1967-06-08

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer the election certificates of Mr. Jacques-R. Tremblay for the electoral constituency of Richelieu-Vereheres and of Mr. Pierre Caron for the electoral constituency of Hull.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on industry, research and energy development, in English and French-Mr. Asselin (Rich-mond-Wolfe).
[Stage Direction]
First report of special joint committee on divorce-Mr. Cameron (High Park)
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that I have received a letter of resignation from Mr. L. A. Landreville, and that the government has decided to accept his resignation as a justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario. Since the house has shown some interest in this matter I thought it might want to give me permission to table a copy of this letter.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to the minister's suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, would this be an appropriate time to ask the Minister of Justice a question regarding the matter to which he has just referred?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think so. The question might be asked when we reach that item in today's order of business.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, instead of asking questions regarding international affairs, because an opportunity will be presented later today to do so, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he received a telegram from the priests of Antigonish diocese per Reverend James McMullin, pointing out the need for the immediate establishment of a crown corporation for industrial development in Cape Breton to check the serious and, as described in the telegram, rapidly worsening unemployment situation in the Cape Breton industrial area. In view of the fact that 200 men were laid off at the Sydney steel plant last week and 90 are being released today, I should like to ask whether the act that was promised six months ago, which is still in the embryonic stage, will be brought forward-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me say to the hon. members who have interrupted that a statement was made yesterday to the effect that the resolution was on the order paper, therefore it must be still in the embryonic stage. Will the government bring this matter forward tomorrow in view of the serious and appalling situation in Cape Breton?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have received the telegram and it will be dealt with immediately. The legislation in question will be brought forward next week.



SYDNEY. N.S.-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR STEEL INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry perhaps I may direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding the steel industry in Cape Breton. Has it been drawn to his attention that a notice has now been posted to the effect that unless conditions improve, in addition to the 300 men laid off in the last few days another 400 men will
1282	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry be laid off on June 18? Is it true that some orders for the manufacture of steel rails for export have to be cleared by the government, and will the Prime Minister take this matter in hand to see that these orders are cleared as quickly as possible so the anticipated lay off on June 18 may not materialize?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer about the steel rails, the government approved the credit for a contract on Tuesday of this week, and it was announced forthwith, in the amount of some $9 million covering a sufficient quantity of rails to provide work for some 24 to 28 weeks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government taking any other action to prevent the rapid deterioration of the employment situation in the steel industry of Cape Breton?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisler):
Mr. Speaker, we are taking the most far reaching action that has been taken by any government in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: It is far reaching inaction.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Regardless of what the Prime Minister said, would he ask the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his cabinet to carry out a complete investigation into the operations of this company, before we end up with no steel industry at all in Sydney?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps that should be done in conjunction with the premier of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Starr:: Passing the buck again.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Robert Muir: Perhaps the hon. member who said "Sit down" would rise and identify himself. It would be interesting to see who it was.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his supplementary question.


Robert Muir: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has

DEBATES	June 8, 1967
now changed his opinion that this is a responsibility of the federal government, as has been stated and intimated by the cabinet member from Nova Scotia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: It depends on the situation, doesn't it?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister but I would also direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask whether he would care to amend the statement he made about the 28 weeks' employment. My main question, however, is to the Prime Minister and I would ask, in connection with the Cape Breton development corporation, whether it is the intention of the government, as indicated previously by the Prime Minister, that steel will play a prominent part in this development corporation and will be the basis upon which new industry would be founded within the province.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend will be satisfied on this score when he sees the legislation next week.


John George Diefenbaker: The resolution is not yet
ready.


Malcolm MacInnis: As
usual, no answer.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The minister has just announced the transfer of the Indian Affairs office from Amos to Val d'Or, in Abitibi. Could he tell us whether the Indians of the territory have been consulted and how?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will readily agree, I am sure, to put his question on the order paper.
June 8, 1967



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement yesterday by Ambassador Ignatieff to the effect that the UN truce supervisory organization, rather than the emergency force, would or may be the best way of re-establishing a UN presence in the Middle East along the cease fire lines, has this organization been regrouped and coordinated, and has Canada made any preparations to provide additional personnel when they are required, which we hope will be immediately?
Hon, Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, would my hon. friend agree that this question might be answered when we come to the estimates, which will be right after the orders of the day?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to hon. members that they might refrain from asking questions of the same nature as the one asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, inasmuch as in a few minutes we will go into committee to consider the external affairs estimates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the supervisory truce commission personnel are taking any part in the cease fire between Israel and Jordan.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question concerning the truce supervisory commission or the United Nations observer corps on the borders of Israel and Syria and the borders of Israel and Jordan. Is the report accurate that one of these men was killed yesterday, and what steps are being taken to provide for the safety of Canadian members of this commission under the present situation of war that prevails?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot confirm officially that one member of the United Nations truce supervisory organization has lost his life. There has been a story to that effect. So far as I know, no Canadian officer is in that locality.


Mr. Churchill:: Are the members of this commission obliged now to make observations with regard to military attacks that are occurring?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: They are carrying out their duties to the extent that is possible.



MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE INQUIRY AS TO PENSION ELIGIBILITY FOLLOWING RESIGNATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Justice is waiting for a question in regard to the resignation of Mr. Justice Landreville. As a result of having resigned voluntarily, will the judge be eligible to receive the bounty of a pension for a retired judge?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, that is hardly a question; it is a commentary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Trudeau:: I can only say that as far as I know there is no question of bounty.


John George Diefenbaker: Then let us get a comment from the minister: Will Justice Landreville receive a pension? Is that a commentary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand this question. I think it is very much the type of matter to which the government might well give some consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If the Minister of Justice would direct his attention to me for a minute I will put my question. Is there anything in the correspondence leading up to the resignation and the acceptance of the resignation of
1234	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Justice Landreville which mentions or deals with the question of a pension?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have had no correspondence with Mr. Justice Landreville, and I do not think any member of the government has since I have assumed office as Minister of Justice. There has been some correspondence over the past months-


Malcolm MacInnis: When did the minister get the letter of resignation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must say I have seen no correspondence wherein the question of pension is raised by any member of the government.



REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF SITUATION RESPECTING ISRAEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Was the head of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation speaking on behalf of the government when he issued a statement to the effect that Israel will be unable to pay its debts to Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: No, sir, no such statement was authorized. Mr. Aitken, president of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, did make a reply in response to a question, but I do not think it was in that vein.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister look into exactly what was said and, if what was alleged is true, have Mr. Aitken either retract or correct his statement, which is very damaging to Israel?


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the same subject but put in a different way, and ask him whether in view of some misunderstanding which has arisen because of a statement made by Mr. Aitken, to which the hon. member for Oxford has referred, the minister would clarify Canada's policy regarding trade with Israel.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask the question. I will be very glad to reply. For some years the Canadian government, in view of the unsettled situation in the Middle East, has exercised caution in author-

DEBATES	June 3, 1S67
izing exports of military equipment to countries in that area. Some exports of parts for non-combat piston aircraft and non-combat vehicles received authorization after careful consideration.
On receiving word of the outbreak of hostilities on June 5, the government acted promptly to stop any shipments of military equipment from Canada to the countries reportedly involved. No action has been taken to impose new export controls on ordinary commercial transactions in non-military goods. The shipment of non-military goods is presently at the discretion of shippers and is subject to the availability of transportation. No change has been made in Canada's trade relations with countries in the area.
Some steamship lines that serve the Middle East are rerouting their ships to avoid the Suez canal. Some are not presently accepting cargo for eastern Mediterranean and Arabian ports. The services of the trade commissioner posts in the area remain available to Canadian exporters. There may, however, be some delays, which I think is understandable, in servicing business inquiries, resulting from the present situation.


David Lewis: Would the minister clarify the situation further with regard to one point? Will exports to Israel or any other Middle East country remain eligible for insurance under the Export Credits Insurance Corporation?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, on the question of eligibility. But they will have to be examined in the light of existing risks, as are all other applications for credit.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Acting Minister of Transport, who indicated that the minister would be replying upon his return. I wonder if the minister can now inform the house when part I of the new transportation act will be proclaimed, so that western communities might be provided with protection under its terms in connection with railway line abandonment procedures.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I cannot say. I indicated quite recently that I was not in a position to say when part I would be proclaimed. I did indicate quite
June 8, 1967

some time ago, and I am happy to be allowed to repeat it now because the question has some urgency, that the procedures laid down in the amendments approved by parliament with respect to rail line abondonment will be followed whether the Board of Transport Commission hears the cases or the new commission hears them.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: May
T ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say when the new Canadian transport commission will be appointed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it cannot be appointed in full until part I is proclaimed. I am advised, however, that it would be possible to appoint one or two officers, if that was deemed advisable, in order to do the work preparatory to the establishment of the commission. One difficulty, of course, is that once the commission is established, it must start to operate at once because the existing boards go out of existence the same day.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister assure the house that no railway line abandonment hearings will be heard until such time as the commission is in operation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I do not think that would be a reasonable thing for me to do, nor would it be in accordance with the law as passed by parliament. It is highly improbable that any new applications will be heard, but it should be remembered that some of these applications were made more than four years ago. They were stayed for a very long period; and since a transitional period was provided for under the act, it does not seem to me it would be fair to disregard the law enacted by parliament last session.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: May I ask a supplementary question for clarification. Is it possible to have abandonment hearings under the old procedures, or does the minister now consider that abandonment hearings will be held under the new procedures?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I gave the assurance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think the hon. member is now asking for an interpretation of the law, and the question as such is not acceptable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I may be permitted to clear up this point.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is asking for the indulgence of the house to clear up a statement. Does the house agree?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beileve there is a great deal of public interest in this matter, sir, so I should like to make it as clear as possible that the new procedures will be followed in the hearing of any applications by the Board of Transport Commissioners in the interval before the new commission is established.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister not say during the transportation bill debate that no applications would be heard until the new board was set up? The new board, we were told, would establish a costing system under which the same principles would apply both to lines to be abandoned and lines to be retained. I am sure the minister will remember stating in the debate that the new commission would handle these applications.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we have heard enough clarifications now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the minister stated in this house that he had been authorized by both railways to announce that all applications would be withdrawn on the day the bill went through parliament. So if all the old applications were withdrawn, these other applications must be new. This is in direct contradiction to what was said in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may be right, but that is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the absent minded Minister of Transport. May I ask the minister whether he regards the proceedings to be held later this month, in which the Board of Transport Commissioners will hear the Canadian Pacific Railway application for abandonment under the old section 168 rather than the new section 134 to be a violation of his solemn assurance given to this house last fall.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is not acceptable.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Ten o'clock.
1286	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]
LABOUR RELATIONS tEPRESENTATION OF UNIONS BEFORE BOARD
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saini-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I shall nut it to his parliamentary secretary.
Did the Minister of Labour provide that in ease of an inter-union conflict involving an affiliate of the C.L.C. and an affiliate of the 'C.N.T.U., these two movements must be equally represented, namely by two representatives each.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe that the question is in order at this time.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, one week ago today I asked a question of the Minister of Transport which was taken as notice by the acting minister. As reported at page 825 of Hansard for June 1 I asked whether the minister had received a telegram from local 2231 of the United Steel Workers of America at Amherst, Nova Scotia, and if steps could be taken in calling for tenders for the extension to the Pugsley terminal wharf requiring the use of domestic materials in order to provide some 15,000 to 20,000 man hours of employment in the steel industry, where unemployment is quite prevalent.
Has the minister had time during the last week to look into this matter, and can he give a reply today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did have some information about this matter, but I apologize to the hon. gentleman because I have not got it with me, and I would not like to trust my memory, particularly since my recollections have so recently been called into question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of the matter about which I asked the minister, and in view of the fact that tenders are to be called this week, could the minister undertake to give me an answer tomorrow to the question I submitted a week ago?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will do my utmost, sir.
[Mr. Schreyer.l
DEBATES	June 8, 1967



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. Similarly I directed a question to the acting minister in the minister's absence, but nothing came of it at all despite my compliments to the acting minister. Can the minister himself now answer my question, which had to do with increased accommodation for passengers of Air Canada to and from western Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have very grave doubts whether increased accommodation could be provided without increasing the number of planes, and I do not think any planes would be available unless they were taken off some other routes. I know that the hon. gentleman, with his broad national viewpoint, would not want to suggest that, but if he can tell me where any additional planes can be had or can be brought into Canada by any air line, I would be glad to have that information.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The members of the house are here to And out from the minister whether he has any knowledge at all of these matters. I am not the one to provide him with knowledge as to what should be done with regard to the provision of transport, though I would be very glad to do so because things might thereby be improved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman would be very welcome to.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is directed to the Prime Minister, of which I have given him notice. Has the Prime Minister received a request to meet a delegation from western Nova Scotia to discuss the woefully inadequate ferry service between Digby and Saint John? If so, what has been his reply?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the association in question has not been in touch with me directly but it has
June 8, 1967

exchanged correspondence with my colleague the minister of health and welfare. The request they made in their correspondence is now receiving consideration.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister of the same mind regarding this Digby-Saint John ferry service in view of the recently published Atlantic provinces transportation study and the remarks made therein? If so, can the minister give us an up to date progress report on how the study of the particular service-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is asking for information which should be conveyed to the house at the time of ministerial statements on motions, rather than by way of reply to a question.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then may I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any information on this study as it relates to the Digby-Saint John ferry service and, if so, when will it be made available?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, we are conducting very active negotiations with the Canadian Pacific Railway with a view to finding the best method of improving this service at the earliest possible date.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the statement made yesterday by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines that they would be forced to ration gas to the utility companies in eastern Ontario unless construction of additional facilities was started almost immediately, can the minister advise what action he or the government has taken to speed up a decision and to get this construction under way almost immediately?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the alternative proposal of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is presently before the National Energy Board. I presume that a decision will be taken in time to permit the looping of the present Northern Ontario line if the Great Lakes project is not approved by the federal power commission.
Inquiries of the Ministry As my hon. friend knows, this has been a very difficult situation. On our recommendation Trans-Canada presented an alternative project, which was attacked by the distributing companies at first. The distributing companies have now abandoned their own alternative projects. The whole matter is before the National Energy Board, and I cannot prejudge their decision.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give any indication when he expects the federal power commission of the United States to hand down its decision on the Great Lakes project?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is still a military secret, Mr. Speaker.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the interest being shown in the harbour facilities at Kitimat, B.C. for the export of oil from the Athabasca tar sands, will the minister either now or in the near future make a statement on the government's position relative to the use of this port for large tonnage ocean vessels?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question is acceptable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the use of this port will increase rapidly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he tell us whether he has recently met the officials of the organization known as the Estates General of French Canada, and whether this organization has asked a subsidy from the government?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member should place his question on the order paper.
1288	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs



The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS [DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
1. Administration, operation and maintenance, including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council and notwithstanding the Civii Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the international organizations detailed in the estimates and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners (international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China), secretaries and staff by the Governor in Council; and 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; assistance and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens and persons of Canadian domicile abroad, including their dependents; cultural relations and academic exchance programs with other countries (Details, page 118), $42,260,000.


The Chairman:: Order, please. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of External Affairs for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. Vote No. 1 is to be found on page 116 of the blue book of estimates, with the details thereof listed on page 118. Shall vote 1 carry?


Mr. McIntosh:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were referred to the external affairs committee. How is it that they have come back to the house?


Mr. MacEachen:: If I might speak to the point of order, prior to the adoption of the most recent rule change the point raised by my hon. friend would have been correct. The change recommended by the committee on procedure and adopted by the house provided that estimates can be dealt with concurrently in a standing committee and in the committee of supply. We considered yesterday whether it would be necessary to move a special motion to withdraw the estimates from the standing committee, but I believe a reading of the rule changes makes it clear that we have the flexibility to deal with estimates concurrently in a standing committee and the committee of supply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Which rule is that?

DEBATES	June 8, 1967


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I read to the committee provisional order No. 5(g) to be found on page 51 of the book of provisional orders:
(g) When estimates are referred to standing committees they shall be referred without prejudice to the right of the commitee of supply to consider those same estimates, whether or not the standing committees have reported on them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take advantage of this procedure to initiate a discussion on external affairs and, more particularly, on developments in the Middle East, I hope I will not be considered discourteous if I am not able to remain in the house after my own contribution because of engagements which are very difficult indeed for me to change.
Mr. Chairman, since we last discussed external affairs on May 24 there have been tragic and dangerous developments in the Middle East, developments resulting in armed conflict, in bitter fighting, much loss of life and great destruction in that holy land. It is sad-it is more than sad-to read in the press reports of fighting in Jerusalem, of an armoured column moving against Nazareth, of firing in Bethlehem; but that is what has happened.
The United Nations security council, which has been exercising the responsibility given to it under the charter as the principal agency of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security in avoiding the scourge of war has, as hon. members know, been successful in passing a resolution calling for a cease fire. That was the night before last. It is regrettable indeed that a resolution was not passed some days ago which might have put the support of the security council and all its members behind the Secretary General in a way which might have made the cease fire resolution unnecessary.
Hon. members will recall that the Canadian delegate on the security council did his best to introduce a resolution of this kind at the very beginning of the crisis. Indeed, it was on his initiative and that of the member of the council from Denmark that the council was called together at once. But nothing was achieved by that earlier initiative. Some members of council who at that time objected to this initiative have recently become the most articulate in demanding that action in regard to a cease fire be taken at once-now.
There is no quarrel with that position which is being taken, but it is unfortunate that a position along these lines was not taken by them some days ago. Perhaps this is an
June 8, 1967

example of the interrelationship, the interaction of military developments and diplomatic activity. In any event, so far as the United Nations is concerned the cease fire resolution was adopted unanimously. I think we can all take satisfaction from the fact that the resolution was concurred in by all permanent members of the council as well as the non-permanent members.
That cease fire resolution, according to the information I had received up to the time I came into the house, has been accepted by only one country involved in the fighting- Jordan. It has been accepted by Israel, with the not unreasonable qualification that their acceptance depends on the acceptance by the other governments and peoples engaged in the fighting. It has not been accepted by any Arab state except Jordan.
The Canadian member of the security council, Mr. Ignatieff, who is acting with great effectiveness and distinction as a member of the security council, as you would expect-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -yesterday introduced a
resolution, not to delay the cease fire resolution but to give the president of the council and the Secretary General of the United Nations the authority of the council in doing all they can to see that the cease fire is carried out. That resolution is now before the security council. I think the council is meeting at this moment. It is to be hoped that that resolution, or a better one if it can be evolved by any amendment, or another resolution, may be adopted by all members and especially by the permanent members, so the authority of the United Nations can be brought to bear on any efforts the Secretary General or the president of the council can make to ensure that this cease fire is not only adopted but made effective after adoption.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister allow a question? What has the government in mind as to means whereby the cease fire will be made effective? Is it the suggestion that troops will be sent to the area in question to preserve and enforce the peace, or is this merely a generality?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am coming to that later, Mr. Chairman. At the moment I can only say it would be premature to speculate on what kind of action may be required and may be possible until the representatives of the United Nations, the Secretary General and
Supply-External Affairs the president of the council, or anybody else agreed on by the security council, can get to the spot and then report as to what may be required. Later I will have something to say about the machinery that is already there.
Although it may take a certain amount of time, I think it is important to examine the background of the present situation. That is almost essential if we are to understand what has happened recently, and the difficulties that are now facing and will continue to face the United Nations even if the fighting stops under the resolution calling for a cease fire. The origin of the recent tragedy, the recent conflict, goes far back, years back, into earlier failures of the United Nations to deal with what used to be called the Palestine question, in a way that not only provided for a state of Israel but provided for that state living in peaceful co-operation with its neighbours.
Mr. Chairman, I am informed by a note just sent to me, if I may revert to what I said a few moments ago, that the Secretary General has just read to the security council a message from the representative of the United Arab Republic to the security council, that the U.A.R. accepts the cease fire provided that Israel stops fighting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: At least these two governments presumably are in agreement on that point, that they both should stop fighting.
The earlier failures have a direct bearing on what has happened in recent weeks and months and years. The prelude to the immediate struggle has been certain moves by the U.A.R. in recent weeks to meet a situation which they claimed was threatening their security and threatening the peace. They were thinking especially of incidents and counter incidents on the Israeli-Syrian border.
There are two elements of the situation which are before us now and that also go back a good many years, elements which I think should be mentioned before we can deal with what can be done to improve the situation at the moment. One which has been very much in our minds is the situation regarding innocent passage through the straits of Tiran into the gulf of Aqaba which, when it was considered ten years ago in the United Nations, in 1956-57, was felt to be a very important matter both in terms of international law and in terms of Israeli development and survival. But it is a much more important matter now because of the developments that have
1290	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs taken place on the coast of the gulf of Aqaba, occupied by and now part of the state of Israel, with a port that has been established there which is the main port for importing Israel's oil requirements.
The Canadian position in regard to this matter was made perfectly clear in the assembly of the United Nations on February 26, 1957, more than ten years ago. What was said then was reprinted in two white papers called "The Crisis in the Middle East" which, if hon. members have not read them recently, I think they would find very interesting in the light of the developments that have occurred in the last few weeks. What I said in 1957 in the general assembly on this particular point about the question of the gulf of Aqaba and the straits of Tiran, was:
In our view-
That was the Canadian delegation's view.
-it should be agreed and affirmed by us-
I meant the assembly.
-that there should be no interference with innocent passage through or any assertion of belligerent rights in the straits of Tiran.
We have not altered that position, Mr. Chairman. I repeated this in the House of Commons on March 15, 1957, as recorded at page 2355 of Hansard for that date, and I tried then to emphasize the danger that would be incurred in dealing with this matter in New York if some agreed action could not be taken that would be effective in dealing with this situation in the gulf of Aqaba. That position taken then is certainly relevant to the position that governments-including ours-have taken in the last few weeks on this question.
We take the position, in regard to the legal situation, that these are international waters and that the gulf of Aqaba is an international gulf. But if there is doubt about that legal question, and there is doubt about it, I would hope the matter can be settled by the International Court of Justice. Irrespective of the legal position, however, no action should be taken by the riparian states which would interfere with the right of access to the gulf.
As hon. members know, in 1957 a contingent of the United Nations emergency force occupied a strategic point called Sharm el Sheikh which commanded the navigation channel through the strait of Tiran. As was stated at that time in New York, that force was there to preserve the right of access to the gulf of Aqaba. Of course it has been my view, and I think the view of the house, that one of the measures leading to the difficulties

DEBATES	June 8. 1367
that culminated in this conflict-it was a tragedy-was when the United Nations force was withdrawn from that point as well as from the border between Israel and the U.A.R.
All this does not mean that the United Nations emergency force was a failure. On the contrary, it was successful in maintaining the peace in that area for ten and a half years. Surely the conclusion to be drawn from this experience is that it is a time not for banishing United Nations forces but for stronger United Nations forces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Another conclusion that
should be drawn is that when these forces are set up, in the way the force was set up ten and a half years ago by the United Nations, we should be as careful as it is possible to be that the basic authority of the forces is laid down, as I think for instance we have it laid down in regard to the United Nations force in Cyprus. It may be that the legal positions we took in 1956 and 1957, along with many other states, about the withdrawal of the United Nations emergency force may seem very academic now, but it won't be academic if the United Nations is asked to move in there again.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be pardoned if I go into that matter in some detail with a view to avoiding in future the difficulties we have encountered in recent weeks in regard to United Nations peace keeping.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
On March 15, 1957, as reported at page 2357 of Hansard, I said:
But in the arrangements made and in the agreement which I have referred to-
That is the establishment of the United Nations emergency force on Egyptian soil.
-the United Nations, which established this force to do certain tasks, clearly has a right to be consulted as to whether and when these tasks have been discharged, as it would if they were to be extended. From this, it follows in our view, and this is the view of the secretary general also, that if Egypt should at any time make a request for UNEF's withdrawal, the appropriate procedure would be for that request to go first to the advisory committee on UNEF through the secretary general. There it would be discussed by the committee which was set up for that purpose by the assembly, and if necessary and desirable the whole matter could then be referred to the full assembly for decision. And therefore any question of whether UNEF should be withdrawn would become a matter for discussion with and decision by the United Nations.
June 8, 1967	COMMONS
As I said at that time, this was our government's understanding of the procedure which should be followed. It was not done on this occasion. I do not intend to be critical of the secretary general, because anyone who knows the circumstances under which he was operating at that time and the attitude taken by certain governments which had large contingents in the United Nations emergency force will appreciate the difficulties he was facing.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the right hon. gentleman a question? Did the secretary general consult at least with the advisory committee? I understand he did at one meeting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


David Lewis: But only at one meeting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. He had one meeting of a committee of contributors. There was a second meeting, but that meeting of the advisory committee took place after the decision had been made by the secretary general to recall the emergency force.
Again, I should like to refer back to 1957 in the hope that this kind of situation will not be repeated in the future. I shall quote from a memorandum I made about a conversation I had with Mr. Hammarskjold on March 12, 1957. The secretary general's position-Mr. Hammarskjold-was that Egypt could not order UNEF to withdraw without renouncing the consent given to the original entry of the force. This could not be done unilaterally because that agreement was conditional on the functions which the force was performing in Egypt in accordance with assembly resolutions. Undoubtedly-and I am referring to the secretary general's conversation with me-in considering the question of withdrawal the assembly would be primarily concerned with whether UNEF had completed the functions which the assembly had given it. If the assembly decided that these functions had been fulfilled, it would recommend that UNEF be withdrawn. However, if the assembly decided that UNEF's functions were not fulfilled it would probably recommend that the force should not be withdrawn. Either way, however, the assembly could do no more than recommend. It could not give orders to Egypt.
That, of course, is the situation now in respect of the operation of any United Nations force on any foreign territory. It can only give orders when it acts under chapter VII of the United Nations charter which deals with action as a result of a security council resolution. We know what has happened in
DEBATES	1291
Supply-External Affairs this particular situation. UNEF was recalled. I think it is unfortunate that this happened. The Canadian contingent was recalled from UNEF in circumstances which were very unfortunate and unhappy indeed. They were recalled for reasons given to us by the United Nations secretary general who asked that we take such action in 48 hours. The reasons for this which he passed on and which had been sent to him by the government of the United Arab Republic were reasons which we did not accept. We let the government in Cairo know quite clearly that we did not accept them as valid in any way, shape or form.
A few weeks ago, when this crisis began, we were faced in the very beginning with the same old problem of ten years ago. We were faced with a statement of policy by the government of the United Arab Republic that passage through the gulf of Aqaba to Elath, the Israeli port, was to be denied and that, as well, UNEF was to be withdrawn. Well, we knew or should have known the significance of this. We had been warned ten years before in no uncertain terms as to the course Israel would take if that demand were made. They had said, and repeated a few weeks ago, that denial of free access through the gulf to their port would be considered by them as an act of aggression. They said that ten years ago, they repeated it a few weeks ago, and war broke out. The United Nations ordered a cease fire as they did in 1956. But, as in 1956, the problem remains, that is, the problem of dealing with the situations on the frontier and in the gulf and the ultimate problem of dealing with the relations between the state of Israel and its neighbours.
It is not enough to deal with these immediate situations. It is not enough to bring about a cease fire, important as that is. It is not enough even to stop the fighting, vital as that is. There are other problems which must be settled if the cease fire is to be effective in producing a peace settlement and peace. So we have the other problems which faced us in 1957 facing us again today. What about withdrawal of the forces from occupied territories, with or without guarantees? What about withdrawal of Israeli forces from Sharm el Sheik where they are now? They withdrew once before. They withdrew before on the very definite understanding and indeed, in so far as their bilateral relations with the United States are concerned, on the commitment that if they withdrew from Sharm el Sheik and other parts of the Sinai peninsula this would be done as part of a pledge which would
June 8, 1967

Supply-External Affairs include a United States commitment to see that the gulf was kept open. I have documents here which confirm that. I am sure some of my hon. friends have read these documents. There is an aide-memoire handed to the ambassador of Israel by the secretary of state of the United States on February 11, 1957. I venture to suggest that if that document had not been in the hands of the government of Israel it might have been most difficult if not impossible at that moment to get the Israeli forces back behind their original frontiers.
This particular document reads as follows:
With respect to the Gulf of Aqaba and access thereto, the United States believes that the gulf comprehends international waters and that no nation has the right to prevent free and innocent passage in the gulf and through the straits giving access thereto.
Then it continues and the last paragraph reads as follows:
In the absence of some overriding decision to the contrary, as by the International Court of Justice-
That decision might be taken in the future; we do not know.
-the United States, on behalf of vessels of United States registry, is prepared to exercise the right of free and innocent passage and to join with others to secure general recognition of this right.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In speaking to that in the House of Commons at that time, on March 15, I associated myself with that principle and that point of view and emphasized that the withdrawal of Israel's civil and military forces from Sharm el Sheik was made not on an assurance contained in any general assembly resolution except that of February 2, which had been passed a few weeks before and was rather ambiguous in its terms, but on certain assumptions and expectations which the government of Israel had at that time and which they announced to the general assembly.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether any other members of the assembly expressed agreement with those assumptions stated by the government of Israel?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there were members of the assembly who questioned these assumptions and the stand taken by other delegates that there was or should be any package deal. The position taken by them was that Israel had been the aggressor at


that time and that her forces should withdraw behind the line from which they commenced the aggression without any commitments, conditions or qualifications of any kind.
The government of Israel had a different point of view. Their forces did withdraw, but they withdrew on certain understandings which the government had received primarily from the United States. Mrs. Meir was their foreign secretary then and she made it perfectly clear for her government that this was the reason they were withdrawing at that time. That, of course, was not accepted by the assembly as such because the assembly insisted technically that the withdrawal should be unconditional.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Was there some guarantee or any agreement signed by the United States, the Soviet union and France with reference to access to the gulf of Aqaba?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, there was a tripartite
guarantee, which I think went back to 1950, guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Israel. The Soviet union did not take part in it, but since that time, in the latter 1950's, some doubt was thrown on the validity of that guarantee by certain statements of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. So far as I know, I do not think the government of Israel is relying very heavily at the present time or in recent months on that particular tripartite guarantee. There was a very real and genuine understanding on the part of the government of Israel that they should be guaranteed the right of access to the gulf, and it was on that understanding, they claim, that they withdrew their forces behind the lines from which they had begun to fight.
I mention all this because we are facing or may be facing very shortly a similar situation. This time I hope that during the very difficult diplomatic negotiations which will take place it is made quite clear just what is going to be the situation in these waters and on the U.A.R.-Israel boundaries before the necessary steps which should be taken are taken. I repeat that this can be done and I hope it will be done in agreement with the riparian states on the gulf of Aqaba and with the United Arab Republic. Every effort certainly should be made to bring about that agreement. This can be done if the will is there and without prejudice to the legal position, in order to maintain inviolate the Israeli point of view, the practical point of view, concerning the right of Israeli ships or ships
June 8, 1967

going to Israeli ports-there is only one-to use the gulf of Aqaba.
I have mentioned these two points, though they do go back into history, because we will be facing them both very shortly and it is well to know about the experience of the past in order to avoid the same mistakes in the future, if that can be done.
Perhaps I should say a word or two about the more general issue we face, I am not going to attempt to establish responsibility for today's tragedy. Undoubtedly that will be done in due course. However, I think in looking at the question of responsibility we must make a distinction between the occasion of the war and the causes of the war. I have already said that the causes of the conflict go very deep indeed. That is why, as I said a few moments ago, a cease fire and an armistice, if that follows, can only be considered as a means to an end. Nothing was done about this after 1956. Some of us gave warning at the United Nations at that time that if nothing was done to bring about peace and a lasting settlement there would be trouble. This has happened. Are we to repeat these failures as we again approach this problem, diplomatically, through the United Nations, this time through the security council? I think I am misquoting a famous quotation when I say, those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its tragedies.
That is why our ambassador at the security council made a very short intervention after the cease fire resolution, although a very impressive one, in which he said:
We note that the resolution is only a first step. We believe that the council must take advantage of the opportunity which this unanimously agreed resolution represents, to deal effectively and in an equitable manner, with fundamental problems which underlie maintenance of peace and security in the area. We cannot and we must not wait for another ten years with another crisis which will result again in fighting and bloodletting and bring us all once more to the edge of catastrophe.
It is perfectly clear from the experience of 20 years, since the state of Israel was founded, that only a fair and enduring peace, and it will not endure if it is not fair, and a political settlement can avoid another round in this dangerous game of brinkmanship on the edge of the abyss, indulged in not only by the states of that area but by the great powers as well.
As we have said in this house, on both sides, the frightening danger of this situation is not merely that Israel is in conflict with the Arab states, which is dangerous enough, but
Supply-External Affairs that behind the Arab states stands the U.S.S.R. and behind the state of Israel stands the United States and other countries. The two great superpowers are on different sides of an issue which could convulse the Middle East and in convulsing the Middle East could convulse the world.
I was talking about this the other night on a television program. I ventured to say this:
It is a wonderful thing to have a peace preservation corps sent to an area of disturbance where there has been military conflict. It can patrol and police an armistice and a cease fire, but unless there is a political settlement it cannot stay there indefinitely. This applies not only to the Middle East, it applies also to Cyprus. So the United Nations operations in the field of peace preservation have to be related to United Nations operations in this field of political settlement.
I said the same thing ten years ago in New York when I was addressing a Jewish audience there. I said that the work of establishing the state of Israel remains unfinished as long as Israel's Arab neighbours resent and reject her. There is no peace on her boundaries, despite the healing presence of UN forces, and hence there is not that security for the future to which her gallant and hardworking people are entitled.
That must be the next objective to be achieved, a creative peace and security for Israel based on freedom and justice, something which I believe is as much in the interests of Israel's neighbours as it is of Israel herself. This must be a peace which is not only fair to Israel but fair to her neighbours. We accept the Israeli point of view in respect of some matters, when we believe they are in the right. But we are not unfair to the neighbouring Arab states. There have been times in the past when we have fought their case at the United Nations when we thought Israel was wrong. In any event a political settlement must be one that is acceptable to all the countries in the area, and that is not going to be a very easy thing to achieve.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
What is the basis for such a political settlement and a more enduring peace than an armistice along with a state of war? We must not forget that in the almost 20 years since 1948 there has been an armistice but there has also been a state of war. I think I can only outline what I think is a possible basis, and there is nothing original in it.
There will have to be certain military withdrawals, after a cease fire, by negotiation and agreement. If the military status quo, or something approaching it, is to be restored
June 8, 1967

Supply-External Affairs there must be certain political guarantees which will produce stability. This will require understanding on both sides and some firm and agreed decisions by the United Nations security council to back them up. That cannot be done unless the four permanent members of the security council can get together. I leave hon. members to form their own opinions about the ease with which this can be accomplished, notwithstanding the encouraging sign the other night when at least they agreed on a cease fire resolution. But to bring the Israeli forces back behind the borders of last week, without doing anything about the situation in the gulf of Aqaba, would not provide for peace but merely a temporary absence of hostilities.
So, I suggest, secondly, that regardless of the legal controversy, which can be sent to the International Court for decision, there should be no exercise by those who claim the right of sovereignty, whether that claim is valid or not-and I am not attaching any judgment to that-to interfere with any innocent passage through the strait of Tiran and the gulf of Aqaba to Elath, which should be recognized by all as an Israeli port.
The third point is that something should be done about the right of Israeli ships, which right was exercised by all other ships until a day or so ago, to navigate the Suez canal. There have been decisions by the security council of the United Nations affirming that right, but in practice the affirmation has not meant very much to Israel.
Back in March, 1957 again, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I agreed with "the statement made yesterday" by Mr. Dulles that the denial to Israel of the right of freedom of shipping in the Suez canal was an unlawful act on the part of Egypt. I said in answer to that question:
Mr. Speaker, in regard to the first question the policy of this government-
And I am sure it is the policy of this parliament.
-has already been stated, that in its view navigation of the Suez canal should be free to the ships of all nations, and that would include Israel.
The fourth point is the establishment once again, in spite of our somewhat disillusioning experiences in the last few weeks, of a United Nations presence in force between the armies that have been fighting, and a presence which will operate on both sides of the border. There has been a great reluctance on the part of Israel to allow United Nations truce observation groups to operate on her territory.

This is one respect in which I think she should change her policy and on which agreement should be reached.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it reluctance or refusal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: She turned down the request that they should operate on Israeli soil, just as the United Arab Republic could have turned down the request that UNEF operate on her soil. This UN supervision could be done by enlarged observer groups, as we have already discussed in the house, under UNTSO, constituted and operating in accordance with effective and agreed arrangements to be worked out by the United Nations. That must be done.
I had an interesting exchange with the Secretary General of the United Nations about the withdrawal of the Canadian contingent from UNEF on such short notice. The Secretary General wrote me-and this letter has been made public-and paid great tribute to the work of the Canadians in this force and to the work of Canada in the interests of peace keeping. He said:
Canada has thus given unstinting and vital support to UNEF both at the headquarters of the United Nations and in the field. Irrespective of the circumstances of the withdrawal of UNEF and the consequences of that withdrawal, ten and a half years of succesful service to peace is a historic achievement.
U Thant went on:
Canada's large role in that achievement and your government's unfailing understanding of the requirements of UN peace keeping operations are widely recognized and appreciated here.
I replied to that letter the other day. I think this communication has also been made public. I thanked the Secretary General for his generous references to the men of our force and said this, which I hope will commend itself to members of the House of Commons:
Despite current difficulties faced by the United Nations in the peace keeping field, I am hopeful that it will he possible to profit from the experience gained in UNEF and to use the lessons learned, to develop, in due course, within the framework of the United Nations, more effective machinery "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", in the words of the charter.
Then I went on:
In the continuing effort that must be carried on to plan for United Nations peace keeping forces, organized and established in a way which will avoid the disturbing experience we have just gone through in the disbanding of UNEF, the United Nations can count on our full support. Recent events show that the work of the United Nations in the
June 8. 1967

field of peace keeping is not less, but more important than ever and that this work must include advance planning, so that United Nations peace keeping forces in the future will have a clear and strong basis on which to operate.
I think the house will confirm the support which I ventured to give in that letter for United Nations peace keeping. There is another basis for a settlement which has to be looked into.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, before the Prime Minister continues I should like to ask him this question. Do I understand him to say that it would be sufficient to have an extension of the supervisory commission to keep the peace, and that another peace keeping force like UNEF would not be necessary or would be impossible of achievement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that if a presence of some kind is required, and I expect it will be, it will be easier and simpler to build on the foundation of what we have, which was established not by the general assembly, as was UNEF, but by the security council. This gives it a firmer basis of authority and operation, I think, than if it came about through a resolution of the United Nations general assembly.
The next point, Mr. Chairman, relates to what I have been saying about a United Nations presence. I would also hope that there could be a demilitarized zone on both sides of the border and that effective steps-I know they have been attempted, and the men of these observer groups have served with great courage and devotion-will be taken to prevent infiltration, terroristic acts and provocation on both sides.
There is one other element of a settlement which has to be dealt with and in some ways is the most difficult and complex of all. It is the refugee question.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the right hon. gentleman-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at all.


David Lewis: -because I seem to be interrupting him. How can one give a guarantee about raiding and marauding without a United Nations force present?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know how one can give a guarantee about anything of this nature, but I am sure my hon. friend will agree it is a little more difficult to see that peace is kept on a border if there is activity on both sides going right up to the borderline which
Supply-External Affairs could conceivably be considered as provocative by the other side. If there could be a zone in between, it might be easier to continue that. That is all I have in mind.


David Lewis: A demilitarized zone.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, a demilitarized zone.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is what they are fighting for in Viet Nam.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope it will be a more effective demilitarized zone than in Viet Nam.
The other element in the situation is refugees. When the fighting ended in 1948 there were about 750,000 Palestinian Arabs who left their homes. I will not go into the pressures which were on them to leave but they left their homes and became refugees. There are one and a quarter million of them now, after nearly 20 years. They are maintained by the United Nations.
A real opportunity has never been given to these refugees to decide whether they could or would be willing to locate in other countries, and perhaps a sufficient effort has never been made to get at least some of them back to their homes in Israel. Of course the two things would go together. They have been tragically used as pawns in the game of Middle East politics, and unless a much more effective effort is made to deal with this situation than has been possible in the past it will not be too easy to be optimistic about the other elements of the settlement.
Those are the five or six elements of a political solution that I venture to put before the committee. Whether they could be successfully worked out in a political settlement I do not know because there is an issue which goes even deeper than any of the ones I have mentioned, the issue of deep fear and hostility on both sides, the Arab side and the Jewish side. Until that fear is removed somehow I do not think there will be peace in that area. Yet if it could be removed and at least a mutual acceptance on both sides could be built up, there is no doubt in my mind that the Arab states would be among the first and most important beneficiaries of that change through the help and co-operation that they could get from Israel.
I spoke about this once before at the United Nations and I hope the committee will forgive me, because I do not think I can improve on the words I used then, if I read the statement which I made at that time. It sums up my
June 3, 1967

Supply-External Affairs own feeling about the whole problem. This was in February, 1957. It reads as follows:
As I see it, the problem is basically one of fear, fear which breeds distrust and animosity and conflict. There has been fear on the one side of extermination by neighbours whose hostility to the creation and continued existence of the state of Israel has been strong and unremitting. It is difficult for people to act with the moderation and restraint through which wisdom expresses itself if they believe that they themselves live in the shadow of destruction and are uncertain about their very survival as a nation.
The fear from which the people of Israel suffer, the fear which explains the violence of reprisals which they have taken against their neighbours, will be on the way to elimination when the Arab states are willing to recognize Israel as a sovereign state and its right to national existence within accepted boundaries and under conditions of life tolerable to its people. It must now be one of our major aims here to help set again in motion the forces which will lead to the early recognition of Israel in normal terms by its neighbours, and thus to the removal of fear.
On the other side, however, there is also fear which has led to extreme views, to extreme policies and to violence. Among the Arab states there is that deep and understandable apprehension that the displacement of population and the political tension already associated with the new state, most of whose citizens have come from abroad, a new state established in the midst of the Arab people, may be followed by still further dislocations owing to the pressure of immigration into Irael, backed as that state is by strong international pressures and international resources. There is a fear that Israel will yield to expansionist ambitions, which is the counterpart of Israel's own fear of Arab intentions. That has bred in the Arab world animosity and violence towards Israel. When that fear is dissipated we may count on moderation in the attitude of Israel's neighbours towards that state. As I see it, we cannot but agree that if Israel has a right to live and prosper, free from the fear of strangulation by its neighbours, the Arab states also have a right to feel confident that Israel will not attempt to expand its territory at their expense, the right to be assured that if Israel, however, should at any time develop such ambitions, it will receive no encouragement but meet only opposition on both the official and the non-official level from the outside world, an opposition which would result in the isolation of the state itself from any international assistance or support.
It is in this shadow of the past and present, the shadow of fear on both sides, that we have to consider the problem which is immediately before us.
That was the problem immediately before us in 1957 and it is the problem immediately before us in June, 1967. This time it is the security council of the United Nations, not the general assembly of the United Nations as it was ten years ago, which has the main responsibility to deal with it effectively.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? What were the factors

which existed in the United Nations prohibiting or preventing a settlement with regard to international waters and a settlement with regard to the refugees?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not want to go into the subject of international waters too deeply. Perhaps my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who will be speaking on this later in the day, will explain it in more detail. However, I will say that one of the main difficulties with regard to the waters of the gulf of Aqaba has been that the United Arab Republic has certainly never recognized those shores, which extend for five miles at the end of the gulf, and the port of Elath as Israeli territory. That was the territory which Israel occupied after the armistice of 1948. The Arab states claimed that it never should be part of Israel. This complicated the position and gave them a case which they have used.
In so far as the refugees are concerned, I think the feeling among many of the refugees and many of the Arab governments was that they would want to keep these refugees and send them back to form a Palestinian Arab state if Israel were to disappear. They felt that if these refugees were scattered all over the world they might be happier individually but they would not be available for the day when Israel disappears and they move in. This has frustrated, in part at least, the efforts to deal with the refugee problem. There have been other causes also.
However, to return to the work of the security council-and these are my last observations-it was only because the security council was frustrated that the question went to the general assembly in 1956. We hope the security council will now discharge its responsibility in a way which will be fair to both sides, and this will depend largely on the attitude of the four permanent members, all of whom have a veto. I hope that as permanent members of the security council, with the responsibilities that go with the privilege of being given the right of veto, they will be able to meet and discharge that responsibility. It may be that a meeting should take place on the highest political level. Anyway, whatever machinery is adopted does not make any difference. It is the results that count. Even if the security council consisted of third secretaries of governments who spoke for their governments and passed the right kind of resolution, it would have the United Nations behind it. However it is done, I can only hope that the
June 8, 1987

security council will not only be able to enforce a cease fire, to bring about a cessation of fighting and movement of troops after the fighting, but it will also be able at least to begin the process which we have failed miserably to do in 20 years, the process of bringing peace and political settlement to the area.
[DOT] (4:10 p.ra.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, as I
listened to the Prime Minister review the historical past I asked myself one question- what of 1956? The other day in the United Kingdom this matter came before the House of Lords and Lord Avon, the former Anthony Eden, without actually saying so was able to leave the impression that the mistakes of 1956 have proven to be the nursery of the troubles of 1967. I am reminded by the Prime Minister's quotations of the debates that took place in this house in 1956. At the conclusion of his remarks the Prime Minister dealt with the need for action in the United Nations or by the four major powers.
It is interesting to recall the words of 1956 that caused difficulties within this nation. At that time the right hon. gentleman was secretary of state for external affairs. The then prime minister, right hon. Mr. St. Laurent, dealt with superpowers, supermen, and had this to say:
I have been scandalized more than once by the attitude of the larger powers, the big powers as we call them, who have all too frequently treated the charter of the United Nations as an instrument with which to regiment smaller nations and as an instrument which did not have to be considered when their own so-called vital interests were at stake.
These words brought solace to Nasser and others connected with him. I said at that time:
The only reference in the preceding paragraph is to Britain and to France. I am scandalized, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister saw fit to condemn Britain and France to the same bag in which the U.S.S.R. was placed.
I say today that the views members of the opposition expressed in 1956 could be read and reread and they would reflect to an unusual degree events that have happened since.
I want to say at once that I asked for this debate. I also asked, in the event that there was information that should be available to members of the house, for a secret session of parliament. I can understand a difference of opinion on that. However, I am going to refer to one newspaper, the Toronto Globe and Mail which, ever since the cancellation of the Avro Arrow and since they failed to secure a television licence in Toronto, has adopted an
Supply-External Affairs attitude of bitter criticism of the Conservative party. Yesterday, in an editorial, vicious as it was vacuous, they denied the right of a member of parliament to advance in this chamber views that are not acceptable to that newspaper. I am going to say more about that licence later. I am going to say more about the television licence that was awarded in Toronto because from that day there have been regularly in that newspaper, more so since it has been under F.P. Publications, attacks not in keeping with the responsibility of the press to place the true facts before the country.
I asked for a secret session. I think it may still be necessary to continue to press for one because what we secured today from the Prime Minister, with the exception of certain general views that were expressed in the last 20 minutes of his address, were historical quotations and apologias, in the tradition of Right Hon. Mackenzie King who at all times found solace and satisfaction in being able to quote what he himself had said.
There are certain general principles that we must affirm. One is that Israel has a right to live. Mention was made of the attitude taken by the U.A.R. and other Arab nations to Israel. I visited Israel on two occasions and at length. I was also, for a period of time, the guest of Colonel Abdel Nasser. I was asked subsequently what he had said about Israel. He never mentioned Israel. He discussed Yemen. He discussed the oil situation in the Middle East. He never made a reference to Israel in our conversation. I concluded it was because so far as the Arab nations are concerned Israel does not exist. It has never been accepted. It has never received any consideration as a national entity.
In recent days Israel's right to live has been hammered out anew in blood and arms. Today in old Jerusalem, for the first time in many years, that portion of the city occupied by Jordan, is under Jewish control once more. The Garden of Gethsemane, scene of warfare in the last few days, the Wailing Wall, embodiment of Jewish resistance through all generations, King Solomon's Temple, today a Moslem mosque-these areas are now in possession of the Israelis. They should never have been outside of Israel in my opinion.
So far as the Arab nations are concerned, we believe that their attitude during the last 20 years has been dangerous and detrimental not only to the peace of the Middle East but also to world peace. Nasser made the statement that never again would there be recognition of Israel's right to use the gulf of
June 8, 1967

Supply-External Affairs Aqaba. His threat to destroy the people of Israel was reinforced in the last few days by a statement made by King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. He said the aim was to exterminate Israel.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The United Arab Republic is a member of the United Nations. Yet Nasser pledged himself in these words: "It will be total war and the objective will be to destroy Israel". Canada cannot afford to allow those words to go unchallenged, Mr. Chairman, because they embody the principle of genocide which has been specifically rejected under a resolution of the United Nations.
The wording of article I of that resolution reads as follows:
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, when committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Then genocide is defined in these terms:
Killing members of the group;-
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction-
It also includes imposing measures intended to destroy.
We owe much to the Arab nations, but there can be no neutrality by Canada with regard to those who have the specific objective and purpose of destroying the Hebrew race.
I was surprised on May 30 when I listened to the Prime Minister being interviewed on the C.B.C. by Charles Lynch, Claude Ryan and Joseph Kraft. The Prime Minister was asked whether he was in favour of one side or the other, Israel or the Arab nations. One of the questions asked by Mr. Lynch was as follows:
You mentioned earlier the strength of world Zionist opinion as one of the things that Israel has going for in this situation.
There is obviously a mistake there in the reprint of this C.B.C. interview. The question goes on:
The Arabs, of course, suspect I think that your policy-Canada-and the U.S. policy is influenced by the political strength of the Jewish people inside our own countries, which has no counterpart on the Arab side. Now, is this valid or not?
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
The proof that it does not apply to this country, surely is in our action in 1956 when we were very active at the United Nations in interposing a UN force between the Israelis and their friends, and the fighting-
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
Then Mr. Lynch asked:
Are we acting in the same way this time?
The Prime Minister replied:
Absolutely. So far as I am concerned I have no feeling of any kind in favour of one side or the other. We have a strong Jewish Zionist movement in Canada, of course. We also have not so many Arabs here. I would not like to admit that this influences me in the slightest. It does not.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, in view the words of Nasser, not only in the book he published prior to 1956 but in the statements he made recently, I cannot be neutral on the position he has taken. Then the interview dealt with the gulf of Aqaba, to which I may make reference later.
We have all been encouraged by the events of the last few days. I agree with the Prime Minister when he says that if only the United Nations security council had acted a week or ten days ago it would have been better for all concerned. It was good tidings today to learn that the U.A.R. is prepared to accept the direction to cease fire. That they could do anything else is, of course, quite impossible to contemplate because their forces have been swept away on every part of the front on which they have taken a stand.
In the event, Mr. Chairman, that the cease fire is accepter and is established by all the nations, we come to the serious question of what we are going to do next. No longer can we allow ourselves the luxury of permitting the problems to which the Prime Minister made reference to remain unsolved. Political settlements must now be achieved. Up to the present the objective has been to bring the fighting to an end. We now have to deal with those matters which in 1956 were unfinished business and have remained so.
What course shall we take? I listened to the observations of the Prime Minister and in general I agreed with the views that he placed before the committee. However, I would ask that there be more definiteness and clarity than has been the case in the past with regard to Canada's stand.
I recall speaking in this house on November 29, 1956 and saying that the government of Canada was not taking a definite stand, that its attitude had been one of "Oh, let things calm down and all will be well". The Prime Minister quoted some words of mine which I uttered in 1956, and I should like to put on the record some words of mine, which are to be found at page 141 of Hansard for November 29, 1956. These words are as true today as they were then. I had just referred
June 8, 1967	COMMONS
to the general situation in the Middle East, and I went on:
What has Canada done since then? Well, I read the records of the United Nations where Canada is forever speaking on resolutions but lacking resolution and displaying no definiteness.
That is true today, Mr. Chairman. There is an attitude of empirical uncertainty, an aura of fear of responsibility in facing issues. I went on to say:
I say to my hon. friend that last Saturday was an example when the vote took place in the United Nations, a repetitious vote, on the motion to order Britain and France out of the Middle East.
I read with pride in the press that my hon. friend-
That was the present Prime Minister.
-had made such a strong and bitter castigation of the U.S.S.R. that Shepilov shook, that the members of the assembly were silent, and finally they applauded. Magnificent! But then Canada abstained. Speaking on resolutions, lacking resolution!
That has been so throughout. On the question of Israel and the Arab states Canada's attitude has been uncertain. It has been trying diplomatically to be in agreement with both sides. In the last couple of weeks Canada, because of the uncertainty inherent in some of the words expressed by the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, has lost any claim to being able to bring together the warring elements in the Middle East. The Arabs no longer trust us. The Israelis wonder about us. In the current issue of the Canadian Jewish News the following words appear under the heading: "No, Mr. Pearson: This Time Peace, No Armistice":
No,	Mr. Pearson, this	time	there	will be	noarmistice. There will be peace or else. We, the Jews	of this generation	who	have	trusted	theworld	while our nearest of kin	were	burned alivewith	their womenfolk	and	offspring in	the
Auschwitzes and Maidaneks, will not exchange security neither for a Nasserite scrap of paper nor for new "assurances" from the debating club at East River.
That is the beginning of the article. It goes on in the same spirit. Because of uncertainty about where this government stands, this nation finds itself in the position of having lost face in the last two or three weeks. The resort is to ancient quotations about meetings of past years. Sir, historical analogies and quotations cannot take the place of needed international action in 1967.
So far as the city of Jerusalem is concerned I think consideration must be given to Israel retaining the entire city.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	1299
Supply-External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: If it cannot be done directly now, then old Jerusalem which is confined within the territorial limits of Jordan should be internationalized.
I agree with the Prime Minister with regard to the gulf of Aqaba. It must be immunized against interference by the Arabs or any other nation. Regardless of arguments advanced by the Arab nations the gulf of Aqaba is an international body of water. If the U.A.R. had the right, as it thinks it has the right, to close the gulf to freedom of navigation it would mean that Denmark or Sweden could close the Baltic or that other Baltic nations could close the Baltic, or that the U.S.S.R. could be closed out of the Mediterranean. There can be no equivocation on this question whatsoever. Sir, I hoped for more assured declarations by the government of this country than we have had today.
Next, can anyone believe that Canada, in view of the stand that it has taken in the last couple of weeks, will find ready acceptance in contributing troops to enforce international rights on the gulf of Aqaba or the boundary determinations that must be made? We were put out, driven out by Nasser. Unless there is a vast change of mind and opinion by the Arab states there is no possibility of Canada being given the right to contribute any forces to an international force.
What of the international force? I was in San Francisco in April and May of 1945 and I believed that we had arrived at an agreement whereby mankind would set up an effective international force. That has been the dream of international lawyers since Grotius and Pufendorf. Only through the instrumentality of an international force strong enough to enforce the edicts of the United Nations can peace be attained.
There is no possibility of that international force being set up now. The great powers are against it. It is far beyond the realm of probability that any force could be set up which would be effective in maintaining peace. Much is said about the UNEF force and that it maintained the peace in the Middle East. It maintained nothing of the kind. It never maintained the peace at any time. It was simply an international body with a supervisory capacity but without the ability to direct, order, or enforce. Indeed, both leaders of that international force told me on more than one occasion that the UNEF force was never expected to be or ever was a force to compel law, international or otherwise.
June 8, 1987

Supply-External Affairs
Though we have made great contributions to the United Nations' force, because of our attitude in the last few weeks-I reiterate this-we have lost international status. No longer are we regarded as a nation without a national axe to grind and impartially unbiased toward one side or another while standing on principle. It will take a long time for Canada to have restored to it the respect and regard of the African and Asian races. As I see it, unless there is a great change on the part of those nations, it will not be possible for Canada to make any considerable contribution to peace keeping.
Where are we? Our army, navy and air force are in a state of uncertain unification. Traditions are gone. The purpose has been the assurance of an international force. U Thant knew that when he spoke in Montreal the other day and said that Canada's unification plan was designed to provide additional assistance primarily in peace keeping. That was something we could not get confirmed in parliament. The Secretary General knew exactly the purpose which we suspected was in fact the reason for unification, o (4:40 p.m.)
Internationally there can be no question of the acceptance of anything less than freedom of access by all nations to the gulf of Aqaba. Second, with regard to the problem of refugees I have heard various proposals. The one given by the Prime Minister today I think is one that is in accordance with the facts.
I visited those camps 10 or 11 years ago. I visited them again four years ago. The horror of conditions in those refugee camps is a blot on civilization. I talked to some of the refugees. There was no desire to improve their condition. They were suffering as martyrs for a cause. They were expecting that it would not be too long before once more Israel would be wiped off the face of the earth and they would return in triumph to that country.
This problem has got to be solved. It cannot be solved by force. Mass evacuation, such as the Acadian removals two centuries ago, will not do today. How can the problem be solved? Something must transpire that will bring home to those people, and to the Arab nations as a whole, the recognition that there is no hope of these people returning to their former homes.
As to the mobilization of a peace force, I have already said that I can see no general acceptance by these nations of forces comprised in large measure of Canadians. I think
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]

possibly there might be acceptance of Canadian representation on inspection organizations but not in armed forces. As I listened to the Prime Minister I concluded that the government of Canada has the idea that it will be accepted and that Canadian forces will be sent to the Middle East. I say that in 1926 the late Right Hon. Arthur Meighen enunciated the principle that troops should not be sent abroad from Canada for war purposes, which is the danger they will face if they are in any international force today, unless approval is secured in advance from the parliament of Canada. If there is any decision to send troops as a peace keeping force or as part of a peace keeping force, that means that the force must be prepared to undertake actual war in the event that it becomes necessary so to do. I contend therefore that any force of that type to be sent abroad shall not be sent unless there is prior approval of the parliament of Canada.
A moment ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs nodded his head in a way to indicate that my reference to U Thant was not well based. So that the record will be clear let me read from a Southam News Service report of June 3:
-Mr. Thant praised Canada's revolutionary bid to re-organize its armed forces "with the peace keeping function primarily in mind."
That is what we said. The Minister of National Defence denied it. That is what General Allard has said since the debate ended. Now we know it. Internationally we receive the fullest information. That was denied us in the House of Commons.


Mr. Hellyer:: You should read General Allard's speech and then you would have some idea about what he actually said.


John George Diefenbaker: What's that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I said you should do General Allard the courtesy of reading his speech because what he said is quite contrary to what was reported in the press and repeated by you.


John George Diefenbaker: Just sit down unless you are asking questions.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, what was reported of the general's speech was not in the context of what he had actually said.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is not-
June 8, 1967


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would recommend to my right hon. friend-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Will both hon. gentlemen sit down, please? There is no point of privilege. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: This minister is very touchy. He is rising on a question of privilege to let the House of Commons know what the chief of the general staff meant when he said what he said, but the minister wants to interpret the way in which he said it and delude parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I resent, on behalf of General Allard and the officers of the armed forces, this insinuation which reflects on them in the House of Commons where they are not able to defend themselves. The right hon. gentleman should do the general the courtesy of reading what he said and not what the newspaper reports said.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I bring to the attention of the committee citation 105 at page 96 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
A dispute arising between two honourable members as to allegations of facts hardly fulfils the conditions of a privilege question-
I recognize the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that rule is known to all members of the house, even to the hon. gentleman, but he is very touchy on this matter. He deceived parliament and now he is trying to find an alibi. But U Thant told the truth and said that the principal objective was a peace keeping force. I would like to hear the minister make a speech on this subject-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will.


John George Diefenbaker: -written by himself, and have his explanation of what took place. He is going to have every opportunity today. The chief of the general staff let the cat out of the bag, and U Thant made sure the bag would never be closed again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand why the minister is so touchy. You can just see the new uniform. The three armed forces of Canada are going to have jolly little green jumpers. The minister feels a sense of paternity and when any question is raised about
Supply-External Affairs this he feels hurt. I want to say to him that I can understand his sensibilities. This is part of the discussion of foreign affairs because foreign affairs are only effective with a defence policy that is effective.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What we have done, if U Thant is right and General Allard is right, is that we have provided for a force for international use as the principal objective and we have left the defence of Canada in the hands of the United States of America.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, sir, I would like to hear what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has to say regarding the international force. The Minister of National Defence built his policy on sand and Nasser brushed it away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is one of the worst speeches I have ever heard in this house.


Michael Starr: Do you not listen to your own speeches?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I understand there was some understanding that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would participate in the debate next.


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think we should wait a moment. All of us realize there are responsibilities resting on the minister which have taken him out of the house in the same way the Prime Minister was taken out of the house. Every consideration must be given in view of the necessity of both these gentlemen being able to carry out their responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is present, willing and anxious to speak at this stage in the debate. I would gladly yield to him, if that is the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. friend but the Prime Minister opened the debate. He has been followed by the Leader of the Opposition, and in all fairness I think my hon. friend ought to have a chance.
June 8, 1967

Supply-External Affairs


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I was relaxing in anticipation of hearing the Secretary of State for External Affairs before participating in the debate. We are discussing the estimates of the Department of External Affairs at a dramatic moment in a dramatic age. In my view it is a dramatic age because this generation is faced with startling alternatives, the alternative of building a world community based on the acceptance of world law or the alternative of the destruction of civilization through the use of weapons of mass destruction. This is a particularly dramatic moment because history is being made before our eyes. The crisis which has taken place in the last few days will have results which may very well be decisive for good or evil for many years to come. For that reason our attention in this debate, although it is generally on the full estimates of the Department of External Affairs, necessarily is centred around the crisis in the Near East.
The rapid military development and the security council's unanimous request for a cease fire, which we understand has now been accepted at least conditionally by the combatants, removes some of the very worst forebodings which people throughout the world have had in respect of this crisis. Nevertheless it is of the utmost importance that the crisis should be used constructively to work out necessary political settlements, to strengthen the foundations of the United Nations and to strenghten the function of the United Nations in maintaining peace and security.
The Prime Minister himself, I believe, has often said, and we have observed it to be true, that it is upon situations of crisis that sometimes we are able to build new structures of peace. The Cuban crisis, of course, is one illustration. Out of the Cuban crisis emerged the test ban treaty and the detente in the cold war. I urge that following this crisis we not sink back into complacency. Such complacency could, and undoubtedly will if indulged in, produce in the present unstable world new crises. The outcome of each new crisis may be far worse than even the tragic results of the present hostilities.
I do not intend to comment at length on the situation immediately facing the security council. We in this party should like to express our full support for the initiative of the Canadian government in introducing the resolution which sought a means of securing compliance with the cease fire resolution of the


council. I should like to congratulate our ambassador, Mr. Ignatieff, for his part in the presentation of this resolution.
At the moment I wish to speak more generally upon the future of the United Nations arising out of this crisis. There are some cynics, both in public life and among the representatives of the press, who, when difficulties arise and when defects appear in the embryonic international institutions which exist today, hasten to proclaim, sometimes with ill-concealed glee, that these institutions have failed. There have been a number of headlines and comments which have appeared in the last few days proclaiming that the United Nations is dead, that it is through, that it is ineffective.
It has been asserted by some people that
the peace keeping operations of the United Nations have been shown to be futile. It is my submission that precisely the opposite is the lesson of the last few weeks. It was the inadequacy of the original arrangements in respect of UNEF which produced the hurried withdrawal. I do not think we would gain anything by laying the blame for the withdrawal at any door. The withdrawal, however, was the almost immediate prelude to the outbreak of hostilities. Indeed, the withdrawal constituted, perhaps inevitably in the circumstances, a clear and present threat to the existence of the state of Israel.
I ask, could there be a clearer demonstration of the importance of an international presence than the fact that when it is removed there is an outbreak of hostilities? The obvious answer in this situation is not to abandon UN peace keeping operations but rather to establish them on a firmer basis. That basis, I venture to suggest without enlarging at length on the topic, involves the willingness of the great powers to work together in the security council in a different way than they have in the past, with a willingness perhaps to give effect to article 43 of the charter under which the great powers are supposed to work together to maintain peace and security throughout the world on behalf of the nations of the world. Until the great powers assume that responsibility it cannot be said it is the fault of the United Nations itself if that organization is ineffective. It is the fault of the governments of the nations which fail in accepting their responsibility.
The outbreak of war in the Middle East was not due to too much international concern or to too great a willingness to accept international responsibility. The opposite is the truth. Some at least of the great powers
June 8, 1967	COMMONS
have been willing to frustrate the effectiveness of the United Nations. There has been a growing anarchy throughout the world. The great powers have intervened or have threatened to intervene in various parts of the world. They have bypassed the United Nations and have undermined its prestige. We can only express the hope here that the events of the past week have indicated the necessity of a global settlement before it is too late. We cannot continue playing with dynamite and avoid disaster.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
There is one aspect of the present crisis which I think has perhaps been overlooked. This war has taken place in the Middle East at a time when the possession of nuclear weapons has been limited to the major powers. I shudder to contemplate what would have happened had some of the powers involved directly in this conflict been in possession of nuclear weapons. If the hatreds, resentments, and injustices which created the present crisis are not dealt with, and if the proliferation of nuclear weapons is not halted, the next outbreak of war in this or perhaps in other sections of the world will lead to even more tragic consequences. Therefore we must consider what are the essentials of a lasting settlement.
An outline of what we believe in this connection has already been expressed in this house by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, during the debate on the budget a day or two ago. It does not vary substantially in essence from what was said by the Prime Minister.
First of all there must be a clear guarantee by the security council in respect of the boundaries of all nations of the Middle East, including both Israel and Arab nations. There must be a clear understanding through the United Nations security council in this regard so that no one of the great powers can say this is not their responsibility and they will not ensure that the understanding is carried out. There must be, as I think everybody in this house will agree, a settlement and an agreement that the gulf of Aqaba is an international waterway and that access to it through the strait of Tiran must be available to all innocent shipping. This is a matter that is vital to the state of Israel whose existence has been recognized and guaranteed by the international community, but it is a principle of great practical concern to many nations, including the U.S.S.R. which has a very great interest in the establishment of the principle of free access to international waterways.
DEBATES	1303
Supply-External Affairs
There must also be an early and a generous settlement of the Arab refugee problem, to which the Prime Minister referred today. I intend to say a little more about it later. There must be vast and massive economic programs of development in the Middle East and for the people who live in that part of the world.
These proposals relate to the Middle East and impose a great burden upon the nations immediately concerned, a burden which is particularly heavy because it involves that most difficult of all things, a change in attitudes. We must ask them to accept this burden both for their own sake and for the sake of the world as a whole. However, these proposals also impose a burden on the whole world which must contribute by international action to guarantee the security of this part of the world and also a settlement of the underlying economic problems.
I would have been happy with the eloquent words of the Prime Minister in this debate had they been accompanied by a statement of a willingness of this country to contribute financially, and perhaps by a policy of encouraging immigration of Arabs to Canada, to the settlement of some of the Palestinian Arabs. I do not think it is good enough to talk about a problem without indicating a willingness to take action to meet it. Our eyes have been opened in the last few days by what has happened as a result of the failure on the part of the international community to deal with the festering sore of the Palestinian Arab refugees. Certainly we have contributed something like $500,000 a year, if my recollection is right, to the relief of the Palestinian Arabs refugees and also through food distribution, but we have not nor has the state of Israel or other nations of the world accepted seriously the responsibility and the expense necessary if this cancer is to be removed. If it is not, peace in this area will be very unstable.
The crisis is not just a crisis of the Middle East; it is a crisis of the world as a whole and the eventual solution involves a global settlement. I do not want to engage in a prolonged discussion of a situation in another part of the world, but the continuation of the war in Viet Nam and the continued isolation of the people of China are closely connected with the difficulties of making the United Nations function effectively. While the war in Viet Nam continues the likelihood of effective cooperation between the so-called superpowers is remote. Yet without this co-operation, and if we are to have a continued atmosphere of
June 8. 1367

Supply-External Affairs cold war, the United Nations cannot function effectively as an instrument for peace and security. There is in my view a very close connection between what has happened in the Far East and what has happened in the Near East. I do not think it is too much to deduce if the United States had not been heavily involved and preoccupied in the Far East there would have been no encouragement to create a crisis in the Middle East. I doubt if that would have happened.
I do not propose to repeat the views of this party on Viet Nam as they are well known, but in any debate or discussion of external affairs I think we have to make, and I do so now, reference to what I believe is a vital problem, to the primary responsibility which rests on one of the great powers to seek to bring the war in Viet Nam to a close through an unconditional cessation of bombing of North Viet Nam. There has been talk of a lull in fighting but it has been denied that it has any connection whatever with the Near East crisis. Perhaps it has no connection, but if we are to move ahead so we will not have a recurring crisis then what is happening in Viet Nam must end. It is certainly impossible to anticipate that there will not be further crises throughout the world if the war in the Far East continues as it is today.
Let me emphasize what I think is very closely connected to the crisis in the Near East. That is the tragic failure of the well-to-do nations of the world, including Canada, to deal adequately with the problems of world poverty. Some people have said that the Near East crisis is an aspect of the east-west conflict and the cold war. I think it would be more to the point to say that the Near East crisis is a tragic reminder of the unsolved north-south problem and the growing gap between the rich and the poor nations.
Mr. Escott Reid, the principal of Glendon College, formerly our ambassador to India and formerly an official of the World Bank, has recently contribtued an article to the International Journal which is published by the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. He speaks of two fields in which Canada could make a creative contribution to world affairs, and this is something I believe all members of this house and all Canadians wish to do.
In this article Mr. Reid says that the most serious gap in the defences of civilization is the gap between what the rich nations of the world should be doing to help the poor countries speed up their economic development and what they are in fact doing. He points


out that Canada, for example, has during the last three or four years raised the level of foreign aid by $50 million yearly. This is less than 2 per cent of the annual increase in our national income. So we are applying to this crucial problem of world poverty less than one-fiftieth of our annual increase in wealth.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In this regard we are not doing any worse than most of the other rich countries of the world. In the past six years the rich countries of the non-communist world have got a great deal richer. They have reached a level of income about $300 billion higher than the level six years ago. They have not shared any of this vast new wealth with the poor countries. The level of their contribution to dealing with the problem of world poverty, which I suggest constitutes a continuing threat to the peace and stability of the world, has remained constant as far as the world as a whole is concerned, although the wealth of the western world has increased by $300 billion a year. As I say, they have not shared any of this vast new wealth with the poor countries.
I want to adopt this comment by Mr. Reid:
If we of the western world persist in our present policy of aid to poor countries, we will have earned the contempt of our children and of our grandchildren.
He points out that if Canada alone were to give another $700 million of aid to the underdeveloped countries to help them speed up their economic development, this would increase the net flow of long term economic aid of NATO countries to poor countries by about 12 per cent. Some people say this might be throwing money away, that there is no assurance that an increase in economic aid will in fact make any substantial difference or will enable the underdeveloped countries to break through to a position of self-generating growth. But we were told in the committee on external affairs this morning by Mr. Maurice Strong-incidentally, we warmly welcome him to his position as director general of our external aid office-that a conservative estimate of practical and immediately available projects which could be approved by the World Bank would cost between $3 billion and $4 billion a year, but this $3 billion or $4 billion a year is not made available and the projects are not proceeded with for lack of available funds.
This would represent a contribution by Canada of an additional $200 million a year approximately. It would only bring Canada's contribution up to approximately $500 million
June 8, 1967	COMMONS
a year, with export credits, loans and everything else thrown in, which would be about the 1 per cent target of national income or gross national product, the standard adopted internationally many years ago. The present government-I am glad the Secretary of State for External Affairs is here-proceed to do good but they do it at their usual snail-like pace. They propose to reach this target of 1 per cent some time in the 1970's. Why not now? The need is now. A relatively small contribution from the anticipated increase in Canada's wealth would enable this to be done without any serious sacrifice on the part of the Canadian people. Indeed, a good case for this increase could be made out on purely material grounds. The moneys are largely spent in Canada. The development of countries with which Canada has close ties, such as the Caribbean, creates a market for Canadian goods which is essential to our long-term prosperity.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs: Who is stopping us? We are sometimes told it is public opinion. I do not believe this is true. What is stopping us is the timidity and half-heartedness of the Canadian government. I must say, in all fairness, that this attitude is shared with other western governments. This timidity and half-heartedness is responsible for the failure to deal adequately with this problem. It has produced what Mr. Reid, in the article I mentioned, described as "short-sighted and ignoble policies of foreign aid." Dr. Gunnar Myrdal, the noted Swedish economist, when speaking at Expo the other day said:
Wars and war preparations represent the most important elements of clear and dangerous insanity in international relations. The rich western and European communist countries taken together, are probably spending as much on wars and war preparations as the sum total of national incomes in all of the much more populous underdeveloped countries.
The description by Dr. Myrdal, who is a pretty sober observer of the world, of "insane" would not be justified if someone could indicate that these competitive war expenditures produce security. They produce precisely the opposite. I wonder how much of the present conflict in the Near East and how many of the casualties in that conflict have been caused by the fact that all the nations of the world, including Canada, have seen fit to export weapons of destruction, armanents, on a substantial scale to these countries. I do not think it is an exaggeration for Dr. Myrdal to refer to this situation as one that shows we are not really sane.
DEBATES	1305
Supply-External Affairs
In the light of the crisis through which we have gone in the last few days and through which we are still going, I ask: Can we not make progress toward a global settlement? This global settlement, I suggest, would do the following things:
(a)	achieve a lasting settlement in the Near East. I have tried to say what I think is necessary for this.
(b)	strengthen the United Nations, and particularly its peace keeping activities.
(c)	achieve a non-proliferation treaty which would help to prevent instability turning into nuclear disaster; and
(d)	divert the vast sums spent on war expenditures to the constructive task of ending poverty throughout the world.
We know that Canada is not a very powerful nation, but it is not an insignificant nation either. Its contribution and leadership in the fields I have mentioned would do much to strengthen the defences of world civilization and provide a secure future for our children and grandchildren.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Chairman, this discussion today was opened, appropriately by the Prime Minister because of his historic association with the problems of the Middle East and particularly because of the contributions he made to the establishment of the United Nations emergency force. There are a number of important foreign policy considerations which I wish to discuss at this time. I hope to do so objectively and in a non-partisan way, in spite of the provocation which I found in the speech of my right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition.
The involvement of the United Nations in the situation in the Middle East and the implications of this crisis for the world are such that we must all recognize how vital is a solution to the problems of that disturbed area. The tragic developments in the Middle East of the past three weeks have engrossed us all. They have dominated the international scene and they have been of concern to peoples everywhere. The interlude of violence is now, I believe, hopefully, coming to an end with the announcement by the Secretary General this afternoon of the acceptance by the U.A.R. of the cease fire resolution of the security council. The cease fire appeals issued by the security council on June 6 and 7 have begun to take effect even though there is,
June 8, 1S67

Supply-External Affairs according to reports just handed to me, considerable fighting going on in certain sections of the area.
[DOT] (5:20 p.ra.)
I think the Canadian government owes it to this house and to the Canadian people to indicate not only its concern with this problem but also how it has dealt with it from the time the problem first arose. It will be recalled that an indication of a possible withdrawal of the United Nations emergency force caused me to go to New York and to confer with the secretary general. I do not want to go over ground already covered. I will simply state again that I believe it was regrettable that the force was withdrawn. I have not questioned the sovereignty of the host country that asked for its withdrawal, but I am firmly of the view that there was no clear legal basis for the way in which it was withdrawn. In any event one should take every step to preserve an institution which for ten and a half years has been such a responsible and constructive factor in keeping the peace in the Middle East.
I understand now, as I understood when I talked with him, the problems of the Secretary General, particularly when it had been intimated by India and Yugoslavia that for reasons best known to them they did not propose to continue in the force once one of the host countries had asked that it be withdrawn. I do not agree with the right hon. gentleman that this was a humiliation for Canada. I do not agree with the newspaper which had a big headline reading "Canada Humiliated". The humiliation is not on our side. We have nothing to be humiliated about. For ten and a half years, along with the other countries in that force, we used our defence forces for the purpose of keeping the peace, and I was surprised when my right hon. friend said that the force had not kept the peace in the Middle East. That is not in accordance with the facts. There is no doubt, as was attested by the public declarations of the governments of Israel and the U.A.R. a year and a half ago when there were suggestions for a reduction of the force, that this would mean removing a factor of stability in the area.
When I went to the United Nations that Saturday morning I took the occasion to discuss also the desirability of giving consideration at once to a successor to the United Nations emergency force, if this were acceptable to the host countries, of course, and if it

were possible to get additional powers accorded to it by the security council. I was referring of course to the United Nations truce supervisory organization already in existence and working with the four mixed armistice commissions already established by the security council. It has a capacity to add to its numbers as it has done from time to time. It is now a force of about 120. At one time it had 700 men. True, it would have to acquire further powers from the security council for additional relocation.
I think it may be said that the Canadian suggestion about the possibility of a use of UNTSO at the appropriate time was a useful one, as has been recognized by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Later in my speech I propose to deal with the suggestions of the right hon. gentleman, which I do not believe were the kind of suggestions that one would have expected in a situation like this in relation to one of the notable foreign policy contributions of our country. We do not seek to participate in United Nations peace keeping operations unless we are wanted. I will deal with that later as I do not want to anticipate my argument. However, I cannot understand for the life of me why there should have been a suggestion in this house that Canada, because she was forcefully removed out of Egypt, would no longer be acceptable in any peace keeping operation in that area of the world or in any other.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say "any other". I said "in that area".


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are not seeking additional responsibilities in this area. Canada need not be ashamed of her record in peace keeping all over the world.
On that recent occasion in New York I talked with the ambassadors of Israel, the United Arab Republic, Great Britain, the United States, Syria and France, with the idea of trying to do what my right hon. friend had said in the house only two days before we should do, to see to it that the United Nations was put to work. Imagine the security council not being in session in this situation. It was as the result of action taken by Canada and Denmark that the first meeting of the security council was held in this matter. So let no one say we have not been viligant and tireless in our efforts in this matter both in the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa and through our ambassadors in Lebanon, Israel and the United Arab Republic. Few countries have a finer foreign service than our country and I want to pay
June 8, 1967

tribute to it. It is in a situation like this that one realizes what we owe to the men and women who have dedicated their lives to the Canadian foreign service. We are not dealing with an ordinary matter. In my judgment this has certainly been potentially the most dangerous situation, possibly excluding Cuba, since the end of the second world war. I say that, fully aware of the potential danger which could arise out of an expansion of the war in Indo-China.
There are certain basic issues in this situation and I must state them at once so it will not be suggested, as has been suggested, that the government, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister said today, is not appreciative of the position of all the parties, of their claims and of their rights. The other day the President of the United States was very anxious to affirm to the world, as were the prime minister of Great Britain, the president of France, and several other heads of government, that their policies with regard to the Middle East were balanced ones. Ours is one that is designed to take into account the need for the most friendly possible relations with all countries. This can be done without doing violence to or taking issue with the particular claims or rights of any one of the parties. Certainly when we took exception to the way in which UNEF was withdrawn we were not taking a hostile attitude with regard to the United Arab Republic. When we sent three cruisers to supplement our evacuation plans they were not part of a design for action by this country outside of the United Nations context. Our view about international law as it applies to the strait of Tiran does not in any way involve an act of hostility against countries which may have an interest there and a different view.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There must be an acceptance, of course, of Israel's right to live in peace and security. The denial of this right has been a source of danger for a long time in the Middle East. Israel, of course, has the basic obligation itself to live without provocation to her neighbours. I am sure she will accept this.
There is a need for the elimination of terrorist incidents on the Syria-Israel border. Our position on the right of innocent passage in the gulf of Aqaba has already been mentioned. As the foreign minister I stated our position on May 23 and May 24 of this year. The Prime Minister on several occasions has reaffirmed what he had said in 1957 in confirmation of international law. In case there is
Supply-External Affairs any doubt about this I simply ask hon. gentlemen to read Hansard, pages 602, 520, 535, 822, 1096 and 1076 where the position of the government on this vital, key issue in the present conflict may be found. I need only add that we are a signatory to the convention on territorial waters along with some 32 other countries. This convention is designed to confirm the state of international law on this matter.
Then, of course, there is the refugee problem. I propose to say something later in some detail about that because it is also one of the key issues in this matter.
Because the Middle East has such religious significance for people all over the world,-I think the foreign minister of Canada should observe that there is widespread concern about the effects of events on the holy city of Jerusalem. Hon. members know that this ancient city is a shrine to many people of different faiths. Moslems, Christians and Jews are all undoubtedly apprehensive about the safety and protection of holy sites. Because of the special importance of a city like Jerusalem to many peoples this concern will have to be taken into account in any settlement which emerges from the present conflict.
News reports, Mr. Chairman, have indicated that Iraq, Kuwait and Algeria have cut off the export of oil to Britain and the United States on the grounds of alleged British and United States military intervention on the side of Israel. The denials of the British and United States governments were clear yesterday and the fact that there has been little reference to these allegations in the press of the Soviet union clearly indicates, I believe, how specious this argument was. The cutting off of the export of oil to Britain and the United States would appear to be pursuant to a decision taken on June 5 at the Arab oil conference in Baghdad that the flow of oil would be suspended and prevented from directly or indirectly reaching countries which promote or participate in aggression against Arab countries.
Syria, for her part, has stopped the pumping of oil through pipe lines which cross her territory as well as the loading of oil in her ports. Oil continues to reach France from Algeria but the Algerian government has taken over the installations of certain British and United States companies operating from that country. So far as I know Saudi Arabia has taken no steps similar to those I have mentioned.
June 8, 1967

Supply-External Affairs
It is encouraging to note that so far there has been no report of the sabotage of pipe lines or installations. There has not been any interference with the availability of oil for Canada. However, the cutting off of the flow of oil by ship to Britain and the United States may have disruptive effects, especially in view of the closing of the Suez canal. I imagine these difficulties can be surmounted perhaps after a period of adjustment.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say something about the closing of the Suez canal? He mentioned it just now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I propose to say something about that, and perhaps I could do so right now. Several days ago the U.A.R. authorities announced they were closing the Suez canal to all ships on the grounds that Britain and the United States had intervened in the conflict on the side of Israel. These accusations, as I said a moment ago, were indignantly denied by the two governments concerned.
The closing of this principal maritime route, if continued for a long period, would seriously disrupt commercial exchanges between Asia, Europe and the Far East. The transit of oil makes up a large part of the canal traffic, although large-size tankers have since 1956 been transporting oil to Europe around the Cape of Good Hope. Some volume of Canada's oil imports passes through the Suez canal. However, Canada is not to any serious extent dependent on the use of the canal nor do we have an extensive merchant fleet. I would hope, if it is officially confirmed that the Suez canal has been closed, this stoppage of traffic will be temporary only. The U.A.R. itself relies to a large extent on the foreign exchange revenues that come from the canal.
We have been told now that Iraq, the republic of Yemen and Syria have broken off relations with Britain and the United States. Algeria, Sudan and the United Arab Republic have broken off with the United States. The significance of this action must, of course, be obvious to every hon. member. Diplomatic relations of these last three countries with Britain were severed over the question of Rhodesia. I understand a number of other Arab countries, including Lebanon, have also broken relations with the United States and Britain.
Charges have been made in connection with this action that United States aircraft have been engaged in the fight. I want to say that

the Canadian government is unreservedly satisfied there is no foundation whatever for these charges. British and United States embassies, consulates and information offices in a number of Arab countries have been burned or ransacked by mobs. This destruction of property and harassment of diplomatic officials is, of course, regrettable. Canadian missions in Arab countries, that is, in Cairo, Beirut and Tunis, have happily not been the objects of demonstrations or attacks. In those countries where we are not represented and where Canadian consular interests have been handled by British missions, alternate arrangements will be made for the protection of Canadians. I may say that Canada will do all it can to try to impress upon those Arab countries where we have embassies the importance of trying to improve the relationships of all countries with the countries of the Middle East so that the job of reconstruction and rehabilitation can go ahead.
I am wondering whether the United States, in the light of all these developments, will be prepared to repeat the offer made by President Eisenhower in 1958. After the dispatch of some 12,000 marines to Lebanon and the British dispatch of forces into Amman, the United Nations intervened to establish a peace force between Syria and Lebanon. This served to cause the withdrawal of these forces and encouraged the United States to offer vast sums of money to assist in improving the standard of living of the peoples in the Middle East, particularly in the Arab countries. This, of course, is something we have to look to as a must if we are going to remove one of the sources of friction and one of the causes of hostility in that area.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Several times during the course of questions in the past three weeks we have talked about the responsibilities of the great powers. This is a good opportunity, I think, to underline the importance of these responsibilities. In the security council of the United Nations the great powers have been given special status, and their right of veto must be weighed against the undeniable responsibility which these powers share in the solution of international problems.
When the recent trouble in the Middle East arose the dangers were generally recognized by the great powers. We were all concerned about the implications of this situation because of our concern about the possibility of nuclear war in this interdependent world of ours. The Soviet union, the United States,
June 8, 1967	COMMONS
Britain and France do not, of course, take the same positions with regard to the problems of the Middle East. Any situation that involved any one of these powers in a conflict with another world power in the Middle East directly or indirect would be a matter of great consequence to the peace of the world.
It was undoubtedly because of this, Mr. Chairman, that early in the disturbance General de Gaulle suggested that the great powers should hold a meeting at the highest level. His suggestion did not seem to call for a meeting within the context of the United Nations. The view of the Soviet union and I believe the view of the United States was that such a meeting might be useful but that it ought to be within the context of the United Nations, and this was the view stated by the Prime Minister of Canada.
In fairness to the French government they acceded to this at once. I can say that it is not without significance that the four great powers were able to engage in a form of collaboration particularly in the consultations that took place between the United States and the Soviet union in New York, which I believe has not really been much in evidence since the end of the second world war.


David Lewis: Is that not rather an exaggeration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I beg the hon.
member's pardon?


David Lewis: Is that not a bit of an exaggeration? The collaboration occurred after the whole situation had blown up in their faces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I do not mean the collaboration, I meant to use the word "consultation".


David Lewis: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The consultations took place before war broke out and very much during the course of it. I am sure that the action taken in the security council would not have been possible had it not been for the action of the great powers.
It seems to me that the consultations in this regard between the United States and the Soviet union were particularly significant in spite of the background of their differences on the problems of the Middle East. I hope that this consultation, this recognition of a common danger, may, slowly perhaps, establish a pattern that will be very useful in other international situations now facing us and in situations not yet before us.
DEBATES	1309
Supply-External Affairs
As the hon. member for Greenwood said, when the war broke out people at once began to say that the United Nations was once again proving its weakness and that the security council was an ineffective body, as though the security council or the United Nations were some abstract entity, as though it were an organism independent of the member states that compose it. There is nothing wrong with the charter of the United Nations. There is nothing wrong with the structure of the United Nations that cannot be corrected. What is wrong is the intransigence of some countries, the unwillingness of some countries to accept their responsibilities. In this situation I think that instead of criticising the United Nations we should recognize how fortunate we are that it exists.
The security council has provided a forum for vigorous discussion. Its meetings have provided an occasion where verbal, not armed, confrontation could take place and where discussion of matters affecting the peace of the world could be conducted. As a result decisions with great importance for world peace were taken. War was held off for about ten days, and that in itself was something. When war did take place the security council took action. In face of the greatest difficulty, having in mind the divisions of ideological opinion in the communist world, the western world and among the unaligned, the unanimity reached on the two recent occasions is something that should cause us not to depreciate but to appreciate the significance of the United Nations.
In these grave circumstances we can take some satisfaction from the fact that the efforts of the permanent members of the security council and the resolutions that flowed from their efforts have helped to hasten an end to the fighting. We may relate the fighting in the Middle East to certain issues, to differences between the parties on particular questions, but once a firm and certain cease fire has been secured we must address ourselves, as our ambassador to the United Nations has said, to the underlying problems in the Middle East.
Much has been said about these problems. It has always been the view of the Canadian government that one key element in achieving a satisfactory permanent settlement of the Middle East problem is the recognition by all parties of the sovereignty and the right to exist in peace and security of all countries in that area. This surely is elementary foreign policy. How can we have peace in the world
1310	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs and how can we arrive at satisfactory relationships unless it is admitted that every national entity in the Middle East is entitled to be treated as any other is treated? All such sovereign bodies must enjoy the status and protection which most states in a peaceful world should enjoy. Until general acceptance of this vital principle is attained, the Middle East area, or any other area of the world, will be confronted with the danger of a repetition of the tragic events of 1946, 1949, 1956 and the events of the last few weeks.
Now, Mr. Chairman, a settlement based on this important principle will require a considerable measure of co-operation on the part of all countries concerned in dealing with those issues which have been at the root of Middle East disputes and contentions. These issues include, for example, such important matters as the right of all countries to free and unimpeded commerce and the free use of international waterways vital to the maintenance of the economies of those countries.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
From previous statements I have made and from those the Prime Minister made this afternoon it is clear that the government considers that the maintenance of the right of access to and innocent passage through the gulf of Aqaba is one of the key issues in the situation which has developed. Everything possible should be done through the United Nations to find arrangements which will settle this issue. Disputes over the implementation of the armistice agreement will again require close attention. This examination should include a review of the nature and scope of United Nations responsibilities for a new settlement in the area.
It is the belief of the government that among other problems requiring close attention is that of the future of the Palestine refugees, now numbering 1.5 million people. The United Nations relief and works agency for Palestinian refugees, known as UNRWA, was set up to assist the refugees, and Canada has played an important part in its maintenance. Since the inception of UNRWA Canada has been one of the main contributors to the agency. The Canadian government's total contribution in money and in kind during these years has been in the neighbourhood of $21 million. For 1967 the Canadian government contribution in money and wheat flour to assist refugees is $1.5 million and not $500,000 as my hon. friend unintentionally, I know, mentioned a few moments ago. These amounts do not include the significant private

DEBATES	June 8, 1967
contributions of Canadian organizations and individuals. Canadian assistance to UNRWA is motivated primarily by humanitarian considerations.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I finish? Contributions have been applied to relief and health services as well as to education and vocational training of the refugees.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the minister whether the amount set aside for the Palestinian refugees in the estimates is not $500,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For 1967 we have pledged $1.5 million.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A lot of figures must be stuck together, because we saw the estimates this morning.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I understand that a messenger is to come to the chamber from the other place and I do therefore leave the chair. Before doing so I must advise the minister that the time allotted to him has expired. Perhaps the committee would extend his time when we resume debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), Industry-northern Ontario-Possible classification as designated area; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Public Service-Legislation to increase pensions of retired civil servants; the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Isabelle), Public Buildings-Construction of federal buildings in the Hull area.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 8, 1967
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable J. R. Cartwright, M.C., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor-General, will proceed
June 8, 1967

to the Senate Chamber today, the 8th June, at 5.45 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.
A message was delivered by Lieutenant Colonel 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]	(6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An Act to amend the Immigration Act.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. R. J. Orange (Norihwesl Territories) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-105, to incorporate Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation.
[DOT]	(6:10 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this private bill before the House of Commons I hope to bring out one very significant point; that, northern Canada is starting to show that the faith the rest of Canada has placed in the north will bring about the rewards many of us have hoped for and have anticipated in the past. The area in which Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation intends to build is an area in which there has been intensive seismographic and geographic work in the past two or three years. The Rainbow field, which has now proven to be a major oil field in northern Alberta, extends into the southern part of the Northwest Territories and it is believed that possibly 15 to 20 per cent of the field is located there. I had the privilege to fly over the area very briefly last Saturday and from
Private Bills
a height of 5,000 to 6,000 feet, with all the exploration which has taken place in this area, it reminded me of flying over a city because of the seismic lines running in all directions.
The effect of the bill before us is that the applicants request through parliament incorporation of Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation to operate in the Northwest Territories. However, the bill would not give the company any special rights to build a new pipe line or any priority or special status before the National Energy Board. It would merely give the applicants an opportunity to present their case before the National Energy Board which they, as producers and developers in the area, are legitimately entitled to do.
This company has already built almost 500 miles of pipe line to connect the far northern Alberta fields with the main pipe line systems of the country. By the passage of the National Energy Board Act parliament has already established an independent tribunal to determine, first, whether the building of a pipe line is justified and, second, which company should build it. When the time comes for the company to make its proposal to the National Energy Board, other applicants will have an opportunity to state their case and if there are objections these may be stated at that time.
The experience of the past few years has demonstrated that the inquiries and hearings of the National Energy Board are most carefully conducted. All the applicants in this case wish is the opportunity to apply to the board at the earliest possible time for permission to build a pipe line. The applicants see the necessity for considerable urgency in getting the bill through. They wish to make clear the construction can only commence in the winter months.
It is the hope of those of us who live in the north and who watch economic developments with great anticipation that significant oil deposits will be determined in the area and that construction can get under way as quickly as possible. When one considers the terrain of northern Canada one realizes that construction work can be undertaken only in the winter months when the ground is frozen. The application before the National Energy Board, the hearings which the board will conduct if there should be a contest, and the preparation of the decision of the board will take many months. If oil should be found it would appear to be in the public interest that

June 8, 1967
Private Bills
all pipe line companies which have a legitimate interest in the area should be in a position to act promptly in respect of applications to the National Energy Board.
There are two questions which some hon. members may have in mind in respect of the line itself and the need to move at this time. The first is: Is there oil in the area in sufficient quantity to justify the building of the line? The information presently available from the oil industry and from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicates that if oil has not been found it may be found very soon. Once significant discoveries occur, it is in the public interest to provide the means to transport the oil to market so that this important resource will not lie dormant. I believe that the international events of the last two weeks point out the importance of increasing the development of the resources of our own country, especially those resources which sometimes are held in a rather tenuous position in other parts of the world. Of course, this is of special importance to the territories where resource development is fundamental to human and economic development. Discoveries followed by the construction of a pipe line will stimulate further exploration and development.
The people who wish to incorporate have already spent millions of dollars in the Rainbow and Zama fields and in the construction of pipe lines from these fields to connect them to the main pipe line systems. The applicants have a very legitimate and obvious interest in the further development of this pipe line system. It is one which they have been and are prepared to back with the expenditure of many millions of dollars. At the present time their existing line terminates 55 miles from the border of the Northwest Territories and Alberta. Further extensions are planned.
Another question which could arise is whether this company would serve as a common carrier. The National Energy Board Act itself answers this question pretty thoroughly. Section 59 states:
1.	Subject to such exceptions, conditions or regulations as the board may prescribe or approve, a company operating a pipe line for the transmission of oil shall, according to its powers, without delay and with due care and diligence, receive, transport and deliver all oil offered for transmission by means of its pipe line.
2.	The board may, if it considers it necessary or desirable to do so in the public interest, require a company operating a pipe line for the transmission of oil to provide adequate and suitable facilities for the receiving, transmission and delivering of all oil offered for transmission by means of

its pipe line and adequate and suitable facilities for the storage of oil and the junction of its line with other facilities for the transmission of oil, if the board finds that no undue burden will be placed upon the company thereby.
3.	For the purposes of this section, "oil'' includes any liquefied gas that is or may be transported through a pipe line for the transmission of oil.
According to my information all the major pipe lines of Canada have acted in the past as if they were common carriers. This means that they have taken the oil of all producers without discrimination as to tariffs and other conditions of carriage.
On the question of ownership and participation by the Canadian public, I should point out that clause 2(2) of the bill provides that not less than two-thirds of the directors shall at all times be persons resident in Canada and Canadian citizens.
* (6:20 p.m.)
The cost of building this line in the Northwest Territories would be much greater and the task would be more difficult than if it existed in some of the more settled parts of our nation. It is believed that it would be impossible to finance this line by public participation because of initial expenditure, but the company intends to allow the public to participate when it is economically feasible to do so and provide an adequate return. The importance of this line through northern Canada cannot be overemphasized. As I have said, this is another means of using the resources of the north for the benefit of Canada as a whole. Subject to agreement today it is my hope that we will refer this bill to the committee on transportation and communications for study at an early date.


Mr. Barneil:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member to clarify-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Calgary South. Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question before the hon. member for the Northwest Territories resumes his seat. I did not quite understand his reference to the fact that a company had already constructed some 500 miles of pipe line to within 55 miles of the Northwest Territories boundary and had spent several million dollars. Was the hon. member referring to a company with provincial incorporation in this regard?
June 8, 1367


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I was referring to construction which has taken place in northern Alberta by a company with the same name, Rainbow Pipe Line Company. This company wishes federal incorporation in order to continue construction, when the time comes, across the boundary into the Northwest Territories.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is there an existing company of the same name which is provincially incorporated?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: That is so, yes.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-105 replaces Bill S-52 introduced in the other place. That bill subsequently received second reading in this house on April 25 of this year. It was referred to the standing committee on transport and communications where it remained to the end of last session.
When Bill S-52 was introduced in the other place the sponsor had this to say:
... the sponsors desire that it be made clear that this proposed federal pipe line, as is the case with the existing Alberta pipe line, will serve all producers in the area without discrimination. These lines will not be limited to the carriage of oil belonging to the four companies which are sponsoring this application.
It should be pointed out that the sponsors of this company, Mobil Oil Canada Limited, Imperial Oil Limited, Aquitaine Company of Canada and Banff Oil Limited, are desirous of being in a position to offer facilities for the transportation of oil to areas in the Northwest Territories north of the Alberta boundary as soon as sufficient production develops. As the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) has already indicated, it is suspected that the oil bearing formation apparent in Alberta follows a line straight through the Northwest Territories to the Arctic circle.
The bill now under consideration would provide for an extension into the Northwest Territories to serve anticipated production in that region. As pointed out by the hon. member, there is a pipe line which extends almost to the boundary of the Northwest Territories, owned, controlled and operated by a company with a similar name, although it is an Alberta incorporated company.
The company we are now considering would be ready to provide facilities if as and when the level of production warranted the extension of the pipe line now constructed in the Rainbow lake area of northern Alberta. This company would operate under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board in the
Private Bills
same way as other oil and gas pipe line operators. A new feature has been added. This company requests the power and authority to do all the things that an oil exploration and development company would be expected to do, namely, to acquire and hold leases, prospect for oil and gas, drill for and produce oil, gas and related substances.
There are several aspects of this undertaking, including the one I just mentioned, which should be given careful consideration by this house. This would require too much time at this stage of the bill and I believe it can be given the thorough examination it deserves only in committee. We hope the committee on transport and communications will have the opportunity to examine this bill and, if it is thought necessary, to call and hear witnesses. We do not want to block this legislation because we realize that pipe lines are the life lines of the oil industry. However, the present bill not having been examined by the committee yet, we can only accept second reading at this time on division.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard several pious remarks about the National Energy Board which I cannot accept. In fact, I would not let this bill pass until we agree to make certain decisions rather than leave them to be made by that august body.
As an aside let me state that I have an article in my hand which says that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has made a bid for a new pipe line route. They are only three years behind the time when the National Energy Board suggested they should do certain things. The National Energy Board was very slow in making that direction and the minister now finds himself in the embarrassing position of realizing that the remarks I made, with which he disagreed violently several months ago, are accurate. There is an expected delay of two or three years in the construction of the line in the United States. The line will eventually be built and probably all this will be just a matter of record.


Jean-Luc Pepin: One has to be right once in a while if one always says no.


William Arnold Peters: That sounds a bit like Russian roulette. I have been interested in this pipe line for some time and I agree with the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) that this is a very important venture which will have a great effect on the economy of the Northwest Territories and the oil industry in that area. I have sympathy for the

June 8, 1967
Private Bills
aspirations of this company but I do not agree with the second speaker, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Ballard), who looks at things in a totally different light from any one else in Canada. Calgary is the oil capital of this part of the North American continent and therefore people from that city consider these things on the basis of whether a fast buck is going to be made, whether the operation will make a big profit, a (6:30 p.m.)
When outlining the purpose of this bill the hon. member indicated that although there are at the moment no producers in the area, there has been a great deal of exploration. His remarks about flying over the area and the seismograph lines criss-crossing his part of the country indicate that the interest in and development of the area may be on a very extensive scale. For this reason I would be reluctant to leave it to the National Energy Board to decide whether the proposed line would be a satisfactory carrier for the whole area.
I have read the bill and was very surprised to find that it did not say anything. A number of lawyers from Ottawa have got together to seek a charter, that will do what, Mr. Speaker? It will not develop a pipe line from one point to another but will give them a licence even to raise money with which to build houses. It will allow them, as the former speaker said, to hold mining leases, carry out prospecting, undertake development, establish a refinery, or sell oil at a service station. But it does not allow them to build a pipe line. There is no prospectus in the bill about where the pipe line will go and from where. The bill does not even indicate that these people are willing-and I think this will eventually have to be done-to relate this company to the one that holds a provincial charter.
Because the hon. member is on the government side of the house he cannot afford to be as sceptical as me. Perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) thinks that scepticism is something that only the opposition can enjoy. In allowing a pipe line to be built in this area it seems to me we are in effect giving this company, or some other company, a virtual monopoly in the transmission of oil. I would not recommend to the National Energy Board that they allow a number of oil transmission lines to be built in the area, because this would not be economical. For that reason I think this has to be a monopoly situation. Therefore whatever line
[Mr. Peters.)
we allow to be built must be a common carrier for the area.
Because of my interest in the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, some time ago I read material dealing with the company and ascertained that Interprovincial were going to raise $70 million to build a line into the Rainbow lake area. I discussed this matter with the president of Interprovincial, who said this had been considered but they had decided not to do it. I was therefore interested to learn that Imperial Oil, which owns Interprovincial, also have a great interest in this company. They seem to be playing games with the financial pages of the newspapers and with members of parliament.
I have not decided that I should oppose this bill, but I sincerely believe that when we pass a bill such as this we should be sure what it is going to do and the extent of the monopoly that we are providing. We should know just what this company intends to do and whether the monopoly position that will be given will be in the interests of the people of the Northwest Territories.
Let us not forget that the Canadian government has invested money in the development of the Northwest Territories. We have granted concessions and allowed areas to be opened up in parks and other crown lands for development. We have assisted the development of the area in a number of ways. We have assisted in getting entrepreneurs to go into the area and develop it. In allowing the incorporation of a carrier we should assure ourselves that in granting a monopoly to that carrier-and obviously this will be a monopoly situation-in respect of all the oil out of the Rainbow lake area, the company will act as a common carrier. I would point out that it is not only the Rainbow lake area that is concerned here. All the area north of Rainbow lake will eventually prove, we hope, just as fruitful in this respect as has the Rainbow lake area. This company will be able to handle all the oil being transmitted from the area, and should do so only as a common carrier.
If the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) really thinks this company should be allowed to enter the bond or stock market in order to raise money to build houses, we should be told this quite frankly. I realize it is said that the houses will be for the company's employees, but it would be very difficult to ascertain whose employees they were because all these companies are interrelated. The hon. member for Calgary
June 8, 1987

South (Mr. Ballard) mentioned four major companies, but because of the stock arrangements many, many more companies may be involved. Our prime interest should be to ensure that the monopoly given in the transmission of oil will apply only to this area.
A short while ago we had the situation of a railway company coming to parliament obviously in good faith and asking for permission to build a railway line from the southern part of the province of Quebec in an easterly direction through to Ungava bay. It was said the railway would haul ore out of that whole area. The line also went across part of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and should have been a common carrier for the whole area. But when a company that was not connected with the company that built the railroad wanted to haul its ore, it had to come to parliament and seek permission to build a second line alongside the line already built. The company had to do this before they could force the company that had built the line to be a common carrier and allow them a connection. Even then this company had to build a line from the pit at Wabush, 60 miles to a connection on the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway.
I do not suggest this will always happen, but with regard to industry I believe that all factors should be brought to the attention of everybody concerned. If a company intends to be a common carrier, this should be spelled out in the bill. It should spell out what the common carrier will do. We will be giving a monopoly to this company.
I do not think there is any point in referring to the old days and the speculation that existed with regard to the railways. If you check through the records of parliament, Mr. Speaker, you will find that at least 40 or 50 railways out of the city of Ottawa were going to run all over the place from Vancouver to James bay. At least six railways were chartered to run to Hudson bay and James bay and to the left and right of this very large area. These railways never came about, although there were five or six in the Ottawa area which operated for a short time. The O'Brien family made a great deal of money on a number of railway charters for companies which never intended going anywhere.
We should not perpetuate this type of situation with respect to bills to incorporate companies that wish to build transmission lines. Oil is one of our great natural resources. This company has not asked to build a line to go anywhere. It is asking for a licence to enable it to go on the stock market and raise money.
Private Bills
It really has not been suggested that the line is going anywhere. One can only assume that the pipe line is going into the Northwest Territories and eventually to Rainbow lake because the sponsor of the bill has told us this. Certainly the bill does not tell us that this is the case.
If one reads the bill we find on the first page, in clause 3, provisions respecting the stock and capital of the company. On the second page of the bill there are provisions with regard to the stock and capital of the company. The situation is the same on the third page. Similar provisions are to be found in clause 4, and several other clauses of the bill also relate to capital. Clause 9 and several others deal with the stock and capital of the company.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
We have been more interested in the capital of this company, in how the shareholders will be protected and what they will do with their money, than we have in being told about the railways. In clause 6 of the bill we find that it is mentioned in two places that the company is going to have "interprovincial, extra-provincial and/or international pipe lines and all appurtenances relative thereto." There is not much information here concerning the pipe line.
Again I should like to mention the reliance which has been placed by certain hon. members on the National Energy Board. Both hon. members who have spoken before me mentioned they were quite ready to pass the bill no matter what was in it because the National Energy Board was going to look after it. I have no such faith. I remember the request of one particular company to the National Energy Board to build a line of a certain size. The board told them they could not build that line because it was not feasible, that the line was too big and they were not going to be able to meet their commitment. Nevertheless it was built. I believe the original line was to be 16 inches, the second proposal was for a 24 inch line, and finally, after their request for a 24 inch line was turned down, they installed a 32 inch line.
I was told by some officials of the company that they were probably going to have to consider the installation of a still larger line. I have no respect for the judgment of the National Energy Board. Although I am sure the hon. member for the Northwest Territories will agree there has been a fairly general assessment of the foreseeable potential of the Rainbow lake area, according to

June 8, 1967
Private Bills
the best surveys that can be made, without taking into account the investigation that will have to be made of the various types of petroleum products in the particular field, I think we should be told what kind of line they will be building, its she and an indication of the line with which this particular pipe line will connect, because this has been implied by the sponsor. There should also be an indication of where that line is going and what the facilities in connection with it will be. I say this because I have a great deal of interest in the protection of the people in the Northwest Territories. I live in an area which has only been developed in the last 65 years. I have heard all the promises that have been made about what is going to be done. The promises were a political gimmick in a provincial election. We have heard about the Ontario Northland Railway, which was then known as the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railroad. As soon as the railway line got to Cobalt, Silver Centre, it was no longer a development road. It has been anything but that ever since. I have heard these promises made and not carried out.
It is surprising that the people who have supported the idea of the development in all those areas still believe that their hopes will be fulfilled. I think the sponsor would be hard pressed to say whether there will be an oil company in five years or in ten years. He would be hard pressed to say whether the company intended to build a 6 inch line, a 24 inch line or a 50 inch line. He would be very hard pressed to say where that line was going to start or where it was going to go. I think he would also be hard pressed to say whether or not it was going to a refinery or whether that refinery was going to be in the Northwest Territories, where it obviously should be if the Northwest Territories are to be developed; whether it was going to be a transmission line which was going to connect with another feeder pipe line or whether it will connect with the Interprovincial, Trans Mountain or another of these companies with which we have had something to do before, and will be transported over the mountains, over the prairies, to the United States or out of the area.
I think the sponsor of the bill will agree that this pipe line company should provide for the development of oil in the area, at least in the initial stages, and that it should ask for the transmission of crude oil over a portion of this line to a refinery. I am sure he will agree that if that refinery was to be in the Northwest Territories, then there would be some

inducement for members of parliament to say to the Imperial Oil Company and other companies "If you want to take this oil out of the area and you want a licence to put in a transmission line, then you should be prepared to make certain concessions to the people of Canada and in particular to the people of the Northwest Territories so they also can get some benefit out of this."
It is my view that there will not be much employment on the transmission pipe line of the people who grease the wheels which operate the pump at the head of the well. That area will only be developed if, through the development of this pipe line, we make some concessions in return for the monopoly that we are giving the companies. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that those members of parliament who sit here and do not pay any attention to these bills, or who are not really concerned about what happens with them, particularly the pipe line bills which have to do with our basic resources, have no right to stand up and say the government has not done this or that. The fact is they have provided the means whereby exploitation is made possible. To me the word "exploitation" is a dirty word. I have nothing against the words "exploration" and "development", but to exploit someone is to take advantage of him. And I think the Canadian people, and particularly those in the area concerned, are often taken in. So it behooves us in the granting of these franchises to bend over backward to protect those who sometimes do not even know they should be protected.
I am not prepared to concede that the National Energy Board should have sole jurisdiction over what this company is going to do. If the hon. member for the Northwest Territories depends on the board's decisions then I think he should take a look at its record during its short life. Its record certainly has not been sound from an engineering point of view or from a political point of view, nor have its policies been farsighted in the national sense. It has not done those things which the two previous speakers said it would do. However, to be fair to the National Energy Board, perhaps it was not set up to do these things. All I am saying is that certain members have put too great a reliance on the board. I suggest it will not accomplish these ends. It may not be able to do this because it has no power to do so. Nevertheless I can assure hon. members that no matter what the reason is, these things will not be accomplished.
June 8, 1987

I hope that when this bill goes to the committee and when it returns here some hon. members who really believe that this legislation should provide as much impetus as is possible to the development of that area will be prepared to move a number of amendments which will ensure that this company will do exactly what we want it to do. e (6:50 p.m.)
If what they want to do is transport oil and get royalties for transporting oil, then I am 100 per cent in favour of the company receiving a franchise. I believe the people of this country must be protected. If this bill is going to accomplish what members have said they wish to accomplish, it would seem to me to be a very unusual thing to pass it. Anyone reading it is going to be hard pressed to find out if it is the intention of the company to build the pipe line. The only place in which that intention is revealed is the title, an act to incorporate Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation.


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


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As my
colleague has just said, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is entitled an act to incorporate Rainbow Pipe Line Corporation. In view of the fact the bill has been introduced by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), one might be led to observe that this rainbow has an "orange" hue. However, that sort of remark is the type one is tempted to make when he is beginning to think about the desirability of having dinner.
I had an opportunity last summer of getting a glimpse of the Northwest Territories, as the hon. member knows, as a result of being a member of a committee which visited the area. I certainly share his interest and concern in the development of the basic resources of the area. As a result of that trip I realize that, in part at least, the development of a major oil producing field in the Northwest Territories would be a matter of great significance to that part of Canada and to the country as a whole. If the area is to develop in a major way, I believe that more and more it must find its basic resources beneath the ground.
The fact the hon. member is introducing this bill emphasizes his interest in the matter. However, I must say that I share the concern of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) over the fact that this parliament should not go out simply hunting rainbows.
Private Bills
The name of the bill does not necessarily mean there is a pot of gold at the end for the people of the Northwest Territories. In this case it may be black gold. The sponsor of the bill did give some of the background, at least to the extent of indicating there was some relationship between the introduction of the bill and the activities that have been carried on within the boundaries of the province of Alberta. He explained that because of the geology of the area, activities in search of oil may shortly be extended beyond the northern boundaries of the province of Alberta.
Like my colleague from Timiskaming I am concerned about bills of this type which appear to give certain interests virtually a blank cheque to build a pipe line interprovincially, internationally or anywhere they may take the notion to do so. Reference has been made to the National Energy Board and the fact that there are bodies before whom a particular application would have to come. Perhaps the scepticism about the National Energy Board voiced by the hon. member for Timiskaming arises as a result of the terms of reference given to that board by this parliament. Perhaps the multiplicity of pipe line bills and the rather helter skelter approach that has been taken to the provision of transport for this particular product arises from a basic difference of outlook as to what constitutes a public utility, and the approach that should be taken to the building and development of public utilities. This is a particular area of debate which I believe should be made applicable to each and every one of these bills coming before us.
I really had no communication with my colleague from Timiskaming concerning what he would say about the bill. However, if time permitted I would have been inclined to draw the same parallel he did to indicate that we should take advantage of the experience gained from the railway boom in this country. I hope when the members of the committee consider this bill they will not take the line of argument advanced, that we should deal with the mechanics of incorporating a company and leave the other questions to the National Energy Board.
I hope before the bill is passed members will be satisfied that, even within the limits of present public policy in respect of pipe line construction, the proposal to incorporate this company is a bona fide one and will produce the necessary transportation facilities for the oil that may be produced in that area north of Alberta.
1318	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs


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


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, since it is one minute to seven we would be prepared to have the question put.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Harold Raymond Ballard: It is my understanding, sir, that the motion will be passed on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

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


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will stand adjourned until eight o'clock.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of External Affairs, vote No. 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment I think I had observed that Canadian assistance to UNRWA is motivated primarily by humanitarian considerations and that contributions from Canada and from other countries have been applied to its relief and health services as well as to education and vocational training of the refugees. However, I readily admit that as yet no effective means has been found to remove permanently the basic causes of this problem.
While the United Nations can do a great deal to resolve this problem and must try to do what it can in this regard, it must be recognized, I think, that the responsibility too must be shared by the countries involved in the Middle East. The United Nations is an organization of sovereign states as provided in the charter. The United Nations has no real way of imposing its will with regard to this question on Israel or the U.A.R.
When I was in Israel in 1958 I discussed this problem with that great man, Mr. David

DEBATES	June 8, 1867
Ben Gurion, and he outlined to me the difficulties from the point of view of Israel, just as I had an explanation of the U.A.R. point of view a few days before that from President Nasser. This is one of the>
key sources of conflict. An endeavour must be made this time to try to resolve this great problem, with its tragedy for so many human beings. We must not place the responsibility only on the UN. That organization does have its responsibility, but this is a problem which can only be solved with the co-operation of the countries themselves.
My hon. friend from Greenwood questioned my figure when I said we were giving $1.5 million to the United Nations Works and Relief Agency to assist the refugees. Perhaps he did not have the time to examine the estimate carefully. The original pledge to the United Nations of $1,200,000 consisted of $500,000 in cash accompanied by $700,000 in wheat flour. A supplementary contribution for the current fiscal year in the amount of $300,000 in the form of wheat flour was announced by me on May 4 of this year.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
There is another aspect of this problem that I would like to mention and that is with regard to the supply of arms to countries in the area. In searching for ways and means of finding grounds for the establishment and maintenance of peaceful conditions one should not overlook the desirability of preventing a continuation of the arms build-up among the states of the Middle East. I think it has been clearly demonstrated that the contest in arms acquisition in the Middle East which has gone on in past years has contributed largely to the regrettable development of present full scale hostilities and at the same time has had a most debilitating effect on the relatively weak economies of the countries involved. Surely the large sums expended toward the establishments of war machines would have been better devoted to an improvement in living conditions of the people of the area. I say this, fully understanding at the same time the tensions and provocations and the concern of Israel, particularly for the preservation of its own integrity. In the kind of world in which we live these considerations have got to be borne in mind.
On the question of arms build-up I would earnestly hope that supplier countries, and especially the big powers, could arrive at an understanding which would prevent a recurrence of the unfortunate incidents which we
June 8, 1967

have witnessed during the past few days. It is the firm intention of the Canadian government to continue its policy and practice of not providing military supplies to the area. The general policy of governments that have practised this concept is not to supply arms in any theatre of conflict.
I need hardly say that the current period of cease fire which we all earnestly and confidently hope will lead to the restoration of calm and a lasting peace is a most crucial one. Circumstances call for the utmost degree of restraint if the efforts of the United Nations are to reach fruition. If we are to make any progress on the basis of what has so far been achieved by the United Nations, all concerned must exercise restraint, refrain from harmful or dangerous statements or actions and we must all demonstrate a readiness to co-operate wholeheartedly toward the attainment of further permanent objectives.
I should like, before I take my seat, to say something about the United Nations emergency force and the future of peace keeping. I have already made a comment on the remarks in this particular subject by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I said that I did not regard the forced withdrawal of the UN forces and the forced withdrawal of the Canadian component in any way as a humiliation for this country. It was not because of any weakness in Canadian foreign policy that this developed. I am sure that there will be regret over the withdrawal of the force which, in spite of what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, served as a great source of pacification.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Lord Caradon said something similar in the security council this afternoon only a few minutes ago.
I am sure that the United Nations will address itself to a form of peace keeping presence, if that is desired by the countries more directly involved. We shall of course do our utmost, as a loyal member of the United Nations, to support such a concept.
I want to make it clear that we are not seeking any additional responsibilities. This country need not be ashamed, as I have already remarked, of its interest in peace keeping and in its contributions to this idea. We supplied in 1949 a component of the United Nations military observer group in India and in Pakistan. In 1954 we provided part of the United Nations truce and supervisory organization, which continues to function as an 27053-851
Supply-External Affairs observer group. In 1956 we supplied the largest component in the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East. In 1958 we had a large group in the United Nations observer group in Lebanon. In 1960-64, when my right hon. friend was Prime Minister, Canada supplied a substantial group of signallers and technicians to the operations of the United Nations in the Congo. In 1962-63 we were part of the United Nations temporary authority in West New Guinea. In 198364, together with Yugoslavia, we composed the United Nations Yemen observation mission. In 1964 we supplied, and continue to supply, in Cyprus the largest unit in the United Nations force in that island. The only two United Nations peace keeping missions in which Canada did not participate were those in Greece in 1947 and Indonesia in 1947-48. Outside of the United Nations, the only peace keeping force as such in which Canada has participated has been the international control commission in Indochina. Our participation in the United Nations force in Korea in 1950-53 can be construed as peace keeping, although obviously this was a special situation.
I think that in the face of this record we, in this house, and the people of this country have no reason to feel humiliated because our force was asked to withdraw peremptorily one week ago last Sunday for reasons that were unjustified and for reasons which, I am sure, the government concerned would now recognize as being unreasonable and based on alleged facts that cannot be substantiated. Of course, we naturally regret-all of us-the developments which led to the withdrawal of the force itself. The tragic outbreak of hostilities which we have witnessed this week following the withdrawal of the force could not have borne more eloquent testimony to the very serious implications of that withdrawal and to the signal contribution made by UNEF for over ten years to the stability of the Middle East.
I want to join with others in paying my tribute to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have, over the ten and one half years in UNEF, played such an important role in the service of the United Nations and of peace. It is a fact of the greatest significance that every Canadian soldier who is employed outside this country in the forces of the United Nations is engaged in what I believe is as noble a function for a soldier as any function which could be assigned to him. I want to pay tribute, likewise, to the magnificent job carried out by the Royal Canadian
1320	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs Air Force personnel in airlifting the entire Canadian contingent from the Middle East to Canada in less than three days.
Demands on the United Nations to undertake peace keeping operations will, I believe, continue to be made despite the difficulties which have surrounded the withdrawal of UNEF. World conditions will remain troubled; I hope they will get better, but international disputes will remain unsettled for years to come. The United Nations will not be able to deal with all of these situations or to solve all of these disputes, but it will remain the only international organization which, in most instances, is acceptable as an impartial outside presence. In particular, it seems to me that the great powers will prefer that the United Nations intervene in certain situations rather than be drawn in themselves with incalculable consequences for world peace.
Nevertheless, and as far as Canada is concerned, the manner of UNEF's withdrawal is bound to have the effect that contributors to peace keeping operations will be even more concerned in future to define as clearly as possible in advance the terms of reference of peace keeping operations and in particular the relationship between the UN and the host country. It is clear that peace keeping must be based on the consent of the governments concerned. It is not enforcement action which is action taken by the security council to maintain or restore international peace and security in accordance with the application of sanctions under chapter VII of the charter. We fully accept that peace keeping cannot be carried out without the approval of the host government.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
It should not be forgotten, however, that the contributors to peace keeping operations must also give their consent to the arrangements under which the operation is to take place. They too have their interests to protect. It is only on the basis of mutual confidence that peace keeping can be carried on to the benefit of all.
I continue to believe that it is the right course for Canada to be prepared to help the United Nations to carry out its primary task under the charter namely the maintenance of peace and security, provided we are satisfied that the terms and conditions are such as to make this task feasible and are compatible with our foreign policy interests. It may be that there are those who will say we are not impartial in regard to certain disputes and

DEBATES	June 8. 1967
therefore that we are not eligible for particular operations. If so, we shall not find it difficult to stand aside. It is not our wish to impose our presence anywhere that it is not wanted.
I must say that I do not agree with my right hon. friend when he says that Canada, because of this incident, has lost the confidence and the respect of many nations in the world. From my experience with my contacts, and I suppose they are as extensive these days as those of the right hon. gentleman, my impression is that Canada in most parts of the world is respected as a nation that seeks to carry out its obligations under the charter as honourably and as dutifully as any other member state of the organization. We have never pretended, and we do not now pretend to be the world's peace keepers, great as has been our experience in that regard. We are a country with views of our own. We have our own interests and our own policies and these must come first. But it is still our strong view that there is no substitute for the international organization of peaceful conditions in the world, and that the United Nations still offers the best hope of peaceful intervention in certain situations.
This is not the time to turn away from the United Nations, to turn back to international conditions as they existed earlier in this century. Therefore I have no hesitation in repeating that Canadian support of United Nations peace keeping operations, provided these take into account our interests as a contributor, is the right course for us to follow as one of the important elements in our defence and foreign policy; and as long as I am in this office this is what we will continue to do.
The situation in the Middle East has brought home to us the interdependence of the world in which we live. It has brought home to us that a reluctance to face the causes of hostility and human friction is bound to assert itself in undesirable results at some future date. That is the situation that has confronted us during the past three weeks. We now have an opportunity of rectifying errors in this part of the world. These are errors that all nations must share, those directly involved as well as other countries in the international community.
We must now make sure that this war is brought to an end. This the security council has done as effectively in the circumstances as I would have hoped could be the case.
June 8, 1967

What the Secretary General will be empowered to do remains yet to be decided. We made a proposal yesterday that there should be a follow-up on the decision to order a cease fire, a follow-up by making sure that the cease fire was implemented and that the necessary steps were taken consequential on that decision.
There is now the problem of recognizing that in the Middle East, as in Africa and as in Asia, many countries have a very low standard of living. The U.A.R. is one of the less developed countries of the world. Its housing and its population problems impress one just as they do the visitor to populous India. Our responsibilities in raising the standards of the people of the world must not be confined only to Africa and to Asia. They must be extended all over, and this is one region that must be included.
Surely then it ought to be possible for all of us in the United Nations to determine by our policies that we are going to do a number of things. We are first of all going to see to it that the brave people of Israel are not denied the right which was given to them by the United Nations. It was the United Nations that brought this country into being, that gave it form, that gave it substance, and the United Nations has a responsibility to see that both the form and the substance remain. So, its integrity is basic in whatever we do, likewise its right to contacts with the outside world through the strait of Tiran and the gulf of Aqaba.
As I said earlier, we have got to meet the terrible problem of the dislocated families and peoples in the Gaza, and wherever the refugees are, and to see to it that they are given the opportunity of a full life, thereby removing one of the temptations of some of the excessive nationalism that in some parts of the Middle East has made itself felt in the last 20 years.
This is a gigantic problem. It is not a problem that can be solved overnight; but if this regrettable situation in the last few weeks does no more than bring home to us the collective responsibility of all of the nations, including those primarily involved, perhaps it will have forced on us the realization of the kind of hostility that has provoked this terrible situation.
I take my seat, not apologetically in any way for the United Nations or for the United Nations force. I believe that in the kind of world that we live in, with all its imperfections of structure and capacity, there is no
Supply-External Affairs other view one can take of the United Nations than to regard it as an inevitable institution in this interdependent nuclear world. Those who criticize it have been among those who at one time have lauded it the most. Those who have been criticizing peace keeping, including the United Nations emergency force, have been among those to claim the authorship of the idea.
Let no one in this house mistake the significance of the structure that we are building. We are slowly building in the international community, in spite of these regrettable situations, a kind of legal order that was gradually built up only after centuries of effort in the domestic community of every country in the world. The authority of the law in England did not always reside with England. The authority of the law in Canada did not always reside, historically speaking, with the nation state. Justice was once meted out by buying off vengeance from the individual. It was only bit by bit that the community asserted itself.
That is what is happening despite all our problems; in spite of war and the danger of war, that is what is happening in our world today. With these beliefs which I know members of this house share, we must see to it in this particular situation that the United Nations is not needlessly depreciated. It must be supported so that it can meet the tremendous problems that lie ahead in the Middle East, and which lie ahead-who knows-in Viet Nam, and which lie ahead in other situations which may develop. Let none of us believe that we make a contribution to world progress if we lose faith, the second time in 35 years, in a collective security system designed to establish order among the nations of the world.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, in the last few hours, we have become more optimist about the Middle East conflict.
Early this afternoon the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) announced that the members of the security council of the United Nations had unanimously agreed to the cease fire resolution. A little later he advised that the United Arab Republic had followed the example of Israel and we have reason to believe that all violence has now come to an end in the Middle East.
But that does not mean that the crisis itself is resolved.
1322	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs
In my humble opinion, the cause of this war, which goes back a very long way, still exists, and the fire which has broken out so suddenly in the past few days had been smouldering for about twenty years. Even though the belligerents have laid down their arms, it does not mean that the fire has been completed extinguished but rather that it is under control, and if the United Nations which represent the world nations, fail to take the required steps, that fire could blaze up again sooner or later.
Therefore, I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we can now be proud of the work done in the last few days by the United Nations which succeeded in obtaining a cease fire, and I also think that the Canadian government, and especially our diplomatic service, deserve our congratulations. I wish to stress more particularly the fine work done by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) at the United Nations to obtain a cease fire between the United Arab Republic and Israel.
If things have worked out so well up to now in the Middle East, I wonder why the security council could not adopt the same attitude toward Viet Nam.
That area has long been in the throes of strife; it has been the victim of massacres, which not only wounded many and left many mutilated, but also made numberless victims. In spite of this, less attention seems to be given to Viet Nam than to the situation in the Middle East. Is it then less cruel to massacre yellow citizens than Jews or Arabs?
A while ago, I expressed my joy at the thought of the cease fire in the Middle East because, for several years now, as arms modernize, we note that the number of civilian deaths increases as compared with the number of deaths of military personnel.
In fact, during a recent visit to Expo, Father Dominique Pire stated that, during the first world war, the percentage of civilian casualties was 5 per cent, whereas it rose to 46 per cent during the second world war and increased further to 75 per cent during the Korean war and finally reached 85 per cent in the current conflict in Viet Nam.
That means, Mr. Chairman, that soldiers are not the only ones to be affected by war, but an ever increasing number of civilians are casualties in these massacres.
I do not want to make any comparison with what has happened in the United Arab Republic because I have noted-and I am not the only one-that the reports supplied by
[Mr. Laprise.l
DEBATES	June 8. 1967
press, radio or television did not overly insist on the casualties in this Middle East war. Just a few newspapermen, two or three, were killed in this war to date and it might seem as if this was only a newspaperman's war. According to reports received up to now, I can imagine that the number of victims, civilian or military, is surely considerable and that we must be very gratified to see the massacre ended, for the time being.
Tonight, Mr. Chairman, I should like to state the position of the Ralliement Creditiste on the war in the Middle East. Like all the other hon. members of this house and, I think, the whole Canadian people, except perhaps for a few profiteers, we deplore this war and any other elsewhere in the world. We realize that war does not solve any problems but merely satisfies passions sometimes. The present conflict in the Middle East, likewise, will not solve the problem which dates from the end of world war II.
The causes of this war must be eliminated. Those who spoke before me today pointed out that following the partition of Palestine, a great many Arabs were forced to live in what is known as refugee camps; according to what I have read, they are in fact more like concentration camps. This is, in my opinion, one of the causes of the present war in the Middle East.
I have not had the privilege of visiting these Arab and Israeli countries to see the difference existing today between this piece of land given the Israeli and known as Israel, and what it was before, and what there is in Arab countries surrounding it. I readily imagine that those who were necessarily displaced by the creation of that state, of that country, in 1947, have harboured hatred, not against a country but against men, which we can easily understand if we take into consideration the state of misery these people have been living in as a result of this partition.
I would like here to quote from an editorial published in Le Devoir today, June 8, signed by Jean-Marc Leger who precisely emphasizes the point I just raised, that it is not so much the Arabs themselves who are attacking the Jewish people than the Arab states which are attacking the Israeli state, because of this partition. Here is what Mr. Jean-Marc Leger wrote: s (8:40 p.m.)
The various events which have been the immediate cause of the conflict are in fact only of secondary importance with regard to the only real problem: is peaceful coexistence possible between Israel and the Arab states? It is necessary
June 8, 1957	COMMONS
to say "Israel" and not between the Jews and the Arabs, because-contrary to what a misinformed public opinion often thinks in the west-the Arabs are not anti-Jewish. Semites themselves, they have had for centuries proper, sometimes friendly, relations with hundreds of thousands of Jews living among them in north Africa and in the Near East. It is only with the advent of the sionist movement to create Israel that the Arabs took a stand, not against the Jews, but against a state which they considered to be the result of spoliation and imperialism.
I fully agree with the editorial writer of Le Devoir that such hate, unlike what is noted in certain conflicts, is more an affair between states than between men.
Mr. Chairman, we, in the Ralliement Creditiste, are in favour of an immediate cease fire, as happened in the last few hours, and we urge the Canadian government to continue its representations to the United Nations, so that the cease fire may be continued and respected, at the same time as negotiations are conducted for an enduring peace that will remove the causes of that conflict we have witnessed in recent days.
I believe that the Canadian government, the Canadian people and indeed the United Nations should draw their inspiration from the statements of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and of the Montreal-Ottawa synod of the United Church of Canada meeting at Macdonald College.
This is the statement of His Holiness Pope Paul VI, as published in Le Devoir of June 8, and I quote:
"Let the fighting be suspended," said the pope, echoing the resolution of the security council, in a speech given during a public audience. t After wondering in a tone of deep bitterness, "For more than twenty years now, peace has been preached; must this be the result? ... Can the demon of violence, vengeance, cruelty never be torn out of the hearts of men?" Paul VI continued:
"We do not despair of peace, because we do not want to despair of man, and because we want to hope in the irrepressible strength of the Gospel, although slow and thwarted, and the merciful help of God." He then asked that negotiations be entered into, and that trust be shown those institutions which are called upon to "promote peaceful relations between nations".
Paul VI finally reiterated his appeal for the safeguard of the holy sites, held sacred by Christians, Jews and Moslems alike. He urged everyone to show kindness, mercy and love, and to pray that feelings of justice might prevail and peace might be restored.
Mr. Chairman, I should not like to analyse or try to explain what His Holiness the Pope meant by the words "that feelings of justice might prevail, and peace might be restored", but the speeches we heard earlier today and
DEBATES	1323
Supply-External Affairs my own former comments on the causes of this war in my opinion confirm the fact that there was injustice somewhere, for surely war is not declared for the pleasure of fighting, as in the case of a sport, but because there are reasons for it. Even though it has been impossible to determine who was the aggressor, I think that both sides felt there was injustice somewhere and, in my opinion, this is something to which the United Nations should address themselves as soon as possible, not only in the Middle East but in every hotbed of war in the world where the United Nations are called upon to act and restore peace.
And the United Church of Canada, at a meeting held at Macdonald College, in Montreal, on June 7, stated:
The synod refuses to blame those responsible for the declaration of war. As a synod, however, we want to declare unanimously that such an action was totally useless and could not solve a conflict with international dimensions.
Even a limited war cannot be but costly in human life and equipment. More over, it may become extremely dangerous if other countries choose to take a partisan stand.
We exhort the members of our Christian community to unite in prayer with all the people of good will and ask the Lord to extend His peace to those areas of war.
And we state our desire to serve the Lord in order to show His mercy to all the victims of such violent action.
We proclaim our appreciation to the security council of the United Nations which accepted unanimously to propose to the belligerent nations a cease fire, and to our own country, Canada, which stated its neutral stand and its wish to participate in any peace keeping action and procedure in the Middle East.
We again want to assert our confidence in the United Nations and its secretary, and to voice our belief that the UN is absolutely essential to maintain peace between nations.
I think that we must be inspired by those statements, because they invite us to place our confidence in the United Nations for the restoration of peace in the Middle East, and the elimination of the causes which led to that conflict so that we may have a lasting peace.
Mr. Chairman, the Ralliement Creditiste wishes that our Canadian diplomats should continue their action and efforts with the United Nations, so that peace may be restored in that area, and that equally desirable efforts should be made to bring about a cease fire and to restore peace in Viet Nam. The conflict in this area has already lasted too long and I think that we should make the same efforts to stop the war in Viet Nam as soon as possible. Action should be taken as quickly as in the
1324	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs Middle East. We would then be proud of that second victory of peace over war.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs was making his speech this afternoon and this evening, near the conclusion he would have filled in the members of this house on what has happened at the security council meeting during the last two or three hours. However, the minister may have some good reasons for not having done this, and there may be nothing new to report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at this time I might be allowed to say that there are two resolutions before the security council, one put forward by the United States and the other by the Soviet union. The resolution of the United States calls for a cease fire; it calls for withdrawal within a certain context; it calls for action by the secretary general, by a United Nations official designated by him or by someone else, to establish bilateral contacts between the parties involved and to try to begin negotiations toward a more permanent settlement. The Soviet union resolution calls for the designation of one of the countries as an aggressor. There has not yet been any vote.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. gentleman for that additional information. I was particularly interested, however, in whether there had been any further response from some of the other countries involved in the war on whether they had accepted the original resolution calling for a cease fire. We know that Israel, Jordan and the United Arab Republic have accepted, but of course there are other countries involved.
The news broadcast that I heard about an hour ago was that there had been a broadcast out of Syria, I think, that they had again stated they would fight until they had their flag flying over Tel Aviv. The other matter in which I am particularly interested is whether some arrangements have been made in the security council by way of statements from either Israel or the United Arab Republic as to some acceptable way of effecting the cease fire, because so far it would appear that Israel will accept it provided her enemies do so, and the United Arab Republic has said they will accept it provided Israel accepts. It seems to me that we must have some additional information as to what both sides have said. Also,
[Mr. Laprise.I
DEBATES	June 8, 1987
we have no word about the action taken to reconcile these two statements and obtain some effect from them. However, Mr. Chairman, that may come later.
I wish to speak only briefly on these estimates tonight. I would say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and all hon. members of the house that it is my intention to outline six suggestions that are supported by this party and then to deal briefly with each one. Before I do that I would say that we claim no exclusive authorship or originality for what we are suggesting. In fact we are gratified to find that there is near unanimity in this house on many of the suggestions which I shall now outline.
Now that the United Nations security council has taken the first essential steps to restore peace in the Middle East there are a number of other essential follow-up actions that in our view must be taken immediately.
First, we must have the presence of the United Nations made manifest in and along all the frontiers where and when the cease fire takes effect.
Second, we must immediately strengthen the United Nations truce supervisory organization to the extent that they will have adequate personnel and facilities to continually patrol every mile of the frontier.
Third, we believe we must be prepared to provide immediately massive shipments of food, etc., to all the people on both sides who have been hurt by this war, and particularly to the refugees.
Fourth, we believe there must be a bilateral, first, and then an international commission established to negotiate and determine the immediate as well as long term settlements between the antagonists.
Fifth, we must be prepared to provide substantial long term aid for the rehabilitation of the refugees.
Sixth, all the countries in Europe, on both sides-that is, in western Europe and eastern Europe-as well as North America, must cooperate in a massive program of economic aid to raise living standards, particularly in the Arab countries.
We believe that people all over the world should be grateful indeed to every single member of the security council for setting aside past differences and unanimously passing the resolution calling for an immediate cease fire. There have been some comments by the news media recently that Russia has suffered a great diplomatic or psychological
June 8, 1987	COMMONS DEBATES	1325
defeat by agreeing to the resolution calling for a cease fire. I have heard this commentary made more than once by the C.B.C. personnel at the United Nations. We believe that rather than pouring salt in the wounds or hurling brick-bats, the U.S.S.R. should be commended and congratulated, along with all the other member countries, for taking this action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Now that the U.S.S.R. has taken this first essential and desirable step, it is to be hoped that she will continue to co-operate by providing materially to the cost that the United Nations will have to undertake in giving effect to the resolution.
At this time, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just confirmed, some of the countries involved have not accepted the resolution of the United Nations security council and so the cease fire has not yet been fully effective. However, immediately upon being accepted by all the antagonists involved, the United Nations truce supervisory organization must be prepared to move in and re-establish the presence of the United Nations between the opposing armies in all areas. This is no small matter because first of all it is a very small organization and second, because its headquarters in Jerusalem were overrun and occupied by the Jordanian army followed by the Israeli army.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
If the Secretary of State for External Affairs could interrupt his conversation long enough to listen, I would like to point out to him that during the last two or three days since the first reports that UNTSO headquarters have been overrun I have been trying to find out from him whether or not this organization has been regrouped, whether its efforts have been coordinated and what is its status. I even attempted to ask him questions during his speech this afternoon. I do not really think that this should be classified information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad my hon. friend has asked me that question. As of nightfall, local time, this evening we have had confirmation that all the Canadian personnel serving with UNTSO are safe and well. We do not have particulars concerning one soldier in UNTSO who is missing, but the force seems to be secure and I am happy to say that all Canadians with UNTSO are reported safe and well.
Supply-External Affairs


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am pleased to hear that, but that is not the whole story. I also think there is an immediate need to regroup, re-organize and co-ordinate the activities of all the men in the organization who are in the Middle East at present. We do not know whether or not another headquarters has been established.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, they are occupying a hotel in Jerusalem.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This is information we have not had until now. In addition to that, however, we believe that the whole organization should be substantially strengthened because the cease fire lines are apparently going to be rather long. We believe sincerely that every mile needs to be patrolled continuously so that minor outbreaks will not again escalate into massive military operations. I want to say in this respect also that I believe Canada, in spite of some of the reservations that were voiced by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition respecting the change in the Canadian armed forces, will be able to find sufficient qualified personnel within the Canadian armed forces to meet any commitment or any request that is made by the UN.
I am certainly no expert in matters in the Middle East or in external affairs, but I did spend a few days in Israel in November of 1962 so I have some knowledge of the terrain along some of the borders, particularly in northern Israel, between Israel and Jordan, Israel and Syria and Israel and Lebanon. It is a great undertaking to supervise a truce along these frontiers. Right along the frontiers there are large hills or small mountains and great valleys. The highways along them are not well developed. There are some collective farms, kibutzes, right up to the border. Therefore, unless a demilitarized zone is established there and a well supervised truce maintained in the area with sufficient men and equipment to do the job properly, in my opinion incidents will continue to occur. This is why I say to the minister tonight that this supervisory organization and the truce commissions should be substantially increased at once. I do not believe we should wait. I think we are justified in calling on our government to take action now to make sure that the personnel is ready to move immediately into any area to which the security council directs them to go.
There is also the tragic plight of hundreds of thousands of people who have been hurt, not only in recent military operations but also
June 8, 1967

Supply-External Affairs the refugees from both of the previous military encounters in 1948 and in 1956. These people will require food and other aid in massive quantities immediately if the discontent is not to continue festering. I think that Canada should be prepared to move immediately and provide substantially more aid over and above what we are doing now. If this matter is not attended to at once, I think it would be foolish indeed to hope that peace will be maintained for long.
Before we can expect any pull-back to permanent positions, I believe a commission must be set up to establish the lines and to consider the other conditions of a settlement. We believe that there will be some difficulties in conducting the negotiations, particularly with regard to the area around Jerusalem. We know now that the old walled city of Jerusalem was previously in the hands of Jordan. The Israeli army have occupied that area. According to the press reports we have received, the Israeli government, or at least some spokesman of the government, has said that Israel will never again leave the old walled city of Jerusalem. That is an indication that the state of Israel is not willing to move back to the borders that were in effect prior to the recent hostilities, and that there are probably other areas, such as Sharm el Sheikh, from which Israel will be reluctant to move back.
So I think we must bear in mind that the conditions of settlement will be very difficult indeed. I believe that in the first instance a commission should be set up. It should be primarily a bilateral commission involving the countries concerned, that is Israel and the United Arab Republic, Israel and Jordan, and so on, in other words, the nations directly involved. However, I think there should also be an international commission which would consider seriously what would be a just settlement, because it is far too important to the countries other than those directly involved in the maintenance of peace, to leave the whole matter to them in the hope that they will reach final and lasting agreements. I say that, not in despair that they will not be able to reach any agreement, but because I believe that if such an agreement cannot be reached it should become the responsibility of an international commission. We think this is an essential step which should be taken at once.
I said I would be brief, and I will conclude by suggesting to the members of this committee that it is a well known fact that throughout the ages the Jewish people have suffered terrible persecution in all parts of the world.


It should also be acknowledged and recognized that the Arabs gave up some land which they had occupied for centuries to provide at least a measure of settlement. I suggest that this partial settlement, whereby land was provided for the present state of Israel was a great relief to the conscience of the whole world because of the persecution of the Jewish people over the centuries. I think that because of that we owe a great debt to the Arabs and especially to the refugees.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I suggest that long term aid for the rehabilitation of refugees as well as to enhance the living standards of the area cannot be postponed again. The United Nations was able to buy ten years of time in 1956 to try to settle this problem. Unfortunately very little, if anything, of a lasting nature was done during that ten year period. The cost of providing this kind of aid in a humanitarian way is far less, and in my opinion, far more acceptable than the alternative which would be the cost of providing a massive, defensive war machine. The alternatives today are clear as they never have been before. I believe it is not difficult for Canadians to choose the alternative that is most acceptable to them.
Mr. Chairman, the United Nations has been put to the supreme test during these past few days. There was the need for taking some positive action or the organization would collapse. I sincerely believe that. I am not discrediting it or discounting the useful work it has performed in the past. What the United Nations was facing in the past few days was critical. There are no words which can overemphasize the seriousness of that critical situation. It is for this reason I say the security council was obliged to bring forth some positive action or the whole world would have lost confidence in the purposes and functions of that organization.
I believe that the organization came through, perhaps because there was no alternative to saving the peace. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to say things look better today than they have for a few days. As the minister has said, this is not the time for any disparaging remarks about the United Nations. The organization has come through. All we can do now is hope and pray that the aspirations of people for an effective settlement according to the resolutions passed in the security council will come to fruition as soon as possible.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I think all of us in this committee are agreed on one thing, that is the
June 8, 1967

absolute necessity of a world organization to try to keep peace and order in the world. It I may say so, Mr. Chairman, the taking of the attitude adopted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the previous speaker, that the United Nations, right or wrong, should never be subjected to any constructive criticism on the many problems and faults the United Nations has is, I think, a rather unrealistic way of looking at things. It is not my intention to make a speech concerning the difficulties of the United Nations, but I believe many people realize the United Nations has a great many faults. There are many things that could be done to improve that organization. If I heard the two hon. gentlemen correctly, they said that the United Nations was perfect and should not be subjected to any constructive criticism.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think either of us said that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Neither do I.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I certainly heard what both hon. members said, but perhaps I interpreted their remarks differently from the way they intended. I am basing my remarks on what was said.
The other thing which the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, and with which the hon. member for Medicine Hat agreed, at least by implication, was that the United Nations came through in this emergency. Well, they did. I think we should be realistic about this. If the Arabs had been winning the war rather than the Israeli, I am not so sure things would have gone so smoothly at the United Nations. There may have been a quite different picture altogether if the Arabs had been successful in the war.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend enlighten the house on exactly what he means by that statement?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It seems to me that perhaps the Soviet union might have exercised its veto on the cease fire resolution had things been going in the other direction, shall we say. Since the Arabs, whom the Russians were supporting, were not too successful, perhaps there was not any alternative. Regardless of the reason, things have worked out better than I think most people hoped they would.
There are just two or three points with which I should like to deal. I have no desire
Supply-External Affairs to deal with matters that have already been dealt with by other speakers. First of all, as I understand it, the minister told us a few moments ago that the Canadian resolution has not yet been voted upon by the United Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps my hon. friend would like to be told that the Canadian resolution is now one of the operative parts of the United States resolution.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Can the minister perhaps tell us if it is included as a paragraph of the United States resolution? Has the minister a copy of the United States resolution?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I have, but it is quite a long resolution.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If it is lengthy perhaps the minister could give us the general purport of the resolution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already given it to the hon. member who just spoke. First of all, it embodies the resolution put forward last night by the Canadian ambassador. The second portion requests full compliance with the cease fire resolution of the security council. These are some of the ideas embodied in the United States resolution which was tabled today.
This resolution also calls for the Secretary General or the president or someone else other than the Secretary General or the president, to try by bilateral contacts between the two countries involved to implement the terms of the cease fire, and for the United Nations to work toward a solution of the fundamental problems of the area. It calls upon all nations to co-operate toward that end. Implied in this operative part is an invitation to the great powers to use their influence in that regard.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am certainly very pleased to have this information. If I may say so, I think this resolution is a considerable improvement over the terms of the Canadian resolution. The Canadian resolution, in effect, left the arranging of the cease fire in very broad, general terms at the discretion of the secretary general and, of course, the current president of the security council. This is a help, I think, but of course the security council president changes every month. It is not very likely the United Nations would have been able to work out the problem very quickly-they never do and this way have caused some problems.
June 8, 1967


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why does my hon. friend not read what General Allard said in the committee?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister suggests that I read what he said in the committee, and as I have it right in front of me I will do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why not read that?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I will read both, Mr. Chairman. The newspapers cannot always be wrong. It seems that someone is always being misquoted when reports in the press do not agree with the impression that the minister would like to give. The newspaper clipping I have from the Woodstock Sentinel-Review carries the headline "Mobile world peace force major goal, says Allard", and the report is datelined St. Catharines. This statement was made, as I recall it, the day the bill was passed.
The minister did ask me to read what General Allard had said, though I have put it on the record on several occasions.
June 8, 1967


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Read where he outlines the three points.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not know what the minister has in mind but I do know what I have in mind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know what the hon. gentleman has in mind, which is why I am trying to get the hon. member to read the three points that General Allard made in the committee.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If the minister wants to put them on the record I would be very happy to yield the floor to him in a moment. I should like to refer to an extract from the evidence of General Allard before the defence committee on Tuesday, February 28, and which is referred to at page 15004 of Hansard for April 17:
Canada now wants, while remaining faithful to its existing commitments, to decide itself on the part it wishes to play in the new international society. This is not only its right, it is also Its duty. It is its duty to participate, to the best of its ability, in keeping the peace by supporting the organization which has made itself the champion of the smaller nations, the United Nations organization.
In short, that is the transformation proposed by the white paper. That is what we are trying to do. My duty is to organize the military forces in accordance with government policy.
That is what General Allard said at St. Catharines, and it is what U Thant said the other day in Montreal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is wrong with that?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The question whether or not it is advisable is a matter of opinion and debate. I think it is wrong to make the major duty of our defence forces the serving of UN purposes and turning the defence of this country largely over to the United States.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Surely my hon. friend does not do justice to his reasoning. He read out that General Allard stated that apart from our foreign policy commitments we should so mould the development of national defence consistent with our obligations in the United Nations. He did not ignore the fact that we had other foreign policy commitments, such as NATO. My hon. friend should read that passage again.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is what General Allard said in the committee, but later on he said that a mobile world peace force was the major goal. The secretary general also said the other day that he had that information. It is a
Supply-External Affairs question whether one thinks this is advisable or not. I agree that an argument can be made for doing that kind of thing, but that is not the subject for discussion tonight.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I must insist. My hon. friend read to the committee what General Allard said. General Allard did not say exclusively what my hon. friend is now affirming. General Allard said that we had certain foreign policy commitments and that we also intended to do a peace keeping job. What my hon. friend is seeking to do is to convey the impression that General Allard said that our only purpose in national defence now was to provide for peace keeping. That is not what my hon. friend read out a few moments ago and attributed to General Allard.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister can think whatever he pleases, and if he wants to make another speech he has a perfect right to do so. I do not know what other impression can be gained from what the secretary general said in Montreal the other day. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition put that on the record this afternoon. 1 do not know what other impression can be gained from this newspaper sentence, which I again quote: "Mobile World Peace Force Major Goal, Says Allard" than the obvious one, even though the minister says that peace keeping is not the major goal of the unification bill. That it is the goal of that bill is the impression of a good many people, including leading members of the press, of this country. They have that impression regardless of what the minister says.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I look upon the Woodstock Sentinel-Review as one of the leading members of the press.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I read out the heading of a Canadian Press dispatch. If the minister does not like the Canadian Press, that is his business.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I like the Canadian Press, too.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is where this dispatch came from.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is all things to all men.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I shall come to that. The leader of the N.D.P. made a very apt observation.
June 8, 1967

Supply-External Affairs
I notice that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has becoming very touchy this evening, almost as touchy as the Minister of National Defence was this afternoon. I thought that the defence minister would go sailing through the roof of the chamber when he became stirred up by the Leader of the Opposition on this subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I like my hon. friend too much to get stirred up.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister usually sits in his place, with his words sort of giving the impression of a taste of honey. He has that bland look on his face. But he got a little exercised this evening.
Despite the minister's denials and protestations, even he will agree that one of the major goals of Canadian defence policy, which of course is only an arm of Canadian policy, is for a peace keeping force to be used not only with the United Nations but perhaps for NATO or for places like Viet Nam. In the recent meeting of the external affairs committee the minister said that if Canadian forces were wanted in Viet Nam they would be available for peace keeping operations. Having said that, surely he cannot deny what the major goals of unification are. The major effort of Canada, through the United Nations last fall, was to develop guide lines for peace keeping. Though the resolution was excellent -I liked its terms-Canada got a very severe rebuff at the United Nations.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is not accurate; my hon. friend knows that.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: What is that? I did not hear the minister.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The matter is still before the United Nations. It is being discussed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister knows better
than I do that the matter was put on ice by referring it to that committee. It will stay there for a long time. Only because Canada is well regarded at the United Nations was it dealt with as kindly as it was. The effect is that the resolution did not pass. There were many abstentions, and it was a very minor resolution. One of the reasons for the resolution's failure is that the United Nations had difficulties with the Soviet union and France over the payments for peace keeping operations. Also there is a general lack of willingness at the United Nations to bring the matter up at the present time because of what

happened a couple of years ago when they had to cancel the session because of the difficulties between the Soviet union and the United States. It was not an appropriate time to bring the matter up.
I think the idea is good; I am in favour of it. I like the terms of the resolution, but I think the timing was bad. Because the United Nations at that time was not too interested in peace keeping, and for a number of reasons it was not a good time to bring the resolution forward. Despite what the minister said a few minutes ago I thought that Canada was put in a humiliating position by having her troops kicked out of Egypt by Colonel Nasser. This is the fault entirely of the government, which is always talking about quiet diplomacy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that it was the fault of the government that our troops were asked by Colonel Nasser to leave?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, and I will tell the minister why.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why? That is most illuminating.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister may not agree, but I shall tell him why that is-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am overwhelmed by that suggestion.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister can get as sarcastic as he likes, but facts are facts. The present government has always talked about quiet diplomacy in Viet Nam and elsewhere. Probably it was a good idea. If there had been a little more quiet diplomacy a couple of weeks ago with respect to the Middle East there would not have been so much trouble. First of all you have the Prime Minister making announcements that he and President Johnson had agreed on what was to be done, and that they had things cooked up; and then President Johnson denied that. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made remarks one day to the effect that Egypt had given up some of her sovereignty when the United Nations force came in; and he made a statement to a quite opposite effect on another day. This kind of thing annoyed the Arbas.
The government decided to be neutral and provide peace keeping forces in this area, yet I do not think it should be neutral in this matter, for the reasons that were outlined by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I do not think we should be neutral toward
June 8, 1967

Nasser's policy of genocide. If we are neutral toward that policy, we are denying everything in the United Nations charter.
If the government had decided that it would be neutral, at least it should have been consistent and acted in a neutral manner, rather than giving clear indications that it was siding against the Arabs. Instead of acting in the way it did, I think the government should have come out clearly and distinctly and said that it thought that Nasser was wrong in his attempt to wipe out Israel, that it was genocide, and that that was against all United Nations' principles. Instead of that the present government said, "No, we are neutral." The Prime Minister said in his interview: "I have no feeling one way or another on the subject." These contradictory statements by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs all have succeeded in annoying the Arabs, and as a result our troops were ordered to get out because of this government's pronouncements. If that was not the government's fault, I do not know what was.
I wish to say another thing, too. One cannot be all things to all men at all times as the minister and the government so often have tried to be. Sometimes you have to stand for what you think to be right.
I wish the hon. member for Montreal who is always making observations would occasionally get up and make a speech.


Mr. Prud'homme:: He is not from Montreal.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: One of the most severe problems that we face now, and this is something that has been postponed from one day to the next for a long time, is the question of the Palestinean refugees in the Gaza strip who number now about one and a half million persons. The presence of these refugees for many years has been the main bone of contention, and they are now causing trouble. One thing also is quite clear. Though the United Nations emergency force worked moderately well for ten years nobody, but nobody, paid much serious attention to the basic issue of solving the difficulties of these refugees. I do not blame any government for this, because all governments in part are responsible. The fact is that the United Nations is always under pressure to deal with urgent matters because emergencies have arisen. Also, these urgent problems in the Middle East have apparently been overlooked for ten years, since there was no immediate emergency in the area. Every year, before the so-called "old
Supply-External Affairs chestnut" committee where such problems are brought up, the Arab refugee problem was aired and nobody did much about it. Everybody said, "We shall have to wait; time will cure it; maybe it will go away." But it never did go away.
Then there is the question of the water rights in the Jordan river, not to mention access to the gulf of Aqaba. Nobody made any serious attempt in the last ten years to solve those problems. As the minister said, some serious attempt must be made to solve them, or we shall need a four power guarantee or large numbers of troops in the area for a long time to come. If something is not done the Egyptians or some of the others will arm again.
Other problems will arise because of the immediate and troublesome question of oil. Some Arab countries, Iraq, Lybia and Algeria, announced that they had cut off oil supplies to Britain and France. Though it would be more costly for Britain to import oil from the United States she will not place her future economy in danger again by having to rely on the whim and caprice of emotional Arab leaders. If Great Britain makes other arrangements to obtain her oil, that will remove a large percentage of the national income of these already impoverished countries and that, in turn, will present a serious problem to the United Nations.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The United Nations will have to provide a great deal of additional economic aid to these countries, the oil sales of which are thus curtailed, over a long period of time. Then there is the question also of the Israeli borders and, as has already been suggested today, Israel should be given the entire city of Jerusalem.
Possibly some of this area should be made an international territory, and it should be made clear that Israel has the right of entrance to the gulf of Aqaba so that we do not still have it as a bone of contention. Also, something should be done about water supplies from the river Jordan. These are the things which have to be dealt with.
Also, to stabilize the area the great powers and the United Nations should give much additional aid to Arab countries because poverty in those countries is an indirect contributing factor to much of the trouble. They see considerable progress and prosperity in Israel. Possibly it is the fault of their own leaders that they do not have the same in theirs. These are festering sores and much must be tackled in the long range.
June 8, 1967

Supply-External Affairs
We will have much to do to improve the life and living conditions of the Arab peoples, and certainly of the Arab refugees. So far as I am aware, the only country over the years that has taken in any of the Arab refugees has been Iran. The others did not want to take them in because, in a manner of speaking, they wanted to keep the trouble spot glowing. Some arrangements will have to be made to settle these people, and if countries like Egypt, Iraq and Lybia will not take them, arrangements will have to be made to provide them with permanent homes elsewhere.
I see it is nearly a quarter to ten, Mr. Chairman, and there may be other hon. members who want a chance to speak. I think we should have had a longer debate on this subject, but that is not to be the case. I think I have covered most of the points I wished to cover and so I will accordingly close.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, it is not very easy to speak on such a broad issue in so few minutes at such a time of day. We have had, as was to be expected, not many new ideas expressed today, perhaps because there are not too many new ideas which may be applied to this difficult area of the world. But hopefully, after what we have passed through, to some of the old ideas there might be brought some new will and some determination of purpose that we did not have previously.
I think most sensitive people in the world have been fearful in the last few days, literally afraid that that word Armageddon might in fact become a fearful and awful reality, and that the part of the world which was the cradle of mankind could become its grave. We had come close to the brink. We have often come close to the brink, but if there is one hopeful thing about these crises it is that it would appear that the boiling point has gone up a great deal in our time.
Things which would have created war 25, 50 or 100 years ago have been passed by. We have looked into the awful pit and somehow or other we have had wisdom enough to pull back. We all went through the same emotional experience over the Cuban crisis. With all its faults the United Nations is something to which we must cleave, to which we must give our best because, putting it very simply, Mr. Chairman, it is all we have. It has had its failures and it has had its successes. It is a body stronger structurally than the League of Nations, and I think it is stronger in a way that is often most criticized, namely that

through the composition of the security council it shows a realism that, on the great questions of war and peace, unless you have some sort of accommodation among the great powers the goal will not be attained. The old classic concept of the concert of Europe is involved in this realistic structure of the security council. As we have been talking this last few days about the permanent members of the council we have constantly referred to four. Strictly speaking there are five, and why do we do not say five is itself an indica-cation of something very important.
I agree with many of the suggestions that have been made. Much more must be done in financial terms. Much more must be done with respect to the terrible human problem of these suffering refugees. Many people are responsible for the plight of these people, including Israel, but I would think not primarily Israel. However, aid and finance alone will not solve these problems, which are as old as time itself. Man has slain his fellowman in the Holy Land for generation upon generation. There are ancient hatreds; there are remembrances of egregious errors which have been made, of covenants which have been broken, of promises which have not been fulfilled. We would be very naive indeed, Mr. Chairman, to believe that it will be any easier tomorrow for Arab to speak to Jew, and for the enemies who have just gone through a war to be more readily prepared to work hand in hand and to attack problems many of which indeed affect, if not afflict, both peoples.
So, I think that while we are all feeling a sense of relief that the worst did not happen, and are all profoundly grateful that great power accommodation did take place under the aegis of the United Nations, these problems remain to be tackled. I think it is very important that the great powers met under the aegis of the United Nations. I was not at all happy at the prospect of the four great powers withdrawing to some part of the world in summit conference, thus figuratively closing the doors to the United Nations.
Some things must be said about the great powers. I think great leadership was exercised by Washington, a place often criticized by some of our Canadians. Perhaps the Soviet union was realistic. Perhaps it might have acted differently had not the heroic and brilliant Israeli army done what it did. We do not know, but foreign policy is a very realistic science if it is to be successful, and we have to take stock of the realistic aspects.
June 8, 1967

The days ahead will not be easy: They will be hard. We have these hard, impelling problems that the hon. member for Oxford mentioned. We talk about the right of Israel to live. That is something that any UN member must talk about. Of course the people of Israel have a right to exist, but what happens if other people say it is a cardinal point of their foreign policy that Israel be destroyed? The mere utterance of the earlier statement puts you in contradiction with such people. Therefore it is extremely difficult to be regarded as uninvolved in the dispute. We are involved of course to the extent that we are UN members, but I would not think that we are impelled to go any further in our designation of who is right and who is wrong.
A lot of people have been wrong a lot of times. The record of reports which have been dealt with in various UN bodies indicates that. I am not one of those who are terribly proud of what Britain and France did in 1956. Britain has done wonderful things and fought many just wars. It has been a great champion of freedom, but if the book were written I think the Boer war and the invasion of Egypt would not be in one of the more glittering chapters. However, that is in the past.
Many errors have slipped into the record. Now we must be positive. We have to work very hard. How long will it take to sort out the boundaries? Will it be easy to say to a victorious army, "You now withdraw"? The normal thing is that the defeated withdraw, and yet we cannot expect that the spatial territorial gains can all be maintained.
* (9:50 p.ra.)
Someone today mentioned the holy city of Jerusalem, a city which is holy to so many people. One is sorrowful that these areas so sacred to so many millions have been the scene again of slaying, and have echoed again to the sound of gunfire. Can anything new be done about Jerusalem? I know there were earlier efforts made to make it an international city. Should a new effort be made? Could that area with freedom of worship available to all be made a great UN centre? In my opinion Jordan is a country which has suffered a great deal. I think it is too easy for some of us to say that we could take a portion away from Jordan. This might not be an adequate solution. There is no simple solution here. The hon. member for Greenwood mentioned that it is not a question of east-west but rather a question of north-south. He is right to a great extent. But there are east-west involvements. Some people have long
Supply-External Affairs been fishing in the troubled waters of the Middle East in an attempt to cause trouble. While there are many many reasons Israel is hated by its neighbours-if I may use that word in an unbiblical sense-one is because it is the greatest friend the west has in that area. I remember a very wise Israeli statesman telling me this at the United Nations.
Canada is a much better member of the United Nations than it ever was of the league of nations. I think we were a terrible member of the league of nations. As a charter member of the United Nations let us do our best to make the United Nations as strong as possible. I for one am not totally content with any explanation I have heard in respect of the voluntary withdrawal of the UNEF. I am not assessing the blame nor am I questioning the right of Egypt to so request, but I am not sure that the wisdom of yielding immediately to that request can be so easily defended. I believe it would be terribly difficult to fix the cease fire line. It would be tremendously difficult when one considers the kind of border Israel has, and when one considers the geography and topography of the land. It may be done. Something certainly will have to be done. The problem of the refugees surely must be attacked. I have read report after report from the commissioner. We are not even keeping pace with the problem; it is getting worse. We must do more, for now is the time-if there ever was a time when this was not the case-when the ills of mankind in any part of the world must be cured, for they affect all parts.
These constant agonies which threaten conflict are not something in which we can be casually disinterested. There can be crises in many parts of the globe. Let us improve the machinery and make it as strong as we can. I suppose in a way-this is the Holy Land we are talking about-we will end up in the final analysis asking ourselves, if we improve the machinery, will we strengthen our will to make it work. I noticed that the Prime Minister said a certain affirmation can be made but that the question is how to get the affirmation put into practice. Thomas Hobbes long long ago declared that man will not keep his covenants made. Perhaps if we become a little more alarmed at the kind of awful propensity we have for our own destruction -perhaps for such mundane reasons as that-we might become better international entities.
I think Canada, although not a great power in a military sense and sometimes perhaps
June 8, 1967

Supply-External Affairs not as important as we in this House of Commons think, has a record of which we can be proud and surely has an opportunity to continue to be a good member of the international community. I for one hope that we will improve our United Nations role. I hope that we will extend our foreign aid. I hope that we will look at the UN realistically. I am not afraid to criticize it, because I think it has made its way. We cannot have it pass and wither away like the league of nations, because I am sure there is nothing to take its place. Considering what has taken place in my time I am not sure that we have ingenuity with which to proceed to create a new one.
In that benedictional tone I should end my remarks and say how much I appreciate the practical suggestions of those who have gone before. I should like to say that I realize the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been under a great strain the last few days. We all know that. When the chips are down in foreign policy we are not partisan. We wish him well in all his endeavours. We have the same wish for the efforts of the Prime Minister and Ambassador Ignatieff.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote 1 carry?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, Mr. Chairman. It is almost ten o'clock. I should like to ask what the position is in respect of item 1. The standing committee is dealing with the estimates concurrently to their being dealt with by the committee of supply. We wish to continue the discussion? Are we to continue with this item tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the business for the house tomorrow is unchanged from what was announced last evening. We will call the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I understand then, Mr. Chairman, that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are to be returned to the committee although they have never been taken from the committee. They actually now are the property of the committee. I am opposed to allowing item 1 to pass. If we are not to continue the debate in committee of supply, then the item ought to be passed on to the committee on external affairs.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, if we pass item 1 tonight the committee on external affairs would he precluded from discussing it at all. With great respect, I do not think it should be allowed to pass.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, whatever is done here will not prejudice the standing committee in the study of the estimates.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister may say that it will not prejudice it, but the fact is that if the item is passed by the committee of supply, then the committee on external affairs is not likely to discuss an item which already has been passed by the committee of supply. Therefore we would ask that the item stand and either be discussed by the committee of supply or be studied again by the committee on external affairs.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I call it ten o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the item
stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Speaker, does the house leader have any changes to announce in respect of the business for tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the business as announced last evening will be the business for tomorrow and all next week in so far as I can foresee.
I understand that arrangements have been made which would allow me, with consent, to refer the annual report of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the standing committee on veterans affairs. If I had consent to revert to motions and to waive notice I would make this motion, which would allow the standing committee to consider the annual reports of the department, the Canada Pension Commission and the War Veterans Allowance Board.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions and to waive the notice?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
June 8. 1967

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, after the world matters we have been discussing all day it is almost anti-climactical to raise the point which is now on the agenda. On May 23 1 asked the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) the following question which appears at page 471 of Hansard:
-whether it is the intention of the government to change the criteria for designated areas so that areas of slow growth may be included, as requested by the Northeastern Ontario Development Association. If so, will northern Ontario qualify as a designated area, and will this change be announced soon?
His Honour, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the question was too general in scope. I repeated a part of that question a couple of days later, on May 25, and Mr. Speaker, ruled at that time that perhaps it ought to be discussed at ten o'clock. It is as a result of those questions that I now raise this point.
I can summarize in only a few minutes what is at issue. For some years several members of the house-and as I have found from reading Hansard, this is particularly so of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters)-have argued that the old criteria for the designation of designated areas were not adequate, and the criteria relating to the number of unemployed or the extent of unemployment in an area took no account of areas such as northern Ontario where there might easily be unemployment, but the unemployed have left, or areas where the economic growth is slow, or areas where there has been a contraction both of the economy and the population. They have argued therefore, as I have read their speeches in Hansard, that the proper criterion was one that took into account the economic state of an area and all the factors of contraction of employment, contraction of population and contraction of opportunity for developing the area.
I do not pretend to be an expert on northern Ontario, but I have seen some of its problems over a number of years and I have been all over the area a number of times. It is perfectly obvious that in some parts of that part of the country there has been too much reliance placed on mining, which in many cases has come to a stop with nothing to replace it. It is also perfectly obvious that there has been very little development in some parts of the area of secondary industry, such as there ought to have been, to supplement mining.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
This fact has always worried not only those who represent northern Ontario in this house and the Ontario legislature, but also the various reeves, mayors and municipal councils of the communities in northern Ontario. Some time ago they organized the Northeastern Ontario Development Association and, if my memory serves me right, about a year or so ago they made some submissions to the cabinet relating to the criteria for designating areas, and to the general problem in northern Ontario regarding economic and industrial development.
I understand there was also established a northern Ontario committee on which there were a number of members of this house and a number of representatives of municipalities. All these organizations and the northern Ontario committee have been saying the same thing for a long time. They have been pleading with the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) and with the government to broaden the criteria under the statute so that areas like that of northern Ontario could have the advantage of the incentives and the other advantages under the legislation for the development of industry.
For two or three weeks some of us have heard rumours that there have been discussions and there may have been some decision to change the criteria, and that something would be done to designate northern Ontario. The purpose of my question was to find out what actually is the case. I ask therefore the minister, who is here-and I appreciate his coming here because I know he was out of town during the day-this question: Has the government changed the criteria for designated areas, and if so is northern Ontario or any part thereof likely to be a designated area, under the statute, in the near future?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for being forbearing on a number of occasions when this question might have been asked and I was out of town. However, I am now back and the simple answer to the hon. member's question is yes. I should emphasize that this program is not, and is not intended to be, a program of regional development. I think most people would agree that the problem of regional development, particularly economic development within a province, is a matter primarily for the jurisdiction of the provincial government and not the federal government.
If we were to be engaging in a program of economic development within a province, this
June 8, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion would necessitate a joint federal-provincial program; and this is not what we have here. This is a program designed to provide job opportunities in areas of high chronic unemployment, in the discharge of what has been accepted as a primarily federal government responsibility, namely unemployment. The program, and the criteria, are consequently related to this problem.
The program is not concerned with simply statistical averages of registered unemployed. Account is taken not only of the numbers who are registered as unemployed in a manpower service area, but also of the unregistered unemployed. The best instrument we have for measuring this is to take the average non-farm family income as disclosed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and to assume that a family with a very low average annua] income must of necessity, contain unemployed people, whether registered or not. With regard to areas having a widespread low nonfarm family income, even though there may be very few unemployed registered there it is safe to assume that there are a number of people who are either fully unemployed or underemployed. Consequently, a level has been established for average non-farm family income and where the average is below this, the area is designated. Where the average is above this, the area does not on this account qualify for designation.
o (10:10 p.m.)
In addition we have a further qualification that in areas where there is a higher than average rate of unemployment but the rate of growth of the labour force has been very rapid, such unemployment is merely a question of catching up. The growth which is continuing has been overtaken by the influx of new workers, and consequently there is current unemployment. But because the employment opportunities are growing, this is not likely to be a chronic condition. So in areas where there is unemployment registered above a certain level, in fact 200 per cent of the national level, there is designation. In areas of lower registered unemployment, 150 per cent of the national level, and the rate of employment growth is less than two-thirds of the national average, this will qualify for designation. Again I will mention that where the non-farm family income is below a certain level-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the minister that the time allotted to him has expired.



PUBLIC SERVICE-LEGISLATION TO INCREASE PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. Slanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 2, as reported in Hansard at page 1081, I put this question to the Prime Minister:
Can we be assured that the government's legislation implementing the recommendation of the special joint committee on the public service of Canada for increases in the pensions of retired civil servants will be presented to the house before we break for a summer recess?
The Prime Minister's reply was as follows:
I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend that assurance. We will do our best if progress on other matters in the house is sufficiently encouraging.
I want to say that at this stage that reply is totally unsatisfactory.
I see that the answer to my question tonight is to be given by my genial friend, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. It is difficult to quarrel with him, but I want him to tell the government that I am as close to the point of anger over this issue as I have ever been over anything since I have been in the House of Commons. There is not enough time to tell the story of the battles that some of us have put up for our retired civil servants for more than 20 years, but I will take a moment to recite a few facts regarding the last 12 months.
In June of 1966, a year ago, we finally got the agreement of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) that so far as he was concerned the question of the pensions of retired civil servants could be referred to the special joint committee on the public service of Canada. The only condition he attached was that we must first of all deal with the other legislation before us. We dealt with that other legislation but we kept this question alive. Finally, in January of 1967 the government agreed to refer the matter to the committee. That agreement was expressed in a motion which enlarged the terms of reference of the special joint committee and gave us the authority to deal with this question. According to the report that our committee made on May 8, 1967, we held eight meetings during which we dealt with this issue, and we heard the evidence of 21 witnesses. Our report indicates the various organizations that these witnesses represented.
The result was a unanimous recommendation from the committee which was presented to parliament on Monday, May 8, 1967, recommending that there be increases in the
June 8, 1967

pensions of federal civil servants already retired. We did not prescribe an exact formula but we did lay down principles. I want to say that it was our understanding when the matter was referred to the committee and during the whole time that we were dealing with it, that if we came up with an agreement in the committee that something should be done the government would follow that recommendation with the appropriate legislation.
On May 8, in the closing hours of the last session, the report was tabled. I asked the President of the Treasury Board if action would be taken on it soon. Well, the answer was that the matter was under consideration. I asked my question again on May 15, again on May 25 and again on June 2. All we are getting now is the assurance that the matter is under consideration. But, the most recent answer is this reply by the Prime Minister that he cannot give the assurance this matter will be dealt with before we break for a summer recess.
Mr. Speaker, if the government asks this house to rise for the summer without dealing with this issue, this will be as cruel a hoax as it has ever perpetrated. These people have had the right to believe since last June, a year ago, when the President of the Treasury Board said he was willing for the matter to be referred to the special committee for study, that something would be done about it. This right was re-enforced when the matter was referred to the committee, and the right was further re-enforced when the committee composed of members representing all parties in this house made a unanimous recommendation in its report to the house on May 8.
Now, it is sheer nonsense for the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to stand up and give us this old line about dealing with other matters that are before the house. I hope my anger is misplaced. I hope our retired civil servants are not going to be misled or fooled on this matter. But all we get in the house or in the meetings of the house leaders discussing the business of parliament is the fact that between now and the summer recess we are only going to deal with estimates, so far as we can, and two or three little matters of legislation that really do not amount to very much. Never has this item been listed as one of the things with which we are to deal before we rise for a summer recess. I say that this would be a cruel hoax, that this parliament will be acting in an immoral fashion if it goes away for a summer break without having [DOT]dealt with this issue.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Do not tell us it is a complex matter. It was dealt with in 1957 by an item in the estimates and then in 1958 by legislation. I am sure that the departments concerned have been working on it for months. They ought to have been. We have been discussing the question for 20 years, generally; we have been discussing it specifically for the last 12 months.
There is no excuse for not going ahead with this measure. So far as I am concerned, this parliament should not take a summer recess until we have dealt with the problem of increasing the pensions of our retired civil servants. If we put it off until the fall hundreds of people who are waiting for the increase will not be alive to receive it. I urge that there be no more of this kind of answer but that we be assured that there will be action on this issue before we break for a summer recess.


Mr. James E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the hon. member who just resumed his seat feels very keenly about this matter. I feel I would be remiss in replying to him tonight if I did not point out to this house, and to those civil servants affected, that this question is very much on the minds of the majority of the members of this House of Commons. It is particularly on the minds of the members of this house who have served or are serving on the joint special committee on the public service which was set up by this government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By this house.


James Edgar Walker: But on the initiative taken by the government. No one is more concerned about civil servants, both past and present, than this government, which initiated legislation that brought into being collective bargaining. This is something which had not been done for 20 years or longer. This legislation brought about a new regime in personnel relationships between the government and its employees. The committee which had been considering the matter of civil service pensions was doing so, as my hon. friend has stated, because the subject matter was referred to them by the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By the house.


James Edgar Walker: On the initiative of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, my eye.


James Edgar Walker: The committee reported its findings and recommendations to the President of the Treasury Board. The government
June 8, 1967
1338	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion has assured me and the President of the Treasury Board has assured me that this report is currently receiving the most urgent consideration.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be far more beneficial to those who will benefit to have a sensible proposal put forward to the house by way of legislation than to do something under extreme pressure that in the long run may not be as helpful to those people we

all want to help. When this consideration that I ask my hon. friend to accept has been finalized by the government, I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that legislation will be introduced in respect of this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the pensioners concerned will live to see it.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Friday, June 9, 1987