter. I therefore
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford:
That vote No. 1 of the Department of External Affairs be reduced by $537,000.
I am putting this motion forward in order to bring this matter to a conclusion. I relate my motion to that part of vote No. 1 which deals with the international commission for supervision and control in Indochina.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Motion (Mr. Churchill) negatived: Yeas, 25, nays, 74.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the motion lost. Shall the item carry?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have one more question, although I do not wish to prolong the minister's Long Day's Journey into Night. A number of questions have been asked by the members of the party I represent, as well as by members of the New Democratic party, concerning Canada's position with regard to the Organization of American States. We have had pronouncements by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in various places around the continent, and in the Caribbean, concerning the intention of Canada to join very soon. I was wondering if the minister could tell us if the government has yet made up its mind what it is going to do, and when?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: As my hon. friend says, there has been some discussion about this matter and there have been approaches made to certain countries, notably two Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean. We have had some discussion with them about this matter. As one would expect, when government policy in this regard has changed, the house will be advised. My hon. friend will recall that the Prime Minister said the other day that before there was any decision taken on this matter by the government, parliament would be given an opportunity of expressing its views.


Mr. Nugent:: I wonder if the minister will clarify for me the extent of the ambitions of the United States in Viet Nam at the present time? In other words, at what stage of affairs can we expect the United States will be content to pull its forces out of the country? Has the minister any information on whether or not, once the Viet Cong forces are defeated
DEBATES	927
Supply-External Affairs and there is no conflict on the soil of South Viet Nam, once we are left with a government which the United States supports and United States troops are in occupation of that territory, there will be an opportunity for free elections supervised by an international corps to make sure the elections are free?
If such were the case and the people of that area favoured the Viet Cong, would the United States then be content to withdraw and allow them to have a government of the type which, it would appear at the moment, the people would favour but we of the western world would not? I think it is rather important, because many people are looking anxiously to the time when there will be peace in Viet Nam. What is the aim of the United States? Is it simply to make sure that the people have a free choice or is it to make sure that before the fighting stops the people must accept the fact the government would have to have the blessing of the United States?
I think many of us were puzzled by the so-called peace ventures of President Johnson. There seemed to be no basis for negotiation. If I may use a parallel, if there were going to be a treaty on atom bombs, for instance, countries could agree that no country that had atom bombs would manufacture them for another country, would not supply parts to another country, would not supply the technical know-how and would not supply the uranium. All these would be conditions which would go into the making of a peace treaty. I understand the President asked other countries to find a peaceful solution. I understand that Canada was in favour of finding some such solution. If the minister does not know the full extent of United States ambitions, if I could call them that, can he tell us the basis upon which Canada was prepared to approach other countries to try to bring about peace in Viet Nam?
What were the essential elements? Did the people of South Viet Nam have to give up any aspirations to a government of their choice? Was that an essential element? Was it the case that there could be no peace without complete surrender of the desire to have a government of their choice? I ask the minister if he can tell us the point at which the people of this country can expect there would be no more fighting? Just how far do matters have to proceed, or at what point is there a possibility of the cessation of hostilities in that land?
February 8, 1986

Supply-External Affairs


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, the government of the United States is responsible, of course, for its own foreign policy. It has stated it would like to undertake negotiations for a settlement on the basis of the 1954 Geneva agreement, which envisaged elections between the two areas of that regrettably divided country, on terms that would guarantee that the elections were indeed free. The Geneva agreement likewise provides that there would be no objection to unification of north and south. In general terms, this is the objective, and the kind of situation to which the United States government, in its recent affirmation of policy, has declared its position.
I would support a negotiated settlement on the basis of the 1954 Geneva Accord. I have said in this house on a number of occasions that the Geneva Accord arrangements provide a solution for airing the differences which, unhappily, have evolved into the use of force on both sides with outside intervention. Canada has, from the beginning, taken the position that it was desirable there should be a cease fire. When the unaligned nations made an appeal for negotiations, without any conditions, we supported the essentials of that appeal, as did indeed the President of the United States shortly thereafter.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Since that time we have made two appeals ourselves for a resumption of the conference on Laotian or Cambodian questions, on the theory that since there would be the same participants attending the conference, there may be some indirect way of dealing with or causing the beginning of discussions with regard to the Viet Nam dispute. As my hon. friend knows, it was not possible to get the two co-chairman countries to call such a conference together. We likewise joined with the British government in an appeal to the Soviet Union, the other co-chairman, that there should be a conference on Viet Nam itself.
None of these endeavours has succeeded. We know of the endeavours of the Secretary General of the United Nations to which we have given our approval. We are all aware, as the hon. gentleman noted a moment ago, of the efforts made by the President after the cessation of the bombing shortly before Christmas, and of his emissaries to the various capitals of the world, one of whom came here, to try and encourage the other side to enter into negotiations for a peaceful settlement.


I may say to my hon. friend that within the past ten days I myself, on behalf of the government, have conferred in Ottawa with the representatives of several countries with regard to suggested courses which might be pursued in order to try to support or supplement the activities that have already taken place along the lines I have generally indicated. Only tonight between the hours of six and seven o'clock I had discussions with the High Commissioner for India. It may be that there will be an opportunity before many days have passed for further discussions at the United Nations; and I hope that events will have so evolved as to make it possible to me to take part in these efforts.
I mention this, Mr. Chairman, simply to indicate to my hon. friend that we are doing everything we can, as are other countries, to try to bring about without any pre-conditions acceptance of an offer that has been made by the United States to try to negotiate this dispute. The United States has put forward 14 points. Hanoi has put forward four points. It is not clear at what point some of these conditions are to be made operative as far as Hanoi is concerned.
I do not find the same difficulty in appreciating the point at which the proposals of the United States are to be implemented. I can only reiterate that I hope the efforts of the Pope, the efforts of the secretary general and the efforts of the neutral and unaligned nations-I mention these efforts in this particular context because of contacts that they may have with Hanoi and with Peking not open to others-might assist in convincing the government of the north and the Viet Cong, and any other country whose involvement must be noted, that there can be no solution on military grounds alone to this regrettable situation.
I note with satisfaction the statement of the President today that it is not his intention to engage in a conflict without limit. I can only hope that, without in any way detracting from the motives and the purposes which brought the United States into this situation it will now be possible to convince both sides that by mediation and negotiation more will be gained for the future of Indochina than could be gained by incessant conflict. At any rate those are the considerations involved in the attitude taken by the government of Canada regarding this matter.
[Translation1


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the question raised
February 8, 1966	COMMONS
a moment ago by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) in connection with Canada's membership in the Organization of American States.
I know that, although it has no definite policy with regard to this problem, the Canadian government seems interested in the matter. On the other hand, Canadians are asking themselves a lot of questions about the government's future policy with respect to its membership in the O.A.S.
Naturally, before the government comes to any decision the Canadian people would like to know about the economic implications, that is the economic commitments our country would have to make before joining the O.A.S.
But I should like to ask the minister, without, however, asking him to state the government's definite policy, as he said a while ago a decision had yet to be reached, if Canada is still sending observers to the annual meetings of the Organization of American States, and how often these meetings are held.
I should also like to know if President Johnson of the United States follows the same policy as his predecessor with regard to Canada's adhesion to the Organization of American States.
I remember when President Kennedy came to Canada, he made a rather pressing plea, asking Canada to join the O.A.S.; in fact, he made it in this very house.
I should like to know whether President Johnson exerts those same pressures on Canada and whether the present government had discussions recently with President Johnson with regard to this problem, that is adhesion by Canada to the Organization of American States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member, I must say that, at the last conference of the organization in Rio there was a Canadian observer.
To my knowledge, there was no statement made by the President of the United States since the one made here by President Kennedy. But I want to say frankly that, should Canada decide to accept an invitation, the United States would make no objection.
I am sure also that if the Canadian government would take that decision, the United Kingdom would not object either.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, since the minister recalled the past a few moments ago, I am sure he will not hold it against me if I take a few minutes to ask him a few questions.
DEBATES	g29
Supply-External Affairs
When he sat on this side of the house, he used his privileges with great tact, and I am convinced he will not leave my question unanswered.
Last week a question was asked on the obligations, responsibilities and authority of the governments concerned, with regard to agreements signed by foreign countries and provinces or provincial governments. As mention was made, a few moments ago, of the part played by His Holiness Paul VI with regard to the conflict, I should like to know what the minister feels the role of Canada should be with regard to Paul Vi's effort to prevent and put an end to the present conflict. Under the direction of the minister, will Canada make every effort to support the endeavours of His Holiness? Will Canada consider itself as a nation that will do everything it can so that the belligerents will come to terms? I am sure the minister will want to answer those questions and will not let them go unanswered, as this seems to be the general impression he wants to create when members on this side of the house ask him questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. member knows very well, the authority to commit Canada lies entirely with the federal government. Only the federal government can enter into treaties with foreign powers.
About cultural agreements, as the hon. member knows very well, there have been exchanges recently between the representatives of France and those of the Quebec government, under an agreement reached by the government of Canada and that of France; such exchanges depend at the same time on arrangements made by France and Canada.
There is no misunderstanding about that matter. Everything is going well and the jurisdictions of all three groups concerned, France, Canada and the province of Quebec are respected.
We supported the request made by the Pope who proposed at the United Nations that non-aligned nations undertake to supply the conciliation needed to settle that conflict.
The Prime Minister said today: "I made known to the representative of the Vatican 48 hours ago the support of our country." We want to thank most sincerely His Holiness for taking this initiative and when I met the representative of the Vatican the other day, I took that opportunity to assure him that Canada, like the other nations, will never forget the memorable impression left by His

February 8, 1966

Supply-External Affairs Holiness' statement last October 6 to the General Assembly of the United Nations.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, in the light and in the glow of the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the statements of His Holiness Pope Paul VI last October 6, and considering the initiative taken by the government, following the representations made and the words spoken by His Holiness, thanking him for his enlightened suggestions, could the minister tell the house whether the government is carefully considering, once and for all, the possibility of having a Canadian ambassador to the Vatican? Since His Holiness has probably less interest in world politics than certain governments, an ambassador to His Holiness would perhaps be most helpful to us in many cases and for many things.
Does the minister think that it would be advantageous for this country to have an ambassador to the Vatican as such, in view of the fact that it is a state? We often talked about this, but we were always put off until later, with the result that we never had any concrete results in this connection.
I should like the minister to give us his impression on this matter, and even a final answer. Is it the intention of the present government to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican? Such an ambassador would be in close relationship with His Holiness and he could provide us with information that we, as the government, or politicians, or representatives of a country in the field of world politics and business, could not obtain, as we would not be in as good a position as His Holiness. Would the minister answer that question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I can only say to the hon. member that I greatly appreciate the advice which he gave us and which will be very helpful in the study we are now making of this matter.
tEnglish]


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I hesitate to take more than a minute, but Thoreau said that people sometimes listen to different drummers, and I happen to be listening to a different drummer in so far as the situation in Rhodesia is concerned. I suppose all public men are imbued with a certain amount of vanity, but I do not want the record to show that I do not completely support the stand that the government has taken vis-h-vis Rhodesia. It seems to me that we have to view the situation in
fMr. Martin (Essex East).]
the long perspective of history. History has to teach us something, and if we will not listen then we have no right to be here. The only person who has cause of action, if that is the language to use about the validity of these sanctions, is surely Ian Smith, who is the epitome of the absence of the rule of law.
I was going to say that I do not give a something-but I will not say it-about whether the sanctions are legal or not. It does not matter to me. I want to suggest that this Commonwealth of ours that we stand up and give lip service to every once in a while in public meetings, in editorials and so on, was in very grave danger at Lagos. I think we are very lucky indeed, as Canadians, that this conference was a success. We on this side of the world are a minority in the Commonwealth, and I think that we have a responsibility to show the majority of the Commonwealth that we can put up, not shut up. I know this is a vulgarism, but it illustrates what I mean.
We have given a demonstration by the sanctions that we intend in this issue to show evidence of our feelings to the majority. I sat at the back of this room not so many years ago when my leader made a declaration from a seat very close to where the Secretary of State for External Affairs is sitting. I do not mind telling you that that declaration gave me a tremendous amount of satisfaction. I think some of you who were here will remember that occasion. The place was charged with an atmosphere, and the then prime minister had come home after taking a stand of which we were all proud.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Have we forgotten that course? That is what I ask. I do not think we have forgotten that course. The rest of this is just so much semantics. I am one removed now from the ultimate division of authority in this house, but it disturbs me to think that in these days that declaration, and the declaration which has been followed because of our union with Rhodesia, is in danger of being whittled away by anything we say here. That is why I have butted in now.
We have a great Canadian, Arnold Smith, who is now in London as secretary of the Commonwealth secretariat. This is a tremendous evolution in Commonwealth thinking. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs will agree with me that in the days of another great Canadian, Mr. Mackenzie King, this would have been impossible. I had better not get into the metaphysical aspect, but if he
February 8, 1966

had any way of being around when this decision was made, he must have been extremely agitated.
I am not agitated by this step. On the contrary, I am pleased to think that a Canadian is occupying this terribly sensitive place. This Commonwealth is an anachronism. We know it. We spend a good deal of time in other parts of the world trying to explain it. A good many people doubt its validity; they doubt whether it is viable in the context of the world today. But if we cannot agree on what it should do when the rule of law vanishes among one of its members, then I can only fear for what may happen in the future.
We know there is a police state in Rhodesia. We know there is an illegal regime there. The Prime Minister of Britain disclosed the other day what that country intends to do when the Smith regime collapses. He said the governor, the only legitimate authority in that nation now, would resume power until such time as a properly constituted government could carry on. The tragedy of Rhodesia is, surely, that there has not been any marching along. There has been no preparation for these four million people to take over their rightful place in Rhodesian affairs. And the government there, with its short history-it has only been there since 1923 or so-is still living in the days of Cecil Rhodes.
It disturbs me very much to hear this word battle over sanctions. Of course, we had to have sanctions. I, for one, hope these sanctions will mean that the illegal government will fall, and the sooner the better. I do not think anybody has to make an announcement now as to what the position would be if the sanctions do not work. But if the sanctions do not work, and if this bootleg regime carries on in the middle of Africa, I feel that the commonwealth as an entity, as an onward-going thing, will have no validity on the world scene, and this troubles me a great deal more than talk about the legality of orders in council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
lb. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates $267,100.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a brief question. I could have asked it on the first item but I thought it might be better to let that item get through. Would the minister
23033-59J

Supply-External Affairs say something to the committee concerning the appeal which was made by Peace Research Abstracts for a grant to assist in connection with what is being done by these people whose work is carried on under the aegis of the Canadian Peace Research Institute?
As the minister knows, many members of the house are interested in this matter. I believe he has received a number of letters in support of this application for a grant toward what some of us believe to be a worthy and worth-while effort. Would the minister tell us something about this-perhaps something hopeful?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am aware of this plea. I know the hon. gentleman is interested in this matter as are some of my hon. friends on this side of the house. I am giving consideration to it but I cannot say anything definite at the moment because I have not had the opportunity of giving it the attention I wish to give it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I take it from what the minister has said that the door is not closed to the possibility of a grant?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The door is not closed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5. Representation Abroad-Operational-including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $16,865,000.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This has something to do with the proposal put forward this afternoon with regard to securing for the staffs of our representatives abroad the right to vote in Canadian elections. A large number of these people are, unfortunately, deprived of news about anything that is happening in Canada.
In the last four or five years I have visited in Europe a great many of our embassies and similar posts. I had a similar opportunity this year, while attending the conference of the parliamentary association, to visit our diplomatic posts in New Zealand and Hong Kong. Mr. Chairman, there is a complete dearth of any news about Canada in all these places. One is reminded of the hoary old jokes about the presence of last year's publications in doctors and dentists waiting rooms.
In this day and age there is no valid excuse for not having at least a representative crosssection of Canadian newspapers and periodicals available at our Canadian embassies.

February 8, 1966

Supply-External Affairs Hon. members would be surprised how short they are of up to date news from Canada. Some of our senior posts depend on news bulletins emanating from the C.B.C. international service-bulletins which are mailed to them and which they receive six or seven days after publication.
This is not good enough. We have regular air force transports flying to Europe. They supply themselves with newspapers. We could certainly arrange to supply our European chancelleries with up to date newspapers, not only for the use of the staffs but for the visitors who call. There is nothing so frustrating for a Canadian traveller than to be unable to find out what is going on in Canada.
Let us face it, we do not make the foreign newspapers either in Europe or in the Far East unless there is some major disaster- some headline event in Canada which perhaps rates about an inch in the foreign press. To supply the need may cost us $50,000. It is not cheap.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I want to see newspapers from Halifax to Victoria by air-and not by slow boat to China, because that is not good enough. I can remember how hard it was to get news about Canada when we were in New Zealand. If we are going to give them the vote then give them a chance to bring themselves up to date.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This has been a very helpful suggestion and I hope the Minister of Finance was listening.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Instead of making special provision for our diplomats abroad so that they can vote, I suggest that the minister co-operate with his colleagues and receive their support so that our Canada Elections Act can be amended to provide for absentee ballots in order that all Canadians abroad can vote.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A good suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
10. Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, equipment and furnishings, $2,276,000.
[Translation1
Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, just one question. Under item 10, I find that the appropriations for Columbia will increase by 60 per cent. Could the minister state briefly the reason for this increase?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not understand the question.


Clément Vincent: Under item 10, there is an expenditure for "Colombie-Columbia".

You have increased expenses by 60 per cent, with only one man more.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, but I do not
understand the question. What is your question?


Clément Vincent: Could the minister tell us why there is an increase of approximately 60 per cent from 1964-65 to 1965-66?
In 1965, the appropriation was $93,252 and for the current year, it is $147,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I shall have to look into this matter. I shall give an answer later, because I do not have the details on hand.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 10 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 10 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
15. Contributions to international multilateral economic and special aid programs as detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such amounts as are specified in U.S. dollars notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1964, $12,517,000.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Earlier this evening I inquired of the minister concerning certain matters with respect to external aid. I had to be out of the chamber for a while this evening but 1 do not think the minister has indicated how close he is to approximating that target of $400 million which he has been referring to from time to time.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Well,	Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman had to leave the chamber but I want him to know I paid great attention to what he said. In the past two years we have doubled the amount of money available for external aid. With the contributions we shall be making to the Asian Development Bank this year, the total amount available will be roughly $250 million as compared with half that amount in the summer of 1963. When one compares the increase with the sum initially made available the Colombo plan, $400,000, it will be seen that we have gone a long way.
In the kind of world in which we live, with both developed and developing nations, one
February 8, 1966

cannot help but note that there is still a great deal to be done by all countries. However, I am happy to say we have made these increases and I hope, in conformity with the announcement made in the Speech from the Throne, that we will be able to increase the total amount available so that we can enlarge the scope and extent of our external aid program which now touches not only Asia but Latin America and Africa.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As I indicated to the minister earlier, he has a staunch ally in the Minister of Finance who, I am sure, will read the observations I made in this respect. Could the minister indicate how much of the $250 million is in what might be called soft loans?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Some $50 million. This is a new form of assistance that is greatly appreciated in Latin America.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
40. Salaries and expenses of the commission and Canada's share of the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations of the commission, $179,500.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In the New York Times of December 23 last there was a news item which stated that the United States and Canada agreed on that date to negotiate on the co-operative development of the St. John river in Maine and New Brunswick, and that talks were expected to begin early in January. It added:
The agreement was reached in an exchange of notes between Canada's foreign Secretary, Paul Martin, and United States Ambassador W. Walton Butterworth.
Strangely enough this news did not appear in any of the Canadian papers and I was rather surprised. Has the minister any information to give us on this quite interesting development, and can he table the exchange of notes between the United States and Canada?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I will be very glad to table these notes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister give us any information with respect to the negotiations in connection with this co-operative development?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I cannot report that there has been any progress as these negotiations are just beginning.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Knowing the sort of atmosphere that exists nowadays, will these negotiations be carried on at the diplomatic level and then, when they are completed, will the house be presented with a treaty and
Supply-External Affairs told, "You cannot alter or amend it; you can only talk about it, but in the end you must accept it"?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I will certainly take into account my hon. friend's concern in the matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is all right for the minister to say he will take that into account. Does this mean that a treaty will be signed and presented to the house and we will be told, as with the Columbia River Treaty, that we can talk about it but not amend it?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: We will have to wait until we hear more about the results of the negotiations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister keep the house informed of these negotiations?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: To the extent that it is possible, I will.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: "To the extent that it is possible;" the minister is most adept in adding qualifying phrases and conjunctions that do not unite. I know a lot of the members from the maritimes are interested in this development and I have heard from people down there who are very concerned about it.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
What I am concerned about is, are we going to be faced with a treaty that has been signed and then told by the minister that we can talk about it all we like, but we cannot amend it?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Chairman, I assure my hon. friend that I will keep him informed to the fullest possible extent, and that is all I can say.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not only want your hon. friend to be kept informed: I want this house to be informed.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: We will keep the house informed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We all want to be kept informed about these developments before a treaty is signed.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Of course.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We want to be given the opportunity of debating the terms of the treaty before it is signed. Will the minister, give this house an opportunity to debate the terms of any treaty before that treaty is signed?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that it is not possible to

February 8, 1966
Supply-External Affairs give him that kind of an undertaking. I would hope that in respect of the terms of a treaty and before ratification becomes effective, this house would be given an opportunity of accepting or rejecting whatever may be the government's position with regard to that treaty.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the minister talks about ratification. He knows that when he signs a treaty he has his majority behind him and that it will be ratified. In effect, he is telling the opposition that it can talk about it but it cannot change it.


An hon. Member:: What majority?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I refer to the members of his own party and those troops he can call in on occasion.
I should like to say a word or two on the expenses of the International Joint Commission. I know the present chairman approaches life somewhat differently than the former chairman because he recommends what is known as the Heeney-Merchant formula for dealing with international problems; that is, do it at a diplomatic level, keeping it away from the people, making it possible for the minister to present a treaty which nobody can change.


Norman Platt Lambert: Wearing carpet slippers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is a contribution from the Progressive Conservative side of the house, of a very high type indeed.
I have mentioned this before, but I am going to mention it again. I think this is a most undemocratic procedure. I am glad to note that a great number of editors throughout this country have taken exception to the Heeney-Merchant formula where everything is done at a diplomatic level and we are faced with a fait accompli such as occurred in respect of the Columbia treaty.
The former chairman was an engineer and when he attended these international meetings Canadian people were informed as to what happened and as to the attitude taken by the United States army engineers or any other interested parties. That was his approach to the formula and I am sure it created a lot of interest in respect of problems with which he was dealing.
Before sitting down I want to deal for a moment with the interim report of the International Joint Commission between the United States and Canada on pollution of lake Erie, lake Ontario and the international sections of the St. Lawrence river. This is
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
quite a lengthy report, but I should like to quote from the Globe and Mail of February 3 in respect of it. This news item is headed "Langford supports report on pollution". It states in part:
The interim report of the International Joint Commission states well-known truths about pollution and has the advantage of attracting the attention of politicians, Professor George Langford, Director of the University of Toronto Great Lakes Institute, said yesterday.
"The statement outlines the problem generally in a fashion that makes it clear they are against sin," he told the Electric Club of Toronto at a lunch.
The article then states:
Prof. Langford has repeatedly warned of pollution dangers. He spoke yesterday, in a voice cracking from a heavy cold, with the weary attitude of a man who sees his warning heeded when it comes from another source.
He said the joint commission is the senior agency in lakes study and as such attracts attention at Ottawa and Queen's Park but it has no power to start corrective programs. It only studies and reports, he said.
Then he goes on to deal with their studies with respect to pollution of these lakes.
The joint commission report concludes by stating:
The commission recommends that the two governments support fully the commission's program of investigation and research-as outlined in this interim report and as subsequently developed- by the provision of the personnel and facilities required from time to time for its effective implementation.
Of course we all know that the greater amount of the study on this question has been done by the institute mentioned by Dr. Langford.
The news item then concludes with these words of Dr. Langford:
The government in Ottawa, like Rip Van Winkle, has been slowly waking up and setting up massive machinery to start studies. But this is no time for study; this is the time for action.
Will the minister inform the house what action the government intends to take to correct this situation exposed by the interim report on the great lakes? Are there going to be numerous other studies based on the information already obtained by the Toronto great lakes institute?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The report has been tabled and we hope that the International Joint Commission will be able to complete its investigations on an urgent basis, and finally recommend action as a priority in respect of lakes Erie and Ontario.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When does the government expect that action to commence to implement the recommendations of these studies?
February 8, 1966	COMMONS


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: That will depend on the action taken by the responsible United States authorities and by the province of Ontario, and on the policies which will have to be devised by the federal government based on those recommendations.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to reverberate some of the thunder of my friend from Kootenay West in respect of this same group of figures appearing at page 116 of the estimates, being item B-International Joint Commission with particular reference to the fourth item, Canada's share of the expenses of the studies of boundary waters pollution.
Last year when we were discussing these estimates I pointed out to the house the inadequacy of the amount of $13,000 for 1964-65. That was the total amount allowed for studies of this problem in this country, which is so troubled with pollution at this time. That was all the department could dig up to study and fight this serious fault in our civilization today. I think this is a disgraceful inadequacy.
This item this year has been increased from $13,000 to $15,000 as has been pointed out by other members. One does not have to be much of a mathematician to figure out that that increases this item by just less than 16 per cent. The government is derelict in its duty in this regard. That 16 per cent increase will not even cover the extra costs created by the escalation of costs this year in respect of studies. This paltry $2,000 more to be spent this year on this item is a further indication of the careless handling of this matter by the government.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I note that there have been vast increases in expenditures for external affairs; we have been discussing these matters for several days now. Also, Mr. Chairman, the minister said only a few minutes ago that this government has doubled the expenditure in regard to external aid. He mentioned the fact that soft loans have been made to some countries.
I believe that soft loans are ones which are uncollectable; in other words, it is money given away to other countries. In spite of these vast increases in external matters the government can only see their way clear to increasing this domestic item by 16 per cent or a paltry $2,000.
As my hon. friend from Kootenay West has pointed out, our scientists and technicians are finding that a serious problem exists in regard to lake Erie and lake Ontario. Lake
DEBATES	935
Supply

External Affairs Erie has the worst problem, of course, being more advanced in what amounts to the death of the lake, although lake Ontario is fast becoming one of that class. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to seriously reconsider making available a larger sum of money in this connection in order that we may take some action toward solving the serious problem of pollution that today besets our public waters.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There will be another $90,000 in the supplementary estimates.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item No. 40 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, might I call it ten o'clock? I wish to speak at length on this item.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Crouse:: Speak up.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
York-Humber.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Two minutes.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: With regard to item No. 40 in the estimates of the Department of External Affairs relating to the International Joint Commission I have some comments to make in connection with the water levels of lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river. I spoke at some length in this house in May and June of last year with regard to the low water levels of lake Ontario as distinct from the water levels of the upper lakes, such as lake Erie, lake Huron and lake Superior.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Chairman, would my hon. friend permit me to make a suggestion in view of the fact that it is only 9.30?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Would my hon. friend agree to make these observations on the estimates of the Department of Transport? The implementation of this item really belongs to that department; my department is simply the agent for the government in dealing with another government. Therefore would my hon. friend not think that might be a good suggestion?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am very anxious to co-operate with the Secretary of State for External Affairs; a friendship of more than 40 years is not valued lightly. But I will not agree to
936	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs discuss this matter on the estimates of the Department of Transport. The matter of the International Joint Commission is one for the Department of External Affairs, and I have a great deal to say on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, does my hon. friend think that his feelings after 40 years of friendship, which I reciprocate fully, would warrant my making the plea again?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: No, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, have we not been saying "Ten o'clock" loudly enough for you to hear us?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; it being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report certain resolutions and ask leave to sit again?


George James McIlraith: Would it be possible to carry on for a moment or two, Mr. Chairman? The hon. member for York-Humber has been quite frank with the minister in saying he wants to speak now and he will not speak at length.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is a friend of the minister's.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said for 40 years.


Raymond Langlois: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to speak after the hon. member for York-Humber and so does the hon. member for Comox-Alberni? We shall probably be here for quite some time, therefore after the hon. member for York-Humber completes his remarks perhaps we should call it ten o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I rise, report the resolutions and ask leave to sit again?


Michael Starr: I want to say a word on this subject. We have had a very thorough discussion of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs covering three days now. Surely, with only two items outstanding for passage, and since we are anxious that they should go through, we are prepared to sit beyond ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to assure the hon. member for York-Humber, the hon. member for Megantic and the hon. member

DEBATES	February 8, 1966
for Comox-Alberni, that if they will speak on the first item of my department with regard to the question of water levels and the question of the St. Lawrence, which subjects are just as relevant to my department, which is the next department to be called, if they would agree to co-operate in that way, it seems to me we could end the External Affairs estimates tonight. Then tomorrow, we could go ahead with mine. I have been like a prima donna, sitting here all day waiting to get on the stage.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I regret to find myself in the position of having refused the request of a friend of 40 years standing and acquiescing in the request of a friend of a few years standing. However, if the hon. member for Essex East will forgive me, I will acquiesce in the request of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I do so very readily.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 40 carry?


Mr.   Barnell@: Since my name has been mentioned, I should like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that my desire to rise had nothing to do with water levels in the context mentioned by the Minister of Transport. I simply wanted to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question which I hope he can answer briefly. If he is prepared to do that, I would ask the question at this moment.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Mr.   Barnell@: My question relates to an item concerning Canada's share of the expenses of the proposed Alaska-Yukon river reference. I noticed there was an item for this in the previous year's estimates, but there is no item carried forward in the current estimates.
I should like to know if this means-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No arrangement has yet been made.


Mr.   Barnell@: -that the reference has been discontinued or whether the minister is going to negotiate a treaty by devious means-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No arrangement has been made as yet.


Mr.   Barnell@: Is it contemplated that an arrangement may be made?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: One is under consideration, but I cannot go further than that at the moment.
February 8, 1966


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


Raymond Langlois: Always on the understanding that I may come back tomorrow and speak on this subject on the estimates of the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is understood.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L20. Loans to governments of countries other than members of NATO to provide defence support assistance, $20,000,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, changes in circumstances since these estimates were prepared have rendered this item unnecessary. I, therefore, ask my colleague the Minister of Transport to move that item L20 be deleted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
10. Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, equipment and furnishing, $2,276,000.
Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I accept the suggestion of the minister that an answer will be supplied tomorrow or the day after.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: During examination of my estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This concludes the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. Shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might have consent to revert to motions to make a motion with respect to the reference to the Committee on Transport and Communications of the subject matter of the Canadian Pacific Railway passenger service, which I have discussed with representatives of hon. gentlemen opposite and to which I believe there is general agreement. In doing 23033-60
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion so, sir, I should like it to be clearly understood that there will be no attempt on this side of the house and on my part to restrict in any way discussion on my estimates, because that would not be fair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to revert to motions at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith):
That the subject matter of the adequacy of the present program and future plans for passenger service on the lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway to meet the effective demand of the public for such service, and the effects of such program and plans, be referred to the standing committee on transport and communications for their consideration and report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear on one point. I take it that the fact that this matter is being referred to a committee of the house will not in any way preclude a full discussion of the question of passenger service offered by the C.P.R. on the minister's estimates tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what I said when I asked the house for leave to let me move this motion. As far as I am concerned I will in no way seek to restrict in any way discussion in committee of the whole of my estimates, because the house has been good enough to allow this motion to be made tonight.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we will call the Department of Transport estimates for consideration; following that, the Department of National Defence.


An hon. Member:: And after that?


George James McIlraith: The Department of Agriculture.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).



WATER RESOURCES-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANTI-POLLUTION POLICY

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have spoken about water so much in the last
938	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion few days that many members may think I have water on the brain. On orders of the day today I asked the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys a question which is of very considerable local importance in the Kootenays, and which also has national significance, although Mr. Speaker did not quite see it in that light. My question was this: Has the minister received a brief and a petition from the Nelson Rod and Gun Club through the British Columbia Wildlife Federation requesting the government of Canada to establish a definite anti-pollution policy with reasonable haste? If so, would the minister inform the house of his response to this petition.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not sure whether the petition has yet arrived. But I mention this particularly because these are groups of people who are attempting to do something for Canada itself. These groups are studying this question, and the brief I wish to quote from is the result of persons meeting together in local organizations and in some cases travelling hundreds of miles to draft and to adopt a resolution, and finally a petition, and forward them to the appropriate department in Canada.
I am always one who likes to support local initiative and co-operation on the part of organizations which are interested in public affairs, whether they deal with natural resources, human rights or any other aspects of our society.
I will not quote the entire brief, but I will read this one paragraph:
Vested interests are naturally prejudiced against any mandatory involvement in agreements to provide adequate means to destroy the harmful effects of residue from their manufactured products, claiming the cost of pollution control is prohibitive, notwithstanding the fact that modern, scientific methods of eliminating man-made pollution of water is available.
Piecemeal adoption of water pollution control, such as a river system which is populated by one hundred villages, towns, and cities as an example, out of which three or four have sewage control, does not under any guise compensate the expense ratepayers of the individual sewage control systems are burdened with and who, in all sincerity, demonstrate their willingness to purify the river's water. If the remaining agencies dump unnecessary effluent into the river or its tributaries their efforts remain fruitless.
This subject has been discussed by municipalities, rod and gun clubs and other organizations owing to pollution which is developing in the Kootenay and in the Columbia rivers, particularly in the lower regions before they enter the United States. As

DEBATES	February 8, 1966
a result of these discussions the following resolution was adopted:
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Whereas discrimination exists in British Columbia: If an individual builds a dwelling, where a septic type tank for sewage is required, it is mandatory that a system approved by the Department of Public Health be installed. In most cases these systems are expensive yet a city of ten to twenty thousand people may unceremoniously dump its sewage into the same river. Ore reduction mills are required to employ a settling basin to prevent acids, poisons, and slime from entering a stream, yet smelters and pulp mills may indiscriminately dump their wastes directly into the same waterway.
This is what is happening in the Kootenay region.
And whereas The Nelson Rod and Gun Club is a segment of organized society dedicated to the conservation of fish and wildlife and comprised of municipal, provincial, and federal taxpayers. It is fully conversant with the necessities of an expanding economy and is in no way intending to obstruct industry's effort to this end. We offer assistance in attaining a multiple use of resources, a live and let live policy that can assure a better way of life for laymen, industry and government; and further, while we are particularly concerned with water conditions existing and escalating in British Columbia, we recognize that this province is only one segment of the Dominion of Canada, all provinces, islands, Yukon and Northwest Territories. These have equal responsibility in the elimination of water pollution. The government of Canada must now have the responsibility for the implementation of a definite anti-pollution policy, the cost of which to be amortized over the years by industry and citizens of the Dominion of Canada.
Then the brief goes on:
Therefore be it resolved: We, The Nelson Rod and Gun Club, through the B.C. Wildlife Federation, petition the Government of Canada requesting an indiscriminatory and definite anti-pollution policy with reasonable haste.
I have dealt with this question because I appreciate the work which has been put into this brief. I know the minister is interested in this matter and I should like to hear what he has to say about these proposals.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Unfortunately I have not yet received that brief. The authors may be preparing a French translation. I hope to receive it within the next few days. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member's speech, however brief is of equal value.
It is not easy to devise, as requested by the brief, an anti-pollution policy. Everybody agrees there is need for such a policy. But it is not easy to formulate one because, as the brief implies, jurisdiction in this field is divided among the three orders or levels of government in Canada-municipal, provincial
February 8, 1966

and federal. Much of the fight against pollution is conducted at the municipal level as many of the major offences occur at the municipal level. The provinces are also interested. They claim, and I think they are entitled to claim, jurisdiction over natural resources; it follows that they must also have jurisdiction over offences against the proper use of those resources.
The federal government has jurisdiction over certain aspects of natural resources; for example, the Department of Agriculture, and of Health and Welfare are involved. The Department of External Affairs through its jurisdiction over international rivers is also concerned. In the past the Department of Industry had some jurisdiction because Atomic Energy of Canada Limited fell under the jurisdiction of that department. This crown company has now been transferred to my responsibility. It could even be claimed that the Department of Transport has an interest in the war against pollution, by way of its authority over navigable waters.
Then, as I say, jurisdiction is divided. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) thought it was high time at least to bring under one roof the different aspects of federal jurisdiction in the area of natural resources and, consequently, of pollution. In my view this is one of the major reasons for the creation of the department that was given to me. I can only promise the hon. member that we will do our best and we will try to do it as rapidly as possible. We are going to try to co-ordinate the federal jurisdiction in the field of natural resources and, consequently, in the field of pollution of natural resources.
I may add that already an interdepartmental committee of officials on pollution has been created. I might also add that the resource ministers' conference has announced that a three-day meeting will be held in Montreal, in November 1966, when all types of pollution will be discussed. Officials and experts from all over Canada will meet on this occasion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister but his time is up.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBILITY OF EARLY DEBATE

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I feel rather unworthy to follow in
23033-60J
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion this house one who has spoken with such dignity and elegance in a language other than his mother tongue and I congratulate him.
Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to put to the house leader is intended to inform the house of the results of the current discussions between representatives of the various political parties in this house concerning the forthcoming discussion on the death penalty.
I quite understand that the government house leader should have answered me briefly this afternoon, for I am well aware of his talent for strategy and I know him to be a noted expert on procedure.
However, I respectfully submit that the house should soon be informed of the procedure which will be followed in the discussions on the bill to abolish capital punishment.
First, Mr. Speaker, will there be a time limit to the debate? It is possible that the advocates of retention should decide to filibuster in this matter, which is not desirable but can always happen. Amendments may also be moved. Will those in favour of keeping capital punishment be entitled to move amendments, first to maintain, while recognizing the principle of abolition, the death penalty in certain cases of murder, that of prison guards especially, of police officers, and then in the case of a second murder? There could also be an amendment to provide for a trial period with regard to abolition.
As for me, I have expressed my personal views on the matter. I am in favour of maintaining the death penalty. But should the majority of members decide to vote for the abolition of capital punishment or seem inclined to support it, those in favour of keeping it must have the opportunity to move amendments to tone down the serious decision that could be taken, since it is clear that those who favour the retention of the death penalty are indeed determined to put up a strong fight against the bill that will be introduced.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member today was:
Has the minister any report to make to the house concerning the meeting that took place among representatives of each party in this house regarding the way the debate on the death penalty will be dealt with?
My reply was:
No, Mr. Speaker.
940	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
There is not a great deal I can usefully add at this stage to that answer. The fact is that the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) is holding discussions with representatives of the other parties in the house to work out a procedure that will ensure that the undertaking of the government is fully carried out, namely, that there is an opportunity for discussion and decision on this matter in a free vote of the house.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
This will and does require, as I think any hon. member who has studied the matter will agree, a very careful choice of the procedural method used so that the government will not be in the position of having appeared to influence or having in fact unduly influenced the debate. While the discussions are going on among the parties I feel it would be unwise for me to attempt to forecast what their decision will be. For that reason I said today, as was the fact, that I was not able to make the desired announcement to the house.
I share that hon. member's interest and appreciate his eagerness for such an announcement to be made, setting out the procedure to be used, but I believe it would not be in the interests of a fair discussion and decision on this matter, or in the interests of hon. members, for me to attempt to make such an announcement prematurely immediately some consensus is reached among the representatives of the different parties, I will make an announcement to the house for its consideration as to the procedure we propose to submit to the house to be followed in this important matter.



PUBLIC WORKS-TORONTO-APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALL

['Mr. Speaker, the question raised this afternoon was whether I would assure the house that no permit would be granted until the estimates of the department came before the house for consideration. The difficulty in giving any such assurance as requested is, as I believe the hon. member will appreciate, that no minister is able to control the disposal of estimates in this house. The government can propose them to the house, but I am afraid it is an old saying, that is all too true, that the opposition disposes of them. This is the reason for the answer being made in that form. I believe it to be an accurate answer to the question as posed.\nHowever, the subject is a very important and difficult one. There has been a great deal', 'February 8. 1966\nSupply-Items Passed\nof correspondence with the department on the subject of Mitigate Investments, and the correspondence indicates what I believe to be the genuine concern of a large number of people about this process of filling in water-lots in lake Ontario, and then using the filled waterlots as building sites. The difficulty arises in this case as to the jurisdiction of the federal government, which appears to be limited under our legislation to the question of whether or not the filling interferes with navigation.\nThere are, of course, other provisions in the act as to what the department can do in the circumstances. As I have said, there is a great deal of correspondence and a great deal of discussion about this subject. The hon. member has made many very strong representations. Perhaps it is really not possible to attempt to discuss the problem in detail in the three minutes allotted to me at this time.\nWe have been very concerned about the subject and have been trying to get some workable solution that will permit us, within the federal jurisdiction, to do what is effective to prevent any abuse of the law and at the same time have the province co-ordinate its efforts toward doing what lies within its jurisdiction to prevent any action being taken that is unreasonable. I have been in correspondence with the provincial minister and have arranged meetings which have been going on at the official level between the departments, with a view to trying to reach a better, more workable procedure to prevent any of these practices that are asserted by the hon. member, and I believe by a large number of people, to be a wrong use of the procedures they can take within the law.\nAdmittedly, the jurisdiction question is not clear, and the legislative provisions for action that can be taken are not as satisfactory or as clear as I would wish them to be. Perhaps I should terminate my remarks at that point. There is a good deal more that could and should be said about the details of the particular case, but as I say I do not think that it is possible to deal with them in the three minutes allotted to me.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.\n[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]']
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I rose and asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) if he would give this house the assurance that the Department of Public Works will not be granting a permit for the construction of a retaining wall beside the village of Long Branch in metropolitan Toronto before the estimates of the Department of Public Works come before this house for discussion and approval. I was given the answer that the Minister of Public Works could not give us any such assurance because he has no idea when the estimates of the Department of Public Works are coming forward. Although I do believe that members of the cabinet have some control over the timetable of the work in this house, this belief was somewhat shaken by that answer this afternoon.

DEBATES	February 8, 1966
I am rising at this point because there are millions of dollars in real estate values involved in the questions I have been asking for the past year and a half. I regret to say that practically no action has been taken by the government or the cabinet on this matter. Fingers are going to be burned before this matter is finally settled according to the law of the land.
My question this afternoon was directed to the Minister of Public Works because in the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which I have in my hand, it is pointed out that any work which is not built or placed in accordance with plans approved in advance by the Minister of Public Works may be removed and destroyed by the minister, and the cost of materials incidental to the removal, destruction or disposition of the work, deducting therefrom any sum that may be realized by sale or otherwise, is recoverable with costs in the name of Her Majesty from the owner.
I have been asking questions of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) in regard to interpretations of certain sections of international agreements and federal laws that apply to this problem of the filling of water lots. I think that to use the term, that I have been given the run around, would be to use the best description possible of the answers I have been getting, despite the requests of thousands of taxpayers in the metropolitan Toronto area for information as to what is the legal right of a lot owner.
On February 1, a week ago today, I asked a question of the Minister of Justice and I was told in the course of his reply that the problem seems to be the concern of two groups of individual land developers. It is unfortunate that when a person takes a case in point to emphasize the entire problem extending from the mouth of the Humber river to Etobicoke creek he is told that it is only one case. When we referred to the Millgate development we took a case which applies to a score or more of developers who are filling in lake Ontario between the Humber river and Etobicoke creek.
If the cabinet must have the names of everyone who is filling in between the Humber river and Etobicoke creek before they take action, I will give them a list and the dates. But I am trying to pinpoint the matter on one specific case, which in this instance is Millgate Investments who are filling in opposite Long Branch. In the
February 8, 1966

Navigable Waters Protection Act the following is pointed out as being part of the interpretation of the act:
"work" includes any bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock, pier or other structure, tunnel or pipe, or telegraph or power cable or wire and the approaches or other works necessary or appurtenant thereto, or any work, structure or device, whether similar in character to the foregoing or not, which may interfere with navigation.
In the general section of the act it says:
No work shall be built or placed In, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless
(a)	the site and plans thereof have been approved by the minister; and
(b)	the work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with the plans and the regulations.
A year ago I asked on what date these plans were approved and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works rose in his place and advised me that no approval has ever been given by the Department of Public Works for the filling in of water lots between the mouth of the Humber river and Etobicoke creek, a distance of four miles. Yet there are a score of land developers who have been filling in the lake. I am using Millgate Investments as an example, but I could give 19 more names. For instance, there is the property behind the Chicken restaurant, the property behind the Rainbow hotel and the property to the immediate east of the boundary of the town of Mimico. If the minister wants more, I can give them.
Here we have a case where the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works last June said that no prior approval had been given for the filling in of the lake. I have in my hand a letter dated last January 21 from the Assistant District Engineer of the Department of Works in Toronto which told Millgate Investments to stop filling in because it was illegal. Very interestingly, Millgate Investments told the village council of Long Branch in the month of March that they had lost the letter and did not find it until March 4, by which time the filling they wanted to do was completed. Very nice.
When we asked the Assistant Engineer in Toronto why they did not check to find out whether the filling was still going on to March, despite the letter of January 21, we were told, "We have not the staff to check and see whether our instructions are being followed".
On February 1 last the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) gave me an interesting answer as follows:
In the case to which the hon. member refers there was no obstruction of navigation-

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
This property extends 440 feet out into lake Ontario and is 330 feet wide. The Department of Public Works has demanded that during navigation season they put up two flashing lights at the end of the fill. Why do they demand that during navigation season two flashing lights be placed at the end of the fill, if there is no obstruction to navigation? The action of the department contradicts the statements of the Minister of Justice a week ago.
All we are asking is that the Department of Public Works withhold any approval of this application for cribwork to be placed around this illegal fill until the estimates of that department come before us. Trying to discuss this matter in seven minutes is not only ridiculous but makes a joke of the law. I have here pictures taken by commercial photographers showing the fill standing 30 feet in the air above the level of lake Ontario, and out into lake Ontario 100 and 150 feet. Yet we are told that it does not interfere with navigation. The letter refers to "commercial navigation," but the law does not say which may interfere with "commercial navigation"; it says "which may interfere with navigation".
A certain member of this side of the house passed the interesting remark a year ago, when the question was before us for consideration, that they might as well say it does not interfere with aerial navigation. The law says "which may interfere with navigation", and we receive the answer that it does not interfere with commercial navigation. The land is worth $100,000 to $200,000 per acre.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order; I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the question raised this afternoon was whether I would assure the house that no permit would be granted until the estimates of the department came before the house for consideration. The difficulty in giving any such assurance as requested is, as I believe the hon. member will appreciate, that no minister is able to control the disposal of estimates in this house. The government can propose them to the house, but I am afraid it is an old saying, that is all too true, that the opposition disposes of them. This is the reason for the answer being made in that form. I believe it to be an accurate answer to the question as posed.
However, the subject is a very important and difficult one. There has been a great deal

February 8. 1966
Supply-Items Passed
of correspondence with the department on the subject of Mitigate Investments, and the correspondence indicates what I believe to be the genuine concern of a large number of people about this process of filling in water-lots in lake Ontario, and then using the filled waterlots as building sites. The difficulty arises in this case as to the jurisdiction of the federal government, which appears to be limited under our legislation to the question of whether or not the filling interferes with navigation.
There are, of course, other provisions in the act as to what the department can do in the circumstances. As I have said, there is a great deal of correspondence and a great deal of discussion about this subject. The hon. member has made many very strong representations. Perhaps it is really not possible to attempt to discuss the problem in detail in the three minutes allotted to me at this time.
We have been very concerned about the subject and have been trying to get some workable solution that will permit us, within the federal jurisdiction, to do what is effective to prevent any abuse of the law and at the same time have the province co-ordinate its efforts toward doing what lies within its jurisdiction to prevent any action being taken that is unreasonable. I have been in correspondence with the provincial minister and have arranged meetings which have been going on at the official level between the departments, with a view to trying to reach a better, more workable procedure to prevent any of these practices that are asserted by the hon. member, and I believe by a large number of people, to be a wrong use of the procedures they can take within the law.
Admittedly, the jurisdiction question is not clear, and the legislative provisions for action that can be taken are not as satisfactory or as clear as I would wish them to be. Perhaps I should terminate my remarks at that point. There is a good deal more that could and should be said about the details of the particular case, but as I say I do not think that it is possible to deal with them in the three minutes allotted to me.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]



[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including payment of remuneration, subject to the

approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the International organizations detailed in the estimates and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of Commissioners (International commissions for supervision and control in 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.
lb. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates, $267,100.
Id. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates, $655,000.
5. Representation abroad-Operational-including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of High Commissioners, Ambassadors, Ministers Plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $16,865,000.
15. Contributions to international multilateral economic and special aid programs as detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such amounts as are specified in U.S. dollars notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1964, which is $12,517,000.
15b. Contributions to international multilateral economic and special aid programs as detailed in the estimates, $1,750,000.
20. Other payments to international organizations and programs, as detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1964, which is, $1,095,500.
20d. Other payments to international organizations and programs as detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1966, which is, $4,290,250.
25. Assessments for membership in the international (including Commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1964, which is, $10,063,000.
February 8, 1966
[Stage Direction]
25d. Assessments for membership in the international (including Commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1966, which is $245,000.
External aid office-
30. Salaries and expenses, $1,251,600.
35. Economic, technical, educational and other assistance as detailed in the estimates, $75,600,000.
35d. Economic, technical, educational and other assistance as detailed in the estimates, $15,000,000.
B-International joint commission-
40. Salaries and expenses of the commission and Canada's share of the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations of the commission, $179,500.
Supply-Items Passed
Loans, investments and advances-
L21b. Loans to the government of India to finance the purchase in Canada of aircraft and associated spare parts and equipment in accordance with a financial agreement entered into between the government of Canada and the government of India, $444,300.
External Aid Office-
L25. Special loan assistance for developing countries in the current and subsequent fiscal years, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, for the purpose of undertaking such economic, educational and technical projects as may be agreed upon by Canada and the developing countries or recognized international development institutions, $50,000,000.
A-Department-
10. Representation abroad-Construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, equipment and furnishings, $2,276,000.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 9, 1966