1968-03-18

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it might assist the house if I were to report briefly on week end developments involving international financial arrangements.
The house will, I am sure, welcome the decisions announced yesterday in Washington by the governors of the central banks contributing to the gold pool. The governors supported the policy of the United States government in continuing to buy and sell gold at the existing price of $35 an ounce in transactions with monetary authorities. They expressed the belief that henceforth officially held gold should be used only to effect transfers among monetary authorities, and therefore they decided no longer to supply gold to the London market or any other gold market. They stated that as the existing stock of monetary gold is sufficient in view of the prospective establishment of the facility for special drawing rights, they no longer feel it necessary to buy gold from the market. They agreed that henceforth they will not sell gold to monetary authorities to replace gold sold in private markets.
The governors of the central banks contributing to the gold pool invited the co-operation by other central banks in the policies they had agreed on. The governor of the Bank of Canada has promised his co-operation, and I have assured him of the support of the government in this regard.
Further to strengthen the international monetary system, the federal reserve board of the United States announced yesterday an increase of U.S. $2,275 million in its "swap network" with other central banks and the Bank for International Settlements. The governor of the Bank of Canada announced that as part of this arrangement the reciprocal credit facility between the Bank of Canada and the federal reserve system has been increased from U.S. $750 million to U.S. $1,000 million.
With the leave of the house I wish to table two press releases I issued last night, and one issued last night by the governor of the Bank of Canada, as well as the communique of the gold pool issued in Washington, to which they refer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the minister have leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lewis:: Print them in Hansard.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that these releases might be printed in Hansard, and this might be convenient to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For texts of documents referred to above, see appendix.]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I know we are all pleased with the progress that was made over the week end by the various central banks meeting in Washington with regard to quietening down the international monetary crisis, and it is most interesting to hear the report of the Minister of Finance with regard to the measures that have been taken.
However, I think it is very clear from what the Minister of Finance has said, and from what has been stated publicly, that the measures so far taken, that is with respect to the problem of gold, will not of themselves supply the degree of international liquidity required to support the growing volume of international trade, and these measures must be followed by other measures such as increased drawing rights from the I.M.F. or something of that sort.
I hope the countries of the world, the Minister of Finance and the governor of the central bank will put to good use the time available to them, and I simply express the hope that the government of Canada will give every possible support to measures being considered for a further increase in international liquidity.
7712	COMMONS
Report on International Developments


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of us felt a certain relief that some at least temporary measure had been evolved. I stress the word temporary because I see, as I am sure a great many other people can see, some difficulties in maintaining the two price system as a permanent feature in the international monetary system.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
However, it has bought time and I would hope the world monetary authorities will press forward with plans and proposals for the establishment of a new unit of international exchange which will once and for all relieve us of the incubus of gold that has been rather strangling the world for some centuries now.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we would like to add our satisfaction over the fact that at least for the time being the price of gold has been steadied. I should hope the Minister of Finance would regard this as a temporary measure in the realization that there can be no relief to the problems of international liquidity or stability in so far as international settlements are concerned until some new approach can be initiated more in line with the need to meet world trading pressures. I would hope that in the next few months, which I believe is all the time that can normally be expected, some new base of international settlement can be arrived at.



INDUSTRY


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a communication addressed to the premier of Nova Scotia dated March 8 in respect of the steel industry in Cape Breton.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the right hon. Prime Minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TELEVISION


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to table a communication addressed to the premier of Quebec with regard to educational broadcasting.

DEBATES	March 18, 19S8


Mr. Speaker:: Has the right hon. Prime Minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-210, to amend the Criminal Code (abolishment of corporal punishment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to abolish the punishment of whipping at present provided for in the Criminal Code. The infliction of corporal punishment is without a doubt a relic of the dark ages, yet is still used as a means of correction and discipline.
The continuance of such practice degrades institutions of justice and human reform and can only serve to further embitter and alienate the offender. State directed physical violence is completely inconsistent with modern penal practice.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Cowan: What 13 CATV applications were turned down and for what reasons, as indicated in the Report of the Board of Broadcast Governors for the year ending March 31, 1965, page 11, where it is stated that "Community antenna television systems (CATV's) do not come under the Broadcasting Act, but are referred to the Board on an informal basis by the Minister of Transport who is the licensing authority" and that "In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1965, the Board examined 59 such applications and found that 46 of them, in its judgment, would not make the operation of existing TV stations uneconomical or inhibit the provision of alternate service"?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The following are the 13 applications and reasons:
Metro Videon Limited: new CATV Winnipeg.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the establishment of the CATV system as requested would affect adversely the economic position of stations CJAY-TV, CBWT and CBWFT, Winnipeg.
March 18, 1968

Neighborhood Television Limited: new CATV Sudbury.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the establishment of the system as proposed would inhibit the provision of alternative Canadian television service in the Sudbury area.
Allview Cable Service Ltd.:	new CATV
Sarnia, Point Edward, Froomfield and Corunna.
Reason: In the opinion of the board, the establishment of a CATV system to serve Sarnia, Point Edward, Froomfield, Corunna and the surrounding area as proposed in the application, would have an adverse effect on existing television stations and on the possibility of the provision of alternative service.
Western Television Cable Company Ltd.: new CATV system New Westminster, B.C.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that it is doubtful as to what economic effect the establishment of such a system would have on the operation of stations CBUT and CHAN-TV or on the provision of alternative service.
Brandon Television Limited:	new CATV
Brandon.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the establishment of the CATV system as proposed would adversely affect the economic position of Station CKX Brandon and would inhibit the provision of alternative Canadian television service to the area concerned.
George G. Henderson: new CATV Kamloops. Kamloops Cable Television Limited:	new
CATV Kamloops.
Reason for both: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the establishment of the systems as proposed would inhibit the provision of alternative Canadian television service in the area.
Lake Video Services Ltd.: CATV system Lake Cowichan, B.C.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the establishment of the system as proposed in the application would have an adverse effect on existing television service and on the possibility of the provision of alternative service, if the system included three Canadian channels and three American channels. In the board's opinion the system would not have such an adverse 27053-4862
Questions
effect if it carried only the Canadian channels proposed.
George Malo: new CATV Sudbury.
Reason: In the opinion of the board the establishment of the CATV system to provide service to Sudbury, Coniston and Copper Cliff, Ontario, would have an adverse effect on existing television stations and on the possibility of the provision of alternative service in the area.
Canadian Wirevision Ltd.: CATV system Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond and New Westminster, B.C.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that it is doubtful as to what economic effect the establishment of such systems would have on the operation of stations CBUT and CHAN-TV or on the provision of alternative service.
Cameron Gilbert Harju: CATV system Black-falds.
Reason: The board has deferred a decision on its informal advice.
Victoria Cablevision Limited: To extend the CATV service at Saanich to include Victoria, Oak Bay and Esquimalt.
Reason: The board has deferred a decision on its informal advice.
H & B Communications Limited: CATV system Edmunston to add reception of Station WMEM-TV Presque Isle, Me.
Reason: The board has deferred a decision on its informal advice.


REFUSAL OF CATV APPLICATIONS, 1966
Mr. Cowan: What 10 CATV applications were refused and for what reasons, as indicated in the Report of the Board of Broadcast Governors for the year ending March 31, 1966, page 11, where it is stated that "The Minister of Transport... provided that the Board should examine CATV applications ... In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1966, the Minister referred 82 CATV applications to the Board ... The Board found that 72 of them ... would not make the operation of existing TV stations uneconomical or inhibit the provision of alternate service"?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The following are the 10 CATV applications and the reasons:
Frontenac Broadcasting Company Limited: new CATV system-Kingston, Ontario.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the establishment of the CATV

March 18, 1968
Questions
system as proposed would inhibit the provision of an alternative television service in the area.
Murray Leonard Sweigman: Kingston, Ontario.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the proposed change in the existing CATV system would inhibit the provision of an alternative television service in the area.
Neighbourhood Television Limited:	new
CATV system-Sudbury, Ontario.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the establishment of the proposed CATV system would inhibit the provision of alternative television service in the Sudbury area.
Cameron Gilbert Harju: new CATV system- Blackfalds, Alberta.
Fundy Cablevision Ltd. new CATV system- Saint John, Lancaster and the Parish of Sim-onds, New Brunswick.
Morton Flom: new CATV system-Quebec city, Levis, Sillery, Giffard, Quebec West, Ste. Foy, Charlesbourg, Lauzon, Montmorency, Beauport and Villeneuve, Quebec.
Reasons for the above: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the new proposed CATV system would affect adversely the economic position of the television broadcasting station serving the area.
Oshawa T.V. Supply Limited: new CATV system-Oshawa, Ontario.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the proposed CATV system would inhibit the establishment of a local television broadcasting station.
Oshawa T.V. Supply Limited: to add WOKR-TV, Rochester, New York and WNED-TV, Buffalo, New York to the CATV system serving part of Oshawa, Ontario.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the change in the existing CATV system as proposed would inhibit the provision of an alternative television service in the area.
Western Communications Ltd: new CATV system-Regina, Saskatchewan.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the proposed system would affect adversely the economic position of the television broadcasting stations serving the area. 
Lloyd Cyril Nelson: new CATV system- Brandon, Manitoba.
Reason: The board wishes to advise that in its opinion the establishment of the CATV system as proposed would adversely affect the economic position of Station CKX in Brandon and would inhibit the provision of alternative Canadian television service to the area concerned.


FAMILY INCOMES OF OCCUPANTS OF N.H.A. UNITS
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What was the average family income of purchasers of NHA single-family bungalows in each month during 1967?
2.	What was the average family income of tenants of NHA financed apartments in 1967?
3.	What was the family income distribution of tenants of NHA financed apartments in 1967?


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. The average family income of purchasers of, and owner-applicants for, N.H.A. financed, single-family dwellings during 1967 was $8,769.
2	and 3. Information on family incomes of tenants in N.H.A. financed apartments is not available.


FINANCING FOR NEW HOUSING, 1967
Mr. Douglas: How much of the financing for new housing in Canada in 1967 was provided by (a) private funds (b) public funds (c) other sources?


Edgar John Benson: Of the 164,123 housing units started in 1967, (a) 85,512 were financed by institutional mortgage lenders, (b) 45,325 were financed from public funds, and (c) 33,286 were financed from other sources.


INCREASES IN WHARFAGE RATES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What was the date of the latest increase in wharfage rates for the Department of Transport facilities in Prince Edward Island?
2.	What was the rate of increase?
3.	For what reason or reasons were such rates increased?
4.	Were similar increases put into effect in other parts of (a) the Maritime Provinces (b) Canada?
March 18, 1968


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Storage charges for vegetables and roots in frost proof sheds revised effective October 20, 1966.
2. Former rates:	Rate in Cents
(a)	unheated sheds,
(i)	first ten days,	free
(ii)	after first 10 days, per
bushel per day	%o
(b)	heated sheds (no free storage period),
(i)	first 20 days per bushel
per day	%
(ii)	after first 20 days per
bushel per day	y8
Revised rates:	Rate in Cents
(a)	unheated sheds,
(i)	first 10 days from initial
entry into a shed for the purpose of consolidating a shipment	free
(ii)	subject to subparagraph
(iii)	from the expiration of free time, per square foot for each 10
days or part thereof	5
(iii)	where a shipment is moved from the shed prior to the 16th day calculated from initial entry, per square foot for
the period	2%
(b)	heated sheds (no free storage period)
(i)	first 5 days or part thereof, from initial entry into shed for the purpose of consolidating a shipment, per square
foot	8
(ii)	second 5 day period or
part thereof, per square	foot	6
(iii)	each additional 5 day
period or part thereof, per square foot	4
3.	The rates were revised to eliminate problems experienced in the application of charges on a per bushel basis and to promote more efficient use of space in sheds.
4.	The rates form part of the schedule of charges under the government wharves regulations effective at all federal public wharves under Department of Transport administration.
Questions


CATCH FAILURE ASSISTANCE FOR FISHERMEN
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Is the Department of Fisheries considering legislation that will provide catch failure assistance to fishermen on a national level?
2.	What progress has been made in determining this legislation and when is it expected to come into force?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: 1. The matter is under study.
2.	When a decision is reached on this very complex problem an announcement will be made by the government.


DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL HEART AND KIDNEY
Mr. Hales: On what basis has the government placed the question of the design and development of an artificial heart and kidney with McMaster University instead of a leading medical college such as McGill, Toronto or Queen's?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Department of Industry as follows: The government has not placed any contracts for the design and development of an artificial heart and kidney with McMaster University. This project is listed by McMaster University in a brochure called "A Proposal for C.A.R.E.D. at McMaster University" as an example of the type of project which might be undertaken by their new Centre for Applied Research and Engineering Design.


STUDY OF INDUSTRIALIZATION OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Hales: On what basis has the government placed the study of industrialization of agriculture with McMaster University instead of an Agricultural College such as the University of Guelph or a western university?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Industry as follows: The government has not sponsored any study of industrialization of agriculture with McMaster University. This project is listed by McMaster University in a brochure called "A Proposal for C.A.R.E.D. at McMaster University" as an example of the type of project which might be undertaken by their new Centre for Applied Research and Engineering Design.

March 18. 1968
Questions


SUBSIDY UNDER MARITIME FREIGHT RATES ACT
Mr. Coates: What was the total amount of the subsidy paid to the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. under the Maritime Freight Rates Act for the fiscal years 1965, 1966 and 1967?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: C.N.R.	C.P.R.
1964/65	$12,515,000	$856,0321965/66	$12,850,000	$818,3131966/67	$12,211,000	$854,997
Department of Finance: J. F. Grandy; R. Y. Grey. Department of Industry: S. S. Reis-man. Department of Agriculture: S. B. Williams.
Other officials were also required in Geneva in an advisory capacity for brief periods during the negotiations; and the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. W. McNamara, and wheat board officials, for the negotiation of the cereals agreement.
* Did not serve for the full duration of the negotiations.


DELEGATES TO GENEVA TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	What were the names of the delegates from each of the departments of government represented at the Kennedy Round of tariff negotiations at Geneva?
2.	Which of these delegates were (a) part-time (b) permanent?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Canadian delegation to the Kennedy round of trade negotiations at Geneva, as notified to the GATT secretariat, consisted of the following departmental representatives:	Department of External
Affairs: N. A. Robertson-Chief Negotiator (Succeeded in November 1965 by S. D. Pierce); *D. S. McPhail; *M. A. Bernier. Department of Finance: C. A. Annis; J. A. Hayes, Department of Trade and Commerce: M. Schwarz-mann; T. M. Burns; *W. Van Fleet; W. Lavoie; *N. W. Boyd. Department of Agriculture: E. W. Stewart. Department of Industry: L. C. Howey. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources: *J. P. Drolet. Department of National Revenue: *P. A. O'Brien.
In addition, the following senior officers of departments participated from time to time, and particularly immediately prior to the conclusion of the negotiations: Department of Trade and Commerce: J. H. Warren.


OFFICIAL BARGAINING AGENTS, PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bell (Carlefon): 1.	Since the proclamation of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, how many occupational groups in each category of the Public Service have had an official bargaining agent certified?
2.	(a) What are the names of the groups for which official bargaining agents have been certified (b) what is the number of employees in each such group (c) what bargaining agent has been certified for each such group?
3.	For what occupational groups in what categories (a) are applications for certification of a bargaining agent pending (b) has no application for certification yet been made?


Hon. Charles R. Granger (Member of ihe Administration):: I am informed by the Public Service Staff Relations Board as follows: 1. As of February 15, 1968.
Number of Groups in respect of which a bargaining agent has Category	been certified
Operational	10
Technical	7
Scientific and professional	10
Administrative support	3
Administrative and	
foreign service	1
2. (a) Name of occupational group	2. (b) Number of employees	2. (c) Name of certifiiin respect of which certification has been issued	in each such group (Approximate)	bargaining agentHospital Services	6,400	Public Service Alliance of CanadaFirefighters	1,450	Public Service Alliance of CanadaGeneral labour and trades	21,800	Public Service Alliance of Canada

March 18, 1968

Questions
2. (a) Name of occupational group	2. (b) Number of employees	2. (c) Name of certifiedin respect of which certification has been issued	in each such group (Approximate)	bargaining agentGeneral services	14,400	Public Service Alliance of CanadaHeating power and stationary plant operation	3,000	Public Service Alliance of CanadaCorrectional	2,000	Public Service Alliance of CanadaLightkeepers	675	Public Service Alliance of CanadaPostal operations (supervisors)	2,100	Association of Postal Officials of CanadaPostal operations (non supervisors excluding railway mail clerks and part time employees)	25,000	Council of Postal UnionsPrinting operations (non supervisors)	1,350	Council of Graphic Arts Unions of the Public Service of CanadaShip repair	2,400	Federal Government Dockyards Trades and Labour CouncilForestry	100	Professional Institute of the Public Service of CanadaHome economics	100	Professional Institute of the Public Service of CanadaLibrary science	154	Professional Institute of the Public Service of CanadaVeterinary science	460	Professional Institute of the Public Service of CanadaPhysical sciences	310	Professional Institute of the Public Service of CanadaMeterology	465	Professional Institute of the Public Service of CanadaSocial work	105	Professional Institute of the Public Service of CanadaChemistry	225	Professional Institute of the Public Service of CanadaArchitecture and town planning	150	Professional Institute of the Public Service of CanadaEducation	2,150	Public Service Alliance of CanadaDrafting and illustration	1,800	Public Service Alliance of Canada
March 18, 1968
Questions
2. (a) Name of occupational group 2. (b) Number of employees 2. (c) Name of certified
in respect of which certification has been issued	in each such group (Approximate)	bargaining agentEngineering and scientific support	5,800	Public Service Alliance of CanadaGeneral Technical	2,750	Public Service Alliance of CanadaPhotography	200	Public Service Alliance of CanadaPrimary products, inspection	1,900	Public Service Alliance of CanadaAircraft operations	135	Professional Institute of the Public Service of CanadaAir traffic control	915	Canadian Air Traffic Control AssociationWelfare programs	1,000	Public Service Alliance of CanadaCommunications	900	Public Service Alliance of CanadaOffice equipment	670	Public Service Alliance of CanadaTelephone operation	560	Public Service Alliance of Canada3	(a). Groups in respect of which application for certification pending:
Operational: Category: Ships crews, Revenue postal operations.
Scientific and Professional Category: Agriculture, Auditing, Biological sciences, Dentistry, Economics, sociology and statistics, Historical research, Law, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Scientific regulation, Scientific research, Unitersity teaching.
Technical Category: Electronics, Radio operation, Ships officers, Technical inspection.
Administrative and Foreign Service Category: Administrative services, Computer systems administration, Information services, Program administration, Purchasing and supply, Foreign Affairs.
Administrative Support Category: Translation, Clerical and regulatory, Data processing.
3 (b). Groups in respect of which no application for certification pending and no bargaining agent certified:
Operational Category: Printing operations (supervisors).
Scientific and Professional Category: Actuarial science, Engineering and land survey, Occupational and physical therapy, Psychology, Mathematics.

Technical Category: Social science support, Ships pilots.
Administrative and Foreign Service Category: Financial administration, Organization and methods, Personnel administration, Administrative trainee, Commerce.
Administrative Support Category: Secretarial, stenographic, typing.


GRANTS TO MANITOBA UNIVERSITY FOR MICROWAVE RADIATION MEASUREMENT
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has the federal Department of Agriculture or any other department or agency of the federal government made any grants to the University of Manitoba for the purpose of research and measurement of radiation emitted by microwave telecommunication facilities and the effects thereof on plants and animals?
2.	If no such grants for such purpose were made to the University of Manitoba, were any made directly to any of the professional staff of the University of Manitoba, specifically as regards one Professor P. A. Kondra and/or one Professor M. A. K. Hamid?
3.	H any such grants have been made by any federal agency, what is the amount and by what specific title is the research project named?
4.	Has the federal Department of Agriculture or any other federal agency received any research project reports from the University of Manitoba
March 18. 1968

or from any of its staff relative to (a) the measurement of microwave radiation (b) the effects of microwave radiation on plants and animals?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned: 1. Yes.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Amount: $3,800, effective April 1, 1968. Title: The Effect of Microwave on Growth and Performance of Chickens. (Prof. P. A. Kondra).
4.	No.
In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned: 1. No.
2.	Grants have been made to Dr. M. A. K. Hamid, but not for the purpose of research and measurement of radiation emitted bymicrowave telecommunication facilities and the effects thereof on plants and animals.
3.	Grants made to Dr. M. A. K. Hamid are as follows: Title-Investigation of near field phenomena
Amounts-
1966	1967
Operating Grants	$ 6,000 $10,000
Major Equipment Grants 25,000	10,000
4.	(a) Yes-annual progress reports by Dr. M. A. K. Hamid, (b) No.


CHANNEL ACROSS AVALON ISTHMUS, NFLD.
Mr. Tucker: 1.	Has the federal government any knowledge of plans to cut a channel through the Isthmus of Avalon, near Long Harbour, Newfoundland?
2.	Has the federal government been approached by any provincial authority or by any private interest on organization in connection with this project?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works, Transport and the Prime Minister's Office as follows: 1. No.
2.	No.


ACQUISITION OF AIRCRAFT TO BELGIUM
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Was Canada involved in any negotiations with the Belgian Government with a view to the purchase by that Government of about a hundred aircraft of the type U.S. F-5 or its related type CF-5 to replace the F-84 as the Belgian tactical ground support fighter bomber?
Questions
2.	If so, what were the results?
3.	Does the decision of the Belgian Government to acquire instead a number of Mirage V in any way affect the consideration of the use of the CF-5 as an operational aircraft by Canadian Forces in Western Europe?
4.	Was the CF-5 version of this aircraft of use to Belgium and, if so, what was the offer to the Belgian Government in competition with the offer relative to the Mirage V?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned: 1. Yes.
2.	The Belgium government decided not to purchase the CF-5 aircraft.
3.	The decision of the Belgian government to acquire Mirage aircraft does not affect in any way any consideration of the possible use of the CF-5 as an operational aircraft by Canadian forces in western Europe.
4.	It is understood that the CF-5 would have met their military requirements. Negotiations with the Belgian government indicated that Canada would be unable to meet their offset requirements and therefore no formal offer was made by the Canadian government. The Canadian government is not aware of the details of the offer relative to the Mirage V.


PRODUCTION OF NAPALM BOMB INGREDIENTS
Mr. Mather: Has the government a contract with the Dow Chemical Company plant in the Surrey-Delta area of British Columbia for the production of ingredients used in the manufacture of Napalm bombs?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: A nil answer is submitted for the Department of Defence Production, Canadian Arsenals Limited, Canadian Commercial Corporation and Polymer Corporation Limited.


ENTRY OF ASIANS AND AFRICANS
Mr. Tucker: 1.	In view of the situation in which certain African-Asians possessing British passports find themselves as a result of legislation contemplated or being considered by the British Parliament has the Government of Canada given consideration to take steps that might be taken to encourage this group to come to Canada as immigrants and to facilitate their entry?
2.	Has any of this group already been admitted to Canada and, if so, how many?

March 18, 1968
Questions
3.	How many of each of the following groups applied for entry to Canada as immigrants during
(a)	the calendar year 1967 (b) the current year to date (i) Asians (ii) Africans (iii) African-Asians?
4.	How many of each of the above groups were actually admitted as immigrants during (a) the calendar year 1967 (b) the current year to date?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	An immigration officer has been attached on special assignment to the staff of the Canadian high commissioner in Nairobi. In addition, a travelling immigration team will be proceeding to Nairobi in the next two or three weeks.
2,	3 and 4. An applicant's racial or ethnic origin is not a consideration in determining his admissibility to Canada, and no statistics are available to distinguish between this particular group of people and other residents of Kenya. During the calendar year 1967, the last period for which statistics are available, 239 former residents of Kenya were granted landed immigrant status.


AIR CANADA ADVERTISING PROGRAM
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Alberi):
In connection with the current radio and television advertising program of Air Canada (a) what agency or agencies have been selected for said program (b) will Canadian talent and facilities, particularly with respect to the musical arrangements thereto, be utilized exclusively?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: (a) Foster Advertising Limited; (b) Not exclusively, if the use of an outside consultant is believed to improve the program.


JEANNE-MANCE HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How much has the Soci6t6 des Habitations Jeanne-Manee (Jeanne-Mance Housing Corporation) invested for the construction of its housing
complex in Montreal (a) cost of land (b) demolition (c) construction?
2.	How many tenants are there and what is the average rent?
3.	How much money has the Socidt4 des Habitations Jeanne-Mance received in rents since it was established?
4.	What is the annual rate of interest?
5.	What is the amount of money reimbursed to date by the Societe des Habitations Jeanne-Mance?
6.	What has been the yearly cost for upkeep and maintenance of the Habitations Jeanne-Mance since it was established?
7.	What is the number of personnel employed by the Societe des Habitations Jeanne-Mance?


Edgar John Benson: 1. The cost of acquiring land and buildings and demolition amounted to $7,019,324. (a) The cleared land was transferred to the partnership (federal government and city of Montreal) for construction of the public housing project at a cost of $703,162.90. Services amounted to an additional $423,869.40.
(b)	The demolition costs, as part of the total cost of acquisition and clearance, was $185,918.
(c)	Construction costs of the buildings amounted to $9,535,553.30 for a total cost, including serviced land, of $10,662,585.60.
2.	There are 796 tenants and the average monthly rental is approximately $45 per unit per month.
3.	A total of $3,864,837.90 has been received in revenue since commencement of operations in 1959.
4.	The annual rate of interest is 4-J per cent on both the investment of the federal government and the city of Montreal.
5.	Total amortization costs of
December 31, 1967-	$3,878,783.48
Total operating deficit to December 31, 1967-	3,418,634.84
Net funds available for reimbursement-	$ 460,148.64
6.	Yearly revenue and operating expenses are shown at appendix "A" attached.
7.	Thirty-two full time employees.

March 18, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	7721
Questions


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
1959	1960	1961	1962	1963Project Revenue	
$	8,140.95	$ 177,667.68	$ 461,034.25	$ 513,277.68	$ 540,611.52Administrative Expenses	
10,424.60	54,442.92	55,679.10	53,614.15	53,764.75Operating Expenses	
2,123.49	51,642.40	108,040.58	104,238.57	108,482.44Maintenance Expenses	
3,613.43	83,279.45	100,812.63	124,736.70	132,098.51Municipal Taxes	
2,713.65	48,282.77	125,746.51	135,837.46	134,536.95Amortization of Investment	228,192.63	444,383.27	497,731.05	533,493.6818,875.17	465,840.17	834,662.09	916,158.93	962,376.33Operating Deficit	
$	10,734.22 $ 288,172.49	$ 373,627.84	$ 402,881.25	$ 421,764.811964	1965	1966	1967	TotalProject Revenue	... $ 551,724.68	$ 558,239.96	$ 556,842.57	$ 497,298.61	$3,864,837.90Administrative Expenses	... 57,591.70	61,148.04	61,872.49	51,685.91	460,151.66Operating Expenses	... 149,569.50	142,854.42	133,088.20	147,234.20	947,274.80Maintenance Expenses	... 107,472.04	112,146.43	131,540.49	125,159.70	920,859.38Municipal Taxes	... 132,680.99	134,261,19	134,194.74	228,149.16	1,076,403.42Amortization of Investment	... 539,312.50	545,223.45	545,223.45	545,223.45	3,878,783.48986,554.73	995,633.53	1,005,919.37	1,097,452.42	7,283,472.74Operating Deficit	... $ 434,830.05	$ 437,393.57	$ 449,076.80	$ 600,153.81	$3,418,634.84

Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Does the Canadian Government Printing Bureau expect that it will need rented space in the near future and if so, how many square feet will it need?
2.	Have any steps been taken lately in this direction and if so, what buildings have been visited for this purpose?
3.	Is the Canadian Government Printing Bureau renting any storage space at the present time and if so, where are these rented spaces and what is the term of the existing leases?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No.


TUNA SHIP &quot;GOLDEN SCARAB&quot;
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Was the tuna seiner Golden Scarab recently arrested at St. Andrews, N.B. and if so, for what reason?
2.	What is the total amount of all mortgages held on this ship by the Industrial Development Bank?
3.	For what period of time was this ship's payments in arrears to the Industrial Development Bank?
4.	How many Canadians are employed on this Canadian subsidized ship?
5.	Did the ship have any tuna on board when it was seized and if so, what was the value of the catch?
6.	Has the Industrial Development Bank made any loans on other tuna seiners and if so, what are the names of the ships and the amount of the loans?
7.	Are payments on any of these loans in arrears?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. The ship was arrested. It has not been the practice, nor is it considered appropriate, for the Industrial Development Bank to make information publicly available relating to the affairs of a particular applicant or borrower.
4.	This information is not available.

March 18, 1968
Questions


JANITOR SERVICE, R.C.M.P. BUILDING, CALGARY
Mr. Ballard: With reference to the new Royal Canadian Mounted Police building at Calgary, Alberta:
1.	On what date was this building put into service by the R.C.M.P.?
2.	Has the contract for janitorial service been let?
3.	If so (a) to whom (b) were the janitorial services let by way of tender, were competitive quotations asked for, or otherwise?
4.	What is the cost of janitorial services for this building?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Soliciior General):: 1. June 20, 1967.
2.	Yes, a short term contract which may be terminated at any month's end. Tenders have been called for the letting of an annual contract.
3.	(a) The current contract was let to Servicemaster of Calgary Ltd. (b) Competitive quotations were invited and the current contract let to the low bidder.
4.	$135.65 per week.


RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN P.E.I.
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Has any agreement been signed with the Government of the Province of Prince Edward Island under subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act?
2.	If the answer to Part 1 is no, has any such agreement yet been drafted and submitted by either Government for approval?
3.	Since July 11, 1966, what moneys were paid each year out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Government of the Province of Prince Edward Island under the provisions of the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act?
4.	Has the Government of Canada paid any money to the Government of the Province of Prince Edward Island to assist in financing the operations of the P.E.I. Economic Improvement Corporation and, if so, how much and when were the payments made?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	None.
4.	No.


*MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE PAYMENT OF PENSION
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the decision been made either by the government or the Minister of Justice, or any Minister thereof, as to the granting of a pension or

other allowance to the former Justice Leo Landre-ville?
2.	If so, what is the nature thereof?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the government has decided at this time against taking the steps necessary to grant Mr. Landreville a pension or annuity.


OFFICERS OF SOVEREIGNTY ASSOCIATION MOVEMENT
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Has the attention of (a) the government
(b)	the Public Service Commission, been drawn to the addendum to the Report of the Board of Control to the City Council of Ottawa on March 4, 1968, which addendum contains a copy of a press release of the "Sovereignty Association Movement"?
2.	If so, are the office telephone numbers there listed for (a) the chief co-ordinator, namely 9961610 and (b) the policy co-ordinator, namely 992-0075, of the "Sovereignty Association Movement", on the telephone exchange of the Government of Canada?
3.	If so, in what specific branch of what department or agency of the Government of Canada is each such telephone located?
4.	(a) What position with the Government of Canada is held by (i) the person listed as chief co-ordinator (ii) the policy co-ordinator, of the said Movement (b) what are the duties of each such position?
5.	Have these persons or either of them the permission of (a) the Government of Canada (b) their superior officers, to make use of the said telephones for the purposes of the said Movement?
6.	If so, under what conditions?
7.	If not, what action, if any, has been taken regarding (a) the past use (b) future use, of such telephones for the purposes of the said Movement?
8.	In addition to the said telephones, were any other services or facilities of the Government of Canada used by either (a) the said chief coordinator, or (b) the policy co-ordinator, for the activities of the Movement?
9.	If so, what services or facilities?
10.	On what date was each of (a) the said chief co-ordinator (b) the said policy co-ordinator, first employed in the Public Service?
11.	By what method of appointment and on whose recommendation was each such person so employed?
12.	(a) Has any disciplinary action been taken against either of these employees (b) if so, of what nature (c) when?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. (a) Yes. (b) No. The individuals referred to were not employed under the terms of the Public Service Employment Act.
2. (a) Yes; (b) yes.
March 18, 1968



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Since 1965, have there been any changes in the air service provided by Pacific Western Airlines to the following communities (a) Pine Point (b) service between Fort Smith and Uranium City
(c)	service between Hay River and Fort Resolution?
2.	If so, when did the changes take place, for what reasons, and under whose authority?
3.	What are the present P.W.A. schedules into these communities, and what routes are authorized under their charter?
4.	What alternate scheduled service is provided?

March 18, 1968
Orders for Returns
5.	What is the usual procedure followed by a licensed airline in changing a prescribed schedule, and what recourse has the public in the event of the cancellation of a schedule covered in the airline's licence?
Return tabled.


INVESTIGATION OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
Mr. Coates: 1.	What department or departments have been delegated the responsibility of investigating reports on unidentified flying objects that are brought to the attention of the federal government, and how many such reports were received in the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	Were investigations carried out in each instance, to whom were the reports made, and is the information contained therein confidential or available to the public?
Return tabled.


FREE LANCE TRANSLATORS
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	How many free-lance translators are employed by the Bureau of Translations, what are their names and addresses (city), and how are they recruited?
2.	Are they required to take part in a public competition in this field conducted by the Public Service Commission in order to be accepted?
3.	Are free-lance translators required to take the oath of office?
4.	Are they permitted to have the texts which are given to them translated by people of their own choice and, if so (a) how is the competence of the latter determined (b) are these people required to take the oath of office?
5.	How are free-lance translators paid and how much has each one received in the last three years?
Return tabled.


CENTENNIAL AND EXPO ADVERTISING OVER C.B.C.
Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi): Were any estimates kept of the moneys expended on advertising and programming over the C.B.C. with respect to both Centennial and Expo 67 and, if so, what were the total figures, together with any readily available breakdown?
Return tabled.


COST OF TRADE AND TOURIST PROMOTION
Mr. Schreyer: 1. In the last fiscal year, what was the expenditure of the Department of Trade and Commerce allocated to trade promotional and tourist promotional activities?
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
2.	Of the above amount, how much was allocated to (a) trade missions (b) trade fairs
3.	How many persons representative of private commercial interests attended trade missions or fairs at departmental expense, either in whole or in part?
4.	What was the number of such persons sent abroad per trade fair or trade mission, and what was the cost per trade fair or mission in sending such persons?
Return tabled.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is some $175 million in bonds maturing at April 1. Can the minister give the house any indication as to the government's plans in respect of refunding these bonds, as well as the C.N.R. bonds falling due on May 15?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet has been considering the refinancing of these securities, and I expect I shall be making an announcement either today or tomorrow.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement by the minister in respect of the member countries of the world gold pool, does he still think they will be able to control the price of gold if countries like Russia, China and others continue to deal in gold on the free market?


Mitchell William Sharp: The object of the exercise, Mr. Speaker, is to stabilize the price of gold for transactions between countries settling their balance of payments differences, and to leave the free market to deal with supplies coming from new production. The gold pool is no longer in operation.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, is it the minister's intention to continue to buy gold at $35 an ounce from producers in Canada for sale to countries which belong to the gold pool?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. gentleman to the communique issued by the governors, to which we have adhered, as follows:
Moreover, as the existing stock of monetary gold is sufficient in view of the prospective establishment of the facilities for special drawing rights, they no longer feel it necessary to buy gold from the market.
March 18, 1968


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to raise questions of order, but with respect it does not appear to me that these questions are supplementary to the question I directed to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order is a little too late now that the questions have been asked and answered.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question about bond conversions. Do these plans include also the spring conversion of Canada savings bonds?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a decision has been made in respect of the conversion issue but I have forgotten whether an announcement has been made.


Mitchell William Sharp: Earlier today the hon. member for Edmonton West asked me a question about the new series of Canadian savings bonds, and I discover that I have made the announcement today.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance about the announced decision regarding the two price system for gold. In view of the fact that this is likely to be a stop gap measure designed to buy time, what steps is the Canadian government taking to hasten some decision by the member nations of the International Monetary Fund in respect of supplementary drawing rights and some new unit of international currency?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has been foremost among nations in pressing for the establishment of a new form of reserve currency. We shall continue to do so, and I am hopeful that we will have good results.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Further to the statement the minister made earlier, what will be the Canadian government's position in respect of buying gold from Canadian gold producers? Will the government be buying gold and, if so, at what price? Will the government be selling gold to the United States government as we did last year, and if so, at what price?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is the same question that was asked by the hon. member for Timiskaming which I answered by referring to the communique issued by the governors of the central banks, members of the gold pool, to which we have adhered; that is,
Inquiries of the Ministry that the central banks "no longer feel it necessary to buy gold from the market."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question for clarification, Mr. Speaker. I was aware of the statement in the communique, but is it Canada's intention to sell any gold to the United States during the coming year and, if so, on what basis? Or am I to take it from the minister's statement that the United States will not be buying gold from Canada? Also, will the Canadian government be buying gold and, if so, on what price basis?


Mitchell William Sharp: There were two questions asked by the hon. member. I am sorry; I dealt only with the first. With regard to the second question, about sales of gold by Canada to the United States-that is from the Canadian exchange fund to the United States authorities-that, of course, is always possible. That depends upon what proportion of our reserves we want to keep in gold and what proportion in earning assets. Nothing that has happened changes those considerations, so I do not expect any change in normal behaviour. If we come to the conclusion that our gold reserves are more than adequate as a proportion of our total reserves, we might feel we should sell some in order to increase our earnings and thereby reduce the taxes we have to raise.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Will the Canadian gold producers, then, be able to sell their product on any market in the world?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I ought to refer this question to my hon. friend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The position at the present time under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is that the mines are free to sell their gold where they will, but in order to obtain the subsidy that is available they must sell that gold to the mint. That will continue to be the situation. With regard to what happens to it thereafter, we will be governed by the agreement or the understanding that we have amongst central banks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell me, if he has the information, what proportion of Canada's gold normally goes to the mint? I understand that two of the major mines in the country do not deliver to the mint.

March 18. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not have that information, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has it.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there are now three mining companies that do not avail themselves of the legislation, merely because the cost of their production is inferior to that provided for by the regulations, that is it must be superior to $26.50 in order that the producer might avail himself of federal aid.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
Did he, over the week-end, indicate publicly that his attitude had changed toward the amendments proposed to the Criminal Code?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, there have been no changes in attitude. I have always said, since the bill was introduced, that the government would study with great care whatever judicious amendments are proposed.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister advise the house whether when he was making these statements he was speaking as the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that it was difficult for the Chair to determine what statements the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi was referring to. The rule is well known that no questions can be asked about statements made outside the house except by directing such questions to the Prime Minister to ascertain whether they represent government policy or otherwise.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then may I rephrase my question to the minister, and preface it by saying I am referring to statements attributed to him in respect of amendments to the Criminal Code. I would simply ask the minister whether he does not think the house is sufficiently responsible and competent so he can take the house into his confidence before making further statements outside.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order as asked; it is argumentative.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Justice in connection with the possible revision of his proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. I wonder whether the minister and his officials would give consideration to my bill introduced today with regard to the abolition of corporal punishment.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the substance of this bill. I think that question should be considered in another bill. It is clear that, with regard to the present bill, we can only accept relatively minor amendments which do not substantially change its contents.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether any consideration has been given to dividing this bill, so that some of the non-controversial parts of it may be passed in a reasonable length of time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question has been asked at least once before in exactly the same terms.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask him whether after July 1 the federal government will be discontinuing payments for hospital and medical services to all the provinces not under the federal medicare plan.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the question as notice, but so far as the medicare program is concerned to my knowledge there has been no change in the current practice with respect to grants to provinces. However, I should like to check it further.
March 18, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE	what scale or how these latest alleged incurtoronto-refusal to PERMIT arrested sions have taken place. I am seeking more PERSON TO CONTACT lawyer	information.
On the orders of the day:


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of the report that a Miss Leslie Turner was arrested and held by the Toronto police for some hours before she was permitted to contact a lawyer.
In view of this further distressing instance, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he would consider immediately amending the Criminal Code to spell out the right to counsel, without waiting for the charter of human rights to be enshrined in the constitution.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to think that it will be a long time before the charter of human rights is proclaimed. I beg to differ. Besides, the amendment to the Criminal Code he is proposing is very important. Personally, I am trying without much success to get the house to pass a proposed amendment to the Criminal Code which was approved on first reading three months ago.


An hon. Member:: Put it on this afternoon.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, but would you pass it?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is in a position to expand on the report on the radio news this morning to the effect that guerrilla attacks were being made on Rhodesia. Could the minister tell us where these attacks came from, and if there is any information as to the source of the logistical support for these guerrilla operations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as yet we have no further information on this matter than that which the hon. gentleman has mentioned himself. There have been incursions into Rhodesia in the past, particularly at the end of last summer, but it is not known on


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: In view of the fact that we are approaching the end of this portion of the session, I should like to ask the Prime Minister about a starred question which I placed on the order paper ten days ago. Will he not table in the house a list of those who received the centennial medal, apart from those in the armed forces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to answer this question on Wednesday. My right hon. friend asked for the list of names, and also the addresses of those on the list. Since there are some 15,000 names it will certainly take quite a long time to obtain the information, but I do not see why we should not try to get it.


John George Diefenbaker: As I understand the
Prime Minister, the list will be made available on Wednesday, but may I point out that it should be accompanied by addresses. We must avoid medals falling down as did manna from heaven. Two or three centennial medals have been given to the same individual, and this should be avoided.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to deal with it as an oral question, but I would like to point out to my right hon. friend that in the past the lists of names of people to whom commemorative medals have been given have never been made public. However, that itself is no reason why it should not be done this time.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the imminent closing of the house and the continuing urgency for moneys to finance the construction of homes, 1 wonder whether the minister has any intention of announcing the government's policy regarding interest rates, and whether any extra provision is being made to meet this vital need.

March 18, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I find this question a little misleading. There are provisions for additional lending powers in the supplementary estimates for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. However, I should like to assure my friend that this year we will build more houses than have ever been built in a single year in Canadian history.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it the intention to increase interest rates on C.M.H.C. loans?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is not the case. As I have said publicly, I should like to see C.M.H.C. interest rate ceiling eliminated, so that people who want money for mortgages can compete in the open market. In this way we could get more private money into mortgages in this country. Now, if we want to subsidize interest rates this is an entirely different matter. It is something that would have to be brought up by way of legislation.


Mr. G. L. Chafferion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether he is satisfied that the estimate of the number of houses that will be built this year will be within 20,000 of the number the Economic Council of Canada recommends?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is
argumentative. One cannot ask whether the minister is satisfied or dissatisfied.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Would he tell the house whether an agreement has been signed with the Quebec government in connection with the crop insurance plan now offered to Quebec farmers?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, such an agreement has not yet been signed, but negotiations are now proceeding and I think that it will be concluded this week or next week.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. On Friday I asked him whether he had received a telegram from Premier Manning regarding the proposed realignment of medical services for Indians. I was wondering whether he had received that wire now, and what reply he gave to it or to the premier of Manitoba.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I replied over the week end, on Saturday, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that I was discussing the matter with the minister concerned. I hope to send a more substantive reply within a day or two, which I hope will remove some of the misunderstanding which has been created.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister in a position to indicate to the house the nature of the directive that went out to the regional directorate of the prairie provinces in connection with medical services for Indians, since the statement by Hon. Mr. Ross in the Alberta house indicates some grave discrepancies with the answer given by the minister?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The communications which have been sent by the director general of medical services to the medical directors in the various regions in Canada are privileged documents. They are departmental documents, and I am unable at the present time to ascertain whether there have been communications that are not in that category. If so I will be happy to have them tabled.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the minister suggesting that the letter from the regional director of the prairie region to the Alberta minister of health is a privileged document?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think that question is not in order. It is possibly the type of question which would have to be raised by way of a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then may I ask a further supplementary question. Would the realignment of the medical services to which the minister was referring include a reduction in the care of tubercular cases on Indian reservations in the prairie provinces?
March 18. 1968	COMMONS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There have been changes proposed in the directive with respect to the treatment of tubercular Indians.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister referred to the directive being sent out by the director. Does the minister accept responsibility in general for the directive?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Has
the minister yet decided whether he will table copies of the letters which went out to the Indian chiefs from the department explaining the decision?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. As I told the house on Thursday and Friday, we have been conducting a review of this situation in an effort to reach the most satisfactory solution in so far as the Indian population is concerned. I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter within a day or so.


Robert Simpson: In so far
as the reduction of services is concerned, I should like to ask the minister if he can assure the house that the emergency transportation service will not be reduced in so far as Indian people are concerned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no proposal to reduce emergency transportation service.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, prompted by the report of a recent statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs which was made at Moncton. Can the Prime Minister advise the house if there has been any change in our diplomatic relations with Gabon since the press release was issued on March 4? Is it intended to have our ambassador designate present his credentials at an early date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been no formal change. I hope this situation can be corrected. I hope we will soon be in communication with the government of Gabon to that end. However, we have not changed our attitude.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask a supplementary question. At the time of this incident I asked the Prime Minister if he would table in the house
DEBATES	7729
Inquiries of the Ministry the letter which the government of Canada received from the government of Gabon. The Prime Minister indicated he was not sure whether such a letter had been received or whether there had been a conversation. In the latter case he would explore whether a memorandum might be tabled. So far as I am aware neither has been forthcoming.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot table the communication from the ambassador without his permission. We have not secured that permission. If and when we are able to secure it we would also wish to table a memorandum which I should hope would explain the situation in a way that the one communication does not do adequately.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand the government of Canada has requested permission to table the letter from the government of Gabon? Has a formal request been make for permission to table this letter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no objection to that request being made. I am not sure of the date it was made, but I will look into it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am at a loss to know whether the government of Canada has requested permission to table the letter, or will request permission.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said I would look into the date when that request was made.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: My
question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Commons will be recessing shortly, and the difficulty farmers are experiencing in obtaining loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, can the minister advise the house whether any steps will be taken to relieve this serious situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I find this such a general question that perhaps it could be rephrased in more specific form.


Richard Russell Southam: Can the minister advise the house what steps, if any, have been taken to relieve the serious problem of credit under the Farm Improvement Loans Act? This matter has been under consideration for some time.

March 18, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: The cabinet has approved a form of legislation. I am not quite certain whether it can be introduced before the end of the present part of this session.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Justice. Is his department going to take action against the Canadian banks for the conspiracy they are carrying on in connection with this very matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not a supplementary. It may be related in some way, but I do not believe it is a supplementary question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and I shall indicate why the question is definitely a supplementary and in order. In this respect I call the attention of the house to a statement by the Minister of Finance. This statement appears on page 14281 of Hansard for March 21, 1967, at which time we were dealing with the Bank Act and the very situation which prevails today was outlined to the minister. In commenting on the situation at the time the minister had this to say:
This is a highly hypothetical question and perhaps I should not even attempt to answer. There are strict provisions in the law against any such conspiracy as the hon. gentleman has described.
My question now, Mr. Speaker, based on the statement by the Minister of Finance at the time the Bank Act was before the house, is directed to the Minister of Justice. I would ask the Minister of Justice whether his department intends to take action to deal with this conspiracy as described by the Minister of Finance.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this question has been placed before the judicial authorities.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the answer given by the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is this question supplementary to?


Malcolm MacInnis: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I had understood a further supplementary question was

being asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie, and I remained in my seat only to find that another question was being asked.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker with your permission I should like to revert to the question and ask the Minister of Finance a question supplementary to the question that was put to but not answered by the Minister of Justice. Could I ask the minister what he intends to do about this particular conspiracy to which the minister himself referred?


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonlon-Straih-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Now that the minister is aware of the statements made by the Minister of Finance in relation to the situation brought to his attention by the hon. member for Queens and the hon. member for Cape Breton South, would he take notice of the question and advise this house of the action he will take to make sure his department sees that justice is done in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall consider whether this matter actually comes under my department.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question that I wanted to ask the Minister of Fisheries, but in his absence perhaps someone on the other side will take notice of it. Having in mind the opening of the seal hunting season I wonder whether the minister would indicate, in view of the public's concern, if representatives of the humane societies are being given access to the seal hunting grounds, and whether there will be any new regulations to meet the situation?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of this matter and probably give an answer tomorrow.
March 18, 1968


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I had been hoping to direct a question to the Secretary of State. On Wednesday last the hon. lady was good enough to say she would seek to ascertain the reason my question No. 727 had not yet been answered. I am wondering whether the hon. lady has obtained the information necessary in order that this question can be answered.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it will probably be answered later this week.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before or after adjournment?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Depending on whether we adjourn early or late.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Would the right hon. gentleman be good enough to take a look at question No. 727 and see if he does not agree with me that it specifically asks whether certain information is in the possession of the government, and, if so, that that information be given. Would the right hon. gentleman take a look at this question and see that the rules and customs of this house are maintained and that the privileges of members are protected by giving an answer to it without further delay?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already looked at it along with other questions, and I should like to point out that many more questions have been answered in this session of parliament than in any other session in our history.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was asking the Prime Minister whether he would see to it that this record is not spoiled by failing to answer question No. 727.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, and it arises from his answer last week to my question regarding expansion of the operations of the area development agency to all parts of Atlantic Canada. Would the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry now state whether new legislation or any changes to the regulations are being proposed and, if so, when?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry with reference to the affirmative answer given to the hon. member for Halifax, as reported at page 7468 of Hansard, with respect to the designated areas in the maritimes. In view of the great interest and the new optimism this affirmative answer has created, will the minister say whether he would welcome new approaches by the mayors of the cities affected in this matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member for Halifax has been scooped on his question, notice of which he gave me earlier. The answer to both interrogations is the same. The most recent report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has not disclosed any new information or any new consideration which would lead to a revision of the program.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question that naturally follows. Why did the minister say, as reported at page 7468, that yes, he was going to re-examine this matter of designated areas?


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


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Yes or no?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The hon. member asked the minister why the minister had said yes to a question previously asked. According to the rules this is certainly not a proper question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, by way of clarification of my answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that unless the hon. member wants to rephrase this question this matter cannot be pursued.


Thomas Miller Bell: In order to be helpful, Mr. Speaker, I will take your advice and rephrase my question. Is the minister planning any new measures or to re-examine this matter of the new designations of Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton in the maritimes?

March 18, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, consideration has been given, as promised, to the most recent report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council; and, as I say, the report has disclosed no new considerations. Consequently no changes in the program are contemplated.


Thomas Miller Bell: In other
words, Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer now is no, whereas as reported at page 7468 he said yes.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does not the fact that net migration from the Atlantic provinces reached a total of 103,000 in five years indicate there is new evidence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SOCIAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Justice has been stating government policy in his call for future welfare plans to be put on a needs test basis rather than on a basis of universality?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to consult with the minister to see whether in fact he made any such statement.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works. Two days ago the minister indicated that when the report of Colonel Churchill on the Northumberland causeway is completed the government will go ahead with its design and implement the program. Would the minister assure the members of this house that the government and officials of Prince Edward Island will be consulted before any definite decisions are made or any changes are made to the original causeway proposal?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty hypothetical question. I am not accepting the premise of the hon. member in which he

sought to summarize what I said on the subject earlier. If he would care to rephrase the latter part of his question I would be glad to answer.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister feels somewhat sensitive about this matter. However, I am not trying to play games, so I will quickly rephrase what I said. I am simply asking whether the government of Prince Edward Island will be consulted after Colonel Churchill makes his report.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, we have tried to keep the government of Prince Edward Island fully informed as to what we are doing in this matter, and to work in very close co-operation with them. I do not think it would be proper to give an undertaking that they will be consulted before we take a decision as to the detail of the design.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the answer given me by the Minister of Public Works. In the light of the statement that there might not necessarily be consultation in connection with the resumption of work on the causeway project, and in the light of the fact that changes might substantially affect the economy of Prince Edward Island, would the right hon. gentleman assure members of this house that the government of Prince Edward Island will be consulted before changes are implemented?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to confirm what the minister said in this regard, Mr. Speaker.


THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. Has the Prime Minister given consideration to advising those of his ministers who are running for the leadership of the Liberal party of the dangers and impropriety of accepting free transportation from those groups who have dealings with the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
March 18. 1968


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: My question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Now that the house has passed the supplementary estimates of his department, what further procedure is necessary in order to give effect to the promised 15 per cent raise in veteran's pensions?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: It is a matter of clearing up the supplementary estimates. Then they go to the other place for approval and royal assent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member will not pursue his question along those lines, because it would be clearly out of order to do so.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the infant mortality rate among Canadian Indians and Eskimos is one of the highest in the world, I should like to ask the minister whether the government is contemplating any special program or course of action to deal with this problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The very important question raised by the hon. member is general and wide in scope. He is really asking for a statement which I suggest should be made on motions.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind previous difficulties in obtaining answers to indicate the intention of the Department of National Health and Welfare with respect to medical care of Indian people, will the Prime Minister take the course of introducing a motion to activate the Indian affairs committee of the house so that committee might look carefully into this question?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of National Health and Welfare has already said he hopes to make a statement on this matter within a day or so.


INQUIRY AS TO PRODUCTION OF DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It relates to questions asked in the house some days ago in connection with a series of meetings which have been scheduled to deal with preparations for amendments to the Indian Act, and a document which is being prepared with respect to it. The minister indicated that he was prepared to table this document. May I ask how close we are to that event?


Arthur Laing: I had
intended to table the discussion document today, but I changed my mind and thought I would send it to all members of parliament together with a list of locations where meetings are being held and particulars of who are being invited.


Frank Howard: Is this being sent to hon. members today?


Arthur Laing: It will be in the mail tonight.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. May I ask whether the heartwarming reference to the role of the monarchy made by the Minister of Justice in Victoria a few days ago represents government policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We all, with a few exceptions, make heartwarming references to the monarchy, and I hope we shall continue to do so.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Would the Prime Minister follow the lead of the minister of consumer affairs and make a public expression of his views on the shabby treatment Vancouver is getting from the National Hockey League?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
March 18, 1968

Supply-External Affairs TRANSPORT


REPORTED BANKRUPTCIES IN CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAY TO GREAT SLAVE LAKE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has yet reached a decision on the request he received several weeks ago from hon. members asking for an investigation into the bankruptcy of construction firms which built the Great Slave Lake railway.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the most complicated files I have had to look at, and I should like a few more days in which to consider it.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it constitutes a breach of privilege for the minister to refuse to answer his mail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will consult the precedents and authorities he will see that it does not.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the clear implication in the statement by the governors of the central banks, and in view of reports from Washington that it is intended to pursue a severely deflationary policy in that country, has the minister instructed any of his officials or other economic experts in the government to prepare for the possibility of a deflationary drawback in the United States which might affect Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. emmber that this question is not in order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government house leader supplementary to the one I put to the acting leader on Friday last, as reported in Hansard at page 7699. Has the hon. gentleman yet made arrangements

for the house to deal this week with Bill C-190, to amend the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act, and possibly one or two other items which have been mentioned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, arrangements have not yet been made with respect to any of those items. Any such arrangements would depend, naturally, upon the length of time required to debate any one or all of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister call a meeting of the house leaders, or negotiate the possibility of these measures being dealt with during the present week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to do so.

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


The Chairman:: Supplementary estimates of the Department of External Affairs for 196768, vote No. 10c.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
10c-Construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, lands, equipment and furnishings, $1,464,000.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to make a few remarks, briefly I hope, on one aspect of the program of this department, much of which seems to be in a state of flux these days; at least that is my impression from the statements on various matters made by the contestants on the other side of the house. As a result I am a little confused as to the government's attitude toward a good many aspects of external affairs. Nevertheless there is one important part of this subject about which I should like to say something; it is the subject of foreign aid.
I assure the Secretary of State for External Affairs that my remarks are not intended to be critical. They are meant, rather, to be helpful.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It may be thought by some that this is a strange time to talk about external or foreign aid when we have internal financial strains, a considerable amount of unemployment, undeveloped areas in our own country, poor housing, poverty, and obviously much to do at home, more than we can hope to do satisfactorily in the immediate future. Why then
March 18, 1988

talk about foreign aid at this time? In addition we have the international monetary problem, an international crisis relating to international currency, balance of payments problems, our own exchange problems and, of course, increased foreign aid could add to these problems.
Why then do I pick a time like this to speak very earnestly to the committee on the subject of foreign aid? Clearly, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that one must. I believe that the importance of this subject places even greater emphasis on the importance of handling our own economic problems intelligently and effectively so that we are in a position to increase our foreign aid. I think it adds even greater importance to the question of the resolution of the international problems of liquidity and exchange so that the western world, the developed world as a whole, will be in a position to increase its foreign aid. Clearly we must do better at home and abroad.
I am not raising this matter today from the point of view of charity. I am raising it as a matter of enlightened self-interest. I suggest that we and all the developed countries of the world must do more than we have been doing to help with the problems of overpopulation, hunger, and distress.
To anyone who looks at the prospects they are alarming and the statistics are certainly frightening. The statistics of world economic disparity are striking. The minority of the nations which are rich, possessing about 75 per cent of the world's wealth, have only about 25 per cent of the world's population. The proportion of the total population living in the less developed countries is going up as the death rate declines and the high birth rate continues. I understand it has been estimated that by 1975 the number of dependant children in the underdeveloped nations in the southern half of the globe, children under 15 years of age, will alone equal the total population of the developed nations of the world.
But statistics themselves convey nothing of the deprivation and the suffering which render millions of lives purposeless, barren, tortured and wasted. The humanitarian arguments for improved foreign aid need no recitation but there are other arguments at least equal and perhaps even more compelling, and it is to those that I want to refer briefly.
I think it is widely accepted by those concerned with international affairs that in the
Supply-External Affairs long run the growing disparities of economic status of people will lead to increased conflict and violence in international politics. I think it is agreed that the pressures of poverty are explosive, and it is natural that these pressures become even more intense when the growth of population and of expectation persistently outstrip the growth of food supplies, the growth of productivity and the growth in opportunity.
I say that if we are serious in our pursuit of peace we must confront the causes of conflict. To the degree that a peaceful world is essential to our own growth and expansion, and surely it is, we must be prepared to invest in the long-range stability and growth of the less developed nations. Therefore if we might choose to ignore the moral imperatives of inequality we cannot escape the economic and political consequences if the inequality persists and even grows. To decline to accept our responsibility to less developed countries is to invite a violence from which we will all certainly suffer.
Our aim must not be merely to increase the flow of funds, because funds can be as badly spent abroad as they are sometimes at home, though I am not making anything of that. Other countries have had unfortunate experiences with foreign aid which produced only rusting machinery and sometimes ended up in Swiss bank accounts. Our real success will be registered not simply in terms of the dollars we spend but in terms of the development which Canadian aid makes possible. Our guiding concern must be to promote those aid programs which will encourage the kind of capital investment necessary to create permanent increases in national income in the country assisted.
Our goal must be growth. I believe that an approach based on improving the rate of growth and the rate of productivity of less developed nations will make sense to most Canadians because it is a principle we have applied here at home. We are one of the few countries in the world which, after all, was formed with has followed the determination to use the wealth of the whole community to improve the productivity of the parts. We have not altogether succeeded but we have embodied this principle in our approach to equalization throughout our own country. We have followed that practice in Canada in the long run interests of all of us. Now that must be the basis of our approach to international aid.
7736
March 18, 1968

Supply-External Affairs
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I understand and believe Canada's external aid program has improved in recent years. But I do not think we yet have any real cause for satisfaction when we compare our record with others, and certainly with the requirements of the countries depending upon us for assistance. We do not have any particular cause for pride when we compare our record with those of other developed countries. I think that until recent years we have been behind but I understand we have recently been coming forward.
If we are to assume our proper role in the international community I believe we must assign a high priority to foreign aid. I do not think we can regard it as a luxury or as a symbol of our generosity or as a means to prime the pumps of international trade. Instead I think we should see it as a very vital element along with trade, finance, defence, and other functions in an integrated Canadian foreign policy.
It is misleading to suggest there is any necessary conflict between the requirements of defence and diplomacy and the requirements of foreign aid. They surely share the common goals of international peace and security.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Obviously security includes the maintenance of an efficient military force and traditional military activity. But surely it also includes the sort of thing I am talking about, and where the purposes are common surely it can be possible to develop policies which are consistent and complementary.
As a beginning to a new approach to foreign aid we must abandon the idea that in a world of major powers the contribution of a relatively small country like Canada can never amount to very much. On the contrary,
I think we have many advantages which the large powers do not share.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
As I understand it, and the distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs will correct me if I am wrong, the total flow of external resources available as aid from the developed countries of the world has actually gone down in real terms over the last five years. I am not speaking about Canada but about the developed nations as a whole. As a percentage of the gross national product of the wealthier countries foreign aid has also gone down. It has gone down owing to the fact that over this period of five years the


interest payments and the debt charges generally that the underdeveloped countries have had to pay have been eating more and more into the gross assistance they have been receiving, thereby further reducing the net assistance they have been receiving. In addition, there have been frequent and substantial erosions of prices of important primary products upon which the countries depend. I suggest, of course, that we must do more, as Mr. Strong has suggested, in terms of management effectiveness on the part of the donor and on the part of the recipient countries. We must give this high priority in order to help combat the cynicism and disillusionment with regard to external aid. I think that we must also do all we can to improve the terms of trade and opportunities for trade between the underdeveloped nations and the developed nations. I believe also that we should do all we can in association with other developed countries to reduce the very wide fluctuations which exist in respect of the foreign exchange earnings of these countries over relatively short periods of time. It would seem to be obvious that over the whole field we must do more to support research in the area of aid in terms of where it can be most effective in respect of results achieved and so on.
I do not oversimplify this problem, Mr. Chairman. I do not think for a moment that it will be simple to reduce substantially the disparity between the underdeveloped and the developed nations or that anyone has a simple cure-all in this regard. I do suggest, however, that we must make a greater effort than we have been making and must invite our friends and allies to make a greater effort also. I repeat again that to do this we must achieve a certain rate of growth in our own economy. But I understand that to double the net flow of assistance to the less developed countries would require only the increase in the gross national product which the major donor countries as a whole achieve every seven or eight weeks. In other words, in order to double the amount of assistance coming from the highly developed countries of the western world it would be necessary only to allocate the increase in gross national product that we achieve over a two-month period. The central question which confronts us and all developed countries, therefore, is whether or not we have the will and the sense of priority to do this.
I understand that our aid now is running at the rate of about three-fifths of one per cent
March 18, 1968

March 18, 1368
Supply-External Affairs fervently hope for a solution and we should all work for a solution to eliminate the tragic suffering. However, I suspect that the historian writing in the year 2050 will regard the tragedy of Viet Nam as being in fact overwhelmed in importance by the tragic neglect of the underdeveloped world in our day and generation and the resulting contribution we will all have made to the forces of hunger, frustration, anger and catastrophe. I suspect that the historian of the future will note how ready we all are to protest in righteous indignation when we see some act of injustice perpetrated in another part of the world. No doubt our indignation is usually well placed and perhaps sometimes it does some good. No doubt it often makes us feel better, and it costs so little to protest in comparison with doing something effective to reduce the causes of desperation and incipient violence in the world.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say at the outset that I was very happy to hear the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the emphasis he has put on the importance of increased economic or external aid. I agree with him that we are not doing enough and I hope that his words and the views of this house will be translated into a larger and more effective system of external aid. Some of my colleagues may discuss this matter further. I wish to discuss two matters of great importance at this moment in international affairs, and I refer to the NORAD treaty and the war in Viet Nam.
To deal first with perhaps the less important of the two, the question of NORAD, the government has indicated quite clearly its intention to renew the NORAD agreement which expires in May of this year. The other day I was questioning the Secretary of State for External Affairs during a committee meeting about what commitments Canada would be involved in by reason of the renewal of the NORAD agreement. The minister suggested, I think not before the committee but in a speech he made later, that those who questioned the need for Canada to unite with the United States in a joint scheme for defence against the manned bomber were irresponsible. Without, I hope, being at all offensive to the minister I want to throw the charge of irresponsibility right back at him. I cannot imagine anything more irresponsible than the course being pursued by the minister and, the government at this present time.
The government proposes to involve the Canadian people in a continuing expenditure

of approximately $140 million a year on an anti-bomber defence. I know very well that the minister says that NORAD does not involve Canada in any actual or precise commitment. This no doubt is legally correct, but this country and this house are entitled to something more than mere legal quibbling. Of course the minister knows that the renewal of the NORAD agreement involves a moral obligation to continue the present anti-bomber defence and probably a new system of antibomber defence which may be substituted for the present system at the instance of the United States. Yet this lame duck government proposes, without any attempt to consult parliament, to impose an onerous burden on the backs of the Canadian people. A conservative estimate of that burden is $1 billion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to convey the impression that the government does not intend to put the matter before parliament. This question was asked of the Prime Minister by my hon. friend and he said that the government had to take its responsibility but that it would submit its policy to parliament, as we would always do in respect of these matters.


Mr. Winch:: As a fait accompli.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, the minister will have the opportunity to answer me. I do not regard what he has said as a question. If he wishes to ask a question I would rather he do so. If he does not I hope he will make his speech later. I have only so much time to present my point.
In answer to the minister's comment let me say in all seriousness that of course the government will come to the house after the fait accompli, after the new agreement is signed, and say that they want a vote of confidence on foreign policy. Assuming that we are not prepared at that time to turn out the government, the house will be bound to accept what has been done in its name. I suggest it is irresponsible on the part of the government to commit us to this type of expenditure or treaty, binding us to a $1 billion burden in the future, without first of all fully explaining the matter to this house. The government has failed to do this.
The minister pretends it is obvious that there is a continuing threat from manned bombers; yet neither he nor any member of the government deigns to discuss whether or not there is a real threat. The former minister
March 18. 1968

of national defence, now Minister of Transport, knows better. As long ago as March of 1964 the minister referred in a white paper to the diminishing threat of the manned bomber.
In 1966, less than three years ago, as I indicated to the house last week, Mr. McNamara said that our anti-bomber defence was vulnerable to missile attack, that the threat of manned bombers had never developed as anticipated and, to use Mr. McNamara's own words, "without an unattainable A.B.M. system no air defence system could provide significant damage limiting capabilities". The damage limiting capability is the only purpose there could possibly be for any air defence system. I suggest that if it is impossible to provide such a system without the installation of an A.B.M. system, which Mr. McNamara says is unattainable, what he is saying in plain English is that the system is a waste of money and cannot perform the purpose for which it is designed. If this is so, who is irresponsible, the person who questions this useless waste of money or the government which is about to saddle the Canadian people with it without even a statement to parliament or an adequate debate on the subject? The minister of course, tries to cover up the matter by misrepresenting his critics. He suggests that those who oppose this antibomber system are thereby opposed to any contribution to the air defence of North America or any co-operation with the United States of America. Let me ask if there is any reasonable person who is opposing any form of air defence or co-operation with the United States of America? There is, of course, no one who does so. The critics of the antibomber defence system do not say that Canada should not contribute to the surveillance of the air space of North America. We do not say, if there is any reason to do so, that it should not be done in co-operation with the United States.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The minister suggests that to protect Canadian sovereignty it is necessary that Canada should participate in this United States anti-bomber defence. But if there is no real bomber threat-and it is to this that I direct the attention of the minister-what has an expensive system to repel it got to do with Canadian sovereignty? The precise reverse is true. If Canada is to be a genuinely sovereign nation then she must question for herself and use her own judgment as to the utility of proposed defensive systems and she must be
Supply-External Affairs prepared to refuse to accept blindly the judgment of the Pentagon. This we must do if we are to have a true understanding of Canadian sovereignty and not merely accept systems of this sort at the request of others.
But the all-important issue in international affairs today is not NORAD; it is Viet Nam. I want to discuss Canada's responsibility in regard to Viet Nam. There is perhaps one aspect of this tragic situation from which we can draw some comfort. It is that television and modern means of communication have brought the horror and futility of war closer to the minds and hearts of people all over the world than ever before. All over the world today people are discussing with deep concern the war in Viet Nam. Out of this concern I believe there is growing, and it will grow especially among the younger generation, a new determination to abolish war as an institution, a new realization that in the nuclear world we must construct a world community or perish. Perhaps that is a Utopian aspiration. Let us concentrate instead on the immediate problems of the war in Viet Nam, because if we do not end that war there will not be much future for the human race to speculate about.
We have been absorbed in this house in the last few weeks in the discussion of economic and financial affairs. There are some who are bored when we insist on discussing Viet Nam. Yet today, quite apart from historical questions, quite apart from the individual agony of those who are dying, quite apart from the threat to world peace, the very financial crisis we have been discussing, which is faced by the whole western world, finds its roots in the enormous waste of resources in Viet Nam on the part of the world's wealthiest nation.
The Minister of Finance reminded us of this the other day. I say to this committee that the struggle in the jungles, swamps and mountains of that remote nation in southeast Asia is closely linked with the destiny of all of us. We in this party have therefore no apology to make for the fact that for many years we have through continuous questions and interventions in debate tried to keep to the fore what we think is Canada's responsibility in connection with the war.
This tragic, barbarous war goes on in the name of the defence of freedom of a nation from the threat of communism. The people of that nation are being destroyed by the tremendous weight of fire power. Their way of life is being corrupted and ruined. Although
7740	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs half a million American troops have been sent to Viet Nam, General Westmoreland is calling for another 200,000, to be matched no doubt by further escalation on the other side. The military victory promised so often by optimistic American generals and politicians is no closer. The weight of bombs dropped on Viet Nam, both North and South, exceeds the bombing of all previous wars. But it is still not enough; further escalation is advocated. Yet the U.S.S.R. and China have made it clear, however unwillingly, that they are prepared to compete in giving military aid to North Viet Nam.
For every American escalation there promises to be a counter-escalation. The situation has even gone so far that there are rumours of demands for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Viet Nam. Such use has been described by the Prime Minister, amongst others, as madness. But who is sure that madness will not take over as the war continues and frustration grows? The Viet Nam situation poisons international relations throughout the world. Progress to a detente in Europe is suspended. I want to sum up the situation by quoting the words of a well known American historian and writer, Theodore Draper. These words come from an article in Commentary of March, 1968:
The American war in Viet Nam-
I emphasize the words, "The American war in Viet Nam."
-is a political debacle, a military folly and a moral disgrace. It has become a war to save American pride and prestige, not to save the Vietnamese people from communism or anything else. As long as the only thing that stands between the Vietnamese people and communism is the huge American army of occupation, the U.S. is buying time for South Viet Nam at exorbitant cost. The conditions which breed anti-Americanism are being burned into the Vietnamese consciousness more and more deeply and as matters stand now the communists will be the long term beneficiaries.
That is precisely the viewpoint that we in this party take with respect to the continuation of the war, namely, that it is aiding the cause of communism and taking away from the cause of American or western security. On November 16 the external affairs committee had before it as a witness a Buddhist monk, Mr. Thick Nhat Hanh, formerly director of the School of Youth for Social Services in Saigon, I think. He told our committee that the sheer weight of physical suffering is almost beyond comprehension and the tragedy is increased by the fact that probably well over half the casualties are civilians and

DEBATES	March 18, 19S8
children. There had been, he said, a great deal of talk about peace and negotiations for peace but there has been very little reality behind it.
We in this party have clearly and consistently stated our view that American intervention in what was essentially a civil war has been without moral or legal justification. What is more, from the beginning we have said that it was doomed to futility. We have felt that so far from stopping communism, which was its avowed aim, it has been of tremendous aid to communism. Far from adding to American security it has undermined and will continue to undermine American security. The effort by force of foreign arms to dictate the future of Viet Nam has been a mistake, indeed, a hideous and tragic mistake.
However, it may be said that there is not much to be gained by discussing the past. One's emphasis should be on ending the war. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated on numerous occasions, and I heartily agree with him, there is no way to end the war except by negotiation, or possibly by the total extermination of the people of Viet Nam, although I doubt if that would really end the war. It can be ended in only one way, by negotiation.
At the federal convention of the New Democratic party held in July we made this statement:
We join with U Thant, with world religious leaders and with leading Americans in urging the unconditional cessation of the bombing of North Viet Nam as an essential preliminary to negotiations. We urge the government in Hanoi to indicate clearly its willingness to enter into negotiations when the bombing has ceased.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Since that date the secretary general of the United Nations has sounded out opinion in many countries, and he said quite recently that, in his opinion, if the bombing were stopped North Viet Nam would enter into meaningful negotiations within two weeks. Other sources have reported the same thing from Hanoi, namely, that Hanoi is ready to negotiate if the bombing is stopped. I say that despite the many protestations of a desire to negotiate on the part of the United States administration it has not stopped the bombing of North Viet Nam, and therefore the onus for the failure to negotiate seems to us to rest directly on the United States administration.
March 18, 1968

What then can be done to change the attitude of the United States administration? Obviously the responsibility for a change rests upon the American people themselves. We can urge the Americans to put pressure on their government, and we do not think we would be appealing in vain. According to a recent Gallup poll, 49 per cent of the American people now believe that the American intervention in Viet Nam was a mistake. We, in this party salute the courageous stand of Senator McCarthy against the administration. We rejoice at the support he is getting. We acknowledge that many distinguished senators and writers in the United States have urged a change in policy. We know that the American churches have spoken out. We know that a great number of the younger generation in the United States vigorously oppose the war. We recognize the difficulty in wartime of opposing government policies, and the charges of disloyalty and lack of patriotism which result. We know that it is difficult for a great and powerful country to admit that it is wrong. To do so is to think the unthinkable, and this of course is no easy operation. But I want to say that the friends of the United States, and they include the vast majority of the Canadian people, should not be afraid to make it clear where they stand on the question of ending the war in Viet Nam.
To admit a mistake and to rectify it does not always cause a great nation to lose prestige. Algeria, as many hon. members know, was for many Frenchmen far closer to their vital interests and the essential prestige of France than Viet Nam can ever be to the United States. French lives and French treasure were spent on an effort to maintain the proposition that Algeria was an integral part of France. Yet General de Gaulle, the incarnation of French pride and French nationalism, as I think he would call himself, pulled France out of Algeria. Has the prestige of France suffered by reason of this act of belated wisdom? Is the great United States of America desirous of lagging behind General de Gaulle in statesmanship because of its national pride? I suggest that the people of the United States can and will persuade their government to change its course, and I think it is up to us, their friends, to urge them to do so.
Another thing that could be done, which has been recommended in questions put in the house by my colleague and friend the hon. member for York South, is to ask that this
Supply-External Affairs matter be inscribed on the agenda of the security council. It is true, of course, that the security council perhaps cannot take action. It is true that North Viet Nam is not a member of the United Nations and does not acknowledge it jurisdiction. But the security council is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the peace of the world. At this crucial moment of threatened escalation, the security council could be the voice of the world's morality, if not legal authority, and we urge that this matter be brought forward for immediate discussion there.
We realize that dissent, however mildly or vigorously expressed, is not enough. It is not enough for us to recommend action to others, and Canada, despite the mild dissent expressed recently in government pronouncements on the subject of Viet Nam, is itself implicated in the conflict. It is implicated by the growing sales of war materials under the defence production sharing agreement. Canada is profiting from the war and compromising her neutrality. Under the defence production sharing agreement no control by means of export permits is exercised in respect of the use or dissemination of Canadian war materials. There is not the slightest doubt that much of the war material exported without control and without any attempt to impose control is finding its way into the hands of one side in the fighting in Viet Nam.
The original defence production sharing agreement was undoubtedly partly for Canada's benefit. It was a natural agreement to make with a close ally. But Canada is not and cannot be the ally of the United States in Viet Nam, and I suggest we must retake control over our exports of war materials. There is only one way to do it and that is by abrogating the defence production sharing agreement.
Some people will say that this is no more than a gesture and will in no way slow down or affect United States operations in Viet Nam. This may be true, but I think it would be an extremely important gesture. It would at least make clear to the United States government and people that Canada is prepared to do something to indicate that she is not an ally in the disastrous involvement of the United States in Viet Nam. I have no doubt it would cause a lot of hard feeling in administration circles but I believe that in the long run it would earn the respect of the American people.
7742	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs
If this is not enough we must look further. We in Canada control certain strategic materials. If the war continues we can and should impose selective embargoes on such materials going into a war which we cannot approve. It may be said that such an action would be unprecedented treatment of an ally. This is not so. Canada has already limited the export of strategic materials to Portugal, one of our NATO allies, on the ground that these materials might be used in colonial wars in Africa rather than for NATO purposes. Someone might say that the United States is not Portugal, and I agree, but it was only the other day that the Prime Minister, in referring to Gabon and France, said that the Canadian government does not distinguish between large and small nations in such matters. I suggest that we may well have the obligation to show what we believe and to act in accordance with the principles we have enunciated with regard to Viet Nam by taking the steps I suggest.
To sum up I wish to quote the words of a recent resolution passed by the federal council of my party because I think they represent the view which we want to put before the Canadian people. It reads as follows:
Canada should not be an accomplice in an undeclared war that is destroying a people, endangering the peace of the world, poisoning international relations, and is against the interests not only of Viet Nam and Asia but of the United States and of the whole world.
We make this pronouncement as the firmest friends of the United States because we believe that it is in their interests, in our interests and in the world's interests that they stop the bombing, get on with the negotiations and put an end to this disastrous war.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I realize that we are dealing with the year-end estimates and while we are grateful for this opportunity to speak on external affairs, this is not the time for a prolonged debate. I had intended to be brief but in view of some of the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Greenwood I think it is necessary that I add a few remarks regarding Viet Nam at least to balance the record. As a matter of fact, I was quite amused as I listened to the hon. member's passionate appeal on behalf of Viet Nam, but I respect his sincerity. However, I fail to understand how he could overlook certain facts which are completely at odds with the argument he has advanced. I remind him that it was not the United States that started the Viet Nam war

DEBATES	March 18, 1968
any more than it was the United States that started the Korean war.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
When we look at the facts we must look at them for all sides. There is no one in this house who does not want peace. There is no nation in the world, except probably some communist nations which are making use of strategic revolutionary wars such as the one in Viet Nam, that does not want peace. But we will never have peace in the world by blithely following along with what seems to be the strategy of communist nations in abetting revolutionary wars in order to further their own aims. They seek to replace what they call the imperialistic, colonial western world.
It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister of Great Britain, who more or less follows the same ideological philosophy as the New Democratic party, has repeatedly taken a stand with the United States in its policy of containment so far as the communists are concerned in southeast Asia. Even the former foreign minister of Great Britain, who resigned the other day not over a difference in foreign policy but because he had not been consulted by the prime minister on financial policy, took the same general stand when he had responsibility in this field. I was interested also in reading the other day that Mr. Edward Heath, the leader of the Conservative party, had sounded a warning to the free world during a speech in parliament. He said that if the United States should now pull out of Viet Nam the immediate consequence would be increased Russian pressure on the Middle East and Berlin. In addition, he said that a defeat or a withdrawal from Viet Nam would weaken American morale and cause political pressures toward a withdrawal from world responsibility, bringing serious repercussions in regard to the United States role in Europe. He went on to say:
If the United States will were to break, the impact on South Viet Nam of even further slaughter would be obvious, but the impact on southeast Asia would be just as wide.
It is interesting in this regard to note that nothing is said by the New Democratic party about the tens of thousands who lost their lives in the recent New Year's offensive by North Viet Nam. This occurred at a time when the people in the towns and cities thought they were celebrating the New Year's truce. People were literally slaughtered
March 18, 1968	COMMONS
wholesale, but nothing is said about that. Mr. Heath went on to say:
This is where the question comes back to our door-step .. . This is the importance of what is happening out in the Far East, not only to those likely to be affected but to this country.
There are many responsible people in the world who realize that the situation in Viet Nam is a very complicated one. I would be the first to agree that we cannot go on as we are going now. As soon as possible a means must be found to stop the warfare there. But I say also that the war will never be solved simply by the withdrawal of the United States and permitting communist North Viet Nam to take over the 14 million people in South Viet Nam without any regard for their sovereignty.
It is very interesting also that as a result of the recent offensive in Viet Nam the communist movement in southeast Asia has really overstepped itself. The domino theory is working but it is working in reverse. The national leaders of countries fronting on communist China are now recognizing, if they did not recognize it before, that it is not American imperialism but communist aggression that they face in Viet Nam. Viet Nam is simply the theatre of conflict between the two world forces of communism and democracy. They are locked together in a life and death struggle.
I had occasion last year to visit most of the countries fronting on communist China. I talked to the heads of government and various officials. In no case, all the way from Japan to Malaysia, did I find any government leader expressing the belief that the problem would be solved by the United States pulling out of South Viet Nam. In fact, when Britain decided to remove her own forces from southeast Asia we saw how rapidly some of the leaders of these southeast Asian countries asked Great Britain not to move out because she would be leaving a vacuum there that could not easily be filled. I am thinking particularly of the prime minister of Singapore who, as the leader of that strategic area, understands communist policies in that part of the world. These countries will be influenced by recent communist activities in northern Laos, in Thailand and even in little Cambodia. They realize that what the hon. member for Greenwood would describe as United States aggression in South Viet Nam is in reality communist aggression which is evidencing itself in those countries as well.
DEBATES	7743
Supply-External Affairs
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, these countries recognize that freedom is at stake not only for the 14 million people of South Viet Nam but also for the 250 million people in the countries along the rim of China. They do not want communism but they do not have the resources to defend themselves against it. The most immoral thing the allied nations could do in the light of the developments in Asia today would be to abandon these people, thus rewarding communist aggression by sacrificing the freedom of these people. So, Mr. Chairman, as I say there are two sides to this question. While we want peace, and we in Canada must use the peculiar position we hold in the world to work for peace, we cannot believe we will ever gain peace by compromising the rights of individuals and our respect for autonomous nations. All these things should be guaranteed to such nations, no matter how small or how strong they may be.
Leaving that subject, Mr. Chairman, I must say how pleased I was to hear the remarks made by the leader of the official opposition this afternoon in expressing the policy of his party with regard to foreign aid. I believe this is a very vital subject. Our aid could be of a very unique type. While we can learn from the mistakes that have been committed by wealthier countries, we are not yet carrying our full responsibility in regard to the underdeveloped countries.
We have heard it said many times in recent months that the greatest problem in this country is unity. I should like to say a few words to those people who believe that national unity is our major problem at this criticial point in our history. I am convinced that we will find the problem of unity far less acute if we face up to the challenge to Canada to play her true part in the world family of nations. We are a nation such as every ex-colony would want to be. We have inherited stable and sometimes respected but sometimes not so respected institutions. But at least we certainly have greater stability of government than most nations in the world. Our people have the education and skills that make the difference between poverty and wealth in the industrialized world of today. One third of the world's people faces starvation and famine and another third is undernourished but we in Canada have abundance. Our problem is not how to produce wealth but how to bring it to those in our own land and elsewhere who are in need of it

March 18, 1968
Supply-External Affairs
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Our nation is living proof that people do not have to accept a police state in order to have enough to eat. It is living proof that personal freedom and private initiative can deliver the goods while the best laid five-year plans of other nations end in failure. Across the world the people of the underdeveloped nations, the former colonies, can see in our nation how development can take place under freedom. We in Canada have a responsibility to make known to these people on the practical level the secrets of our success. It is up to us to demonstrate with action, not just with words, that our way of life, our dedication to service, which have been the means of providing us with so much, will also do likewise for them.
What we teach and demonstrate abroad, Mr. Chairman, we must substantiate at home. I do not think it is too ideal an objective when I say I believe Canada can lead the world in recovering a sense of unity among peoples. However, such unity will only be recovered by the rediscovery of conscience and an awareness of our own responsibility to each other. Canadians as a people must come to realize the changing character of the world and must help their country to play a leading role in resolving some of the great questions facing the future of man. Only if the individual citizen is concerned and involved with the problems of the world will his nation do anything of significance. Therefore every citizen has an obligation to inform himself about the world and, in one way or another, become involved in it. I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, despite his activities in his party's leadership contest, will not cease to give attention to this very important aspect of not only developing a stronger aid program but of making Canadians themselves aware of their responsibilities in this field.
I should like to remind the members of this committee of a statement made by our own director of external aid not too long ago. Just before the close of centennial year he said:
As we near the beginning of our second century as a nation, we are struggling to find a sense of purpose to unite us. It is not in economic terms that we justify our nationhood ... I believe that, by focusing the interest of Canadians in every walk of life and mobilizing the resources they represent to expand Canada's participation in the processes of international development, a new dynamic dimension can be brought into play in Canadian life.
I support that statement, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a very succinct definition of our

responsibility at this time. Therefore I repeat that I appreciated the words of the Leader of the Official Opposition this afternoon as he expressed himself on this important topic.
I had not intended to deal at length with foreign policy but there are a couple of matters I should like to put before the minister in connection with Africa. You will forgive me, Mr. Chairman, for speaking about Africa but Africa claims the biggest part of my adult life. I am concerned about some of the things happening there and I do not believe that the people of Canada or the members of this house are fully aware of them.
We talk about the suffering in Viet Nam and the loss of life as the result of the terrible war being carried on there. But little do we realize that probably twice as many people during the last year alone lost their lives in the little secessionist country of Biafra. The other day we heard the very able testimony given by Dr. Johnson of the Presbyterian church when he outlined his experiences both in Biafra and Nigeria, having met officials in both areas. No news is given to the outside world about what is happening there but I would say that the horror and suffering taking place there at the present time are far worse than in Viet Nam. That does not mean that I condone the horror and suffering in Viet Nam. I just want to emphasize that in Nigeria we had a situation that we all felt was ideal. We felt it was the one place in colonial Africa where we could expect democracy to take firm root. However, the country has now been torn in half as the result of several military coups and a wholesale massacre by evil people.
Last year, several million people fled Nigeria and returned to their native land in eastern Nigeria. However, they have now found themselves locked in terrible slaughter without even the benefit of any kind of medical services, sanitation or help from the outside world. Surely something can be done about this situation. It is not good enough to dismiss it as an internal matter in Nigeria. It is not good enough to say that the United Nations has no responsibility in this situation. Are we going to see genocide on a scale not seen since world war II committed before the eyes of the world, with nobody saying or doing anything about it?
We are rightly proud of our own Arnold Smith who is secretary general of the Commonwealth Association. He is endeavouring to do something in this regard. However, it seems to me that Canada ought to be moving directly into this situation. We should use the
March 18, 1968



confidence and good will that we have in Nigeria and among many of those on the Bia-fran side of the border in order to see whether some compromise, some arrangement or negotiation can be worked out. As Dr. Johnson told the external affairs committee the other day, having talked to leaders on both sides, these two peoples are fighting a war that neither wants and which they hope can be solved between themselves. Yet the war continues from week to week and from month to month.
There is one other area in Africa to which I should like to draw the attention of the committee, an area where likewise there have been wholesale murders during the last few years and nothing much has been said about them in the press. In fact, I do not think any mention of this situation has been made in this chamber. I speak of the Sudan. Southern Sudan, better known as Upper Sudan because it is nearer the head waters of the Nile, is inhabited by negroid people who through the centuries and particularly in recent years have not had the opportunities of those who live in Lower Sudan. They have suffered discrimination and persecution by the Arabs who, basically, control the government in Lower Sudan.
While we cannot estimate the numbers of people who have lost their lives in this country during the last two or three years, the number must run into the tens of thousands. I know that country well. I also knew many of the people who have lost their lives. I know the circumstances in which they lived and am aware of some of the terrible situations that have been permitted to develop as one group of people has tried to force its wishes upon another group less equipped and able to defend themselves. I say that the United Nations, the "have" nations of the world, cannot be excused, before the judgment seat of the Almighty, their disinterest and apparent complete lack of concern about what has taken place and is continuing to take place in the Sudan.
There is one other question with respect to Africa on which I want to touch. While the particular area concerned is not at the present time involved in what might be described as warfare, as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Russian policy of domination of the Mediterranean sufficient arms and military equipment, sophisticated to the nth degree and all basic tools of war, have been moved into Algeria to equip every
Supply-External Affairs nation on the continent of Africa with a reasonable size defence force. So sophisticated is some of the equipment which has been shipped there in recent months that it is impossible to believe Algerians are capable of operating it. This means that Russian technicians are in the country, even as they are in Egypt. We may even assume that the losses of military supplies and equipment incurred by Egypt in the five-day war with Israel a year ago have already been replaced.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
What will happen if this kind of thing continues? How can we expect to maintain world peace if the tools of war are being assembled as they are in Algeria at the present time? There can be no doubt that the Russians are doing this intending to use the brute force of military strength to accomplish their aims in Africa and in the Mediterranean area. One can also assume, I believe, that their intentions go much farther, because the kind of concentration of military force I have described cannot be justified on any other hypothesis.
Yet we do nothing about all this. We talk about Viet Nam and decry United States policy. We blame the United States for everything that has gone wrong in the world today. The truth of the matter is that but for the United States and its actions some of us here would not have the privilege of standing up today to speak in perfect freedom as we are accustomed to do in Canada. As we look at the world today and search our consciences in the quest for peace we ought rather to be concerned about the policies of certain nations which would pose as our friends but which at the same time are seeking to destroy the way of life all of us hold dear and which Canada, as the hope, I believe, of every free nation in the world, must always strive to preserve.


Mr. Maiheson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express a few of my own views on this important area of our responsibility and in doing so I should like to say that anything I say is certainly only an expression of my personal views; I hope they are shared by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the administration, but I do not know. I certainly intend to express only what are my own views.
Perhaps I am being a little nostalgic when I remind members of the house of the year 1941. I remember the feeling of so many
7746	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs Canadians in the 1st division in 1940 and 1941 when many of the wise people of the world seemed to feel that the British were, after all, rather foolish in their objection to the mighty power which confronted them and that perhaps the proper thing to do was to accept the presence in Europe of a great military force which was bound to prevail. At that time there was a very lonely feeling on the part of those who were in uniform in the United Kingdom, along with the gallant civilians who perhaps contributed more to victory in the long run than the soldiers ever did.
Perhaps the most encouraging thing for us in those dark and terrible days was that a young, intelligent, idealistic American by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas stood up on two or three occasions and told the people of the United States that there was a conflict of far reaching proportions which could not be avoided. He made a dramatic speech approximately eight months before Pearl Harbour; it was not very popular in Texas, as was indicated by his political defeat.
In the course of his public career Lyndon Baines Johnson had served in the defence area. He had studied defence and, in particular, he had studied problems relating to American naval responsibility. In 1939 there was a very strong group of isolationists in the United States. They were honest but, in my opinion, deluded peace seekers who were urging the Roosevelt administration to cut down sharply its responsibilities in the Pacific. And Lyndon Johnson, coming from this rather isolationist part of the United States, helped lead the fight in the house against this profoundly shortsighted proposal. In 1941 he stood out as one of the great people who defended the lend-lease program, described by Winston Churchill as the most unsordid act of high policy in human history. I remember it was Johnson who identified himself with us at a time when we believed we were contributing something for mankind. I do not think there were many Canadians who really thought they were serving a Canadian interest or a British interest or a western interest; they really believed that the military solution was one which could not be avoided. President Johnson, when I saw him a few days ago in Washington, looked whiter than he did when we met him at Great Falls, Montana for the ceremonial opening of the Columbia dam project, but it appears to me that this man has 
DEBATES	March 18. 1968
played the part of a real man in world history and that he will go down as a great big man, the kind of man Texas might be expected to produce.
I spent some time months ago comparing the contribution, year by year, in public affairs of two personalities, Ho Chi Minh and Lyndon Baines Johnson. What a contrast there is between these two persons. I do not have the material with me on Ho-that, of course, is not his real name; he is of Chinese origin and his real name, I believe, is Al-Quoc. He was very active in Paris with the radical socialist party. He went to the U.S.S.R. in 1924 and became active there. He took part in the Chinese revolution of 1925-27. In 1927 he went to Siam, and I have talked to people in Bangkok who well remember his revolutionary activities there. He was imprisoned for his conduct in Hong Kong in 1931 and there are not many people in the east who forget what he stood for then. I think it is fair to say that this man has raised hell wherever he has gone over his rather long lifetime. I think his influence has been destructive.
I have read a great deal of the thoughts of Chairman Mao. I have read most of the extended five volume series. And it seems to me that Ho Chi Minh represents a practical, modern exponent of the revolutionary thoughts of Chairman Mao and his military lieutenant Lin Piao. Many of the essentially destructive and hurtful ideas of Mao are applied by Ho directly from the works of the Chinese leader. My view is that Chairman Mao is dated inasmuch as Marxian cliches are no longer relevant or applicable to the modern world.
I am glad the Leader of the Opposition prefaced his remarks by dilating for a few minutes on the important question of external aid. This is an area in which we in the west can even now claim some measure of success. What country has more to its credit than the United States? I would commend hon. members to look at the March 11 issue of the United States News and World Report where they will find an article headed: "Amazing Success Story In Asia". What do we find in Asia? Part of the story reads:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
You see growing prosperity. Political stability is the rule, not the exception. You see new cities on what used to be swampland. You see Asians who are bigger and better-dressed.
March 18, 1968

Many of them were discouraged 15 years ago. They had very little hope. Now the trend is assuredly against the communists and not with them as it used to be. Fifteen years ago the communists were flushed with victories at home. They were on the march in Korea. Britain was fighting communist guerrillas in Malaysia.
I well remember going with a senior official of the government at Kuala Lumpur to look at the thousands and thousands of names that appeared on the memorials to the dead, the names of the Malaysians who gave their lives, and of the Indians and the British. It was a very sad sight. This was the result of 12 years of communist aggression, exactly what is now going on as a consequence of the invasion by North Viet Nam into the south. This is exactly the same pattern.
I am very glad that recently an hon. member referred to Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. He is a youngish man. If anything, I suppose it could be said that he is of the "new wave." If anything he could be characterized as of the left. He is a man who was superbly educated in Britain but he is a man who knows Asia and knows it with the eyes and the ears of a person who is of Chinese origin. Lee Kuan Yew is not under any misapprehension as to what is going on. I quote from a report in the London Sunday Times of January 21 of this year:
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, the leading Asian socialist, the ablest of the Southeast Asian leaders, and certainly no American puppet, has said that the U.S. action in Viet Nam "gave the other Asians the chance" to stand on their own feet and to find their own way. He came to Washington just the other day, primarily because he had wrongly begun to fear that the U.S. would lose heart and patience before finishing the job.
The writer of this newspaper report said:
I talked with him at some length, and he made no bones about his conviction that the U.S. intervention in Viet Nam had been the crucial factor which caused the Asian bandwagon to switch course, ending a long movement towards irrationality and dogmatism, and beginning a new movement towards rationality and practical progress.
Can anyone go to Jakarta today and talk with any of those people who suffered under 22 years of Sukarno without discovering that they know that Asia has at last got a chance to catch its breath? What has it done with its new chance? We find that all parts of Asia outside the communist held countries have shown fantastic economic expansion. The most dramatic example of all is Japan but
Supply-External Affairs other examples are the Philippines, Taiwan and South Korea, and at last we see movements of great encouragement in Cambodia.
Recently I was looking at the Sanwa bank report showing what Japan has been able to do. This is the country that was defeated by the big, cruel, imperialist United States which then assisted Japan and put it on its feet. The Japanese people have always tended to be left wing in their views. Virtually all the editors of Japanese newspapers are left wing, but they knew that more dangerous than the alleged "black mist", referred to in their last general election, was the "red mist," and so unequivocally they have thrown their lot in with the west. I quote from the Sanwa bank report:
Japan continued to lead the world between 1961 and 1965 with a growth rate of 14.8 per cent.
In shipbuilding she is now first in the world and in fibres she is second in the world. In oil refining she is second in the world and in the production of power she is third in the world. In crude steel she is third in world production, and in gross national product these poor island people, who were defeated just a few years ago by the big, bad, ruthless Americans, through the assistance of their one-time enemies, the Americans, are now fifth in the world and sixth in volume of exports.
As a result what do we find? We find that the Japanese are grateful and they realize that international economic co-operation means something important. They have contributed to the new Asian Development Bank, matching dollar for dollar with the Americans. This was a hard thing for the Japanese to do, starting with the low base that they had after the war. But as a result what do we find? We find growth in virtually every free part of Asia. The new Asian Development Bank in Manila is headed by a Japanese, and we find plans for railroads, air and sea transport, radio and other communications. Countries that are to get these new links are the Philippines, Indonesia, South Viet Nam, Thailand, Laos, India and Afghanistan. This is the real way to help Asia, to work with the Asians. I believe that Lyndon Johnson, in the courageous and very difficult course he is pursuing, is making that kind of generous contribution.
The London Economist has never been a particularly right wing paper but recently it made an in-depth study of Viet Nam and why
7748	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs it matters, a study which has just been published. It talks about the basic issue, the question of whether or not the truth lies in American aggression or invasion from the north. On balance it says that the truth lies between these two extreme positions but probably a good deal nearer the American standpoint. It adds that the Hanoi government has sent large contingents of troops, sometimes in trickles, sometimes in solid formation, into South Viet Nam giving the whole conflict the character of invasion.
I remember approximately a year ago listening to Arthur Goldberg in Tokyo when he met with a large battery of international news correspondents who questioned him for two hours. If ever a man held open his arms to any possibility for peace it was Mr. Goldberg on that occasion. However, we do not hear about that from members in some parts of this chamber. Surely what matters is not alone the future of Viet Nam, important as this may be, but the future of all southeast Asia. But of course the future of South Viet Nam and of North Viet Nam is vitally important on its own account.
Ho Chi Minh almost paraphrases Mao Tse Tung in some of his chapters on mobile war and protracted war. When he wrote that "Americans do not like long, inconclusive wars and the war in Viet Nam is going to be a long, inconclusive war," I think Ho Chi Minh was wrong. I think that really he is now losing this war. I think that the 20,000 American dead and the gallant dead from South Viet Nam-and everyone knows it has been hard for those people to continue the struggle-are going to give peace and stability in our time, and perhaps before too long.
It would have been so easy to call it quits in Korea. Does anyone deny today that the defence of Korea was not wise from the standpoint of Asia? I believe Korea was strategically important for a wide variety of reasons.
We know there is a strong feeling in this country that if only we could get rid of this dreadful war everything would work out all right. In fact many people urge that the Americans should just plain get out. Does that make sense? I am looking at a news item appearing in the Brockville Recorder and Times, the issue of March 18, 1967, just a year ago, headed "Mao in Control At Gunpoint?" It was a story that came from Hong Kong and it reads:
Mainland broadcasts claimed today the Communist Chinese army has taken over farms and
[Mr. Matheson.l
DEBATES	March 18, 1968
factories in three more southeastern provinces. If true, it means that Mao Tse-tung has established control of production at gunpoint over a vast area of southern China ... the 2,500,000 man army had become the principal instrument of the communist party chairman's "great proletarian cultural revolution," a purge of so-called reactionary elements in Chinese life.
It meant, too, that the army was achieving at least some success through force where Mao's militant civilian Red Guards and revolutionary rebels had failed, through political agitation, propagandizing and appeals to win popular support for the purge.
I had a chance to talk to the first Red Guard known to have gotten out, and quite frankly I believe that Chairman Mao has failed in a great many respects.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
What is our attitude in respect to this quarter of the human race? I think it must be one of friendship but at the same time it must be based on realism and facing the real facts. According to people who have studied this area for many years, one of the most significant developments is the deterioration of relations between Russia and China. Surely our attitude is not one of hostility to either of these communist powers. As Canadians we desire full co-operation with both. From a study of some of the economic reports which have come from Singapore and Hong Kong I have come to the view that perhaps one of Canada's major responsibilities in the not too distant future will be to help in respect of the starvation problem which will be manifest on the continent of China. I have in my hand a detailed agricultural study by an eminent economist who writes:
Why has China failed to keep pace in grain with increase in population? The answer is that grain production is much less profitable to the peasant than are cash crops. In the wake of the collapse of the great leap forward in 1960 there were urgent appeals by the government for the peasants, particularly those near big cities, to produce vegetables, pork, poultry, etc. The response to this was staggering. By 1966 you had reached a situation where in the land adjacent to the bigger towns (which also happens to be the richest and best agricultural land in China) all the resources, the fertilizer, the irrigation and the love, care and attention of the peasants both communally and privately, is devoted to cash crops.
There could, of course, be seven or eight crops of vegetables in a year. Grain deteriorated in volume. Actually it may now be argued that Mao has failed very seriously since 1957 in respect of what he regarded as the most important agricultural objective, the production of grain.
March 18, 1968

We have an important responsibility in foreign aid and I am happy that a great Canadian like Maurice Strong, a man with exceptional gifts, has come into this service at great financial sacrifice to himself and his family. He will help do those things which must in charity be done for all the countries of the world irrespective of their political complexion.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: An outstanding man.


Neil Alexander Matheson: As the minister points out, he is an outstanding man. He is one of the great men of our time. I was glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition indicate that we should step up the volume of our aid. I believe everyone realizes that the government has been faced with the problem of matching income to expenditure. However, it is good at this time to have a person in the prominent position of the Leader of the Opposition come forward and take the position he has taken today in respect of foreign aid. This to me is statesmanship. I know his suggestion is supported by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I know how fully it is supported by the Prime Minister.
The studies which have been undertaken in the last few years with regard to the problems of Russia and China lead us to believe there is not complete peace and understanding in the Communist camp. The recent conference at Budapest indicated that many people of socialist inclination do not think entirely alike. It has been pointed out that one of the most articulate supporters of the United States position at this time is Prime Minister Harold Wilson of the socialist party in the United Kingdom. Facts are facts and there are certain indisputable facts which cannot be avoided. While we may have certain differences of opinion with regard to the tactics employed by the United States I do not think we can question that their contribution in the main has aided mightily to the stability of Asia. Arthur Schlesinger, who is scarcely considered to be right wing, said:
I am opposed to an immediate American withdrawal (a) because it would end all possibility of a negotiated settlement, (b) because it would deliver the people of Vietnam to the Vietcong, who would undoubtedly jail and murder a good many, especially among the students and intellectuals, and condemn the rest to a bleak Communist despotism, (c) because of the effect it would have in neighboring countries, especially on the gallant struggle of the Laotian neutralists under Prince
Supply-External Affairs Souvanna Phouma to maintain their independence. Also I find something distasteful about those sitting in ease in Europe and America, who would righteously hand over a country to a tough Communist crew on the ground, evidently, that, though they wouldn't much like communism for themselves, it will be just great for the Vietnamese.
We are not thinking alone of Viet Nam but of Asia in which there resides two-thirds of the human race.
James A. Michener spent many years in southeast Asia. He lived in Viet Nam and several surrounding countries. He is intimately knowledgeable with regard to areas such as Korea and the Philippines. He lived in Thailand, Indonesia, Burma, Pakistan and Ceylon. He writes:
-I am driven by experience of the past and concern for the future to support my government's stand in Vietnam.
I believe that our stand in Korea some years ago helped to stabilize that part of the world. The agreement there reached was not a particularly good one, but it has worked. It has saved Japan, established a border zone that could be more or less controlled, and relieved international tensions that might otherwise have expanded into a world war. In Korea the United States learned it could of itself oppose both Russia and China, and that was a salutary discovery. But Russia and China also learned that they could not operate with impunity against world opinion. What may have been most important, Russia and China had a chance to see and to evaluate each other. On balance, I am not unhappy about our intervention in Korea.
He analyses the situation at the present time in Viet Nam in similar terms.
Eric Linklater said:
In the summer of 1951 I was in Korea. The beginning of that war had been the sudden invasion of South Korea by the Communist North and the almost simultaneous announcement, by the North, that its action had been necessary to counter aggression from the South. The small expeditionary force that Britain was able to send in defence of the South consisted, at first, of a battalion of the Middlesex Regiment, another of the Argylls. I had talked with their survivors, whose memories of the war were dominated by the appalling misery of the refugees who had fled from the North.
The North pretended to be the aggrieved and virtuous party-
This is what we have been hearing from many sources with respect to Viet Nam and from some Canadians ad nauseam for several years.
-but a multitude of starving, half-frozen refugees chose to escape from its virtue. There were no fugitives to the North.
Today, in Vietnam, there is a comparable situation. The Communists were the original aggressors,
March 18, 1968

Supply-External Affairs and there has been strenuous propaganda to persuade the world that blame lies on the United States. In South Vietnam there are, perhaps, a million refugees from North Vietnam. The refugee tide, that is, has run in the same direction as in Korea-
I might add also in the same general direction, east to west in Berlin, and from mainland China to Hong Kong.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It is not unreasonable to suppose that there, as in Korea, the refugees know more about Asian communism, its aims and methods, than many well-intentioned people whose opinions are so deeply influenced by their detestation of war as to blind them to its causes.
I think we have people in this house who wish to be blinded. Jakov Lind made a very interesting suggestion when he said:
Why not try a shrewd solution to combat Communists in Asia? Help them to get to power; sooner or later they will all turn revisionist.
Recent developments in Europe would tend to make this sly suggestion almost reasonable.
I think we should respect the writings in the books and articles by Mao Tse-Tung and Ho Chi Minh. There are two books of Ho to be found in our parliamentary library. His diary from prison is a very interesting document as are his published speeches which cover the period up to 1966: One can easily find a statement of purpose in the studies of Mao, some of which have even alarmed and frightened the Russians because they do not express their feelings about the desired course of human progress.
It seems to me that we lack in responsibility when we criticize those who have enabled us all to come safely through a very difficult period. One of the reasons advanced by Eliott Janeway for this assault on the dollar was the overextension of America both in terms of military and economic aid to other countries. I think it ill behooves Canadians at this time to make smart cracks at our American friends. I want to say how immensely grateful I am that we have at the present time, presiding over the affairs of our great neighbour, a man who always has stood for truth, vigorously, and fearlessly, whether popular or otherwise. The big Texan stands out as a very big man in a troubled world.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, it has been a while since I said anything about foreign affairs but I must say I am prompted to do so at this time after listening to the spiel I have just heard from the hon. member for Leeds,


who can speak more pompously, utter more words and mean less than any other member in the house. He is in my opinion very able in saying those things which do not help us a bit when discussing international affairs.
I can never understand why people who profess to be anxious to defeat communism get up in this house and use the fact that communism is bad as a defence for some of the very stupid actions that we in the western world have taken. I do not think anybody in this house has to be persuaded that communism has its faults. I do not think anyone in this house, no matter how they approach the problem, is not anxious to make sure that our democratic system is extended to all new emerging countries and to make sure that it is improved to the advantage of the people of other countries in the world. I do not think there is any real point in the sort of diatribe engaged in by the hon. member who tried to convince us how bad communism is and therefore how right we are. This is nonsense.
Communism has its faults and we have ours. We are not going to correct our faults by pointing up the faults of the communists and then saying that because they are so bad we must not be so bad. Frankly, the United States position in respect of Viet Nam is dreadful. I first said in this house on September 8, 1961, and I have not changed my view since then, that the best friends the communists have in the world are those who make speeches like that of the hon. member for Leeds. I refer to those who rant and rave about the faults of communism instead of suggesting how to correct our own mistakes and how we can best help those people about whom we profess to be concerned. We should adopt a policy that is pro-democracy rather than one that is anti-communism. Those who believe in a policy of anti-communism seem to think that this is the only thing wrong in the world and that anything goes as long as we are fighting communism. Quite frankly, I thought there were other enemies in the world during the last war-the Nazis.
A number of other systems which are not communism or democracy exist in the world today including dictatorships and some that are anti-democratic. Are we to believe from this hot-headed attack against communism that these systems are more acceptable and that all we have to do is drive out communism in order that one of these other systems may take over, thereby improving the lot of these people? This is the suggestion made by
March 18, 1968

those who are anti-communism, but I suggest it is not realistic.
Our objective should be the development of a policy in this country and in the United States, our great friend and ally, which is pro-democratic. This should be our aim and our hope, as well as the reason we spend money on foreign aid in an effort to do our best to assist other countries in obtaining those benefits that we enjoy. We should try to bring to these countries the best parts of our system in so far as they will fit the needs of these countries, in the hope that this will be of benefit to them.
Surely none of us in this house wants to ram anything down the throats of anyone. Surely that is what the hon. member for Leeds is attempting to do in respect of the United States policy in Viet Nam when he suggests that communism is so bad the actions of a democracy must be all right. I do not care whether you kill someone in the name of anti-communism, in the name of crime or in the name of passion, it is still murder. As law-abiding citizens the people who live under a democracy which is founded on idealism must take a very long and careful look at the violence that the United States is perpetrating on South Viet Nam in the pursuance of its policies or the lack thereof. No matter how blind we may be or how unwilling we are to criticize our friend and neighbour, I think a careful consideration of the situation will indicate that the United States is wrong.
Let me hasten to add that no nation in the history of the world has had more concern for its fellow man than the United States. The record of that country's contributions to international aid in an attempt to help underdeveloped countries and its contributions toward peace-keeping and in other directions cannot be criticized. The United States has opened its pocketbook in its endeavour to do the right thing. I am not questioning its motives. But no matter how great and wonderful its actions have been in this regard I must say that in my opinion it is wrong in respect of its policies in Viet Nam. No matter how well meaning or how good the intentions of that country are, its policies are dreadfully wrong. No matter how sincerely the United States may believe it is right in trying to contain communism and no matter how much that country believes in its own anti-communist policies, an action is not necessarily right because it is anti-communist. The idea that
Supply-External Affairs anything goes if it is anti-communism will defeat the ultimate purpose. As a result of that policy there is no reform possible for new or emerging countries and they will be forced to turn to communism as the only alternative. Communism is not the only alternative. Reform is the only alternative and I think it is an alternative these countries are entitled to and should have.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Certainly the Americans did not go into Viet Nam to save the South Vietnamese from an invasion by North Viet Nam. One has only to read the American explanation of their own actions to understand this. Reading in American newspapers what the American foreign office has said one finds that over the course of two years they sent military advisers to Viet Nam to help the neutralists make sure the situation would be stabilized so that elections could be held and the people could determine their own type of government. I think most members of the house would say this is a very laudable and worth-while objective. No one will argue with the idea of trying to bring about peace and stability so that people can choose the type of government they want.
I want to stress that the right to choose the type of government they want is the objective. We have subscribed to this objective in the United Nations charter. It is not a case of choosing the type of government we think they should have, that we want them to have, that is acceptable to us or even that we think is best for them. They have a perfect right to choose the type of government they want even if we think it is silly and even if it is so silly as communism. That is their right and we have subscribed to the idea that they have the right to choose the type of government they want, not that we want.
So here we have the Americans expressing this idea and providing military advisers to the neutralists to stabilize the situation so that elections could be held and the people could choose the type of government they wanted. We say that is a fine, great and wonderful idea. But did you happen to read the news a couple of years later when Buddhists and Catholics were rioting and people were burning themselves in protest that there had not been any elections because the Americans had prevented them? The situation was not stable enough and the American puppet, Premier Ky, said: We will not have elections
March 18, 1968

Supply-External Affairs now because the only result would be that the Viet Cong would win, or the neutralists would win and neither one is acceptable to us. The Americans backed him up.
I want to know what is the American policy. We have heard the puppet premier of South Viet Nam, backed by American power and kept in power by American arms, saying that the neutralists would not be acceptable. The Americans have said they went in to stabilize the situation, to advise the neutralists so that elections could be held and these people could choose the type of government they wanted. The actual fact is that those elections have not been held, that in fact the objective is to make sure they do not have freedom of choice. The objective is that they will have the anti-communist government that the Americans insist upon because apparently this is the only way we can stop the tide of communism from taking over all of the Far East. What nonsense.
I do not know where the silly idea started that communism is like a battlefront with the battle lines drawn and a line marking the danger area wherein communism must be contained. I always thought communism was a sort of insidious thing that creeps into a country and feeds on the false and the corrupt. I have always thought communism did not need any help from outside, that it fattens on the stupidity, arrogance, cruelty and incompetence of governments. It is the sort of thing that is fed and fattened by our failure to have faith in our democratic system, by our own failure to really use and practise those ideals on which our democratic system is based.
Communism can creep into any country where democracy is based on sham and hypocrisy, where we say we have respect for the people's right of self-determination but what we mean is that they will have self-determination as long as they do what we say. Communism can creep into any country where we say we have faith in a system of justice which eschews justice and where we resort to force to enforce our will. This is the stuff on which communism feeds.
I do not know where this so-called battle-front is and just why a neighbour of a communist country must of necessity be in greater danger of communism than any other country. Every country is in danger of communism; it does not matter whether its next door neighbour is communist or whether communism is three states away. What will

assist communism is the sort of stupidity that says that so long as we tell everybody that the horrible things we do are in the name of anti-communism it must be right and this is the way to stop communism. Then communism will grow.
I suggest that the greatest ally communism has-and it is a system with so many faults that I do not know why we fear it so much- is our failure to criticize ourselves. Indeed, people should realize that the essence of our democratic system, the very fibre and strength of our system, is self-criticism. The only reason democracy can afford the luxury of freedom of speech, which allows anyone to tear it apart as much as they can, is that this is its greatest strength. Because we do tear it apart and thereby reveal our weaknesses we make it stronger as it is supposed to be. Yet what do we get from tearing ourselves apart and trying to improve? We get this nonsense about how bad the communists are instead of realizing how we are failing to practise what we preach, how little we really are doing to bring to others the benefits of this great system we enjoy, under which we live and to which we pay only lip service.
I suggest that the situation in South Viet Nam is such that there is now no hope that in that country there will be anything but a communist government, no matter what happens. If the Americans had never gone in there I think the odds are that the revolutionary government would probably have been dominated by the communists, if not a completely communist government. But after all these years of fighting there is no doubt in the world that there will be no hope of anything but a communist government there because of American intervention.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, the longer the war goes on the more will faith in democracy be destroyed in those struggling nations around the world which we would like to help and the greater will become the chance that communism will spread because those countries will have no faith in democracy. The American action in South Viet Nam is a denial of everything in which we believe in a democracy. It is a denial of everything we have subscribed to in the United Nations charter. It is going to be a complete failure in South Viet Nam. I say "we" because our friends and allies are murdering many people every day, causing untold suffering every day by following a policy which can have no military success, a
March 18, 1968	COMMONS
policy which could not have been more mishandled.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Never mind about drawing battle lines around an area and saying "we must stop them here", because they will seep through. What we are doing is to weaken the hand of every would-be reformer in every country whose only chance for survival in a democratic way is through reform. We are pointing out that the democratic western world will not support reform and therefore these countries must resort to communist violence in order to bring about any change. How can anyone stand up here and tell me that this is the only way in which communism can be contained when for years the very seed of communism has been nurtured by our refusal to recognize that communism can best feed on the faults and weaknesses in our system? We do not need any special armour against the communists. Our best armour is built into our democratic system which allows self-criticism and encourages a critical analysis of what we are doing with relation to the needs of our people. We must practise it.
I must apologize to the committee for repeating myself but I do wish to say again, and I get a little more annoyed about it every day, that the greatest friends the communists have are people like the hon. member for Leeds. What helps them most is the kind of nonsense he was spouting in this chamber a little while ago when he pointed out the faults of the communists and then said, "here is your alternative: the stupidity we are practising or the worse stupidity of the communists". Why in heaven's name is there no other alternative? Have we never heard of reform under a system which is neither communist nor democratic? Where do we get the stupid idea that our choice is only between communism or democracy? Where did this idiocy arise? It could only be propagated by people who find any consistency between the United States position in Viet Nam now and the democratic process. The position is: you can only be red or dead, as though there were no other choice. Either the Americans are right or the communists are right, as though there were no other option.
Arguments such as these will destroy us unless we are willing to look critically at what we are doing and speak frankly to our friends and neighbours. Otherwise we will lose the struggle when the cards are all on our side. Why spend our time talking about
DEBATES	7753
Supply-External Affairs what terrible fellows the communists are? We do not need to be convinced. We just need to be protected now and then and our allies need a little help, which we are not giving them by telling them how bad the communists are and then adopting communist methods ourselves. What we need is a more critical analysis of what we are doing and a greater realization of the need for some essential reforms to protect our friends from communism.
We must have more respect for the right to self-determination of even small countries, regardless of whether or not we like the way in which they choose their government and the way in which they run their country. I hope we will speak frankly to our neighbour, friend and ally, the United States, and ask them in the name of democracy to take another look at the situation and to withdraw from Viet Nam.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to speak about Viet Nam, although I do wish to make one comment on this subject. I believe the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona said that the way things have developed Viet Nam will probably end up with some kind of communist government. When I was home in my constituency last week end I was shown a letter from a Canadian in Viet Nam. I do not have the letter with me nor do I have the freedom to quote from it at this moment, but let me say that he described conditions in that country and made some devastating comments about the South Vietnamese officials and the conduct of the war by the Americans. The only people for whom he had any praise were the South Vietnamese, many of whom have somehow, through all their terrible suffering, remained cheerful. While I was listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona I could not help but think that these people would probably be better off under any other type of administration than the one they have at present. If I can get permission to quote that letter I would like to read it in the house some day.
The minister will not be surprised at the topic I am going to bring up because I have brought it up many times before. It has to do with one particular aspect of external aid. In the past I have urged him that some attention be given to the question of the population problem and that family planning should be part of our external aid program. As I have said in the past, I never try to oversimplify
March 18, 1968

Supply-External Affairs the question of external aid. I know that many things have to be done to improve the living standard of the developing countries. Food aid is one thing, improved agricultural methods are another, educational aid is another, and improved trade is still another. But I have pointed out on a number of occasions that the gross national product of many of these countries is simply not keeping up with the growth of their population, and this is one aspect of the problem of developing countries which should be studied and considered.
This subject was debated earlier in this session. I presented a resolution, which was debated in the house on December 13, 1967, urging the Canadian government to improve family planning assistance in its external aid program. I do not wish at this time to go over all the arguments and statistics which I advanced then. I have raised the matter several times during the question period. However, I never seem to get any answer from the minister and I hope that before we finish these supplementary estimates I will get some answer.
I know that requests have been made to the external aid office. I know a request was made by the international planned parenthood federation for a donation from Canada to carry on the work they are doing in this field. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden, to mention just three countries, are giving such assistance to the I.P.P.F., and the United States through its foreign aid program is also giving direct assistance in this connection. In view of the fact that these requests have been made I should like to know what is the attitude of the government. On January 22 I asked the minister this question following the visit to Ottawa of the minister of health and family planning of India:
During the visit to Ottawa last week of the minister of health and family planning of India did he make a request, formally or informally, for a Canadian contribution to India's population control program?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, the minister from India visited the external aid officials. I have not had a report from them but when I get it I shall be glad to discuss it with my hon. friend.
I am always happy to have a discussion with the minister because he is a very pleasant and interesting person to talk to, but I would like to hear a statement made in public which would be on the record instead of just
[Mr. Prittie.I
having a private discussion of the topic. In any case, I have not yet had an answer from him.
When the matter was debated in the house the hon. member for Rosedale, the minister's parliamentary secretary, replied on behalf of the government. I did not find the reply very satisfactory. He suggested in two places in his speech that if the government were to engage in this type of program there might be some objection from important religious groups in the country. I fail to see that such an objection would stand up today. We are not talking about abortion. I know that many people in this country are opposed to abortion; certainly the Roman Catholic church is. But we are talking about family planning which I do not believe is any longer a controversial subject in this country. Indeed, we are about to change our own law when we get around to discussing Bill S-22 which has already been passed by the Senate.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I do not believe there would be a great outcry on the part of any substantial part of the population if the government were to follow the lead of the United States, the United Kingdom and other governments. Aid would be given to those countries that want it and have no moral or religious objections to taking it. I refer particularly to India and Pakistan. In the past the minister has shown a great reluctance to discuss the subject. I am sure that within the department some consideration has been given to it and I would like an answer from the minister when he replies to the points raised during this debate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to detain the committee long and I shall be reasonably brief as usual. My views on foreign affairs are fairly well known. I stand for an independent foreign policy for Canada. I have stated that repeatedly in this house. I have also expressed my opposition to Canada remaining in NATO and have done so throughout the years. The same situation holds true with respect to NORAD. I stand for support of the United Nations, for Canada doing what it can in the military sense to support the United Nations and also in respect of external aid.
I have also been strongly opposed, as the minister knows, to the war in Viet Nam, particularly after reading the report of a conference former President Eisenhower had with the governors of the states in the United
March 18, 1968

States. He told them that the United States was in Viet Nam because they had to protect the natural resources in Viet Nam which were required by the United States. I have that report in my office. I could never see how they were fighting for freedom and democracy in doing that.
I noticed a report in a trade paper called The Machinist for March 14, which reads in part as follows:
AFL-CIO President George Meany made his usual .good sense last week. He deplored those who say the U.S.A. can't afford costly programs to prevent more trouble in the cities because of the Viet Nam war. Mr. Meany declared:
"Of course, meeting the crisis in our cities will cost much. But.. . Americans are fighting in Viet Nam for the basic principle of free, democratic choice. The perpetuation of conditions which effectively deny full participation in American society by millions of citizens is a betrayal of that principle and an effort to those who are giving their lives for it.
As the minister knows, the executive of the AFL-CIO, including Mr. Paul Hall who is a vice president, supports the policies of the United States in Viet Nam. I am very glad to learn there is a minority in the trade union movement in the United States who are opposed to these policies and are organizing more effectively than in the past to express their opinion.
However, Mr. Chairman, I rise to deal with another matter briefly and that is the question of the failure of the United States government to return Harold Chamberlain Banks to this country and by so doing failing to recognize the terms of our extradition treaty with the United States. In that respect may I say I was reading an article in the Gazette for October 24, 1962 in which it was stated that Mr. Paul Hall blamed Mr. Dodge for rehearsing Sheehan in the evidence he gave before the Norris commission at hearings in Toronto. The article reads in part:
"We don't understand why labour people don't put a bridle on this fellow Dodge,'' he said. "This puts us in a terrible position."
He compared Mr. Dodge with teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. Both wear "a tight halo" thinking that what they do is right even though it may be morally wrong, he added.
Just imagine a man like Paul Hall suggesting that Mr. Dodge would do what he considered was morally wrong. In further reference to Mr. Banks, I had some very interesting correspondence with the editor of the Globe and Mail. Banks is a man whom a great many
Supply-External Affairs Canadians want to see brought back to Canada to serve his term for the injustice he perpetuated on some Canadians. On one occasion the Globe and Mail published an editorial based entirely on a speech I made in the house in which I put his criminal record on Hansard. Mr. Banks sued the Globe and Mail for damages and he got damages to the extent of $3,500 because, in the opinion of the judge, the fair name and reputation of Mr. Banks in Canada had been harmed. The lawyers who conducted the case for Mr. Banks received $2,582.60. They have sent me all the court records and everything else, you see.
I want to deal briefly with this case. I understand that after Mr. Banks' appeal had been rejected by the judge in the United States he changed lawyers from Abraham Brodsky to Abram Chayes, a former legal officer in the state department. In my opinion and in the opinion of a good many people in Canada, the decision of Dean Rusk is an insult to this country. I was very pleased to know that the minister made a protest to the United States. I want to deal with one or two matters in connection with the case. I should like to refer to an article in the Ottawa Citizen for March 15 by Paul Kind. It reads:
Hal Banks, the former Canadian union boss whom a judge once said was made "of the stuff of the Capones and the Hoffas," is again about to walk the streets of the United States.
He has been freed, in effect, by secretary of state Dean Rusk who has rejected Canada's bid to bring the fallen seamen's leader to justice.
Thursday night in this capital it was being whispered that the spectre of American politics had loomed over the attempted extradition of Banks from the United States to Canada.
I know a little more about that than the minister does. I do not mind telling him later.
In a letter to Canadian ambassador Edgar Ritchie, the secretary of state said that he "regretted" that he was unable to order the extradition of Harold Chamberlain Banks.
Banks, 59, a U.S. citizen and former president of the Seafarers' International Union of Canada, will be freed as soon as Rusk's letter containing the extradition refusal is received by U.S. commissioner Salvatore Abruzzo who will issue the release order.
Banks was arrested in New York last August and since then has been held without bail.
Later last year, Abruzzo ordered Banks extradited on a province of Ontario warrant charging him with perjury.
Subsequently, Banks waived his right to appeal the Abruzzo ruling through the courts, and chose instead to appeal directly to the secretary of state.
7756	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs
I judge he was on sound grounds in doing that.
Ontario sought Banks' extradition on a charge of perjury arising from testimony the former union boss gave before the Norris royal commission on the destruction of the Canadian shipping industry in 1962.
Now, 28 days after the state department hearing Rusk has given his decision. The secretary of state said that the application for extradition presented a "unique problem."
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It certainly did.
In Rusk's words, the extradition was sought on a charge of perjury arising from Banks' "protestation of his innocence in response to a question as to his participation in a conspiracy to commit assault."
There is an extradition treaty between Canada and the U.S. for perjury, but none for assault.
Declared Rusk: "Because the charge of perjury in this case arises directly out of a denial of guilt of a non-extraditable offence, I have concluded that it would not be compatible with the over-all design and purpose of the extradition treaty, which is limited and non-universal in its coverage of offences, to agree to extradition on the unique facts of this case."
Banks was originally convicted in Canada in 1964 on a conspiracy to assault charge arising from the beating of Captain Henry Walsh.
I have talked to that gentleman, Mr. Chairman, and let me tell you that he did get a beating.
The president of the S.I.U. of North America is Paul Hall, a vice-president of the huge A.F.L.-C.I.O. labour organization, on whose Brooklyn-moored yacht Banks lived for several months.
According to this article, Mr. Chairman, there is considerable talk in Washington to the effect that some political influence and pressure have been used in this regard. In any event, I understand that this is the first failure to apply the extradition treaty in 50 years. The Journal for Saturday, March 16 contined the following:
The U.S. state department's move to prevent extradition of labour leader Hal Banks to Canada marks the first executive intervention against an extradition in 50 years, External Affairs Minister Martin said Friday.
As I said before, I am very glad that the minister has protested this action. I have some very interesting information on this case. I have a letter that I will show the minister some time. However, it has been suggested to me by some of the unions to which I am sympathetic, Canadian unions that stand on their own feet and run their own show, that I ask the minister a few questions.
[Mr. Herridge.l
DEBATES	March 18, 1968
First of all, would the minister get his officials in Washington to make inquiries whether there was any union influence on this decision because this is an election year in the United States? Second, would the minister get his officials to inquire whether this is retaliation because Canada is giving political asylum to draft resisters? We all know that all western countries have given political asylum to a good number of people who had to leave their own country because they were fearful of not obtaining justice. Third, would the minister also inquire whether any persons or any organization in Canada have made representations to the United States embassy in Ottawa since this matter became an issue? Fourth, would the minister inquire whether Mr. Charles Millard has been in Washington during recent weeks? I am sure that his officials in Washington would have some knowledge on this point.
These are the questions I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. However, before concluding I want to indicate how interested Canadians are in this matter by quoting an editorial that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen last Saturday entitled "Let's Have Hal Banks". It reads as follows:
An extraordinary ruling by U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk leaves Hal Banks a free man. It is an administrative decision that appears more closely related to politics than justice. Canadian proposals that the issue be taken to an international tribunal-possibly the World Court at the Hague-should be pressed.
I should mention in this regard that I am informed that the World Court sometimes takes ten years to reach a decision, so in that event most of us would be dead before we would know what the decision was.
Banks was convicted in Montreal of conspiracy to commit assault-not an extraditable offence. While on bail pending an appeal he fled to the U.S. The Ontario attorney general sought extradition on a charge of perjury. A New York judge granted the Ontario petition after a full hearing. That should have been enough.
But the secretary of state has reversed the decision on the remarkable ground that the alleged perjury was committed in connection with a nonextraditable offence. It is the charge of perjury that is at issue here, not the charge of conspiracy. Rusk has laid himself open to the suspicion that he has been influenced by union pressure during an election year.
Before an international tribunal can hear the case, the U.S. would have to agree. Agreement should be to Washington's advantage. By allowing the matter to be taken out of its hands, it could meet Canada's objections to the Rusk decision, and at the same time argue that it is giving Banks every chance to have his day in court.
March 18, 1968

And he has certainly had plenty, Mr. Chairman.
To do less is to acknowledge that the U.S. is a sanctuary for ruffians wanted in other countries.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I again bring to the attention of the minister that I have discussed this question with people in the labour movement who are very interested in it. Other questions in Canada directly related to this will have to be decided in the near future. I told these people that I would bring these facts to the attention of the minister. As I say, I congratulate the minister for protesting immediately the decision of Dean Rusk and I urge him to do what he can to get at the truth behind this unusual situation.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few comments on the estimates of this department but since it is about 30 seconds to six may I call it six o'clock?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, may I ask my hon. friend and hon. members generally whether they would be agreeable to sit for a little while into the dinner hour?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, we should have some understanding about this. What does the minister mean by "sit for a while during the dinner hour"?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Sit until seven o'clock, say, and then come back at eight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. We want to hear the minister under favourable circumstances.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is why I want to finish tonight, Mr. Chairman. Can we listen to the hon. gentleman and then adjourn?


Edward Richard Schreyer: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is immaterial to me what we do. However, I understand that these matters have to be arranged by unanimous consent and I do not know whether other hon. members wish me to proceed now.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I think they have agreed to listen to you.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the mood of the committee correctly I am to proceed at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Richard Schreyer: It is perhaps a little awkward to make my remarks on the estimates of
Supply-External Affairs this department when every minute I am speaking I will be keeping hon. members from their dinner. Therefore I will try to make my remarks as brief as possible. I wish to commence by saying that within the next 18 months I presume that the government of Canada will be giving consideration to NATO matters and to NATO policy generally, particularly since this alliance terminates next year its twentieth year of existence and the treaty is due for renewal.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I am one of those who feel that the NATO alliance has served a useful purpose up to now and certainly did serve a useful purpose during its first few years of existence. At that time the threat was clear and present. It was real. Everyone knew from where it came. The capability of the countries of western Europe to meet that threat was very limited and demanded the kind of action that was taken in 1948-49 with the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It should be understood, however, that even then, in the light of conditions as they existed at that time, certain intelligent, articulate and capable spokesmen of the western allies-I refer in particular to George F. Kennon of the United States state department-felt that the establishment of the alliance was unnecessary and that it would prevent the normalization of relations in western Europe. As I say, I feel the alliance could easily be justified from the first day of its existence almost to the present time, but its continuation does become disturbing when we realize that in Europe more than anywhere else in the world conditions have changed considerably since the early fifties. But despite the changed political situation the member states of the alliance appear to be clinging to the old myths and neglecting the new realities which exist.
I am not advocating the withdrawal of Canada from the alliance as part of its foreign policy, nor am I suggesting that our membership should not be renewed. I am suggesting it is time for a critical revaluation and review. Perhaps we should renew our participation in the alliance on a different basis, on the basis of having our troops stationed here in Canada. We understand from the minister representing the Department of National Defence that Canada is seeking to develop a special role for its military, one based on a high degree of mobility. If we are serious about this it seems to me it would
7758	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs relate well to a NATO policy under which, while remaining in the alliance, we refused to continue indefinitely the garrisoning of Canadian troops in Europe. I think there is an onus on the government to indicate what the cost differential would be as between continuing our military presence in Europe and bringing our troops back to Canada and continuing a commitment to NATO while maintaining our men and equipment in a high state of readiness and mobility in case circumstances should develop in which they were needed in Europe.
The occasion I had last fall to attend a NATO parliamentarians' meeting in Paris along with 10 or 15 other members of the house gave me an opportunity to discuss matters relating to NATO with counterparts in the other member states. There is a great deal of consternation about what is being done in the alliance, and now outside the alliance, by the French. The reason, it seems to me, that France has taken certain policy decisions difficult for us to understand is that the alliance as a whole has been very slow to face and adjust to changing conditions in Europe. I do not wish to be misunderstood, but I wish to say that France is becoming more and more convinced that the communist threat on the continent of Europe is diminishing. In view of this, and the increasing strength of the western states, it becomes more than ever unnatural to continue to maintain large numbers of troops on the soil of the western European member states. France has disengaged from the military aspect of NATO while retaining a voice in the political part of the alliance. But because she has withdrawn from military commitments she is already in a position to take advantage of increased trade opportunities in eastern Europe.
Some of us may not approve the extent to which France has gone in disengaging from the NATO military structure. The fact remains that in the opinion of French policymakers there is no further need to maintain the alliance in the form in which it has existed over the past 20 years. They sincerely believe there is an opportunity for a detente in Europe and that as long as NATO continues to be an exclusively military mechanism as it has been for all its past, it is not likely to contribute toward the achievement of a detente.
How often in the past 20 years have formal attempts been made by NATO to engage in talks with the Warsaw Pact authorities with a
IMr. Schreyer.]
DEBATES	March 18, 1968
view to arranging reciprocal reductions in military strength? It is my understanding that not once in 20 years have any formal attempts of this kind been made by either one of the two military pacts. If this is the case, a strong argument can be made for getting out of the alliance so that it will not be able to hamper the credibility of national governments trying to seek a detente through bilateral arrangements.
As I said earlier, I am not one who challenges the necessity of the alliance in its initial years. But after 20 years, just how critical and perceptive a review or investigation is being made of its continued usefulness by Canadian foreign policy-makers? To what extent are they willing to admit that there have been these rather profound and obvious changes in conditions in that part of the world, which would tend to justify a changing role for Canada in that alliance even if we do, and I suggest we should, renew our participation in it?
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I now wish to refer to our foreign aid programs. The Leader of the Opposition spoke at length in this connection and with much, if not all, of what he said I find myself like-minded. But it seems to me that even if we do increase the amount of our foreign aid from three-fifths of one per cent of our gross national product to one per cent, the figure we ultimately hope to arrive at in a couple of years, we should now be preparing ourselves for the rather frustrating performance that may be expected.
Despite the amount of money given as foreign aid by donor states over the years, statistics show that the economic growth of the recipient states has been very slow. In some cases growth has been non-existent. This is due to changing patterns in world trade. I am not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition made reference to this aspect of the problem. The fact is that many of the underdeveloped states are dependent on the sale of primary products, but world trade patterns are tending to depress the prices of these products. It is doubtful whether the world community can develop a new kind of trading mechanism that will help increase the value and price of such primary products whereby underdeveloped countries might achieve a higher return and enjoy a more favourable balance of trade. But despite this, Mr. Chairman, we must try to do much more in the field of foreign aid.
March 18, 1968

There is one matter I wish to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which I hope he will bear in mind when discussing matters of state with his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last week and again today there was discussion in this house, and in the larger city newspapers, about the alleged fact that the government has reduced the amount of moneys available for northern health services. I wonder whether it is generally understood that the infant mortality rate of our native Indian and Eskimo population is amongst the highest in the world? According to my researches there are only four countries which show a higher infant mortality rate.
I am not trying to make a case here for reduced foreign aid but I do say there is something illogical in our extending foreign aid to underdeveloped countries to assist reduce their infant mortality rates and at the same time reducing the amount we spend on northern health services. Thanks largely to foreign aid the infant mortality rate of many underdeveloped countries has been reduced over the past ten years, but I stress the fact that the infant mortality rate of our native Indian and Eskimo population is exceeded only by the infant mortality rates of two countries in equatorial Africa, one or two in southeast Asia, and one in Latin America. If the minister wishes to head off criticism of his estimates covering foreign aid expenditures I think he should prevail upon his colleagues, in particular the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that our native population deserves better treatment in the way of health services.
There were two or three other matters I wished to refer to but since they were mentioned by other hon. members I feel it would be best at this point to listen to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. May I be permitted to list the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment. They are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand), Health and Welfare; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), Income Tax; the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Ma-dill), Immigration.
It being after six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At 6.19 p.m. the committee took recess.

Supply[DOT]-External Affairs AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have had a rather interesting and useful discussion of various aspects of Canadian foreign policy. I should like to begin by congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on what I thought was a helpful and constructive statement. I warmly welcome what he has had to say about the importance of external aid and the place it occupies in foreign policy today. I assure him I share fully the views which he so well expressed this afternoon.
A number of members have referred to the situation in Viet Nam. I believe this is a matter which should engage our attention at the present time, and I wish to say something about this to the house. There can be no differences of opinion about the urgency of the need to help bring this terrible ordeal to an end. We believe the only way to do so is through negotiations that are directed toward the establishment of a durable and stable settlement which both sides can accept and live with.
The immediate problem continues to be what it has been for some time; it is as simple to formulate as it has proven difficult to solve in practice. It is the problem of how to get the negotiations started and how to establish a sufficient measure of confidence between the two sides to enable them to sit down together and start discussing the basic political issues at stake in Viet Nam, instead of bringing their military weight to bear on them. This is the aspect of the problem to which the government has directed the highest priority and urgency. It has seemed to us that a country such as Canada which has had prolonged experience with the problems of that country and which has ready access to both sides might well be able to help bridge the gap between the battlefield and the conference room.
No third party of course can compel the two sides to change their positions and policies in order to take certain actions or refrain from others. The most we can hope to do is encourge the two sides to reconsider their positions, to clarify ambiguities and to see in this process of discussion and examination whether any element of common ground exists.
In my view there have recently been three major developments which have had a bearing on the diplomatic and military impasse
March 18, 1968

Supply-External Affairs which we face at the moment. I refer to the formulation of the position of the United States by the President at San Antonio on September 29 last, to the formulation of the North Vietnamese position by the foreign minister of that country on December 29 and, finally, to the activities on the ground in South Viet Nam over the past few weeks. Although separated by a matter of months these events must be looked at together as essential components in the existing problem.
There is no doubt in my mind and in that of the government that the bombing of North Viet Nam is a key factor in the total equation for the de-escalation of the conflict. In the San Antonio statement of last September the President of the United States announced a new United States approach to the cessation of bombing. He said that the United States would be prepared to stop the bombing if this would lead promptly to productive talks, on the assumption that North Viet Nam would not take advantage of this significant measure of restraint on the U.S.A. side to increase its relative military strength in the south. The President's position evidently was formulated to avoid a situation in which, with the bombing stopped and the talks proceeding, the other side would be able to exert renewed and unimpeded military pressure on the ground in the south if the talks did not progress to their liking.
In setting out this approach the President had not abandoned his earlier insistence on the other side making some contribution toward bringing about military de-escalation. He did, however, present it in a flexible way which it was hoped might make it easier for Hanoi to make a gesture toward meeting this requirement without totally abandoning their forces in the south. As I understand the situation, this continues to be the basic position of the United States.
Turning to Hanoi's position, it appeared that some degree of change had taken place there too. In the past, one of the problems has been that Hanoi, for whatever reason, had been unwilling to commit itself publicly to anything more than a demand that the United States stop bombing North Viet Nam, and unwilling to give a firm commitment on whether or not this would be a first step toward a negotiated peace. In an interview in January 1967, the North Vietnamese foreign minister said that talks "could" take place if the bombing stopped. Speaking at a reception

at Hanoi in December, almost a year later, he said that talks "will" take place once United States attacks on North Viet Nam had stopped.
At the turn of the year, then, it seemed to us that while the positions of the two sides remained some distance apart, there were signs of change which deserved further attention. Accordingly I instructed our commissioner in Viet Nam, Mr. O. W. Dier, to proceed to Hanoi to deliver a letter from me on behalf of the government to the North Vietnamese foreign minister, seeking confirmation and clarification of his year end statement. I also reaffirmed the importance Canada has attached to the international commission as an agency which could make a useful contribution to the establishment and maintenance of some element of confidence between the two sides while talks were in progress. In issuing these instructions to our commissioner I hoped it might be possible to find some way of bridging the remaining gap between the San Antonio formula and the formula outlined by the foreign minister for Viet Nam in his year end statement.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The United States had said that the bombing could be stopped in return for an undertaking to talk, plus the exercise of military restraint by the north while the north had said that talks would follow the cessation of bombing. What I had hoped might be possible was a further modification of positions and agreement by both sides whereby the international commission might reassert its legitimate presence at key points, such as the demilitarized zone, to facilitate the exercise of restraint by both sides in terms of military activities around these key points and areas. If both sides were agreed that a commission presence of this character would be useful, this could be brought about without any change in the commission's mandate or without either side openly declaring that it would not do something or that it would do something else. In other words, the commission by its very presence, rather than by the exercise of force, could exert a restraining influence.
I very much regret having to report to the house that the reply I have received from the foreign minister of North Viet Nam, together with Mr. Dier's report on their discussions, does not suggest much flexibility in Hanoi's attitude toward factors, other than the cessation of bombing of the north, which clearly
March 18, 1968



have to be taken into account if there is to be any realistic hope that ensuing talks are to have any purpose and meaning.
Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly last September I urged that the bombing be stopped as a matter of first priority in the search for peace. I saw this, and I urged that it be considered, not as a sure-fire formula for instant peace, but as a deliberate and calculated risk. To break out of the impasse prevailing at that time it seemed to me that the United States might make the first significant move, not as a prelude to capitalution, but as a gesture which might encourage the other side to respond in kind, as indeed the north will have to do. It might then be possible for other countries, in the new circumstances which would then prevail, to mobilize pressure for corresponding concessions by the north.
I believe that that was a sensible position to take and one which seemed to me to correspond to the facts as we knew them. I still believe that the bombing will have to be stopped as a matter of first priority, since I think it will be impossible for North Viet Nam to appear to be responding to military pressure. All the information we have received from Canadian soundings, and from sources other than our own contacts in Hanoi, only serve to convince me of the validity of this view.
Whether future soundings and exploratory discussions will prove that some form of bargain can be struck, I cannot predict. For the moment the available evidence is clear about the significance to be attached, from the point of view of North Viet Nam, to a cessation of the bombing of North Viet Nam. But if the refusal of North Viet Nam to appear to respond more flexibly under continuing mili-raty duress is clear, it is no less important to bear in mind the difficulty that would be faced by the United States in modifying its requirements as a direct result of the other side's spectacular military thrusts.
If the United States was not prepared to take the calculated risk we and others urged them to take at the time when the pattern of military activity on the ground was more or less constant, one cannot be too hopeful about fresh initiatives at this particular moment, but the urgent necessity to break through the stalemate on negotiations has not lessened.
There is one potential danger which must be recognized. If talks are entered into with
Supply-External Affairs some hope of reaching agreement and are then broken off under the pressure of one side or the other attempting to score a point by a sudden and suicidal military push, it would be all the more difficult to get them started again. A situation such as this could also be an open invitation to further escalation. This would be regrettable.
Despite the clarification which appears to have taken place in respect of the formally stated positions of the two sides, the immediate prospects for negotiations can scarcely be described as encouraging, though we do not take this as any reason why we should not persist, as other countries are doing, in trying to encourage negotiations which might lead to peace. It is true that both sides are now firmly committed to a willingness to negotiate, but I am afraid that this does not carry us very far forward, as is tragically apparent by the unbroken continuation of the hostilities.
Both sides seem to envisage rather different objectives for the talks that are to follow a cessation of bombing. For the north, the objective is to bring about the total and early withdrawal of the United States from Viet Nam. For the United States, the objective is to secure South Viet Nam from northern military pressure, so that political change can come about peacefully and through the exercise of free choice. Each side is well aware of the other's objectives, which at the moment seem mutually incompatible.
Hanoi seems to see an unreciprocated cessation of the bombing, not only as a necessary procondition to undertaking talks, but as a gesture by the United States symbolizing the beginning of the process of total cessation of all American military action in the south, and indeed total withdrawal from the scene.
We know the conditions which were laid down by the United States at the Manila conference with regard to its intention to withdraw after six months, given the existence of certain conditions.
For their part, the United States and South Viet Nam have insisted on some measure of military restraint being exercised by the north, once again not as a final answer to the problem, but as representing a North Vietnamese realization that its military objectives cannot be met, and that its objectives cannot be met by military means.
We must maintain the commission presence in Viet Nam. This is first of all our international obligation, and we must be alive to any
March 18, 1968

Supply-External Affairs possible move which will help find a way out of the present impasse. This is our political obligation. The government accepts these obligations and, as it has done in the past, it will continue to play an active role in any search for peace in Viet Nam.
The immediate problem remains what it has been; how to get negotiations started. I reiterate that this is a matter of the greatest urgency and that a cessation of the bombing will clearly have a key significance in moving the problem in that direction. But the intrac-tibility of the problem is demonstrated by the fact that the bombing has not been halted, that military restraint is not being shown and that talks have not been entered into. This suggests that future efforts to narrow the gap between the two sides may have to be directed to matters of political substance as well as to the terms and conditions for a beginning of talks. We are urgently examining this aspect of the matter at this particular moment.
I have never believed that stalemate and rigidity are adequate grounds for a "do nothing" posture, and abandoning all efforts because past endeavours have proved unrewarding.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that everyone in this house and everyone in the world is greatly concerned about the situation in Viet Nam. I am sure that we are not alone in our efforts to try to bring about at least preliminary talks between both parties. When our ambassador was in Hanoi recently we had a reaffirmation of the willingness of the North to talk, but we were not given any indication when those talks would take place, except that we were informed they would take place at an appropriate time. It would have been very helpful had we had some indication as to when they might take place, as this would have enabled us and other countries to impress upon the United States the desirability of action that would bring about the beginning of talks that might lead ultimately to a settlement.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Greenwood today to the use of the Security Council. He correctly said that the Security Council was established as a means of avoiding situations that threatened the peace, or situations that had resulted in a violation of the peace. If North and South Viet Nam and other countries involved in this situation were

subject to the authority of the Security Council, there is no doubt that would be the place where this matter should be discussed. That would be the place where the great powers and the other, non-permanent members of the Security Council would be given an opportunity of taking steps that might lead to the negotiations that everyone wants to see undertaken.
The fact is that any action by the Security Council would provide nothing more than a place to debate. Some distinguished senators of the United States, notably Senator Mansfield who has been strongly opposed to the war, have for a long time urged that the matter be taken by the government of the United States to the Security Council. I can assure my hon. friend that this matter has been carefully considered by the Canadian government and other governments represented on the Security Council, great powers as well as non-permanent members.
The Secretary General of the United Nations has himself been opposed to taking this matter to the Security Council, for the reasons that I indicated at the outset, namely that the parties who are an integral part of any settlement are not subject to the authority of the Security Council because they are not members of the United Nations organization. His view is that it is within the framework of the Geneva powers that this problem should be discussed and should be resolved.
The Canadian government has not opposed this view. For a long time we have felt that if the matter could be brought within the Geneva framework, that is where the matter would more likely be settled or where greater progress would likely be made. But the fact is that one of the co-chairmen, the Soviet union, has been reluctant to call a meeting of the Geneva powers. The British government, as the other co-chairman, has been anxious to have discussions within the Geneva framework; but its action alone will not bring the other powers to the conference table under the terms of the Geneva agreement.
We continue to support the positions of countries, however, which take the view that the matter ought to be considered within the framework of the Geneva agreement. We support the position, for instance, of India; but it is a fact that the other member of the commission, Poland, has not supported this view. So countries have had to resort to whatever opportunities were open to them in their effort to try to help bring about a solution; in
March 18, 1968
the case of Canada, the use of the access that is available to us, as a member of the commission, to the capitals of both countries, in addition to the efforts we have made by the sending of a special emissary to Hanoi on two occasions in the person of Mr. Chester Ronning.
But while the United Nations Security Council has not been seized of this matter, for the reasons that I have given, reasons supported strongly by the Secretary General, this does not mean that the matter has not been discussed in the United Nations. Indeed, at the last General Assembly the United States ambassador, Mr. Goldberg, himself initiated a discussion of the problem and there was a very wide discussion in the General Assembly debate on the question of Viet Nam. It was during that debate that Canada, Denmark, and Sweden called upon the United States to stop the bombing as a first act that might lead to some action on the part of the North which in turn might lead to preliminary discussions.
So this conflict, the seriousness of which is in the minds of everyone, continues to be our concern and we continue to do everything that we can to try to bring about some flexibility in the position of both sides, in the hope that we might in some way or another bring the parties together.
I am sure that it is the duty of all governments in the world to continue this process. We have not only used the United Nations, but we took advantage of ministerial discussions at NATO last fall, at Brussels, and in the previous spring in Luxembourg, to have an airing of this problem. The Canadian government will continue to use all its influence and every available opportunity that is presented to it to try to bring about a solution of this problem. It is only fair to point out that all of this is being done-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, would the minister accept a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just a minute. As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, it is only fair to point out that all of this is being done at the suggestion of the President of the United States himself, who said in April of 1965, following the appeal made by the 17 unaligned nations, that he welcomed the effort of countries to try to bring about a narrowing of the gap and to try to bring about a discussion that could lead to a settlement of this matter.
Supply-External Affairs
I know of nothing more that the Canadian government could do in its efforts to try to help bring about a solution to this regrettable war, which has great significance not only for the United States, not only for its neighbour Canada, but which has an apparent bearing on the posture and the mood of the whole world.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would accept a double-headed question. First of all I refer to the minister's previous references to the International Control Commission, which he referred to a number of times again this evening. It has been some time now since this commission has been able to issue a report. I wonder whether the minister thinks it would be not only possible but advisable, in view of this situation, that if the whole commission is unable to agree on some report, our representatives on the commission were to issue some form of report indicating the situation as it actually obtains at present, and some of the possibilities that might be applied, further to those which have already been applied by our government in regard to the cessation of bombing.
My second question, if I may tie it in with that, is as follows: In view of the fact that there is likely to be a very thorough reexamination of the basic policy of the United States in Viet Nam, I wonder whether our minister or members of this government have entered into discussions with representatives of the United States government with regard to the long term interests of the United States in Viet Nam in particular, and in southeast Asia in general, and whether or not we have stated our position on this important question. [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, we have stated our own position. I think my hon. friend mentioned this when he spoke on this subject in the house last year, and he will recall that a few months before I had outlined the Canadian position with regard to the post-settlement period. We have discussed this with the United States and, as my hon. friend knows, the President announced in his Baltimore speech the position which the government of the United States would take with regard to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of southeast Asia, including Viet Nam.
With regard to the question of a report, there would be no objection, so far as Canada's position on that commission is concerned,



March 18, 1968
Supply-External Affairs to a report such as is being suggested. However, under the terms of the commission there has to be agreement between a majority of the members of the commission. It does not have to be a report that is unanimously supported. It will be recalled that in 1962 the commission did make a report. It was a majority report supported by Canada and India. There is certainly no objection from Canada to such a report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs two questions. The first one has to do with the statement made by Secretary General U Thant on his return from a series of exploratory investigations, in which he gave it as his considered opinion that a cessation of the bombing of North Viet Nam would result in meaningful negotiations within two weeks. I want to ask the minister if, in the light of his correspondence with the foreign minister of North Viet Nam, and the report of Mr. Dier, he shares the feelings which U Thant had as a result of his investigation. In other words, does he feel that the assumption which U Thant drew from his conversations was fully warranted?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have publicly stated that the opinion expressed by the Secretary General is one that I would hope represented the true situation, and I do not have any doubt from the talks that I have had with the Secretary General himself that he believes that if the bombing did stop for the period mentioned there would be meaningful discussions. His information was based on views expressed to him in Paris by someone who represented the government of North Viet Nam, but someone who was not in high authority. Apart from this statement by the Secretary General our own discussions with the foreign minister and with members of the government of North Viet Nam yielded the information that there would be talks, but no indication when those talks might take place. This information has been passed on to the Secretary General. Indeed the government of France, about the same time as the statement was made by the Secretary General, expressed the view that if there was a cessation of bombing there would be talks shortly thereafter.
I wish that I could say that the information transmitted to us, which resulted from direct discussions with the governments concerned, confirmed the optimism of the Secretary General. But having said that, I do want to reiterate that I strongly support the position

taken by the Secretary General, one that is perfectly consistent with the position we ourselves took last September, that the cessation of the bombing would transfer the onus to the north and was in the present situation the only means we know which might conceivably lead to talks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder if I may put my second question to the minister very briefly. Am I correct in assuming from the minister's statement that there is no serious difference of opinion respecting the suggestion that a cessation of the bombing would probably result in negotiations, but that the difficulties are twofold: one, the matter of when the negotiations would take place; and two, the proviso laid down by the President of the United States in his San Antonio statement that there must be some commitment by North Viet Nam with reference to the building up of its military strength in the south? Am I correct in assuming that the real obstacle lies in the fact that the United States is insisting that the artificial division, the military demarkation line between North and South Viet Nam, has now become an international boundary and that North Viet Nam should be required to discontinue supporting whatever forces it may have in South Viet Nam? Is that the real obstacle lying at the root of any meaningful negotiations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer to the question is no. The United States have said that they would be prepared to stop the bombing if they could be assured that talks would take place, and if some indication was given as to when these talks would take place. This is the information we were seeking to get.
As I speak tonight I choose my words carefully, but I still hope that the government of North Viet Nam, knowing that the American government is prepared to stop the bombing, would not only say they will enter the talks but would give an indication as to when these talks would begin. If that is done, I would feel very optimistic that we might begin to try to find a solution to this regrettable war.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not wish to weary the minister, but I have a final question for him. May I ask him when the United States have ever publicly said that they are prepared to cease the bombing if they get a definite time as to when negotiations will begin, without the proviso which was contained in the San Antonio statement that they must also have
March 18. 1968
an assurance with reference to any build-up of military forces or any continuation of support of the military forces which North Viet Nam has in the south.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think I can add to what I have said. I have chosen my words rather carefully. I hold the strong view that if we could have an indication that there would be meaningful talks and that the date would be indicated, this would enable us to help bring about the kind of negotiations for which we have been working for a long time.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
tTranslation]


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest, even with admiration, to the statement made to-night by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) on the problem of war in Viet Nam. It was clear to me that he was fervently hoping that this war would end, and I can assure him that my party and myself-and I am convinced it is also the wish of all the Canadian people-are hoping that this war will come to an end as soon as possible.
We perceive more and more that this is a useless war. It appears to us, in every sense, as a war based on pride between two very powerful blocs facing each other in a very weak country from industrial and agriculture points of view, in short, in an underveloped country.
I have often wondered why those two blocs which are now clashing in Viet Nam, which fought in Korea a few years ago and which will perhaps clash elsewhere later on, have never fought on their own territory.
Every day in Viet Nam, like Korea and elsewhere, innocent victims are being killed, wounded or disabled for life, even though, in that part of Asia, the life span is generally shorter than elsewhere. It is that situation which makes us shudder.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the Viet Nam war is so much more cruel than any other war. All wars are cruel and should all be outlawed by civilized peoples. It seems to me that in the twentieth century, all the nations of the world should be civilized enough to understand one another and to prevent such wars.
We have witnessed many demonstrations, especially in the last few months, in favour of the cessation of bombing and the withdrawal of the United States from Viet Nam. Judging
Supply-External Affairs from these numerous demonstrations in Canada, in the United States, in England and in other European countries, one would think that the Americans are the only ones involved in this war. All the demonstrators want the Americans to go home, but there are very few appeals for the communists to withdraw as well.
We know that the United States have spent and are still spending hundreds of millions of dollars for all sorts of weapons and supplies for the war. They are also losing many young men. But against whom or what are they fighting? Can we believe that little North Viet Nam can alone face both the Americans and the South Vietnamese? Of course not. North Viet Nam is obviously helped by the other bloc, which is the communist bloc.
Like many Canadian citizens, Mr. Chairman, I would say that this war must stop as quickly as possible, the Americans must get out of Viet Nam, just like the other side.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs asked again tonight that negotiations continue or start, provided the bombing is stopped. The communist bloc would like the bombing to stop first and the Americans would like at least the assurance that the negotiations will start beforehand.
I agree with what many others have said in this house as well as elsewhere. It would be better to start with negotiations, because during negotiations less blood is shed. If negotiations were started in the right spirit, they could bring peace to Viet Nam and still the fears of those who now see a third world war coming.
On January 1, 1966, a group of Catholic Vietnamese priests presented a manifesto on the Vietnamese conflict and said among other thing;
Since, under present war conditions, the North and South, as well as the great powers which support them, have in fact proved that they cannot, on their own, put an end to the war because of the illusory hope of victory or the capitulation of the other side, it appears that the only means, or almost, that might lead to the cessation of hostilities, to negotiations and to peace (which, a least, spares he most bloodshed), is to recognize U.S. mediation and arbitration, to have recourse to it and to co-operate sincerely with that organization.
According to the statement of the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs this evening. I understand that the International Control Commission seemed to be the only one to have the right to look in on the Vietnamese conflict. Now, I should like to ask

March 18, 1968

Supply-External Affairs him whether the United Nations would accept to undertake negotiations with a view to putting an end to that war, provided, of course, it were asked to do so; and whether this organization might stand a better chance of success than the International Control Commission, because it does seem that the commission is unable to initiate the negotiations which would appear to be the only way to put an end to this war. If the International Control Commission seems powerless, I think we should resort to another international body in an attempt to settle this conflict, because it will have to stop sooner or later. It does not seem possible, at least for the moment, that one of the two belligerents should gain a victory.
If we can avoid the genocide of the population of that part of Asia which, like any other nation, has a right to life and to self-government, I think it would be time to consider the possibility of establishing in that area a durable peace which might extend to the neighbouring states.
Not long ago, on October 5, 1967, an editorialist of L'Action of Quebec city, Mr. Odilon Arteau, asked himself the following question;
What is going on exactly in Viet Nam?
He mentioned what several writers, namely French writer Suzanne Labin, and men like Father Patrick O'Connor and Father Raymond de Jaegher, who have lived for years in Viet Nam, had said regarding the Vietnamese conflict. In his editorial, Mr. Arteau summarized the ten points made by these three journalists, all of them experts on Asian problems, and whose views were in complete agreement with the views of 20 other American and British experts who had also spent years in Viet Nam.
I quote:
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Let us summarize the views of those experts who are in complete agreement, I repeat, with the views expressed by well-known experts, versed in all questions connected with the Far East.
1.	It was the Viet Cong which started the hostilities in South Viet Nam and carried them on for several years before the American government was compelled to give substantial aid to South Viet Nam.
2.	The Viet Cong is a political movement directed by communists. Its purpose is to establish a communist government in South Viet Nam.
3.	Since 1954, the South Vietnamese government has constituted a true Vietnamese government and it is now fighting to gain its independence. No prominent nationalist in South Viet Nam has deserted to the Viet Cong since 1954.
[Mr. Laprise.l

4.	The people's revolutionary party which is controlling the Viet Cong is a branch of the communist party in North Viet Nam. The Viet Cong itself is organised, armed and trained by North Vietnamese.
5.	The Viet Cong have used terror, torture and cold-blooded murder in a way that differs only in quantity from Hitlerian atrocities.
6.	The North Vietnamese communist regime is amongst the toughest and most brutal in all Asia. All opposition is exterminated.
7.	Up till the time when the North intensified its attacks, the South Vietnamese population enjoyed a standard of living greatly superior to that of the North. Industries were prospering, schools, clinics and welfare services were rapidly increasing in numbers. From 1954 to 1963, there have been in South Viet Nam, in an atmosphere of great liberty, four national elections.
8.	As amply shown by the files of the International Control Commission, the communists have broken and frequently violated the Geneva agreements.
9.	President Johnson has continuously offered to hold unconditional peace talks with Hanoi. Hanoi, Peking and Moscow have rejected all offers. The burden of proof is now on the side of the communists.
10.	If the United States stopped defending South Viet Nam as they do, Laos and the whole of the south and southeast Asia would lose their determination to resist a communist takeover, and all this half of the globe would be lost. Chinese domination over southeast Asia would be disastrous for the United States, since sooner or later Japan, India, Pakistan, the Philippines and many other countries would be lost.
From these ten points, Mr. Chairman, can be seen the strength of communist power in Viet Nam and that part of Asia. I think that we cannot condemn without a trial the United States and other countries of the free world for coming to the aid of the southern portion of this country which does not want communism.
So, Mr. Chairman, such is the situation in Viet Nam. Both the free and the communist worlds are wasting in that war considerable amounts of money and irreplaceable human lives. That must stop.
If both communists and Americans did their utmost to promote freedom and prosperity, if as many efforts and as much money were spent to help those underdeveloped countries, quite different results would be achieved, but unfortunately, too many people still seem to profit by such clashes. Too many people seem to be making large profits through those losses in human life, that destruction which they feel must rage in some part or other of the world, so that they may grow rich by manufacturing war weapons.
March 18. 1968

If some measure of control is needed, Mr. Chairman, it is needed at the level of these industries which are shedding human blood. If, instead of making war, we were all trying to develop the resources of all the countries of the world, we would reach step by step the stage where man would no longer have to fight against man in order to have the right to live and think, where all men would collaborate in exploiting the natural resources of our planet and all would benefit equally from the material and spiritual progress necessary for personal achievement and for that of the whole community.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think that all of us in this house and in the whole country should do all that is humanly possible to bring about these negotiations as soon as possible, in order to put a stop to this ridiculous war which is destroying lives and which may spread not only to Asia but to all parts of the world.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think we have too many recommendations to make to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, for I am aware of his views on this subject. Nevertheless, I can assure him of the support of our group in everything he will undertake with the UN or with the International Control Commission in order to enter into negotiations as soon as possible, to put a stop to bombing on both sides. It is the only hope that is left us for the settlement of this conflict which, I hope, will end very soon.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to hold up the committee, and I thought a great deal before rising. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made what was obviously a prepared and measured statement, but I must say to him that that statement was as disappointing as it was measured. It seems to me that the minister attempted to emphasize his and the government's belief in the necessity for ceasing the bombing of Viet Nam, yet at the same time attempted to justify the refusal of the United States to cease that bombing. His entire speech seems to me to have been a kind of roundabout play that sought to do both things; but I do not think you can do both things, Mr. Chairman.
I do not know what the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or anybody else for that matter, means when he refers to meaningful negotiations. Whether or not the negotiations are meaningful will only be evident after 27053-489
Supply-External Affairs they have started. However, if U Thant and the minister are right, that a cessation of the bombing is essential for any negotiations to begin, then in all kindness to the minister I say to him that it is mere gobbledegook not to recognize that the refusal of the United States to cease that bombing is an obstacle to negotiation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is exactly what we have said.


David Lewis: Then I would be glad if the Secretary of State for External Affairs would rise and clearly say so. He indicated, for example, that even though Hanoi had stated its willingness to talk provided the bombing ceased, it did not say when.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


David Lewis: I still do not know what the Secretary of State for External Affairs means exactly. It is probably due to my dumbness.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman is not dumb, and he knows it. I said we believe the bombing should stop and that this should be the first step. This was the position we took in September and it is the position we take now. It is not agreed to by the United States. It was because we knew that the United States did not agree that we sought to get some indication from the north of when the talks would begin, in the hope that it might persuade the government of the United States to stop the bombing as the Secretary General has urged, and as we urge.


David Lewis: With great respect to the minister, that does not enlighten me. If he believed, as I have no doubt he did, that a cessation of the bombing was essential to the start of negotiations and if, after two years of urging by members of this party at least, and by many others across this country, he finally did state publicly that he wanted the bombing to stop, I say to the hon. gentleman that if he is right, and means it, he ought to criticize the power which refuses to stop the bombing. He tells us he sent someone to Hanoi to get an idea when talks could be expected to begin. Is he suggesting that Hanoi had said: Let the United States stop the bombing first and then we shall see whether we can talk? He cannot mean that, because he emphasized that the foreign secretary of North Viet Nam had stated on New Year's day: If the bombing ceases, there will be talks. Does the hon.
March 18, 1968

Supply-External Affairs gentleman mean that the answer was: We shall not give you a date precisely until such time as the bombing ceases, but we repeat our intention to talk when the bombing ceases? If that is the difference, it seems to me a refusal to cease the bombing on that kind of excuse is entirely reprehensible and I see no reason why the minister cannot say so.
Throughout his speech the minister failed to inform the committee about one important aspect of this issue-whether the United States is ready to negotiate not only with North Viet Nam but with the Viet Cong or its political arm, the National Liberation Front, a question which is of great importance to the other side in this war. I have not yet seen an unqualified statement by the United States that they would be willing to deal with the N.L.F. I have seen statements to this effect surrounded by qualifications and reservations but I have never heard a clear statement that they would meet with the N.L.F. at the negotiating table. Yet, as my leader reminds me, one of the difficulties is that the puppet government in South Viet Nam has stated publicly and formally that under no conditions would it be willing to discuss peace with representatives of the National Liberation Front.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs made another unhappy statement, even though I am sure he did not want to convey the impression which it conveyed to me. He said it was difficult to get North Viet Nam to agree to talk, and that now, because there had been considerable activity on the ground on the part of North Viet Nam and the Viet Cong, we could not expect the United States to be ready to act very quickly.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I did not say that.


David Lewis: That is what I understood the minister to say.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Well, the hon. member had better read it again.


David Lewis: State tor External Affairs from having what I would call the courage, in this desperate world situation, to say clearly both in this house and on the floor of the United Nations that the responsibility has now shifted to Washington, Hanoi having said it would talk if the bombing ceased?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
This to me was the most disappointing part of the minister's speech. I have no doubt that he is utterly and completely sincere in his search for a solution to the problem. I have no doubt that the government is utterly and completely sincere in that it does and in all it has done. I am not trying to denigrate the little the minister has done in seeking a cessation of the bombing, or the good things he has done by sending envoys to Hanoi. But I do not think this is enough.
After a little thought, I was not prepared to have this debate end with the kind of statement which the minister made, which it seems to me indicated no policy whatever except continuing along the same road. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Greenwood, was as aware as the minister of the limitations of a discussion at the Security Council. All members of this party in this chamber, and members of our convention and federal council who urged that the matter be brought to the Security Council, are well aware of the limitations.
We are well aware that North and South Viet Nam are not members of the United Nations and are not subject to the authority of the United Nations. But let me remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs that that has not stopped the United Nations from dealing with other situations. There have been more than one situation in which the Security Council has discussed and attempted to act upon matters when some of the parties concerned in those matters were not members of the United Nations.
There would be nothing to prevent the Security Council from discussing this matter, and for the United States at the Security Council to make some commitment that would be a first step toward negotiations. And, indeed, since behind the scenes the Soviet union is as important perhaps as Hanoi itself, then the presence of the Soviet union at the United Nations in the Security Council may well be of considerable value in a discussion by that council, and in the negotiations which would be carried on at the council, and behind the curtains between official council sessions.
Supply-External Affairs
We are well aware of the limitations, but I do not think that the reason which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has given for not placing the matter on the agenda is a valid reason. I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by repeating that I find it extremely disappointing that the government spokesman should tell us he still believes in the necessity for ceasing bombing North Viet Nam, and in the next breath attempt, by a description of events, to justify American failure to carry out that policy.
I was terribly disappointed and distressed by the fact that the government is apparently attempting to carry on a policy which on the one side says this and on the other side says that. In the meantime this horrible war continues. Thousands of Vietnamese are killed daily. The danger of escalation grows every day.
The press today reported that the administration in Washington was not going to send 260,000 men to Viet Nam, but it was going to increase its manpower there by 35,000 to 50,000. Mr. Chairman, one does not have to be a diplomatic or military expert to know that if you have agreed to increase your manpower today by 35,000 to 50,000 and the war lasts any length of time, then further escalation of your manpower is almst a certainty. In that situation it seems to me that members of this committee and the people of Canada cannot be satisfied with the kind of statement which the minister made in so desperate a situation.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that, as far as the Viet Nam war is concerned, we all agree that it is a dirty war which should come to an end as soon as possible. It is quite obvious also that everyone is hoping that a way can be found to put an end to it.
There is no doubt also that opinions differ when it comes to evaluating what steps should be taken to that end. And there is some evidence of this, because the hon. member who spoke before me said that he was extremely disappointed about the position taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).
Personally, I feel quite differently about that statement. I would say that it is realistic, reasonable, in the circumstances, and even rational, frank and courageous, since he is in a position where it takes some courage to say openly to the American giant what one thinks he should do or not do.
March 18, 1968

Supply-External Affairs
That attitude of the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs is for us a relief after those chain demonstrations which seem inspired, in most cases, by professional rioters, anarchists who today take advantage of this occasion to rebel against authority, to promote all kinds of violent and sometimes bloody riots and who, tomorrow, will find a pretext to instigate trouble in the social classes of various countries.
I say that the attitude of the hon. minister is also a relief from the unjust and unrealistic propaganda which is spread throughout the world, according to which the United States alone is to blame in that dirty war waged by the Vietnamese people, at the present time, and which concerns all the people of the world, because we know that a spark would be enough to set off an international and world-wide catastrophe.
However, it is exaggerating to say that the United States alone is to blame. Even if the newspapers do not give all the publicity they should to the atrocities which are perpetrated by the North Vietnamese, they do exist, not to mention the murders in series committed by those so-called North Vietnamese soldiers in South Viet Nam. They systematically murder the mayors and councillors of the municipalities, the members of the clergy, in an attempt to demoralize the people and win them over to their viewpoint. However, those atrocities should be emphasized and we should remember that even if Hanoi said, at a given time, that should the bombing stop, it would be prepared to open negotiations, it has always refused, up to now, to commit ifself to stop the infiltration in South Viet Nam of its emissaries who go there to perpetrate the atrocities I mentioned earlier and to try and demoralize South Viet Nam.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote the testimony of a prominent member of the Catholic clergy who lived in Viet Nam for 22 years, and who recently came back to Canada. While we discussed the Viet Nam situation with a promiment member of the American clergy who belonged to the category which we call the hawks-the member of the Canadian Catholic clergy would rather have been on the side of the doves,-he explained to us that following his 22 years experience, in Viet Nam, he would consider it a catastrophe-and that is the word he used-if the United States would withdraw from that part of the world without first securing certain conditions as they seem determined to require at the present time.

[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It is true that we are all concerned about this war, that we find it dreadful, that we wish it would end as soon as possible, but we must be fair and I think it is dishonest to be always blaming the Americans only for its length and atrocity.
However, Mr. Chairman, this injustice could perhaps incite the government of Canada, which cannot do much at the present time, to act as the guiding light, as it were, of the nations involved in this conflict. This is perhaps the time for us to re-examine to some extent our international policies and our military commitments to other countries.
This may be the time for us to ask ourselves whether Canada, instead of intensifying its war effort, would not be better advised to take the necessary steps to gain credit with the nations of the world, as a peace agent or as a foster-father to the underdeveloped countries, as a neutral arbitrator in international disputes.
In order to do this, Mr. Chairman, we should of necessity revise not only our present military commitments with other countries, but also, and to quite an extent, our economic policies, because we know that to a large degree our economy is based on the production of war machinery, ammunition and equipment. I know this could not be achieved on a short term basis; I know it might entail a revolution of sorts in methods we had reason to adopt until now; I know it would probably entail planning a revision of our economy and our scientific research, which is also based to a large degree on the war industry; and orienting them towards peace industries.
This is a process which may not materialize before ten years, because I know that it is a field where drastic changes cannot be made overnight. We cannot change our habits so rapidly and reduce the military estimates to nearly nothing; I know that, on the contrary, it will require a systematic and extensive review. But I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the time has not come for Canada to take such action, because there are, in fact, very few countries that could enjoy the confidence of all the countries in the world, that could act as neutral arbitrators, peacemakers, in such conflicts, and not be suspected of having favoured one of the parties involved.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that it implies a kind of revolution which cannot be
March 18, 1968
launched aimlessly, but I still say that in the time in which we live, it might be a role better suited to our position and to our thinking. We could fulfill the duties of good Samaritans to the world, thus winning the trust of the people who today are quite concerned about what is happening in the world and wonder whether it is not the beginning of the end of time. In fact, it is a natural and instinctive reaction to feel terrified at the thought of the destructive power of nuclear weapons which goes beyond the wildest imagination.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of a revision of our policies and when I say that I have the impression, that the conscience of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is somewhat moved, because we know him, in this house and in the country, as a man of peace, who may not have in his hands at the present time everything which is necessary to revolutionize drastically and quickly the thinking of Canada but who, in the long run, might consider a re-examination of our habits in the sense which I mentioned earlier.
For the time being, Mr. Chairman, I think that any non-partisan and objective person who sincerely wishes a settlement of that unfortunate conflict, will recognize that the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs in his statement this evening which in fact is only a repetition of at least two or three other statements made here or at the United Nations, has taken a stand which seems to me realistic, responsible, rational, frank and courageous, under the circumstances, and which in my opinion, will be perfect if, during the next five or ten years, we would not only rethink our military effort, but also redirect it, as a good Samaritan would, so that our efforts for peace be really effective.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to detain the house, but just prior to six o'clock I made a few brief remarks on these estimates. At that time I referred to that senior official of the Seafarers International Union in the United States, that criminal, that gangster, that fugitive from justice, Harold Chamberlain Banks. In all kindness I should like to ask the minister if he can report to the house whether he has had any favourable response to his protest to the Secretary of State of the United States. I should also like to ask him whether he will look into the suggestion I made at the request
Supply-External Affairs of some other people, with regard to this incident.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I will do that, Mr. Chairman. We have asked the United States to reconsider the ruling, as my hon. friend knows. We have been advised that they are now examining the note we delivered last Thursday. I have not had an official reply.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, on this discussion of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs I feel it would be unfortunate if I should let go this opportunity to discuss the current Canadian position on Rhodesia. I know from recent statements that this government is prepared to support further restrictive sanctions against that de facto government, in spite of the very obvious failure of the existing policy to bring down the government of Mr. Ian Smith, to improve the conditions of the African majority of that land, to add at all to the peace, security and stability of that region of Africa, or to bring forth any thanks or commendation from the African nations in the rest of the continent. The policy is one guaranteed to fail and one that we can criticize on a variety of grounds. Mr. John Sparrow, writing in the Sunday Times of London referred to Jonathan Swift and gave an example of what he would say were he alive today and viewing the Rhodesian situation. John Sparrow says:
It is plain, too, on which side his feelings would lie in Rhodesia: the attacks he launched in "The Drapier's Letters" upon a government who, by oppressing the English ascendancy increased the miseries of the native Irish, would be deployed against a policy aimed at British settlers, only to intensify the hardships of the Africans-"Take care lest the severities you are so eager to inflict upon your kith and kin are not visited on the wretches whose well-being you profess to have at heart. No native in all the land will eat a crust of bread the more because you have taken away the cake from the table of his betters."
It seems to me that this is a very true comment on the situation in Rhodesia, and one which should give Canadians pause to think at a time when we make suggestions that this policy be intensified.
Then we could read from a statement by Elspeth Huxley when writing a letter from Africa entitled "Entering 1968". She is an author of considerable talent and ability, and one who knows the continent very thoroughly. She says this about the situation in Rhodesia:
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The third major tragedy of 1967 has been a total failure to cut through the Rhodesian knot. If to

7772	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs increase the real wealth of Africa is the one thing that really matters, those responsible for keeping on the sanctions policy should be prosecuted for the crime of wilful impoverishment. While sanctions have failed either to bankrupt Rhodesia or to dislodge Mr. Smith, they have succeeded in slowing down, and in some cases reversing, the country's development. Rhodesia could be producing more meat, more maize, more of many things needed by the world's hungry people. To prevent this is a crime against humanity considerably blacker than withholding the vote from a majority of Africans until a fairly basic level of education qualifies them to exercise it. If Britain, the United States and other countries had pumped in oil, and bought all Rhodesia could produce, more Africans would by now have got to the voters' rolls and majority rule would have been that much nearer, instead of even further away. As it is, everyone has lost, most of all the Africans.
She then goes on to say:
It is not even as if Britain was buying African goodwill with her lost trade. She is buying nothing but abuse and contempt, coupled with a demand for more aid without the least wisp of string attached.
Again I think we might give considerable thought to that statement. We might also take the word of an authority that perhaps even the hon. minister would recognize as being anything but right wing. This is the word of an outstanding person in today's world. I speak of Helen Suzman, the progressive representative in the parliament of the Union of South Africa, the sole representative of that political party. In the Sunday Times of August 13, 1967 she was asked:
You and your friends wouldn't like to see force used at this point?
This was in reference to Rhodesia. She replied:
I really do not think you could accomplish anything by using force. You have to realize, too, that if you go against the people who are in power in Rhodesia it is more than just putting things down by force: you have to realize that you have to face the situation thereafter, of armies, of occupation, and other untenable prospects.
When she was speaking of the attitude of South Africa toward Rhodesia she said:
There is no doubt that Smith has lasted much longer than people, myself included, thought he would. I think to a large extent he has more or less won his battle.
Then finally on South Africa, again in relation to Rhodesia, she said:
I also do not believe that anyone can impose anything from outside today on South Africa. The changes, if they are to be lasting, and viable, have to come from within.

DEBATES	March 18, 1968
Yet we have set on a course to attempt to force change from without against knowledgeable and expert advice from people who know Africa best, and against the best interests of the very people we purport to be assisting. What thanks do we get? Are we able to influence any African nation to follow the path that we would like to see them follow? The record of the last few months has been laughable. Has there been a moment when the Canadian government has dared to suggest to the government of Kenya that it end its policy of apartheid against the Asians resident in that land? Would we have the courage or the nerve to challenge these people with sanctions? The answer of course is no. We say we will do what we can to ease the problems of refugess from that land. We dare not suggest any change in the governmental policy there which would ease the problems of those people who are fleeing that land and who, by their flight, will bring it to an economic depression or an economic situation which will result in a request to us to provide aid in order to repair the damage they are busy doing themselves. This will be aid, over and above the taking in of some thousands of refugess.
When the neighbouring country of Uganda follows the same policy will we be able to raise one small voice of protest? Will we be able to remind them of the sanctions we placed on Rhodesia? We have done everything we can to develop that policy of sanctions. We have interested ourselves in southwest Africa. We have driven South Africa out of the commonwealth of nations. We have done all of these things and we have never wavered from our misguided policy in respect of Africa. Will we be able to ask Uganda to listen to us? The answer again is no. We will not even dare make a suggestion, and if we did it would not be listened to. We will be faced in a couple of years time with the problem of opening our doors again to another group of refugees, this time from Uganda.
What about that incident in the country of Gabon? The really important thing about this is not what it does to our internal trouble or what we might think of the government of France. The important thing is that it underlines more dramatically than anything else that our entire policy in Africa over the last 10 or 15 years has gained us not a single friend in that country. We needed one at the time of this incident. The Gabon people could have said to France: We cannot possibly slight
March 18. 1S88

this government in Ottawa because it has stood so resolutely and so long for African nationalism. Is this what happened? The answer again is no. The government in Canada was snubbed and slighted and received no thanks for the stand it held so stubbornly.
Would we as Canadians have dared to appeal to the government of Malawi to ease its pressure on the religious group, the Jehovah Witnesses, in that country? Has this government listened to the representations to use its good influences with that state on behalf of this religious sect, which is being persecuted there now? The answer again is no. Not only would we be afraid and hesitate even to suggest such a thing to them, but there is no good will on which to rely. Nothing has been gained from our policy in Rhodesia and in South Africa through the years.
We have no influence with the governments of the undeveloped nations, of Africa, many of which are far more sophisticated politically than is this government in Ottawa. They know that this government will never change its policies, so they are free to advocate a course of democratic freedom at the United Nations and to practise whatever policy they wish against their own people in Africa.
Dare we involve ourselves in the apartheid that is being practised in Nigeria at the present time? We may wring our hands and deplore the unhappy situation there. I noticed an appeal on behalf of Biafran refugees from Africa landed on my desk recently. It was endorsed by various members of this chamber. We know that because of the very policies that this government has followed so long, we have no influence in Nigeria.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We have been so busy attacking the governments of South Africa and Rhodesia that we have shut our eyes entirely to the evils of apartheid being practised in other sections of the same continent. I hold no brief at all for apartheid, but I believe that our policy in the southern regions of South Africa should be one of far greater realism than the one we have been so wishfully and wistfully following for so long. I think we would be of far greater assistance to all the peoples of Africa, black and white, if we were to follow a policy that improved the development of that part of the world and ended our policy of sanctions, because it is useless, wasteful and damaging to the very people it is designed to help. We could go so far as to recognize the existing government of Rhodesia.
Supply-External Affairs


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall vote 10c carry?


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I rise only to ask the minister whether he is going to make any statement or reply concerning the points about external aid which I raised, and which my colleague the hon. member for Springfield raised this afternoon. I should like at sometime to have some comments from the minister on this subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the agencies of the United Nations, as my hon. friend so well knows, are particularly well placed to render assistance in the field of family planning and to assist countries which request it. The United Nations development program, the World Health Organization and UNICEF are all in one way or the other attacking the problem of family planning at the request of the less developed countries. The Canadian government is of course a major contributor to the budgets of these organizations, and we are taking an increasing and definite interest in this matter.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, could I ask one question of the minister? Has the Canadian government made any representation to the government of Malawi on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses group there, who have alleged a policy of religious persecution being waged against them in recent months?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have complained of discrimination against various religious bodies in a number of countries. I cannot say offhand whether we have in this particular instance, but I will make immediate inquiries. If representations have been made to us, or we are made aware of such representations, we do take strong action.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take advantage of the study of the supplementary estimates of the Department of External Affairs to deal with something new, a matter widely discussed during the last month.
I mean the incident between Canada and Gabon, a small African country with a population of approximately 575,000 inhabitants, that is hardly more than that of Quebec city and its suburbs. One day the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) tells us that relations between Canada and Gabon have been broken off.
March 18, 1968

Supply-External Affairs
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, first of all that diplomatic relations between Canada and Gabon were never established. The ambassador for Gabon had yet to present his credentials to the government in Ottawa, just as the Canadian ambassador had to present his to the government of Gabon. Still, we are told: We are breaking our relations.
Canada, which has seldom used that formula in the past, like a Don Quixote at the conquest of a windmill, suddenly says it breaks off relations which had never existed, with a very small country, Gabon. That almost takes on an international aspect. What must be done? Is Canada going to declare war on Gabon? The fact remains that relations are broken off which never existed.
Can the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs explain to us how this new formula works out in international affairs? How can relations be broken off when they have never existed? Indeed, it is a mystery to me how relations can be broken off which have yet to be established.
But, before giving the hon. minister time to answer this question, I should like to speak about the fundamental problem.
There are two conflicts in this overall problem. The first opposes the Ottawa government and the Quebec government; the second the Ottawa government and the government of Gabon.
The conflict between the Ottawa government and the Quebec government is as follows: A meeting of the ministers of education of French-speaking countries is being held in Gabon. Quebec says: Under the British North America Act, education is a provincial matter, and therefore, falls within the Quebec jurisdiction, as Quebec is the only Frenchspeaking province in Canada. As education is a provincial matter: it falls to Quebec to attend and take part in those meetings on education which group French-speaking countries.
On the other hand, the federal government says: Yes, but this is external relations, because an invitation is extended by a sovereign country, Gabon, to another sovereign country, Canada; this is therefore a question of external relations. Now, as external relations are the responsibility of the federal government, the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada tells us: Gabon should have invited the federal government.
However, the purpose of that meeting was not to deal with international matters or
[Mr. Gregolre.i
external relations, but with educational problems common to French-speaking countries. In order to achieve that aim, the ministers of education had to get together and to that end, invitations had to be sent from one country to the other.
The invitation which brought about that conflict is only a means of achieving that purpose, namely to discuss problems concerning education which comes under provincial jurisdiction. Who is right, then? Is it the provincial authorities who look after education or the federal authorities who felt entitled to get the invitation? Which point is more important? Is it the discussion on education or the invitation to the conference? Undoubtedly, it was a discussion on education, and this concerns Quebec authorities.
The point of view of the government of the province of Quebec was this: in the field of education, the only jurisdiction is provincial. On the other hand, the federal government was affirming its jurisdiction over external affairs. But the only thing that had something to do with this field was the invitation. For Quebec, it was a question of discussing educational matters, over which the provinces, in this case Quebec, have exclusive jurisdiction.
Therefore, this implied nothing essential for Ottawa. In fact, the only thing involved was something purely incidental, that is to say an invitation, whereas for Quebec it had to do with educational matters, therefore with something essential over which the province has jurisdiction.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The conflict between Ottawa and the Republic of Gabon stems from the fact that Gabon did not invite the minister of education in Ottawa, since it sent invitations to the ministers of education of French-speaking countries. Since there is no minister of education in Ottawa, Gabon could not invite anyone from the federal department. On the other hand, if Gabon had invited the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, he could not have attended the talks on education in Libreville, because he is not a minister of education but the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The invitation was not extended to ministers of external affairs but only to ministers of education, and how could the minister of education in Ottawa have been invited when he does not exist? If the Libreville government had sent an invitation addressed to the hon. minister of education,
March 18, 1968	COMMONS
Ottawa, Canada, the letter would have been returned with the mention: wrong address, since there is no minister of education in Ottawa.
If such an invitation had been sent to the federal minister of education, what could Ottawa have done? Return it with the following explanation: Excuse us, but there is no such individual in Ottawa. Then, nobody would have been invited to represent Quebeckers at the meeting of the ministers of education of French-speaking countries.
What minister of the federal government could Libreville invite? Surely not the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) who was quite ready to advocate the breaking off of negotiations! Moreover, it was not a meeting of the Ministers of Justice. It was not, furthermore, a meeting of the Ministers of National Defence, of Prime Ministers or Ministers of Finance, because it was a meeting of ministers of education and there is no such post in Ottawa. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) could not be invited, because he would have spoken about Bomarcs and nuclear weapons.
The invitation had to be sent to a minister of education. And there is no such minister in Ottawa. Therefore, the invitation was sent to the right place, at the provincial level, and it would have been a mistake to send it to Ottawa where there is no such minister. But there is a minister in charge of French education in Quebec and the invitation was sent to him.
Therefore, disagreement between Ottawa and Quebec was as unwarranted as disagreement between Ottawa and Gabon. It was a storm in a teapot, it was picking a quarrel needlessly, breaking off relations which did not exist, and that problem which should never have arisen was all in the minds of Ottawa officials. There are enough problems in Ottawa without trying to create new ones. Each minister tries to make problems for himself and it would seem that they try to outdo each other in that respect.


An hon. Member:: Quebec also.


Gilles Grégoire: Now that everything is over, that everything has been done, that relations that never existed have been broken off, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) announces that Ottawa had suggested that the invitation be sent to Ottawa, that a Canadian delegation participate to a conference of French speaking countries on education, and that Ottawa
DEBATES	7775
Supply-External Affairs could have appointed a Quebec minister as head of the Canadian delegation to that meeting of education ministers. Such a suggestion, it seems to me, must have been embarrassing coming from a Canadian Prime Minister. How is it that the Prime Minister of Canada has felt compelled to seek a simple minister, in a simple province, to appoint him as head of the Canadian delegation? There is something contradictory there, something that good federalists like the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) could not accept. I know that the minister would not have gone there because rural development was not a topic of discussion there.
The Quebec government denied having received such a proposal from the Ottawa government, and even if it had received it, it would have found it unacceptable. Indeed, it would have been unthinkable, in my opinion, that the Quebec minister of education should accept to take part in a conference on education as spokesman for the federal government, which has no authority, no jurisdiction in that field.
In view of these facts, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a serious blunder on that occasion. I consider him competent in other fields but in the Gabon incident, he has, it seems to me, been adversely influenced by other persons. I see that the minister would like to say a few words on that subject and I conclude in expressing the hope that the Quebec government will accept the proposal made by the hon. member for Dorion, Mr. Frangois Aquin, who said that the Quebec government, in order to correct the situation, should open a Quebec house in Libreville- for the whole of Africa-such as the ones that already exist in Paris, London and Milan. Thus, the injustice toward a small and peace-minded country would be rectified.
Therefore, I hope that the Quebec government will be able to rectify the colossal blunder made by the federal government and that the Quebec government will establish a Quebec house in Libreville, so as to represent this country in all of Africa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15c. Assessments, Grants, Contributions and other payments to International (including Commonwealth Organizations and International Multilateral Economic and Special Aid Programs as detailed in the Estimates, $1.
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 18, 1968
Business of the House
External Aid Office-
35c. Economic, technical, educational and other assistance as detailed in the Estimates, $100,000.
Item agreed to.
L27c. To increase to $2,500,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to the special account mentioned in Vote L13a of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1964 that was established for the purpose of financing posts abroad, and for advances to personnel on posting and for medical expenses; additional amount required, $500,000.
Item agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: This completes the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report the resolutions adopted and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


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



Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government house leader in what order the supplementary estimates will be considered tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The supplementary estimates will be considered in the order listed, beginning with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, followed by the Department of Defence Production and the Department of Industry under the same minister, and then the estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to point out that if by the end of the afternoon the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not completed, I will call the estimates of the departments which I have already mentioned.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Michael Starr: I should like to ask a question so that we may know tomorrow when we consider the estimates of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether, in view of the fact a board will be set up to review costs and prices, it is the intention of the minister to introduce an amendment to reduce some of these estimates?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interfere with the answer to that question, but I have one I should like to ask as well.

Could we be informed tomorrow, before we begin consideration of the estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, whether we will be proceeding this week with Bill No. C-190?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As suggested earlier today, I propose to have a meeting with the house leaders tomorrow morning. Possibly illumination on that point will issue from that meeting.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville):: May we revert to motions, please, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J.-E. Bernard Pilon: That the name of Mr. Stafford be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.
That the name of Mr. Ryan be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on health and welfare.
That the name of Mr. Groos be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on veterans affairs.
That the name of Mr. Noel be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the joint committee on printing.
That the name of Mr. Caron be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the joint committee on parliamentary restaurant.
That the name of Mr. Patterson be substituted for the name of Mr. Leboe on the standing committee on labour and employment.
That the name of Mr. Addison be substituted for the name of Mr. Goyer on the standing committee on transport and communications.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has been moved by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville:
That the name of Mr. Stafford be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.
Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That the name of Mr. Ryan be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on health and welfare.
March 18, 1968	COMMONS
That the name of Mr. Groos be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the standing committee on veterans affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
That the name of Mr. Noel be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the joint committee on printing.
That the name of Mr. Caron be substituted for the name of Mr. Cowan on the joint committee on parliamentary restaurant.
That the name of Mr. Patterson be substituted for the name of Mr. Leboe on the standing committee on labour and employment.
That the name of Mr. Addison be substituted for the name of Mr. Goyer on the standing committee on transport and communications.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask one question before the motion is carried? How is it the hon. member for York-Humber was on so many committees?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, this motion can be debatable. Since it is past ten o'clock, I ask that the debate on this motion be adjourned until tomorrow.
Under standing order 32 (l)(m), this motion is debatable. I therefore ask that it be adjourned until tomorrow, as there is a matter of principle to be discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, and there appearing to be objection to the motion now before the house, would the house agree that the motion be considered tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 12, the Prime Minister made a statement in the house regarding the 27053-4901
DEBATES	7777
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion implementation of medicare. In part, and as reported at page 6599 of Hansard, he said: Today it remains the concern of the federal government to find the best way in which federal and provincial action can most effectively contribute, once the present legislation has come into effect, to achieve a practical medical care program available to as many Canadians as possible as soon as possible.
He went on to state that the act, with all its ramifications, will come into effect on July 1 of this year, and that at the outset only one or two provinces would participate since only one or two had satisfied the criteria set down by the government of Canada. The province of Saskatchewan will be one of those provinces, Mr. Speaker, and it certainly qualifies under the criteria because since 1962 the government of Saskatchewan has had in effect a comprehensive medical care program.
Coming into the scheme with only one other province, and perhaps another one or two, it cannot of course hope to meet the requirements of portability since the question comes to mind as to where and with whom can such a plan be portable. However, that seems to be beside the point, and I await with interest how the present government plans or intends to implement this particular part of the medicare criteria.
However, Mr. Speaker, as I read the Prime Minister's remarks it does seem clear that the Prime Minister wishes federal funds to be used to provide medical care for citizens of our individual qualifying provinces; but nowhere has the government stated unequivocally that the funds to be provided for medical care to the provinces will be grants conditional upon their use for the provision of payment of physicians' services or other essential portions of the medical care program.
As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, on March 12 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the money designated for Saskatchewan under the medical care program becoming effective July 1 would be designated for use for medical care only. I asked this question for a very valid reason indeed. Under the medical care legislation passed in Saskatchewan in 1962, the government of Saskatchewan has the power to introduce deterrent fees or other fiscal measures designed to deter citizens from making use of the medical care plan, and thus save the government money.
March 18, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Recently in Saskatchewan the government has stated that the costs of medicare are rising so rapidly that it would be necessary to introduce a deterrent fee of $1.50 per patient per office visit in order to save approximately $5 million which the government-and I quite believe this-claims it does not have. This money is necessary to meet the increase in costs of medical care in Saskatchewan. This deterrent fee will start on April 15. In addition, Mr. Speaker, $2.50 will be charged the average patient for every day that he is in hospital.
Since it seems obvious that such catastrophic deterrent fees will penalize those who are least able to pay, surely it is equally obvious that if this government will state unequivocally that the grants for medical care are conditional upon their use for medical care only in the province of Saskatchewan and other provinces, this will obviate the necessity for the introduction of this deterrent fee.
Since the amount coming to Saskatchewan in one year will be somewhere in the $12 million to $14 million range, this would mean that this year somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6 million would be available for the people of Saskatchewan and would save them from the imposition of deterrent fees. It would also save them from the burden of additional double taxation.
An answer at this time from the minister, or from his charming parliamentary secretary, would mean a great deal not only to the people of our province but to the people of every province. It would prevent an indiscriminate use of medical care funds for the purpose of balancing provincial budgets which have been overburdened by other expenditure on such things as highways, public buildings and the like. So I ask the minister through his parliamentary secretary to do the people of Saskatchewan a favour and assure them that the federal medical care funds will be used and designated for the purpose for which they were intended, namely the provision of medical care for the people not only of Saskatchewan but in every part of Canada.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the payments made by the federal government to a province under the Medical Care Act are based on the national average per capita cost actually

incurred by the medical care plans of all participating provinces in payments to medical practitioners for insured services provided to insured residents of those provinces.
Consequently the federal financial contribution during any fiscal year is a reimbursement of moneys actually spent during that fiscal year and there is no designation as to what use the province must put it.
Co-insurance charges payable by or on behalf of an individual patient are not recognized as provincial costs in determining the national average per capita cost.



IMMIGRATION-ADMISSION OF SEASONAL FARM LABOUR FROM WEST INDIES

['Order. I must advise the minister that the time allotted to him has expired.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.22 p.m.\n[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]']
Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe):: My
question goes to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it relates to the subject I raised on Thursday, March 14-the bringing in of seasonal labour from the West Indies. My supplementary question, when I asked why the minimum wage rate had been so drastically increased, was ruled out of order.
To preface my remarks I should like to place on record telegrams received from growers and distributors of vegetables in the Bradford and Holland Marsh area which are nationally known. There is no end to the number of these telegrams; I shall place only a few of them on record so that the minister may understand how urgent this question is; the growing season is fast approaching and greenhouse work is being carried out in preparation for the coming crop and in anticipation of this labour being used.
The first telegram reads:
Strenuously object to minimum hourly rate of $1.45 for West Indies casual labour. This will only speed up the primary producers being forced out of business and raise the living cost of our population. These people are happy to work for our minimum rate of $1.25. If impossible to change suggest discontinue unemployment benefits for months prior to November to divert local labour for the harvest.
This comes from Springdale Farms at Bradford. Another telegram of the same nature comes from Hillside Gardens, Bradford:
We strongly object to hourly rate of $1.45 for West Indies casual labour. With transportation and housing etc. this comes to two dollars plus. Would be happy to use Canadian labour for this short period of time if available.
The following telegram was sent by Federal Farms:
Vigorously protest increase imposed for West Indian farm labour. Rate in addition to transportation, free housing, far exceeds minimum wage set
March 18, 1968

by government and local rates. This increase confirmed the entire immigration program established could be in jeopardy. Our minimum muck soil acreage is 400.
In drawing attention to this subject I am working in co-operation with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) and the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Dan-forth). I find in the Windsor Star of Tuesday, March 12 an article headed: "Jamaicans' pay increase hit". It is a long article, but it reads in part:
In addition to a guaranteed minimum of $58 a week, the Jamaicans are provided with living accommodation and their fare to and from Jamaica by plane, which is $140 return on charter flights and $275 return when they have to be carried on regular flights.
The experience of employers in 1967 was that Jamaicans employed on a piecework basis on tomatoes and apples earned more than the $145 minimum.
In the same article a Hamilton union chief is reported to have protested to the Ontario department of labour that Jamaican workers were ill paid and ill housed while they were in Ontario. The writer continues:
The most significant part of the protest was that the official misrepresented all the conditions under which Jamaican workers are allowed into Canada.
He even indicated that workers brought in had to pay their own air fare, when actually the only deductions made for this purpose are made at the request of the government authorities in Jamaica, who want to recover transportation costs of workers from Trinidad and other islands to Jamaica, before they embark for Canada.
With the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) speaking of restraints and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Turner) studying a chain of food stores, I cannot understand how the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) can act in this way, adding further to the costs of producers and merchandisers who have to compete in world markets.
According to the Ottawa Journal of March 15 our jobless total is the highest since 1964. It stated that farm jobs dropped by 23,000 in one month. With 750,000 unemployed I cannot see how raising the wages of these Jamaican workers-some are experienced and some are not-can do anything but make the situation worse. If unemployment insurance were held off for a longer period, to the fall, possibly some of our own unemployed would work to help these market gardeners harvest their crops.
I hope the minister will reconsider this matter and retain the minimum wage at $1.25
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion for these immigrants coming in as casual labour. I would point out that these people are expecting an answer from me, and I hope the minister can do something about the matter.


Hon. B. S. Mackasey (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, in the brief time at my disposal I shall try to acquaint the hon. member as to how this minimum figure was arrived at. On March 1 the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) announced that in the summer of 1968 we will once again admit seasonal agricultural workers from the West Indies to help with harvesting of crops in southwestern Ontario. This decision was not an easy one. There are indications that Canadian workers available for seasonal work in agriculture, especially students, will have more difficulty in finding summer jobs than last year. In fact this question was raised very recently by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).
The decision to go ahead with the off-shore labour program was made in spite of these indications. It was reached only because of the inherent difficulties in forecasting precisely the demand-supply relationship for a relatively small geographic area and for a type of work which is subject to fluctuations caused by climatic conditions.
The minister is very much aware of the dangers involved. If next summer there are Canadians asking for jobs, and not getting them, in the areas where there are West Indian workers under contract, he will be criticized for giving unfair treatment to Canadian labour. On the other hand, if there is a shortage of labour he will be equally criticized.
The conditions under which Canadian farmers can bring in West Indian workers this year are unchanged from last year. These conditions are not arbitrary. They were carefully reviewed with provincial representatives at a recent meeting of the federal-provincial agricultural manpower committee. The committee also reviewed the analysis made by the department of last year's movement, which revealed that the cost-benefit ratio for the West Indian workers compared well with that for domestic labour.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Madill) will certainly agree that it would be irresponsible to relax the conditions even more than they were last year, in view of the

March 18, 1968
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion manpower forecasts and other warnings. These conditions remain the same. The starting and departure dates for these workers are the same as last year. The maximum duration of four months for their stay in Canada was retained in spite of the fact that last year West Indian workers on average stayed here for only eight to 12 weeks. The cost of transportation as distributed between the workers, their governments and the Canadian employers was also left unchanged. Now, I think this is the significant part.
The minimum wage rate as set for 1968 had to be adjusted if we wanted to retain the same conditions as in the last two years. It is based on two separate sets of statistics published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. In 1966, the first year of the West Indian program, the minimum rate of $1.25 was based on the January 1965 daily wage rate, without board, that Ontario farmers paid their permanent help. This Ontario rate increased by 17.1 per cent in the next years. As a result we had to increase the 1968 rate
for West Indian workers by the same percentage to $1.45.
Only a few days ago the Dominion Bureau of Statistics published more recent data. According to this report Ontario farmers in January 1966, paid their workers $1.25 an hour, which corresponds exactly to the rate we set in that year for West Indian workers. In January of this year the Ontario farmers paid an average $1.44 per hour, which again corresponds closely to the rate we set of $1.45 for West Indian workers for the coming season.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the minister that the time allotted to him has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.22 p.m.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]



[Stage Direction]
10c, 15c, 35c, L27c.
IMr. Mackasey.]
March 18, 1968


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, March 17, 1968 68-37
The Honourable Mitchell Sharp, Minister of Finance, tonight welcomed the decisions announced in the communique issued in Washington today by the Governors of the Central Banks contributing to the Gold Pool. He noted the subsequent statement issued by the Governor of the Bank of Canada in which the Governor said the Bank of Canada would cooperate in the policies set forth in that communique, as other Central Banks had been invited to do. The Minister stated that he had assured the Governor of his support of this policy, which would apply to the gold held by the Bank on behalf of the Minister of Finance as part of Canada's official reserves.
The co-operation in the policies set forth in the Washington communique will not require any change in the practices that have been followed in the management of Canada's gold reserves, nor any change in the practices followed in the disposition of the output of Canadian gold mines.

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, March 17, 1968 68-33
The Honourable Mitchell Sharp, Minister of Finance, tonight made public the text of a telegram he had sent to all banks and to other dealers in gold requesting them to continue until further notice the suspension of trading in gold that was instituted on Friday in response to his request Thursday evening.
"In view of the important decisions relating to non-official markets for gold taken in Washington today by the central banks contributing to the gold pool I request that you continue to suspend trading in gold until further notice."

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, March 17th, 1968
The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Louis Rasminsky, announced tonight that as part of the large increase in Swap facilities between
the Federal Reserve System and other central banks announced in Washington today the reciprocal credit facility between the Bank of Canada and the Federal Reserve System has been increased from $750 million to $1,000 million.
Mr. Rasminsky also stated that in response to the invitation addressed to other central banks in the communique issued at the conclusion of the Washington meeting of the Governors of the central banks of the contributing members of the Gold Pool, the Bank of Canada would co-operate in the policies set forth in that communique.
Communique
March 17, 1968.
The Governors of the central banks of Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States met in Washington March 16 and 17, 1968, to examine operations of the Gold Pool, to which they are active contributors. The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and the General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements also attended the meeting.
The Governors noted that it is the determined policy of the United States Government to defend the value of the dollar through appropriate fiscal and monetary measures and that substantial improvement of the United States balance of payments is a high priority objective.
They also noted that legislation approved by (U.S.) Congress makes the whole of the gold stock of the nation available for defending the value of the dollar.
They noted that the United States Government will continue to buy and sell gold at the existing price of $35 an ounce in transactions with monetary authorities. The Governors support this policy and believe it contributes to the maintenance of exchange stability.
The Governors noted the determination of the United Kingdom authorities to do all that is necessary to eliminate the deficit in the United Kingdom balance of payments as soon as possible and to move to a position of large and sustained surplus.
[Stage Direction]
March 18, 1968
Finally, they noted that the governments of most European countries intend to pursue monetary and fiscal policies that encourage domestic expansion consistent with economic stability, avoid as far as possible increases in interest rates or a tightening of money markets, and thus contribute to conditions that will help all countries move toward payments equilibrium.
The Governors agreed to co-operate fully to maintain the existing parities as well as orderly conditions in their exchange markets in accordance with their obligations under the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund. The Governors believe that henceforth officially-held gold should be used only to effect transfers among monetary authorities and therefore they decided no longer to supply gold to the London gold market or any other gold market. Moreover, as the existing stock of monetary gold is sufficient in view of the prospective establishment
of the facility for Special Drawing Rights, they no longer feel it necessary to buy gold from the market. Finally, they agreed that henceforth they will not sell gold to monetary authorities to replace gold sold in private markets.
The Governors agreed to co-operate even more closely than in the past to minimize flows of funds contributing to instability in the exchange markets, and to offset as necessary any such flows that may arise.
In view of the importance of the pound sterling in the international monetary system the Governors have agreed to provide further facilities which will bring the total of credits immediately available to the United Kingdom authorities (including the IMF standby) to $4 billion.
The Governors invite the co-operation by other central banks in the policies set forth above.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 19, 1968