1969-11-27

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received, which is as follows:
Ottawa, November 27, 1969
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Emmett M. Hall, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 27th November, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Louis-Fremont Trudeau Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Laflamme.
[Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of several inquiries, mainly from the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I wish to make a statement concerning antibiotics and their labelling.
Several announcements have been made recently by the United States Food and Drug Administration that certain combination drug 21545-12^
products will be removed from the market This action was based on reports from the drug efficacy study group established by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council that products containing fixed combinations of antibiotics are ineffective for claims made in their labelling.
We are well aware that fixed-ratio drug formulations have been the subject of controversy in medical circles for some years. However, in spite of the opinions expressed in the U.S.A., there are some physicians who believe that these combinations are of value and would wish them to be retained on the market. The debate as to whether fixed-ratio combinations should be prescribed is a matter which properly rests with the medical profession.
Nevertheless, some months ago the Food and Drug Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare, initiated discussions with Canadian manufacturers of certain antibiotic combinations. If these investigations show the need, manufacturers will be required to include additional explanatory or cautionary information on the label of the drug or in the professional literature accompanying the drug or being supplied to the professions. If evidence is obtained that these combinations are less effective than their individual components or if they are found to represent a hazard to health, the directorate will take further appropriate action.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The directorate has authority under Section 9(1) of the Food and Drugs Act to prevent the sale of a drug product that is labelled in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive in regard to its merit or safety.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for giving me advance notice of this statement. I am glad he has realized there has been a mild controversy in medical circles for a good many years about fixed combinations of antibiotics. Those who work in universities and hospitals tend to believe that there should not be combinations while those who are involved with the general care of the public have often thought that in certain cases these fixed combinations are of value.
1298	COMMONS
Minister's Statement on Antibiotics
I agree with the minister that he has gone carefully and slowly, and I believe that in certain conditions physicians would agree that fixed combinations of antibiotics are useful, particularly in a widely scattered country. However, we have to recognize that medical technology is advancing With regard to the desirable role of specific drugs for specific conditions. This is being brought closer and the use of fixed combinations of antibiotics will decrease in the future. I believe that the Food and Drug Directorate has done well not to ban these combinations immediately as has been done in the United States. I look with interest to further evidence as to what the department will do.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note how long it took the minister to make the statement he made today, a statement in which he really said nothing. In other instances, such as auto safety and the use of cyclamates, we in Canada have waited for United States agencies to take action and have then followed their action and took their advice on the basis of the tests they have conducted.
In this case the minister decided to listen to the drug industry and to ignore the findings of the United States agency which made a very careful study of the problem taking more than three years and costing over $1 million. This study was conducted by the United States National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.
They found that two-thirds of the prescription drugs used in the United States are badly labelled and a large percentage are partly or totally ineffective. They found, in a study of 4,000 drug preparations, 85 per cent of them prescription drugs supplied by over 200 firms, that 7 per cent were totally ineffective. Others were found effective for some diseases and partly or not at all for others for which effectiveness was claimed. The study showed that two-thirds of the drugs were poorly organized, repetitive, out of date, evasive and promotionally oriented. They ordered a large number of prescription drugs to be relabelled and called for the banning of sales of 54 specific drugs.
In light of their findings it is disappointing, to say the least, to find the minister making a statement in which he in effect says that the government is not prepared to do anything. This does not surprise me, Mr. Speaker. We have watched this government over a period of four or five years make extensive studies of drug safety and drug prices and come up with proposals which have had little, if any,

DEBATES	November 27. 1969
effect in improving drug safety and no effect on drug prices. All the steps taken led to no changes in the very high prices of drugs.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if this statement is not related to a recent decision taken by the Americans in connection with the ban On germ warfare.
In any event, it is a statement which tells us what the Department of National Health and Welfare intends to do with regard to drugs. In this statement, we find that if evidence is obtained that combinations are less effective than their individual components, the Director General of the Food and Drug Directorate will take the steps needed to remedy the situation.
Mr. Speaker, as the previous speakers, I rejoice in the position taken because the drug industry is different from others, first because experience has taught me that drugs have more frequently been used to make money than to cure, and also, at the manufacturing level, this industry sets selling prices which are in no way prorated to costs. We have a right to have doubts about the value of what is contained in drugs.
Therefore, I congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) who, by his attitude, will contribute, in my opinion, to restrain the shameful exploitation of the sick and the old.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: for leave to introduce Bill C-160 entitled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Off-track betting).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the final report of the Prevost Commission in Quebec recommends that gambling be legalized and socialized so that not only illicit interests may exploit this need felt by most Canadians.
This bill introduced for the first time in the House on June 13, 1967, purports to amend the Criminal Code so as to enable provincial governments wishing to do so to establish off-track betting in order to get funds for various social, hospital and educational programs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
November 27, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	1299
Inquiries of the Ministry
[English]	I think hon. members should bear this in
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD	mind and limit their questions so as not to
[Stage Direction]
 become involved in matters dealing with the
evidence which was submitted to the COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS committee.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the allegations made publicly by Mr. Saulnier in Montreal this morning involving actions now being taken by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, can the Prime Minister tell the House when he was first informed of the alleged disturbing activities of the Company of Young Canadians in Montreal?
['Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.\nCould he indicate whether he shares with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce the view that unilingual people are\nNovember 27, 1969\tCOMMONS\nhandicapped and, if so, whether he intends to grant a pension to every unilingual Canadian?']
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I have not heard the allegations of Mr. Saulnier, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know what he said before attempting to reply in any way. If any aspects of this question could be directed to the ministers who are informed or concerned, perhaps my hon. friends might wish to attempt a reply.


Mr. Stanfield:: A supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister tell the House when he was first informed of allegations of disturbing activities by members of the Company of Young Canadians in Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I can attempt to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my memory. I do not think, however, it is a relevant piece of recollection. When I visited a housing development in Montreal there were some disturbances-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Prime Minister but I had some serious doubts about the question when it was first asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. members know there is a long established rule of procedure that questions may not be asked concerning the proceedings of a committee until such time as there is a committee report.


Mr. Horner:: They do not have to write it; it is in the press.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their advice. May 1 refer hon. members to citation 324(1) of Beauchesne:
Until the report and evidence have been laid upon the Table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate, or to put questions in reference to the proceedings of the committee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, may I assure Your Honour that I will scrupulously follow the rule to which you have alluded, but my question to the Prime Minister was based on a statement made publicly outside the committee by Mr. Saulnier. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, upon hearing these allegations in regard to members of the CYC, he took any action and, specifically, whether he requested the Solicitor General to obtain a report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did talk both to the Solicitor General and to the minister responsible for the CYC and asked them to see whether there was anything in these allegations.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am answering the question. I said yes, I talked to them.
tTranslation]


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House when he requested that report from the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice and if, since then, he has asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to report to him personally on the activities of the Company of Young Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When? Mr. Speaker, I was going to give this information in a reply to the first question. I was visiting Montreal- last spring, if I remember well-when Mr. Saulnier first indicated to me that, in his opinion, the Company of Young Canadians was engaged in unacceptable activities and, following that conversation, I spoke to the two ministers concerned.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Has he on hand now records concerning the alleged disturbing activities of the Company of Young Canadians or of some volunteer workers?
November 27. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to accept the preamble to that question. May I say that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-and here I speak on behalf of the Solicitor General-have received copies of a number of documents from the Montreal city police relating to the activities of the Company of Young Canadians in Quebec.
I think it might interest the House to know that these documents were received on several dates. Beginning on October 29, documents were received from time to time through to November 20. On November 21 the Montreal police turned over some more documents. On November 24 two additional series of documents were received, and another series on November 20, 21 and 25. I understand that other documents were submitted, in the ordinary course of the exercise of co-operative police measures by the federal, provincial and municipal police forces, as late as last night.
The Government will give careful consideration to this material in determining what course of action it should pursue in respect of the Company of Young Canadians. I want to say as well that while the federal government is responsible for deciding what action to take in respect of the management and the future of the Company of Young Canadians-and it will undoubtedly want to wait for the report of the parliamentary committee-any question of instituting legal proceedings regarding alleged violations of the Criminal Code is, under the heading of the administration of justice, a provincial responsibility.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice.
Since he has just stated that his department had from time to time received documents from the R.C.M.P., I would like to know whether they had been requested by his department and also whether they were studied while the parliamentary committee was carrying on its inquiry.


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the law officers of the Crown have received these documents from the RCMP and we are studying them.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister and it is supplementary
[Mr. Fortin.)
to the question asked by my leader. After this matter came to your attention, perhaps last spring, as you stated, did you ask the Solicitor General-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly direct his question through the Chair.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, after this matter came to his attention, perhaps last spring, as he said, he requested the Solicitor General to ask the RCMP to make a report? If he cannot answer that today, since this is not a day for the Solicitor General to be in the House will he undertake to have the minister make a statement or perhaps make a statement himself tomorrow regarding what action, if any, was taken after this matter came to his notice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I can
answer this question from memory. Essentially what I did ask then of Mr. Saulnier was that he help us by showing us some proof of his suspicions or allegations, and that has been our position all along. Since then we have had documents turned over to us by him and we have looked at them with all the dispatch mentioned by the Minister of Justice.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Since the 29th of October.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is your problem?


An hon. Member:: It's your problem.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and is really seeking clarification. Did I understand the minister to say that he has received reports from the Montreal police on CYC activity, and do I also understand he has indicated that the government initiated independent investigations by the RCMP as a result of receiving reports on this matter?


John Napier Turner: No, sir.
What I said was that the RCMP, in the ordinary course of co-operative police work, received some of the documents that were seized. We are not at all sure we have received the complete set of documents. We did receive documents that were purported to have been seized by the Montreal city police. The documents were analysed by the RCMP and were submitted to the law officers of the Crown in the Department of Justice for the same purpose.
November 27, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES


Mark Willson Rose: Again for the purpose of clarification, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the RCMP were instructed by the government to initiate an independent investigation of the problems of the CYC in Montreal?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As early as last spring.


John Napier Turner: I would
have to check on that particular point with my colleague the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Has he informed the Secretary of State, who is directly responsible to the House for the Company of Young Canadians, of his contacts with the RCMP?


John Napier Turner: After we have completed a review of the documents, which as I say we are receiving from time to time, I will of course be reporting to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State. Then it will be up to the government to decide what action should be taken.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice.
When he received those documents from the RCMP, did he get in touch with the provincial authorities?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: When the minister received those documents from the RCMP, did he discuss the matter with the Quebec authorities?


John Napier Turner: No; I have not had any discussions myself with the Quebec authorities. That is not to say the Solicitor General may not have had such discussions. I wish to reiterate again that since any legal proceedings under the Criminal Code would, if there were evidence, have to be taken at the instance of the Montreal police, the authorities in Montreal or by the Attorney General of Quebec, it would appear that the communication would properly lie between the city of Montreal and the Attorney General of Quebec.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Justice tell us whether officials of his department have been appointed to study the documents supplied by the RCMP and to advise the ministers concerned about the steps to be taken?


John Napier Turner: Well, I have said that the documents have been studied by the police and by the law officers of the Crown, and they are keeping both ministers informed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Was the minister aware last spring of these disturbing activities on the part of some members of the CYC in Montreal?


Hon. Gerard Pellelier (Secretary of Stale):: No, Mr. Speaker, nobody brought to my attention the doubts which might have existed at that time.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister on a different subject-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am led to
believe the right hon. member for Prince Albert has a supplementary.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice mentioned that the responsibility for instituting prosecution rests either with the authorities in the city of Montreal or the government of Quebec. Is it not a fact that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police lay charges on the basis of the information they have and from there on the province takes over the prosecution? I would also ask him as part of the same question whether or not the documents that were delivered to the government as far back as October 24 or 25-


John Napier Turner: The 29th.


John George Diefenbaker: All right-about four weeks ago, disclosed prima facie evidence of revolutionary conduct and whether he discussed this with the Secretary of State who remains so benignly silent?


John Napier Turner: Let me
answer that question if I may. To begin with, the RCMP have received documents from
November 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry time to time beginning on October 29. The documents have come in as I have described over a period of weeks and as late as yesterday. I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not want me to comment on the evidence. An Attorney General has never commented on evidence. He decides whether to prosecute or not to prosecute. In this particular instance the decision on whether a prosecution should be taken properly lies with the Montreal authorities or with the Attorney General of Quebec. The right hon. gentleman is talking about subversion, sedition and this sort of thing, and quite properly so. I have searched the records and at no time since Confederation has a prosecution for sedition been taken by the federal Attorney General. Sedition is a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada and in this, as in all other matters, prosecutions taken under the Criminal Code are taken by the provincial Attorneys General.
The only two cases I could find in the last 30 years relating to sedition were both taken against the Jehovah's Witnesses by the Attorney General of Quebec. The only cases of sedition currently before the courts, the one against Michel Chartrand, the one against Pierre Valiere and the one that was dismissed against Charles Gagnon, were also taken by the Attorney General of Quebec. That is where the responsibility lies.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to suggest to hon. members that we should not get into the realm of debate. However, I understand the right hon. gentleman has a supplementary, after which we will return to the hon member for York South.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am naturally interested in the dissertation, but I now ask the minister this question. On the basis of what he saw did he give any instructions to the RCMP or did he discuss with the Secretary of State the presence of anything in the nature of revolutionary wrong-doing or conduct unbecoming an organization financed by the people of Canada?


John Napier Turner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that any advice I would give to the Prime Minister or to my colleague the Secretary of State would be as privileged as any other advice a lawyer would give to a client, and I would not reveal it on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: What a smokescreen!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have clearly entered into the area of debate. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for York South.



David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a pretty strong voice but I did not feel like using it to overcome the noise that was surrounding me. I hesitate to ask a question which does not have to do with Montreal or Quebec but I will none the less. Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to discuss with the Secretary of State for External Affairs the question I asked last Tuesday. I understand that the minister is, regrettably, in hospital with an illness. Has the Prime Minister had a chance to discuss with him the question I asked the Prime Minister concerning the atrocities in Viet Nam?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did ask the department to inquire into the aspect of the question asked by the hon. member concerning the ICC. I have not yet had an answer. As the hon. member just said, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is ill at this time and that may be the reason he has not yet reported to me. When I have the answer I will be glad to give it.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister keep in mind the second question I asked which may be even more important, that is, would the Prime Minister instruct our permanent representative at the United Nations to discuss with the Secretary General of that body the dispatch of a mission to Viet Nam to investigate these atrocities, some of which are being revealed even today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that appears necessary as a result of the answer to my first inquiry I will certainly discuss that with the minister.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could he indicate whether he shares with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce the view that unilingual people are
November 27, 1969	COMMONS
handicapped and, if so, whether he intends to grant a pension to every unilingual Canadian?



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and I do not think there will be any question about his jurisdiction over this matter. May I preface it by saying that the report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections recommended that, when sentences are imposed by a court, the magistrate, judge or justice should specify the reasons for the term of the sentence. In view of the fact that the Alberta appellate division has reduced from five to two years the sentences of the young people involved in marijuana and hashish offences, will the minister now advise whether he is prepared to bring in reform legislation setting out that recommendation in the Criminal Code?


John Napier Turner: We are actively considering the recommendations of the Ouimet Commission, and I am certainly considering this one.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the appellate division's review and reduction of the sentences of these young men and women, will the Minister of Justice ensure that all the special federal Crown prosecutors-and I emphasize the word "federal"-involved in the administration of the Narcotics Act and the Food and Drugs Act are made aware of this decision?


John Napier Turner: I think that all our federal Crown prosecutors keep themselves up to date on the law, but I will certainly draw this to their attention.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and since I read that the topic may become taboo I would like to refer it to the Parliamentary Secretary. Can he advise us whether the government has abandoned the commitment given by the minister's predecessor to the General Assembly of
DEBATES	1303
Inquiries of the Ministry the United Nations in 1967 that Canada will expand its contribution to international development programs so as to reach the target of one per cent of our gross national product by 1970-71?


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government intends to determine the extent of its participation in the assistance program to underdeveloped countries, in the light of the Pearson report.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that a Montreal child has barely escaped serious or fatal burns from sulphuric acid spilling from a toy car, and in view of the fact that this toy was apparently approved by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, will the minister investigate this matter without delay?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had a report on the tragic incident which the hon. member mentions but I will look into it immediately. However, there is one point I would like to clear up. If the question refers to the car that I have in mind, at no time has it received any sort of approval from my department. We have no machinery for giving such approval.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware then of a press report containing a statement from the Canadian Toy Testing Council that they examined the car in the company of an official of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who saw no hazard in it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless the minister is rising on a point of order, may I say that I think the question as asked is not in order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, to point out, so as to put the record straight, that while an official of my department had a look at the car, there is
1304	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry no machinery within my department for granting approval to any products.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, now that the front benches have had their precedence, may I again address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If the facts prove to be as stated, will the minister see that this dangerous toy is taken off the market immediately and certainly before Christmas toy buying?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation, so in fairness to both the middle and front benches I have to rule the question out of order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



NICKEL PRICE INCREASE-PREFERENCE FOR CANADIAN CUSTOMERS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the increase in nickel prices. Did he request the nickel companies to defer any increase in the prices of their product to Canadian customers, a request that would appear to be particularly reasonable in view of the fact that only 4 per cent of the output of these producers is marketed in Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. This is a question which I think should be more properly directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but such a request would result in a somewhat complicated two-price system which I think would have disadvantages.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why does the minister feel it is appropriate for him to ask the oil companies not to increase their prices and at the same time feel he has no right to make a similar request in the case of the 25 per cent increase in the cost of a product to Canadian customers, a request that would appear to be relatively easy to meet, particularly in view of the fact that a 25 per cent increase in the price of this product would seem to finish off any effort to establish a program of restraint?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is more in the nature of an argument.

DEBATES	November 27, 1969



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Since Premier Bertrand of Quebec was refused yesterday, in New York, a $60 million loan at a 9.65 per cent rate of interest and because of the urgency of the situation, would the Prime Minister grant a loan to the Quebec government under the same conditions enjoyed by foreign countries?



COMBINES


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: wish to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission looking into the recent acquisition by CAE Industries and Northwest Industries of Edmonton of Air Canada facilities in Winnipeg to determine whether or not competition is unduly affected in light of the sixth report of the Economic Council of Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: It has been the policy in the House for the minister responsible for the Combines Investigation Act, a policy established by the former minister of justice from Kamloops, that the minister does not reveal what inquiries are under way, because of section 28 of the Combines Investigation Act, until such cases are either taken to court or reported in the annual report.


William Skoreyko: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of this merger, is his department making any effort to seek opportunities for employment for the 325 men who have been laid off in this industry, particularly in regard to help or assistance for those who wish to move?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Does the minister regard the imminent pay increases of members of
November 27, 1969

the Ontario legislature as being inflationary and, if so, can he assure the House that the Prices and Incomes Commission will consider them?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation which will be taken into account.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Justice tell us whether the reports he received from the RCMP in connection with the Company of Young Canadians came only from Quebec or from some other provinces?


John Napier Turner: I am afraid that the enthusiasm which greeted the last question prevented me from hearing the hon. member.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice whether the RCMP reports he has in hand come from the province of Quebec only or also from other provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: While the minister is trying to grasp the meaning of that question, I might recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and come back to the hon. member in a moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Now that he has had
a few minutes to think it over, the Minister of Justice might reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Joliette.


John Napier Turner: I apologize to the hon. member but at the time I did not hear his question. The documents I was talking about were relayed to the RCMP from the Montreal police and they related to activities of the Company of Young Canadians in Quebec. I would have to check with my colleague the Solicitor General to answer the question whether information on the activities of that organization in other provinces is also in the possession of the police.
Inquiries of the Ministry COMBINES



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF NICKEL PRICE INCREASES

David Orlikow: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the increases of almost 25 per cent in the price of nickel by two major producers in Canada on the same day, will he ask the anti-combines section of his department to investigate whether there has been illegal collusion on the part of these two companies?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that question is the one I gave a moment ago. The director of research under the Combines Investigation Act watches specific price movements and if there is a possibility of a breach of the act he has a statutory duty to take proceedings.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask whether he made any request to the nickel producers to review their Canadian prices. In view of the fact that sales to Canadian customers represent only 4 per cent of their production, and inasmuch as the matter apparently has not been discussed with the companies by the government, will the minister request the companies to review their Canadian prices?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the Leader of the Opposition seemed to object to me making such requests of the oil companies, so I am rather hesitant to proceed along that line.


Mr.   Gaefan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of increased nickel prices and salaries in the Sudbury area, which have led many companies and merchants to also increase their prices, could the Minister tell us whether his department could not bring some pressure to bear in order to prevent this increase in consumer prices?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know from the proceedings in the house on Wednesday and Thursday that neither my department nor the government
1306	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry has any such power. We are calling upon people to exercise restraint. I know some people are using the nickel price increases as an excuse to raise prices. The amount of nickel in a car is five pounds which should lead to an increase, if any, of .07 per cent or on a $10-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the minister wants to revert to motions and make a statement, I think the matter should not be proceeded with.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whif-by):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs state whether he has begun the investigation of auto prices which he stated last August was to be undertaken?
Hon. Ron B as ford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is heavily involved in negotiations
with regard to the automobile agreement and the price of cars both in Canada and between Canada and the United States is very much a subject of those investigations.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Secretary of State on a question of privilege.


Gérard Pelletier: Since we are back to that subject, I would not like the House to be misled by an answer I gave earlier. I said that nobody had informed me. I thought then that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) was asking me whether I had been informed of the matter before it was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister. But I have already stated publicly, and I repeat it here, that every time the Prime Minister has been informed of such matters, he relayed the information to me and conversely I acted the same way with him.


Georges-J. Valade: In connection with the answer just given by the Secretary of State, I would like to ask him if

DEBATES	November 27, 1969
he means that he was told last spring about the activities of the Company of Young Canadians-as the Prime Minister himself said a moment ago in the House-or if he found out later than last spring?


Gérard Pelletier: No, it was not later than last spring.



BID FOR SUMMER AND WINTER OLYMPICS

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is Canada putting in a bid for the next summer and winter Olympics to be held in this country?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know now, Montreal's bid is going in. As of today I do not know whether any formal decision has been made so far as the west coast is concerned.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister recommend the one city?


John Carr Munro: I am sorry, I did not hear that question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Did the minister only recommend the one city of Montreal?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. The only reason I pointed out Montreal was that their application has gone forward. The other application, from the west coast, has not been submitted to the government for backing or otherwise.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare saying that he has recommended Montreal?


John Carr Munro: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSIDERATION OF URBAN PROBLEMS AT CONFERENCE

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the problems of the cities as related to the constitutional responsibility will be placed high on the priority list at the coming federal-provincial conference?
November 27, 19S9


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I intend to table the agenda as soon as I have the concurrence of all the provincial premiers, and I think that that will be early next week.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer given by the Prime Minister, I wonder if the Prime Minister would, if it pleases him, make a statement as soon as possible after the federal-provincial conference as to the government's intention or policy with respect to our urban problems?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the House that, following the December conference, if the opposition parties agree we would seek an occasion to discuss the whole constitutional matter in the House, as has been done after the previous federal-provincial conferences on the constitution.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Communications. In light of the minister's view as expressed at Sir George Williams University that all Members of Parliament should act and think independently of party ties, has the minister, first of all, asked that he be relieved of his party's whip and whether this explains the absence of government members in the House yesterday?



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of the statement by the President of CMHC to the Senate Committee on Poverty that housing allowances should be part of a system to provide decent housing for all Canadians, what steps does the minister intend to take?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think a statement of this nature should normally be made on motions.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND-INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSION WITH PREMIER

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he indicate whether he
Inquiries of the Ministry will be holding discussions tomorrow with the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and whether we can anticipate, as a result of these discussions, that there will be formal agreement by the federal-provincial authorities on the regional development program for that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the question is speculative-if I am having meetings and whether there will be formal agreement. I cannot answer what will result from any meetings with the Premier, assuming I am going to have any.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister left an impression that might be a bit misleading. I did not hear him indicate that he will be holding discussions with Premier Smallwood and perhaps he has left an impression that should be cleared up.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I merely rise now to ask the Government House Leader if he would outline the business for the week, as is customary.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Friday and on Monday of next week under the heading of Order No. 32 there will be debate on the reference of the Tax White Paper, anticipated to be a two-day debate. We will ask for a special order by the House to allow the maximum number of participants in the debate. On Tuesday of next week we will call Order No. 10, the annual bill for financing the CNR, the second reading stage of which has already been under debate. Following that we will take the items with respect to the four financial institutions, Orders Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 45. These four bills were on the Order Paper in the last session and we are asking to have them dealt with by special order on second reading as a group.
On Wednesday we will call first Order No. 6, the Canada Corporations Act, which has already been under debate, to be followed by the report stage and third reading of item No. 4 with respect to the Judges Act. On Thursday we will return to yesterday's unfinished business, third reading of Bill C-155 with respect to the Excise Tax Act to be followed
1308	COMMONS
Alleged. Failure to Aid Biafrans by all stages of item No. 26, the Income Tax Act Amendments. On Friday of next week we will call first the report stage and third reading of Bill C-8 with respect to Children of War Dead Assistance Act, to be followed by Order No. 39 providing provisional payments for unthreshed grain.



PUBLIC SERVICE


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State will not be in the House tomorrow may I now raise a point of privilege. A week ago today he said he would make available to me a copy of the speech on which I based a question. I understand there are translation difficulties. I wonder if I could expect a copy of that speech in the near future.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the member has not received it, but I have already sent it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved:: That this House regrets that the government has failed to take adequate measures to relieve massive starvation in Nigeria-Biafra and, particularly, regrets its repeated refusal to assist Joint Church Air and Canairelief operations which have continued to deliver substantial relief despite great hazards, and urgently requests the govem-fiment to change its policy in this respect.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I express my regret at the absence, through illness, of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). We had hoped he could participate in this debate and hope he will have a speedy recovery from his illness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: As hon. members of the House are aware, this day has designated "Peace in Biafra Day". Across Canada many Canadians are considering the plight of their fellow human beings in Nigeria and Biafra who, as

DEBATES	November 27, 1969
the House well knows, as a result of a stalemated war are threatened with mass starvation. It seems to me entirely appropriate that this House, representing as it does all the people of Canada, should devote its time in an effort to determine whether more can be done to aid the prospective victims of starvation in those unfortunate areas.
There are two points on which I think all members of the House will agree. First, that the security of all of us depends on the creation of a world community in which basic human rights, and the most fundamental of all, the right to life, are respected. Second, that though Nigeria and Biafra seem remote to many Canadians, we are right to be concerned about the tragic fate facing many innocent victims of the war and right to do all within our power to relieve their plight. Where we differ is on what can be done and how it should be done. The motion which Your Honour put to the House contends that the government has not done enough in this field.
I ask these questions: What has it done, what has it left undone; what has it failed to do that in our opinions should have been done; and what can be done in future? I intend to be entirely specific in the answers I give those questions. Indeed, the motion itself is specific.
The government could have assisted the Joint Church Aid operations by providing aircraft and/or supplies and/or money. It has failed to do so. The motion urges that it do so in future.
First, Mr. Speaker, let us review what the government has done. On October 24, as indicated at page 37 of Hansard, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the government had contributed $3 million towards food and relief supplies to be distributed in Biafra. If the Prime Minister takes part in this debate I shall be interested in hearing how that $3 million was divided. How much was spent on the federal side of the lines, and how much on the other side.
In October, 1968, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and I returned from a brief visit to Biafra. We pleaded with the government at that time to make Canadian Hercules aircraft available both to the International Red Cross, which was operating an airlift from Fernando Po to Uli airport, Biafra, and to the church operations which later became known as Joint Church Aid, which had aircraft operating to the same airstrip at Uli from the island of Sao Tome. If
November 27, 1969

the government had accepted our request at that time the amount of supplies flowing to the beleaguered areas of Biafra would have been doubled. The government could have saved the lives of many hundred of thousands of people who made up part of the estimated 1.5 million people who have died of starvation in the area since then. The same plea on behalf of the International Red Cross was made by the Canadian Red Cross High Commissioner, Major-General Wrinch. But what happened?
The government dispatched a grand total of three Hercules aircraft to Nigeria and Biafra. They did not stay very long. The first aircraft left for Lagos on October 10, 1968. It was permanently grounded in Lagos until it returned to Canada a few weeks later. The pretext advanced for not using this aircraft was that two of the airstrips in the federally occupied territories were in a poor state of repair and that the Hercules aircraft would damage the runways. The other airfield available was being used, according to Nigerian authorities, for military purposes and therefore was not available. Mr. Speaker, one of these airports was Calabar, an internationally recognized airport. Hercules aircraft are supposed to be able to land in open fields. Actually, a Hercules aircraft did land at the improvised airstrip at Uli, in Biafra. The Canadian officer in charge of the operation expressed mystification about the alleged landing difficulties. The plain fact is that Nigerian government does not seem to have been interested, and there does not appear to have been any protest on the part of the Canadian government that the aircraft was not used in that region.
Another Canadian Hercules aircraft was dispatched on October 15, 1968, to Fernando Po, to assist in the airlift of the International Red Cross from that island to Uli. It made ten flights to Uli with about 200 tons of food. Most of the time the aircraft was grounded, and in about December of the same year, 1968, it returned to Canada where it has remained ever since. The third aircraft was merely a supply aircraft and need not be counted.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The reason given for withdrawing the effort was that one of the church operated aircraft had been shot at, and that the operation had become too dangerous. Nevertheless, the church operations continued. A second reason given by the Prime Minister in this
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans House about a year ago was that the Biafran authorities would not accept daylight flights proposed by the Nigerian federal government. The Prime Minister made clear that this condition was made, that General Ojukwu would undertake not to use the airstrip during the daylight hours for arms shipments Here, we get the very first proposal of daylight flights subject to conditions of military significance. The condemnation of General Ojukwu as the obstructor of relief for his own people is used as an excuse for inaction. I will have more to say about this later.
The more we look into why this particular reason (the question of daylight flights) is being advanced and nothing being done, the more we see it is not an adequate or proper reason. I will explain my reason for this statement later. I would like to say if there were no daylight flights bringing arms into Uli, which General Ojukwu was asked to forgo, both the condition by the Nigerians and the refusal of the Biafrans are absolutely senseless. There is no point in asking for the condition nor any point in denying the condition. It is perfectly obvious that was not the purpose. There were in fact air flights coming in with arms and therefore the request had a military significance. If such flights were taking place bringing arms into Uli, General Ojukwu, hard-pressed in a war which he and the people he led thought was a war of extermination, was being asked to surrender his means of defence or in effect to surrender, period.
Of course, the Nigerians knew and I think others, including the Prime Minister, should have recognized that such an offer with this condition was bound to be refused. When it was refused he should have known that it was really a propaganda device, a device that unfortunately has been all too successful in alienating sympathy, not from the Biafran regime-that is not important perhaps-but from the innocent victims of the war.
As I have said, this Canadian effort through the three Hercules lasted a few weeks. It delivered to Biafra 200 tons in 10 flights. I want the House to compare that with the results of the operations of the churches which we, in this motion, are asking the House to support. The joint church operation, apart from the International Red Cross, of which Canairelief, the Canadian agency mentioned in the motion, is an agency and important component had at the end of October last flown 4,183 flights and delivered 45,000 tons of food and supplies into Uli. Yet the Canadian government effort is 200 tons compared
1310	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans with the churches and voluntary agencies 45,000 tons. There have been 10 government flights as against 4,183 church sponsored flights.
Since June, 1969 when an International Red Cross plane was shot down by the Nigerian air force in broad daylight, with its clear Red Cross emblem oh it, the International Red Cross has ceased to operate. The joint church-aid operation has carried on, despite hazardous conditions and the loss of lives of crew members and planes, and is flying on night operations on the average of 15 flights a night, bringing in approximately 200 tons a night. This is not enough, Mr. Speaker. It is estimated the need to cope with starvation is approximately 500 tons a night, but nevertheless it is a substantial and magnificent contribution and the only organization doing an effective job at the moment. I submit it deserves the support of this country and this government.
It is this operation that the motion before the House asks the government to support. So far, the government has persistently refused to contribute. Yet that operation, together with the International Red Cross, is estimated to have saved three million lives and if given the tools and the means will save many hundreds of thousands of lives in the future. If we condemn this government, it is because it failed to support this operation and does not support it to the present time.
I want to examine some of the reasons for the refusal of the government. I will state them as fairly as I can and ask the Prime Minister and the House to consider very carefully whether these refusals are justified by the reasons I advance. In my view, they do not constitute valid grounds for refusal of assistance. They are pretexts rather than good grounds. I am sure the government holds some of its views with great sincerity, but I think if they will only look again, and look carefully, they will find them to be without substance. What are the objections? I will first list them and then deal with them in order to show why they are not valid objections.
First, it is said that the Biafran regime ought to accept daylight flights, but has refused, presumably out of sheer perversity, and is therefore the party primarily responsible for the starvation of the people. Second, it is said that the International Red Cross is the designated international agency for mercy operations of this kind and that this government can operate only through it.

DEBATES	November 27, 1969
Third, it is said that the Nigerian federal government, which is the sovereign authority over the whole area, will not consent to the joint church-aid operations and that to assist these flights would be an unjustifiable intervention contrary to the sovereignty of Nigeria. Sometimes it is put in more extravagant language. The Prime Minister said it would be an act of war. Fourth, it is said that General Ojukwu and the Biafreins are secessionists and rebels, and that nothing must be done to aid or encourage such breakaway regimes.
I propose to deal with each of these objections one at a time. The first is that the Biafran regime has refused to accept daylights flights and that this refusal is unreasonable and unjustifiable. This bald statement as it stands is not true, Mr. Speaker. Both the Nigerian and Biafran governments have accepted in principle the International Red Cross proposals for daylight flights. Both have found conditions proposed by the other side unacceptable.
I have in my hands a document containing proposals for relief flights by the International Red Cross to Uli and the document points out that it is as agreed by Professor Freymond and Dr. Cookey who represents the International Red Cross. The document is dated August 27 last. It is based upon the proposals of the International Red Cross of August 1. It provides for a controlling commission of representatives of a neutral state appointed by the federal military government of Nigeria and the Biafran authorities. The bases were to be Cotonou and Santa Isabel. It provides for detailed routings and corridors, for all aircraft to be identified by Red Cross emblems and that Nigerian air space can only be entered after nine o'clock in the morning and after six o'clock in the evening.
Apparently this proposal was unacceptable to the federal government. The Red Cross entered into a second document, which I also have here, this time agreeable to the federal military government, but unacceptable to the Biafrans. It excluded any representative of a neutral state appointed by the Biafran authorities. The host state, the federal military government and the International Red Cross were to be the commissioners. The operations was moved to Cotonou and Santa Isabel was ruled out.
All flights and routing emblems, etc., were to be agreed on by the International Red Cross with the Nigerian air force and the Nigerian army. It seems this provision would
November 27, 1969

give complete control or at least a veto power over the flights to the federal military government's authorities. The flight time was cut down from nine a.m. to five p.m. Article 6(2) provided that this agreement was to be without prejudice to the military operations of the federal military government.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The agreement was to last for three weeks only. It is in return for this agreement that it is suggested the Biafran regime should surrender, or at least discourage, the night flights which were bringing them in infinitely more than this proposed Red Cross flight could possibly have done. The Uli airport is a small strip which can receive only a limited number of flights. Under the present set-up operated by the joint churches it is used for approximately 13J hours, and some 25 flights come in each night. Some of these, no doubt, bring in arms. It is proposed by the federal military government in the International Red Cross agreement to cut down the period of daylight flights to eight hours. In effect, the Nigerian government is trying to discourage the night flights, which have been highly effective, in favour of a daylight program which they could control. How could anyone seriously doubt that such an agreement would have military implications? Yet the Prime Minister has given the Biafran refusal to accept this agreement as a reason for withholding aid from Biafra.
It is said that the Biafran government asked for military guarantees and then turned down reasonable proposals by the United States government and other countries. This should be looked into again. As I understand it, the Biafrans claim that the guarantees they want are guarantees of the security of Uli airport, their one lifeline and vital means of survival. It is not enough, they say, to guarantee, as has been proposed, that the IRC flights should not be used for military purposes. I do not suppose it was expected they would be. It seems to me this whole situation should be looked into carefully again.
Let us suppose, however, that the Biafran authorities are unduly suspicious of the intention of the federal military government to use daylight flights to their advantage. Is this surprising? They have been the victims of pogroms, massive expulsion, blockade, starvation, aerial bombardment of schools, hospitals, market places and other civilian targets. It is
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans not reasonable to expect them to agree to anything which might lead to military defeat, as they fear extermination.
The second objection taken by the Canadian government to assisting this relief effort on the lines I have mentioned is that Canada recognizes the ancient and honourable tradition of the International Red Cross in the field of mercy operations during wartime. The government points out that international recognition has been given to that organization. This is not an unreasonable argument, but the Prime Minister himself, in his speech of October 24 to which I have referred, suggested it would have to be looked into again. Since June 5 no Red Cross flights have taken place at all, nor does there seem to be any reasonable prospect of their resumption. It is the joint church-aid program which is flying out supplies by night. This organization is no fly-by-night organization-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I did not intend to make a pun. It is true the organization does fly by night. It is supported by 27 church organizations, including the World Council of Churches, Caritas International, representing the Roman Catholic Church, and many other religious bodies. It is international; it is ecumenical, and it is doing a job. I think it deserves support. These church groups are not politically minded; they are committed to work of compassion and mercy. They operate on both sides of the line. If we can assist the International Red Cross when it is not in operation, surely we can help the churches in their task of mercy.
The third objection states that the Nigerian federal government is the sovereign authority over the whole area and will not consent to the church operation. It is claimed that to assist these flights would therefore be an unjustifiable intervention, even an act of war. But the right of humanitarian intervention in certain circumstances, even in the face of opposition by the nation state, has been recognized in law for centuries by many authorities. I shall spare the House a lengthy recital of those authorities but I wish to give some examples, on the basis of which I urge the government to reconsider its position. One is Ronald St. John Macdonald, dean of the Toronto Law School and Canadian representative at the third session of the United Nations 20th General Assembly. Dean Macdonald prepared a paper or memorandum on
November 27, 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans this important subject for a committee of this House, the External Affairs Committee, and from this memorandum I extract only the following clear statement:
It is lawful for Canada to assist church agencies in sending food and medical supplies into Biafra.
Dean Macdonald is not one who speaks on such a matter lightly. Next, I want to read an excerpt from the review of the International Commission of Jurists written as recently as June, 1969, in which it is stated:
In law as in fact, the conflict in Nigeria can no longer be regarded as a matter of purely national concern. The proportions it has reached and its significance in the decline of international standards and the violation of human rights require that it be solved as a matter of priority by the international community. Although previous efforts have failed, the United Nations, as the only collective organ of this community, could perhaps still take positive action.
Finally, as far as the legal aspect of the matter is concerned, I wish to refer to an article written by Professor Reisman of the Yale Law School. He said this:
To summarize, international policy even before Grotius has been firmly and continuously for humanitarian intervention in those extreme cases where the most minimal of human rights were in jeopardy. Forceful intervention in such circumstances in the territory of another state is permissible and, for the signatories of the Charter and the Genocide Convention, is mandatory. The effect of the United Nations ha$ been to develop a coordinate set of competence. In circumstances in which an authoritative organ of the UN or of a relevant regional organization can either not act or not act with sufficient dispatch, individual or coordinated collective non-UN humanitarian intervention is permitted as a substitute or functional enforcement of international human rights.
So much for the argument that there is no right of intervention. There is really no excuse for inaction on our part. It is somewhat ironical to hear it suggested that we cannot give this aid because it would amount to an act of war. If this were so, the United States, West Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands and other countries, which have given aid to joint church programs would be at war with the federal government of Nigeria. But as far as I know, they are not. The aid has been given directly and indirectly to joint church assistance programs.
The aid provided by the United States government has been very substantial The United States sold four stratofreighters to joint church-aid and four to the International Red Cross for $4,000 each, or their scrap value. This aircraft is similar in capacity to the Hercules which the Canadian government 
would not make available to Canairelief or joint church-aid. In addition, the United States government has been making tonnage payments to church agencies flying relief supplies into Biafra, and this has greatly assisted Canairelief. It is ironical that the Canadian government should refuse to support a Canadian relief agency which is receiving substantial support indirectly from the United States government. Surely, the position of the Canadian government here is legalistic and not realistic.
The last objection to doing anything about this matter is that Colonel Ojukwu and the Biafran secessionists are rebels who should not be assisted even indirectly. If this be true, they were indeed reluctant secessionists, reluctant rebels. They were in effect thrown out of the federation by force. Efforts are now being made to force them back in again. They have fought valiantly for two years against superior odds for self-determination and the right to survive. I suggest in any event that judgments of censure in these circumstances, even if they are justified, are not the overriding factor. Political considerations do not justify denial of human concern and intervention by the peoples of the world.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The motion which we have introduced concludes with an appeal or invitation to the government to change its policy and provide assistance to Joint church-aid or, if it prefers, through Canairelief. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has left the door open. In his speech during the debate on the throne speech he made it quite clear, as reported at pages 37 and 38 of Hansard, that if other methods did not succeed new methods would be examined. Even in the rather harshly worded statement that he made on Tuesday of this week, the Prime Minister did not close the door.
We in this comer of the House would be extremely happy to withdraw this motion, which does imply some censure of the government, if the Prime Minister were to announce that the government would extend assistance to the starving people of Biafra through the only available operative agency, joint church-aid and Canairelief. I can assure the House that we seek no partisan benefit out of this tragic affair.
Every day, Mr. Speaker, you or whoever is in the Chair repeat to us the words from the Lord's Prayer "Give us this day our daily bread". Today perhaps the people of Nigeria
November 27, 1969

and Biafra are saying to us in their hour of tragedy "Give us this day our daily bread". To the extent that it is within our power, we must respond. It is our belief-and this is the reason we have put forward this motion-that it is within our power to respond, and that the motion points the way to an effective response.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member's time has expired and he will require unanimous consent of the House to receive a question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I should like to ask the hon. member, who has just spoken so eloquently and sincerely on this subject, whether the New Democratic party of Canada has at any time contacted its fellow socialists in England to ask them to cease supplying arms to Nigeria. If they were to do so, it would do more for the starving people of Nigeria and Biafra than any other single act.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The answer is simple, Mr. Speaker. The answer is yes. I know that the leader of this party has communicated with the leader of the British government and clearly expressed his distress at the actions of that government. I have spoken to my friends and colleagues in the Labour party in Great Britain and to those associated with the Labour party who do not agree with the government's stand. We do not defend, in fact we deplore, the attitude of the Labour government in Great Britain in this matter.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, usually one comment about the illness of a colleague is enough because we can all share it; but since there is a long list of speakers and we are caught in the system, as it were, may I with no less sincerity say that we of the official opposition are also sorry to hear of the illness of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and hope that he will soon recover. I think he had a very arduous trip to the Near East, and like a good many others in public life he is paying the price for this type of intense personal involvement in world problems.
This, sadly, is the resumption of what might be called an adjourned debate. My leader raised the issue of aid in the Nigerian civil war as his first question in the first
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans session of the 28th parliament. Since that time both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and members on both sides of the House have relentlessly pursued this issue.
May I say at the outset that the members of the official opposition support, without equivocation the motion that has been proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), since it presents a very easy- in the straight sense and meaning of that word-formula to enable the government to give direct assistance without getting into any nuances of diplomacy.
The last time that the House formally discussed the issue, journalists described the contribution I made as being emotional. Much as I have tried to drain any emotion from my speech in a debate dealing with a tragedy like this, I fear I will once again be open to the same criticism. I do not know how man is supposed to go through life untouched by human tragedy, unmoved by death or by a civil war that is so unnecessary.
Today the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has received a good many petitions. Those of us who are trying to revamp the system, to use such phrases as participatory democracy and other terms relating to responsiveness to government and to people's feelings, have been touched by the really national concern that has been so manifest today, a special day of peace for Nigeria and Biafra.
I have before me a rather unique petition in that it is signed by a good many religious leaders of this country and is also supported by people of no religion. This petition I will read because the record should be complete:
We, the undersigned, appeal to the Government of Canada and to concerned people everywhere to bring political pressure to bear on those countries- amongst them the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France, to do all in their power to end the supply of arms to Nigeria and Biafra, and to bring both sides to the conference table to begin the search for a lasting peace and a solution based on the will of the people.
We draw to the attention of Governments the appeals made by His Holiness the Pope and the World Council of Churches, also the resolution passed at the Labour Party Conference at Brighton September. 1969 calling for international action.
The hon. member for Greenwood referred to the statement made in June, 1969 by the International Commission of Jurists, so I will not repeat it. This statement is included in the petition.
We recognize that this is an African problem which will be solved by Africa but we are convinced that before this can happen outside pressures in the form of arms and finance must be cut
1314	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans
off. In the name of two million dead and in the name of those who still survive we call for an end to all action that prolongs this conflict and urge men everywhere to think first and foremost of those in direct need of food, shelter and medical care.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This is a letter supported by the signatures of thousands of Canadians and it is signed by Most Reverend Philip J. Pocock, Co-Adjutor and Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Toronto; the Most Reverend H. H. Clark, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada; Dr. Robert B. McClure, Moderator of the United Church of Canada; the Very Reverend D. H. Johnson, Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Canada and Rabbi W. G. Plaut of the Holy Blossom Temple. It was dated Toronto, October 10. I felt it worthwhile to include this letter in my few comments because I feel it is really the focus of what this day is all about.
Herbert Gold, who was writing in the November issue of Harper's magazine, said:
Biafra makes bad dreams for people who refuse to dream.
"Hunger is a legitimate weapon of war", says one of the Nigerian generals, as the statesmen of the world rely on the end coming before they need make up their minds about the issues. This is a tragic indictment to have to make but this is part of what is happening in the United Kingdom. That country feels a unique responsibility for Nigeria. The Labour party at its meeting has repudiated the Government's action in this regard. The London Times in an editorial November 18, just a week or so ago states:
-if Britain was exercising a strict limit to arms supplies, she would be in a much stronger position to bring (as Sir Alec Douglas-Home suggests) the other suppliers, notably Russia and France, to a conference on the withholding of arms from both sides.
This opportunity, like so many others, has been lost, while the Government has equivocated. Whatever their problems in Lagos, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Stewart should realize that Britain stands in an especially vulnerable moral position over Biafra. It is essential that they should now not only put a ceiling on supplies but should reconsider their whole policy of maintaining them. The least they now owe to British opinion is a new and sincere effort to bring about a political settlement.
The truth is that Mr. Stewart's policy has been wrong at every stage. Again and again the false expectation of "the quick kill" has persuaded the government to continue arms, to continue as the munitions men when they should have been the conciliators. Both sides in Nigeria bear a terrible responsibility for this war; so does Russia, whose synicism is total and unredeemed; so does the British government.

DEBATES	November 27, 1969
I think of all the indictments this is the most telling-waiting for the quick kill; the world standing aside unable to act, the United Nations using such phrases as "an internal matter" after 2J years and 2 million dead. I really do not see why any young person should not wonder and get a bit hung-up about some of our institutions, both national and international, if this is the way we respond.
One of the most interesting statements on the whole issue was made by one Renata Adler in the October 4 edition of the New Yorker. She tells about asking a young Bia-fran, "Just whose children it is who are dying"? He replied quite seriously that it is the children of villagers who are not strong enough to trek near the front to buy what food there is more cheaply and trek back to market to sell it more dearly, for a little profit to support their families. It takes a high tolerance for the sheer, bitterly comic ugliness of human suffering to care much for these survivors out of the Bertolt Brecht.
Editorial writers for the western press, unlike reporters on the spot, often treat the Biafran position as morally ambiguous, as though the years from 1939 to 1945 had never existed, and as though killing and dying existed on a single plane of atrocity. It is possible that another ethnic population will be decimated before modern intelligence completes its debate about the extent to which the greatest crimes can be said to be the fault of the victims of them.
I obviously do not indict the government on this issue. I indict the representatives and all of us in whatever country we may be. 1 do indict the Government, however, for its failure to respond to the obvious need and request that has been made, with lots of time for consideration by the Government.
The point that has troubled me is the unrealness of much of the discussion; the withdrawal of world leadership behind fixed and, I regret to say, stereotyped positions. What would have happened if joint church-aid had spent its time arguing about who was at fault, who was to blame? What would be the toll now if joint church-aid had awaited the pleasure of the United Nations or begged admission to either parts of Nigeria from the Organization of African Unity?
I say again this unreality is symptomatic of our times, and I believe very sincerely that it accounts for much of the alienation, to use an ugly word, of so many people from our leadership, our systems and institutions. I admit it
November 27, 1969

takes a far tougher hide than mine to have the atrocities of this tragic war share the few moments on the television news, and then have our leadership ask those who feel that help should be given to go through the proper and orthodox channels. It surprises me very much that in this era the Government is taken aback by the number of people who want something done.
I read, because it was short, the speech made at Sir George Williams yesterday by the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) about participatory democracy. As a member of the administration he understands something about feedback. I suggest that the whole effect today is the result of the massive feedback the government is getting about the frustration of the citizens of this country regarding inactivity in the field of aid to joint church-aid.
I also believe sincerely that a good deal of the trouble, and here I may be on dangerous ground and others may shoot me down for it, in the world today is brought about by what I may call sterile ideological debate. These are the sort of positions that are taken. I listened to a debate of this type the other day at the United Nations on the China issue. You put your hand in a slot and out comes the same speech that has been repeated every year for the last 15 or 20 years. How in heavens name do you expect the practical issues facing man to be solved if there is no softening of the positions?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
For making such a statement as this at a conference, not at Harrison Hot Springs, I was said to be soft on Communism. May I repeat that unreal discussions seem to be going on which have no relevancy to the problem that we are facing. The problem is hunger, starvation and death. The means are there to alleviate hunger, starvation and death and we are doing a sort of minuet about sovereignty. I hope the Prime Minister will tell us why it has not been possible until now to give help to joint church aid and its agent Canairelief. As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and I have said- and I will repeat it-they are doing the job now. This is the only source of food and medicine for Biafra. The International Committee of the Red Cross has not flown a plane since mid-June. I suppose if I wanted to do so I could start a moral condemnation of this attitude, but what good would it do? I will say this; Canada has taken initiative. I think
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans it was at Istanbul, or at the recent meeting of the ICRC, that a formula for relief was suggested that would be part of the covenant of nations, in other words, exercising the right of innocent victims of war. I hope very much that this will take effect. I think the avenue for the government to follow is at hand. I believe it is really quite bitterly ironic that Canairelief is to such a large degree funded by the United States government and funds from several countries in Europe.
I believe it is irony compounded that Canairelief may be forced to close down its relief operations because of the withdrawal of the support of the United States government, as a result of the indifference of this government. May I add that while the government has been unable to act, today the hon. member for Greenwood and myself, as directors of Canairelief, were recipients of $28,000 from the Ottawa branch of the Miles for Millions. I think this is a commendable act on behalf of that charity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fair-weather:: I want to pay this public tribute to that organization. It is a pity that there is a bit of polarization in this Parliament in respect of this issue. I cannot believe, if this motion is voted upon, that there will be party positions taken on a human tragedy such as this. I do not believe, when I walk down the corridor with a friend and colleague from the government, that his view and my view are very different about wanting to do something. Are we to believe that government supporters are any less moved than the other members in the House by the tragedy the world faces? Truly, the world faces this tragedy.
Is party solidarity so necessary that a member would allow it to stifle his concern? Mr. Speaker, there is so much that could be said about this issue. In the article in the New Yorker there is a most interesting philosophical discussion of the whole issue-perhaps "issue" is not the word-the whole case of the world standing by to watch. The world stood watching too many times in this century. The world debated whether matters were internal or external from 1932 to 1945. I, for one, am not prepared to have it said that this House or even this government, because it is the government of Canada, was unable to act because a matter was an internal matter. We must be flexible enough to deal with the issue. The issue, as has been said, is relief and
November 27, 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans how to get it to those who need it. We can use the same flexibility in dealing with relief for Biafra that the Canadian Wheat Board, for instance, is using now in its dealings with the Peoples Republic of China, a government which we do not recognize. Nobody is doing a song and dance about that.
I am informed that a group of church leaders from Winnipeg has written to the Prime Minister asking him to appoint a mission to visit both sides in Nigeria and Biafra. The suggestion of these gentlemen is that Mr. Lester Pearson, who has a world-wide reputation, would be an obvious choice to head such a group. I received a bit of flak for making such a dangerous suggestion during the last debate. Surely, it is an initiative which might be recommended. The only qualification I would have is that the world is asking so much of Mr. Pearson at this stage. Jim Hoag-land in last evening's edition of the Montreal Star, in an article entitled "Brinkmanship in Nigerian war", spoke of the mutual distrust. This is something which I think a really authentic or legitimate mission, if that is the expression, sent by the government of Canada could help alleviate. Mr. Hoagland said:
The deadlock on talks at a time when they should be moving ahead seems to illustrate two important factors in the war that is Africa's agony:
Neither side feels it can believe the other. The confusion over Biafra's November statements was matched by the incongruous incident of September, in which Nigeria's leader, Maj. Gen. Yakubu Gowon, said Nigeria would accept talks without pre-conditions, only to have his information minister, Anthony Enahoro, say two days later that Nigeria would not accept such talks.
If I might interpolate here, I think this too has been one of the problems in this country; that is, that Gowon, although a major-general and head of a military government is in effect a "captive" of more hawkish people within his cabinet. The article continues:
Many analysts interpreted this as confirmation of a long rumoured split within the Nigerian leadership, with Gowon being in the dove camp that wants talks and Enahoro speaking for the hawks.
The distrustful Biafrans will not accept even this possibility. Ojukwu's top advisers say the incident was carefully orchestrated to give the impression of Gowon wanting peace while doing nothing to obtain it.
Neither side feels weak enough to bargain. The week following Ojukwu's press conference saw major air attacks by the Biafrans, which are likely to bolster the Biafran hopes that they can hold out until the Nigerians are willing to negotiate.
The Nigerians retaliated, according to reliable reports, by resuming bombing of civilian areas in Biafra, and are capable of greatly intensifying such bombing if goaded into it.

Lagos also does not feel that it should gamble on losing at the peace table what it has won on the battlefield. The Nigerians are confident that, at the least, they can contain the Biafrans in the small enclave, and wait for them to crack.
A visitor to both sides recently can see some of the frightening logic in each position. But the fruits of this logic are likely to become even more bitter for each side, unless meaningful talks are started-now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time expired a few moments ago. Does the House give unanimous consent so that the hon. member may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the minute or two the House has graciously given me. I keep saying this each time I receive consent to continue although it shoots down my argument for shorter speeches. However, I think we were very interested to read just yesterday about the initiative taken by Biafra to ask Switzerland and several other neutral countries of Europe to mediate a cease-fire. I think this is a significant development, but it does not change the need for humanitarian aid forthwith.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In the last few minutes I want to remind the House that it was on October 12, 1968 that Dr. Herman Middlekoop of the World Council of Churches sent a telegram to Secretary General U Thant requesting humanitarian aid for Biafra. I find it a matter of very real and terrible frustration that 13 months later the body that was supposed to be the salve of human suffering has been so bound up by outmoded concepts of sovereignty that it has not been able to respond. Even now, as I said, the Red Cross in its meetings has not been able to devise a formula supported by most men that would result in bringing relief supplies to the innocent victims of the internal war. But two and a half years of war and hundreds of thousands of lives cannot be dismissed any longer as being some internal matter. I really do not know what an internal matter is anyway, unless it is the gob-bledegook of internal relationships.
If the United Nations will stand by and watch this tragedy unfold, then the only thing that national governments can do is to respond in the ways that are open to them. What is needed is a cease-fire as a prelude to a settlement. What is needed is an end to the supply of arms. What is needed is immediate
November 27, 1969	COMMONS
and substantial cash help to Canairelief by the government of Canada. What is needed is a mission headed, as some have suggested, by somebody of the stature of the right hon. Lester Pearson who will visit both sides-and this unfortunately has never been done by our special missions up to now. What is needed is a convention, as I mentioned earlier, guaranteeing to the innocent victims of war the right to food, medicine and shelter. I think that Canada has the credentials to be host to an international conference to begin what I suppose in the present mood of the world would be a long period of negotiation to devise an acceptable covenant which could be ratified by all nations.
Debates about whether death is an internal matter, and therefore beyond the ken of nations, or whether death is external and therefore an authentic issue for the concern of this country, seems to be a hollow debate indeed. I urge the government to accept the proposal advanced by the hon. member for Greenwood which has, I am sure, wide support, if the petitions from the people of this country are any criteria.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, today, we have before us a motion of censure of the government with regard to the tragedy that has been unfolding these last years in an important area of Africa.
I believe that the matter under consideration affects many Canadians, and not only politicians or churchmen, but also citizens interested in foreign affairs.
Last year, the house instructed the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to inquire into the Nigeria-Biafra tragedy. I myself was on that committee which heard several experts about the situation prevailing there.
Following that inquiry there was a debate in the house. In fact, the two previous speakers made recommendations to the government which dealt mostly with disarmament.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt there is a civil war going on there. It is not a war between two foreign countries but one between the people of the same country. Corneille had written that "civil war is the realm of crime".
Undoubtedly in Nigeria, not only on the battlefields but also elsewhere, tragedies are played out and grudges are paid off.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
There is no doubt that this war has the same effect as any other as far as getting supplies
DEBATES	1317
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans to the ones who are not involved in actual fighting. We know that many people are dying of starvation and others are suffering from malnutrition to the point that even if we succeeded in bringing relief to them, it might be too late to save them.
In a war of this type the problem is always the same, i.e., providing for the ones who are not directly involved. Indeed getting supplies to the soldiers is of paramount importance for the country. I think that General Gowon's as well as Colonel Ojukwu's first concern is to supply his forces. Old people, women, children, and generally people who are not on the battlefield are looked after last.
And the necessary steps are taken on both sides so that supplies will not reach enemy forces to strengthen them.
The war that is opposing Biafra to Nigeria is not different from other wars. It will cause insurmountable problems as long as the two parties involved do not, through negotiations, find a way to end this conflict which has lasted much too long already.
We have been advocating such negotiations between Nigeria and Biafra, but until now without any really effective result. We have been told that Colonel Ojukwu has asked recently for assistance from Switzerland, a country whose neutrality is well known and whose interventions are often successful in seltling disputes between some countries.
Apparently, it is expected that the reply of Switzerland will be consistent with its traditional policy. The Bern government would be willing to offer its services if the two opposing parties so desired and if the mediation had any chance of succeeding.
But now one country is requested to act as a mediator in order to reach a settlement while conditions are imposed that make any agreement impossible.
Therefore, I wonder whether the two leaders in this war have any sense of responsibility.
The UNESCO Constitution states, and I quote:
As wars originate in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that peace must build its defences.
I believe that it is on the two leaders that pressure must be exerted in order to bring this war to an end.
The government is asked to supply more food, more medical products and more supplies of all kinds to help the starving. That is
1318	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans fine, but at the same time all necessary steps should be taken to put an end to the famine and to the war that is the cause of it. An agreement should be reached on the necessity of a real truce in order to bring to a stop the hardship that is prevalent in that part of the world.
The dispute between the two countries has not only to do with the fact that the Nigerians want to protect their interests. Foreign financial interests are also involved.
During the inquiry made by the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, it was recognized that oil interests had contributed to the start of the slaughter which is taking place in this part of Africa.
Last year at the interparliamentary conference in Lima, a representative of Switzerland, precisely the country which is asked to act as mediator, said, and I quote:
Economic and political interests are lurking behind this fatal aid.
Without military assistance from Great Britain, the Soviet Union and a few other countries, the military government of Lagos would have been unable to launch a war against the Ibos.
As for Biafra, it is not much better. France and Portugal also favour the secession to protect their own interests. By supporting Biafra, they hope to obtain some right on the oil resources of the Delta and the Niger. It is urgent to stop sending arms to either parties; to protect economic and political interests by supplying arms is one of the forms of neo-colonialism.
Mr. Speaker, in November 1968, when we dealt with the matter in this House, the Conservative member who has just resumed his seat moved, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and I quote:
That the Canadian government, alone or in conjunction with like-minded countries, should take initiatives to persuade nations supplying arms to the combatants in Nigeria-Biafra to stop the flow of arms without which the war would soon no longer be possible.
That recommendation is in agreement with the Swiss delegate's statement at the Lima Conference.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what extent the Canadian government has put the pressure on to stop the delivery of arms to the belligerent forces in this war. But it is no secret that that country is unable, by itself, to set up the industries needed to produce the arms used in the slaughter. Such arms, therefore, come from outside.
The first thing to consider, if we want to end this conflict, is that the delivery of arms to both parties must be stopped so as to make

DEBATES	November 27, 1969
it possible to send the necessary relief supplies, namely food, drugs and building material, that country needs. Neither the Ibos, the Haoussas nor the Yorubas will be able to reconstruct Nigeria promptly, unaided, at the end of the war. They will need help and when that time comes I would like to see Canada take steps to supply everything they need to rebuild their country.
I therefore support the proposal that Canada should supply food and medical assistance to the agencies which have willingly faced danger to get relief supplies to those who need them. If the government is reluctant to put human lives in jeopardy and to risk damaging Canadian equipment to transport relief supplies, it can at least supply the required financial assistance, food and medical assistance and thus co-operate with the people who are ready to allay the distressing conditions prevailing over there.
And, in the very last place, I want to state once more that so long as the necessary steps to halt the war are not taken any assistance contributed will have to be constantly renewed. To put an end to suffering, we must stop creating victims.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to thank hon. members of the opposition who expressed regret at the illness of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). I want to thank them also for the reasonableness and sincerity with which they led us into this debate. I will try to stick to that approach when speaking of the very horrible event that is taking place in Nigeria today. Any armed conflict is terrible, Mr. Speaker. But when events conspire to make children the principal victims, then the horror of all persons turns to revulsion. We should be less than human if we did not attempt to alleviate that suffering. The debate today asks if government attempts in that respect have been correct; if Canadian policy should be measured by one criterion-contributing or not contributing to a single charitable operation.
Canadians possess no secret formula for concluding wars; they are not gifted with any divine guidance into the rights and wrongs of the arguments of strangers. Canadians do believe, however, that political quarrels
November 27, 1969
cannot be successfully concluded on a battlefield. The complex human relationships which must somehow be repaired and restored, the confidence which must be created in the place of fear-these difficult and sensitive tasks cannot be performed in an atmosphere of war. They can only be the product of consultation and negotiation.
Canada has repeated these views again and again to the combattants in this war, Mr. Speaker, and it has expressed publicly its attitude with respect to the supply of arms from outside. We have stated as well that we are anxious to do whatever we can to assist in such consultations or negotiations. Just as we made available senior and experienced Canadian military personnel to serve on the international observer team in Nigeria, we are ready to make available talented Canadian diplomats to contribute to the process of peaceful settlement.
To intervene when not asked, however, would not be an act of courage; it would be an act of stupidity. There are some 30 countries in Africa south of the Sahara which have achieved independence since 1957. Every one of these emerged into nationhood following a lengthy and anguished colonial history. No single act would be regarded with more hostility by any of them than the unilateral intervention of a non-African state into their affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I say this, not from surmise, but because it was made very clear on at least two occasions by the Organization of African Unity. They have said that this is an African problem, and that outside interference in this conflict would not be welcome. Certainly, it is presumptuous on our part to think that we, white people who are far away in North America, know more about Africa than the 30-odd countries, the members of the Organization of African Unity which made the statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is not the
question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because of that it would be wrong for the Canadian government to assist the Nigerian government militarily, but it would be equally wrong for the Canadian government to assist the rebel regime politically. Each is an act of intervention. Each would be a presumptuous step, an arrogant
1319
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans step, I would say, for a country so distant as Canada.
What Canada can do, and what it must do, however, is to attempt to feed the children who will starve to death without help. A starving child prompts an emotional response, and properly so. But that emotion must serve to assist the children, and not the reverse. It has been said by some hon. members opposite that this is the greatest human tragedy of our time. It may be, but I doubt it. The nature of man is so perverse that in the past few years there have taken place tragedies of indescribable proportions in several developing countries: the mass slaughters during the partition of India, the atrocities in Algeria, the massacres in Indonesia. Even while the Nigerian war continues, there have been bloody conflicts in the southern Sudan and in Chad. The Canadian government did not intervene, and is not intervening in these sad situations. No Canadian government did so, and no Canadian opposition party criticized those decisions, because of the inescapable limitations upon the effective actions which Canada can take.
The Nigerian tragedy does not become different from these others simply because some persons employ superlatives, or repeat accusations of genocide when these allegations have been proved demonstrably incorrect,-


Francis Andrew Brewin: By whom?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -or relate highly inflated death rate figures. Nigeria is only different because we know more about it and because it is children who are the principal sufferers.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are several points on which there is no dispute among hon. members. We share a common revulsion to the suffering which has been brought about by this war. We share a common desire to aid the victims. We all recognize the fragile and inadequate nature of a night relief airlift which must share a single runway and surrounding airspace with competitive arms flights.
Where we differ is in our judgment of the best means to increase the flow of relief. On the basis of careful evaluations of reports received from qualified observers from many sources, the government has concluded that the only truly effective way of delivering adequate supplies of relief to Biafra is by way of daylight flights. Not only is a daylight airlift

November 27, 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans safer but because ol the different flying conditions, many more airplanes could be accommodated in any one day than in any one night. When one adds to these facts the additional fact that the airport would not be used for arms deliveries in the daytime, then the flow of relief would increase several-fold.
These facts, which are indisputable, prompted the Canadian government to do whatever it could to persuade the parties to permit daylight relief flights to occur. In making these efforts we attempted to understand and to meet the objections which were raised by one side or the other to the principle of daylight relief flights.
I related to this House on November 4, 1968 and again two days ago the Canadian initiative which exacted from the Lagos authorities a guarantee of safety for daylight flights. I am able to reveal as well that it was as a result of the visit of my representative to Nigeria in June of this year that the two essential elements of any daylight arrangement were identified and agreed to. These are the identification of the aircraft involved, and the inspection of the cargo.
Canadian efforts since that time have been directed to a means of assisting in this identification and this inspection. We have taken the position that it is not for us to assess whether the military fears of one side or the other are reasonable or responsible. Rather we have sought to produce a formula that would meet those fears, a formula which would assure the Nigerians that relief aircraft were in fact relief aircraft, that relief cargos were in fact relief cargos, in short a formula that would assure to the Biafrans that the aircraft were not disguised bombers or troop-carriers; that food parcels were not tampered with; that daylight flights could not be used as a cover for a hostile military operation.
The negotiations conducted this summer by the International Committee of the Red Cross were based upon these principles.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I think it is slightly unfair to suggest, as was done by the opposition this afternoon, that the Red Cross has been bogged down and caught up with outmoded concepts. This is not the aspect which has deterred the Red Cross from attempting to bring its mercy flights to the Biafrans. That operation stopped, as the member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said,

after a Red Cross aircraft was shot down in the middle of the night.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Nonsense; it was six o'clock in the evening.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Even though it may have been clearly marked, it was shot down in conditions of poor visibility-entre chien et loup. It was following that that the Red Cross stopped flying. It did so not because problems of sovereignty were raised, but because it realized, as I think we realized prior to that, that it would be infinitely better to reach agreement to fly by day. The reasons that agreement has not been reached, as I shall show in a moment, are not because of outmoded concepts of sovereignty, but because both parties have been unable to come to an agreement as to the conditions under which the Red Cross could pursue its mercy flights during the daytime. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is not a legal technicality. It is a question of whether the Red Cross is permitted to make its mercy flights during the daytime.

When the Ojukwu regime balked at the implementation of the proposed agreement because of fear of military disadvantage, Canada was disappointed but it made no public entreaties or complaints. We thought that the Biafran fears were unfortunate and, indeed, that they were unjustified, but we nevertheless attempted to meet them. We consulted with United States officials and in particular with Ambassador Clyde Ferguson who is President Nixon's relief coordinator and whose exhaustive trips into the area and discussions abroad have made him probably the most knowledgeable and qualified person in the world on this question. A formula of assurances was devised which we sincerely thought met every one of the Biafran military objections.
The government was shocked, Mr. Speaker, when that offer of assurances was turned down out of hand by Colonel Ojukwu. It was even more shocked when Canadian officials were informed by Biafran representatives that military assurances were not enough, that fear of military disadvantage was not the main reason for Biafran rejection of daylight flights, that desire for political advantage was the reason.
I have been asked, Mr. Speaker, to spell out the Biafran demands in these respects. I have been reluctant to do so because this would be a breach of the normal rules which regulate
November 27, 1969

discussions of that sort. I will only add that Canada was asked for an assurance of a political character, and of a nature so extreme that no government could accede to it and still make any claim to non-interven-sion and non-support of the political aims of one side or the other. Those persons who have repeated so often their contention that Canada as an impartial country could play a mediator role would, I am sure, be the first to object to Canada placing itself in such a position.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder if the Prime Minister will permit a question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps you could ask the question when I have finished speaking.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the Prime Minister will agree to be here, fine.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as I can answer them, I will. Perhaps I will be answering them during the remainder of my speech.
The resolution before the House urges the government to support Canairelief, Mr. Speaker. The government recognizes the courage of the pilots and crews of the joint church aid aircraft, and regrets that they are forced to risk their lives every night in order to carry out the task they have assumed. From my place in this House I have urged Canadians to support the efforts of Canairelief through generous financial contributions. I applaud the one which was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), but it is unfortunately a matter of record that those contributions have been far short of the amount needed.
It is also a matter of record that Canairelief qualifies under United States laws, as a carrier of United States foreign aid, for freight payments. It was for this reason that the hon. member for Greenwood was quite correct, Mr. Speaker, when he referred to the indirect assistance which Canairelief receives from the United States government. Those freight payments will continue so long as Canairelief carries cargoes of preponderantly U.S. origin. In the result, Canairelief, a private Canadian charitable organization, is employed as a cargo airline, engaged in the carriage of U.S. goods to Biafra, and is receiving payment for that task. I say this not critically but as an explanation of the position in which Canairelief finds itself. I say it also as a refutation of the totally baseless charge made 21545-13i
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans Tuesday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), and repeated today by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, that, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, "the United States is likely to withdraw its support of Canairelief because the Canadian government will not support its own citizens". There is absolutely no foundation in fact for that allegation, because the support of United States government stems from the situation as I have described it, not as the hon. gentlemen mistakenly believe.
The Canadian government has not granted any support hitherto to Canairelief, Mr. Speaker, for two reasons. The first is that our contributions were made to the International Red Cross, which at that time was the only agency flying relief to both sides in the conflict. Supporting the Red Cross was consistent with our aim of impartiality in the war. The Red Cross amassed a proud record: 2,030 flights, carrying over 23,000 tons of relief supplies.
Our second reason stems from the argument I made in French a few moments ago: that in our view all government efforts should now be focused on daylight flights.
It will be remembered that Canairelief commenced its operations as complementary to the government-assisted Red Cross flights. It was correctly recognized that there were limits to the government's freedom of action, limits expressed not just by the Nigerian government but by more than 30 African governments in the OAU, and that there was a role to be played by a private Canadian organization. The Canadian government welcomed that initiative.
I have said many times that if Canadians, private organizations, and, I hope, members of the opposition and on this side of the House, want to help Canairelief it is an act of which we will certainly approve. I have said that many times.


John George Diefenbaker: That's generous, isn't it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am surprised that the right hon. member does not realize there is a distinction between a government acting in political matters and private organizations-


John George Diefenbaker: The government will do nothing; that is the distinction.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. member says we will do nothing. I suggest that because that was his experience, he is now sitting in opposition.
1322	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that what the government, as a government, cannot do, private citizens can do and have done. For the government's part, while assisting the Red Cross we were at the same time pressing for daylight flights. Now that the Red Cross is no longer flying, it is all the more imperative that some massive relief operation get under way.
The government readily admits, and has said so before, that it faces a question which demands continual and urgent examination-whether to take steps such as assisting Canairelief, which are likely to be objected to by the Nigerian government, or to take steps such as dropping food by air in daylight which are again likely to be objected to by the Biafrans. I recognize that this could be interpreted as a decision involving a value judgment about which side in the war is at fault. I hope we shall not be forced into such a judgment but, instead, reach only a decision as to which is the most effective way of alleviating the suffering.
I suggest that this attitude on the part of the government and these persistent endeavours cannot in any circumstances be described as indifference, as partisanship or as stubbornness. We are doing what we think is right and what the overwhelming majority of African leaders tell us is right. Hon. members opposite would not suggest, I am sure, that compassion is to be found only on their side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Could I put a question to the Prime Minister? He has indicated that the Biafran authorities now expect political guarantees, though he has been reluctant to mention the nature of those guarantees. Are we to understand that they relate to some kind of diplomatic recognition? Is he not being somewhat unfair to the Biafran authorities by not clearing the air on this issue, by not indicating why he is taking his present position? Some of the things the Biafrans have said relate to certain kinds of sanction, which could amount to a kind of political recognition. Or was it more specifically stated than that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am referring to matters of this precise nature. From the question, I

DEBATES	November 27. 1969
assume the hon. member has some very precise information about the type of conditions which have been made by the Biafran representatives. I can only repeat that the hon. member seems to know much about this. I have said publicly that if the Biafran authorities want to state publicly what these conditions are, I do not mind; it will be up to the House and to the country to judge whether or not they are tantamount to political conditions. It is our opinion that they are. 1 am not anxious to make public the details of discussions which took place between the two parties. I am sure that if I were to do so I should be blamed, just as the United States was blamed when it made public some discussions which had taken place in confidence between it and the North Vietnamese. Once again, if this were to be denied by the Biafrans and if they say there are no political conditions, we shall be delighted; I shall have been proved wrong in my information but we shall be able to begin the daylight flights. I repeat: the military guarantees which had been asked for by the Biafrans were all met as far as we can see. The Red Cross obtained consent from the Lagos government to meet all that was required by way of military guarantees. The Biafrans wanted more than military guarantees; they wanted political guarantees. These, we were unable to give for the reasons I have stated.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I ask a further question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
wonder whether we should pursue the debate in this way. I see that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) all want to ask questions. I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood wants to ask a question. I am prepared for the House to proceed in this way, but it is not a practice I wish to encourage. Having said this, I shall call the hon. member for Greenwood and perhaps end the exchanges at that point.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a major question which has troubled parliament and the country for well over a year. We have had a number of special debates on it. I think the value of a debate lies in a real dialogue taking place, not in the expression of fixed positions from one side of the House or from the other. I think this is what the Prime Minister himself would wish. During these
November 27, 1969

formal debates there is really not much time; an hon. member, or a minister, delivers a speech and disappears; it becomes a monologue, rather than a dialogue. If we wish to make progress, there must be real dialogue, not monologue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I may say I am as
aware of that as is the hon. member. But we are not in committee of the whole and it is not our practice to proceed as if we were. I allowed the hon. member to ask a question and I now propose to allow the hon. member for Greenwood to ask a question. After that, I propose to recognize the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Francis Andrew Brewin: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his impression of demands of a political nature made by the Biafran regime are based upon direct contact by any Canadian representative with that regime, or on secondhand information from some other organization. If the latter is the case, would the Prime Minister not seriously consider making some form of contact with the Biafran authorities-I am not asking for diplomatic recognition-as a result of which it could be accurately determined whether that regime was in fact insisting not on military consideration but on rather impossible political consideration?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said two days ago that we have been in contact with the Biafran authorities. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was in touch with them in New York at a ministerial level; Canadian government officials have made contact at their level in Geneva, London and elsewhere.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am talking about the
guarantees.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: These Canadians have had various contacts with the Biafran authorities. I cannot say whether the particular guarantees to which the hon. member refers came directly from Canadian officials or indirectly through Canadian officials after they had been negotiated. I do know that most of the negotiation at this stage was conducted by the Red Cross and by Ambassador Ferguson. Surely, there is no suspicion on the part of the hon. member that the Red Cross is trying to find some way of not sending mercy flights to Biafra?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No one said that.
Alleged, Failure to Aid Biafrans


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No one said that, but-


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Greenwood is now rising on a question of privilege.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The idea suggested by the Prime Minister was furthest from my mind. I never intended to say that the Red Cross was dragging. I merely asked the Prime Minister whether he had had any direct contact concerning the guarantees, or whether he was basing his judgment on second or third hand reports. I think he has now given us the answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the second hand report was from the Red Cross-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, say that. That is all we want to know.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why did the hon. member say: "If it is not first hand, why don't you get it first hand?" You cannot on the one hand say that to get reports second hand from the Red Cross is beautiful and on the other hand that I must get them first hand. We trust the Red Cross.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before recognizing the hon. member for Prince Albert I might interrupt the debate to announce the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment tonight. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Post Office; the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Barnett)-Indian Affairs; the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean)-national defence.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Brewin:
That this House regrets that the government has failed to take adequate measures to relieve massive
1324	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans
starvation in Nigeria-Biafra and, particularly, regrets its repeated refusal to assist Joint Church Aid and Canairelief operations which have continued to deliver substantial relief despite great hazards, and urgently requests the government to change its policy in this respect.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the House has listened to a lecture by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on a matter that touches the hearts of all Canadians and in respect of which there is universal demand for action on the part of the government. The Prime Minister condescendingly told the House that any member of the opposition who wanted to contribute to Canairelief would receive his approval. This represents the attitude that has been shown throughout by the Prime Minister.
All I have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to recall some events. First of all, when the Prime Minister was asked during one of his visits to a part of Canada some 15 or 16 months ago what he was going to do about Biafra, he replied: "Where is Biafra?" That was a facetious observation. The other day during the course of the debate he turned to an opposition member and said: "Have you ever been to Biafra? I have". Yet, when this serious question was asked, the Prime Minister brushed it aside with an observation that had no basis in fact.
In addition to that, we recall very well an occasion in the city of Halifax when a number of young people gathered round the Prime Minister and asked him what was going to be done about Biafra. I am very pleased to see the Prime Minister leaving the chamber, because he knows he cannot face the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: This tells the story.
Whenever the Prime Minister is worried about criticism, he always absents himself; he cannot stay to face the facts. What he means by dialogue is that one should listen to him. Apparently he speaks ex cathedra. When the members of the House dare to speak, he departs. This is because he believes in unilateral discussion in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister regards this institution as something of a debating society, and he appears whenever he or any of his selected ministers decide it appropriate to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the fact. Will these trained seals explain to me why the Prime Minister left?

DEBATES	November 27, 1969


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I point out that all through the speech of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) the Prime Minister remained in the House. 1 presume the hon. member was speaking for his party, and certainly his remarks had much more relevance than the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MacEwan:: You're a great help.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I might point out to the hon. member that he has hardly raised a point of order. The appeals for order that are being made on both sides of the House make it very difficult for the Chair to hear the right hon. member for Prince Albert. The right hon. member has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, today we received a lecture in the form of an alibi. Is the government of Canada going to contribute to Canairelief? The answer is that it is not. That was quite definitely stated, though it was suggested that following 18 months of consideration on the part of the government the government is still considering ways and means that might be taken.
Let me recall what happened in the city of Halifax when the Prime Minister was asked by a group of students whether he would do something on behalf of the poor people of Biafra. The Prime Minister's reply was: "Would you have expected to give support and food to the Nazis at Stalingrad?" That answer indicates a state of mind that is detrimental to fair and reasonable discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not mind the noise. Some of the members opposite make their best contributions when they interrupt from a seated position. But they know what is in their hearts. When they go back to their constituencies, they will say that they hope something is going to be done, that they know something will be done. They will say: "We cannot understand why the opposition presses for action, because for 18 months we have been trying to give consideration to this matter. We are giving the question our deepest thought and perchance at some time, somewhere, we will do something".
While this consideration is being given to the matter, tens of thousands of people are
November 27, 1989

dying. They are dying because they have no food. They are dying because some African states say they know better what to do than humanitarian nations in other parts of the world.
No one has explained why this question was not brought before the United Nations. Can any member among those who were interrupting a moment ago tell me why this question has not been put before the United Nations? A year ago last October the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said: "If we find that that can be done, and it is necessary to be done, we intend to do it".
I want to refer to the record of a number of Canadians, many of them outstanding Liberals, who have been deeply disappointed at the fact that this government has adopted a squalid, nasty, unreasonable and hypocritical attitude to one of the most serious questions of humanitarian need that we have had to face in many years.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
On October 28, 1968, there was an open letter in the Globe and Mail to the Prime Minister on the Nigeria-Biafra war. Under the heading "What is happening?", it reads:
There is general agreement among observers recently returned from Biafra that several thousand civilians are dying every day from starvation. Within weeks this figure will reach tens of thousands when the last stores of bulk food are exhausted. Reporters are equally convinced that even an apparent military victory by the federal troops will not end the fighting since the Biafrans are determined to continue a prolonged guerrilla resistance.
By sending some food and aircraft to Nigeria and Biafra, the Government has shown the Canadian people that it accepts a responsibility for international action where human suffering has reached disastrous proportions.
The open letter has other headings such as "What should be done?", "How can this be done?", "What should Canada do". Under that heading it states:
Canada should greatly increase its efforts in cooperation with like-minded nations to:
have a ceasefire resolution adopted at the United Nations-
Canada refused to place this matter before the United Nations, though it has been asked over and over again.
Secondly, the open letter suggests that there should be a stop in the supply of British arms to Nigeria. I think the strongest objection should have been made by this government to the Wilson Government for supplying
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans Nigeria with arms and thereby prolonging the suffering there.
The letter then suggests that we should exert direct and public pressure to end the fighting and re-establish negotiations. This letter was signed by Stephen Clarkson, a Liberal candidate in Toronto for mayor; Allen Linden, chairman of the recent Harrison Hot Springs conference; Marshall McLuhan, the conscience of the Prime Minister; Tim Reid, M.P.P.; Peter Russell, Professor in Toronto and a leading Liberal; Professor John Say-well, who was one of the supporters of the right hon. gentleman for the leadership of the Liberal party; Charles Templeton; Leon Weinstein, the man whom Senator Keith Davey brought forward as a potential nominee for the Liberal party for mayor of Toronto.
They said this question should be brought before the United Nations and many others joined with them. These are outstanding Liberals but what did they get? They simply received, 13 months after they made that declaration, a pious statement by the Prime Minister that there is nothing that can be done- that in effect is what he says-except through assistance from private quarters.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) on the expression of their viewpoints which they placed fairly before the House.
The attitude of the Government is not that it is marking time but that it is standing still. It is defying the people of Canada openly, overtly and unjustifiably. People ask for action and they receive the reading of an essay on the subject of international relations. I will deal with that in a moment.
We have with us today in this city Mr. Stanley Burke, formerly connected with the CBC. He is a man who gave up his position because of the situation in Biafra and the appeal to his humanitarian sentiments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We think of the sacrifices of Canadians. Four of these brave men, as a price of their emergency flights, in the month of August, 1969 gave their lives. The Government of Canada dare not continue to defy the hopes and desires of the people of Canada. The Prime Minister can leave. Anyone who runs away lives to speak another day. He can leave, he can evacuate the House, but by his actions today he showed more clearly, more
COMMONS DEBATES	November 27, 1969
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans definitely and more assuredly his disregard for this institution which he is endeavouring to remake in the image of the Congressional government of the United States.
What can be done? Toward the end of last year the Biafran authorities completed preliminary surveys for a relief airstrip. In an undertaking with Canairelief and Joint Church Aid, the Biafrans cleared and levelled a strip to be used exclusively for relief purposes. If the Canadian government wishes to send any relief, and certainly the speech of the Prime Minister today indicates no such desire, it could complete this strip easily and quickly by laying down a metal military emergency grid. This could be done in a matter of hours by a military team. Biafran authorities have stated that such action would be deeply appreciated.
Dr. Otue, the senior Biafran representative in New York, is in Ottawa today and has given his personal assurances. Hercules aircraft could thus be flying in food by the hundreds of tons within a matter of days. The food is stockpiled at Sao Tome in thousands of tons. In addition, there are several thousands of tons of Red Cross supplies which have been lying around deteriorating since last June.
Sir, I am shocked by the attitude of the Prime Minister today. He represents all of the people of Canada. He does not want to engage in any dialogue, but would rather have us listen to his monologue. Isn't it about time this Government decided that it should act?
Since June 5, the Red Cross, jointly with Canairelief, has carried into Biafra over 30,000 tons of food, so that in contrast with the negotiations that are going on between the Red Cross and the authorities in Nigeria the population has been assisted to this extent. Canairelief, the Canadian company or group, has just completed its 500th flight. It uses, at the present time, 4 superconstellation planes, and could fly another four flights if additional funds were available. I say to the Government, furnish these funds.
Canadian people are responding well but there are limits. Do you mean to tell me that the Canadian Council of Churches or the other organizations which have joined together for action should be spurned in the way they have been by the expression of the views of this Government today? Why will the Government not contribute to Canairelief?
The Prime Minister today produced a legalistic formula. The request was made in

August and there has been no reply made or there was not up to the day before yesterday. There has been neither a yes nor a no in reply. The Government has hidden behind protocol and pretended international legal principles in order to deny hundreds of thousands of starving people at a time when Canada has the largest surplus of wheat- 1,400 million bushels-in its history. The Government says this cannot be done. Let us simply look at the facts. For a long time the Government said it was unable to get any information from the Nigerian leaders or those associated with them. That was in September and October of 1968.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I decided, as a private member of parliament, to send a message to General Yakubu Gowon, State House, Lagos, Nigeria, imploring him to expedite the clearance of Canadian aircraft to permit relief supplies of food and medicine to be delivered to those parts of Nigeria affected by the civil war. The message continued:
Along with tens of thousands of Canadians I heard you in August in an interview on CBC undertake to assure delivery of relief supplies to the afflicted whatever their political affiliations. The words you used were "I have told you the supplies will get through, I will see to it that it is done". Will you in the name of humanity now do that which you undertook and as a humanitarian assure that innocent children and others in need will secure the available supplies which Canada desires with all its heart to provide.
Within a matter of four days I received a complete answer thereto from Major General Gowon in which he pointed out that he could not understand my message. He said that there is nothing being done on his part or on the part of those associated with him to interfere in any way with food going into Biafra. He said further:
I have at no time failed to honour my pledge to do everything possible to ensure that no one in this country suffered unnecessarily as a result of this war. Unfortunately there are areas to which the authority of my government cannot yet be extended and these are the areas from which the stories of harrowing distress issue but even then my government has made repeated offers of practicable means of getting relief supplies to them. Unfortunately the secessionist leaders have consistently turned down these offers and their supporters in Canada are taking the public for a ride by concealing these facts while parading statistics of the magnitude of distress.
There need be no cause for you to be concerned that relief is not reaching those in need who can be reached. My government is ensuring that more and more of such persons are continuing to be reached.
November 27, 1969

Well, we know what the results are. We know that those statements made by him- although he did answer the request and the plea-were not based on facts. That we know. They tell me the latest excuse is that constitutionally this cannot be done. I have before me a constitutional summary respecting this matter and in particular the right of any country to give humanitarian aid to those who are suffering. Humanitarianism has no protocol.


Some hon, Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Dr. Edward McWhinney, Q.C., Professor of Law, McGill University, on October 30, 1968 set out in detail the situation. He said there is no constitutional basis for the fatuous excuses being made by the Canadian government in refusing to act. He said further:
-we have heard a number of arguments, legal and otherwise, against using Canadian military planes to transport Red Cross non-military supplies to Biafra. It has been said that that would be a legal act of war; though since the test of a legal act of war, according to both Soviet and Western doctrine, focuses on the purpose to which the activity is directed-here a humanitarian one-this argument is surely legally untenable. Beyond this, a right of humanitarian intervention, limiting the internal sovereignty of any state when it acts contrary to the laws of humanity, has been recognized since the time of Grotius, the founder of modern international law, in the early 17th century. Further, in reaction to the crimes committed during the Hitler era, the World Community has moved decisively to limit the old absolutist claims of national sovereignty, by positive law measures like the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Genocide Convention itself, thus filling the gaps in the "old" international law. Not merely, therefore, would Canada or any other country seeking to have the UN General Assembly discuss the Nigeria-Biafra conflict not violate Nigeria's claimed sovereignty: in fact, we would be fulfilling a positive duty cast upon all members of the World Community, under the "new" international law created since the downfall of the Nazi regime, to bring up alleged violations of human rights for public discussion in the United Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the right hon. gentleman knows, according to the rules his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. Ouellei:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I would like to tell the hon. member that I agree to let him go on with his speech, but nevertheless I would like to point out to him that when he delivered his last speech-
Alleged. Failure to Aid Biafrans


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


André Ouellet: -on agriculture-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


André Ouellet: -he also talked longer than he was allowed to according to Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Tell him to sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order. What is now before the House is a question from the Chair whether there is unanimous consent. There would appear to be unanimous consent that the right hon. member continue.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you very much. I was about to point out that there is no justification for the narrow interpretation of the government, that it has, in fact, the right, wherever the demands of humanity appeal to the hearts of people, to do that which we have asked for and which is being asked for today in the resolution before the House. Indeed, the World Organization of Jurists- and I shall not quote this because it is a lengthy quotation-which is representative of judges or former judges everywhere in the world has declared that there is a right to act on a humanitarian basis. But the government of Canada stands firm and unmoving. To me, this is one of the most callous and squalid stands any government could take in a time of need and suffering.
The Prime Minister reads to the House of Commons a dissertation to exculpate the government and in doing so indicates clearly that so long as he remains Prime Minister he intends to stand against any effective action being taken to meet this terrible tragedy which today fills the heart of all mankind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I join the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in regretting that the Prime Minister is not present in the House for the debate, although I must assume, and do assume, that he left because of some urgent appointment he may have had. I regret it, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important. It is important that he hear what other members of this House have to say about his speech today and the statement he made on
1328	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans Tuesday which I can describe only as an apologia, an apology for his guilt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: The Prime Minister says quite rightly that all the compassion is not on the benches of the opposition. Whoever suggested it was? No member on this side of the House has any doubt that all members of the government are as concerned, are as decent, and are as willing to help as is any member of this House or any other citizen of Canada. But that is not the question. The question is that the government is in a position to do something and is refusing to do it. That is the question. Protestations of compassion, protestations of concern or self-righteous and selfserving assurances of a guilty heart do not feed a single baby in Biafra. This merely disgusts those who want to see some action taken. I say this because the Prime Minister gave us a series of excuses which I, for one, cannot accept. What we are saying to the Prime Minister and to the government in this resolution today-and it has been put very eloquently and simply-I can put in one sentence. Since June of this year the flights of the International Red Cross have not taken place those flights ceased last June.
[DOT] (5.20 p.m.)
Since June of this year the only aid to the starving people of Biafra has come through Joint Church Aid and Canairelief, and it is fatuous, callous and distressing for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to sit there and tell us-despite the fact that the only assistance that Biafrans have received since June of this year has been assistance through these church agencies-that he will not help them because he thinks Lagos will not approve. That is precisely what he said. He did not say that Lagos had been asked and has refused. He did not say that anyone from his office had gone to Lagos and said: "we want to help Canairelief. Can we, as a friendly nation, have your agreement to that?" He said that this government in Canada, in a straight jacket of heartless protocol, decided that it cannot undertake this help through Canairelief because of the possibility that Lagos may disapprove.
This is the issue before the House.


Mr. Kaplan:: Lagos disapproves of night flights?


David Lewis: House asked the Prime Minister of the Canadian government to intervene? We asked him to help save lives. If that is intervention, then it is about time we intervened. When you are in a situation where there are two sides in a conflict, one side of which, Nigeria, has a mass of territory, an approach from the water and most of the air space, while the other side, Biafra, is a little enclave with a blockade by land and a blockade by water so that food cannot be brought in in any other way than by assistance from the world, what protocol should prevent a civilized society such as Canada from offering that assistance?
If the Canadian government informed Lagos that it had decided to give direct assistance to Canairelief, in view of the fact that no other assistance is available to the Bia-frans, I do not believe for a moment that General Gowan would dare object to that simple humanitarian act by Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what he said in a
letter.


David Lewis: It was significant the Prime Minister did not suggest that there was this kind of contact with General Gowan on this point.
The Prime Minister and the government have a diabolical preoccupation with daylight flights. Only daylight flights will satisfy the requirements of this government. First of all, the Prime Minister was simply wrong when he suggested that daylight flights, as agreed to at this time would bring more food to the Biafrans. This is not true. The number of planes would have to be increased by a great many more than are now available to the Red Cross to even approach what is being delivered to Biafra on the night flights by the joint church organizations.
Secondly, the desire of all of us is not limited to daylight flights. I think our government should not only be working for daylight flights but for both daylight and nighttime flights, as well as for the provision of assistance through the Niger River and, in time perhaps, the provision of assistance overland. Even if we obtained agreement to daylight flights, is it sensible to suggest that night flights be ended? Can one possibly deliver enough assistance to the starving millions in Biafra? Is it wrong to continue night flights, even when there are daylight flights? What is this obsession about daylight flights except for insistence on a tight protocol so as to satisfy every desire of Lagos.
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans
I do not know what the Prime Minister is talking about when he speaks about agreements, unless he refers to the copies of agreements which I hold in my hand. One of them was made on August 27, 1969 between the Biafran authorities and the International Red Cross. This agreement laid down certain rules. Let me read the introduction, which is as follows:
With reference to the note dated August 1, 1969 from the International Committee of the Red Cross to General Odumegwu Ojukwu, Head of State of Biafra, the ICRC proposes the following modalities.
I am informed, I am sure accurately, that these modalities were all accepted by General Ojukwu on August 27, 1969. They provide for controllers from neutral states approved by Lagos, controllers from neutral states approved by Biafra, and Red Cross participation in watching these flights and what goes into the planes.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There was no suggestion in that document about any military, political or other demands. I do not know what the Prime Minister is talking about. Maybe he knows. Perhaps there is something in his file that we lesser mortals have not seen, but I do not know what he is talking about. I do know there is a signed agreement between the ICRC and Lagos which was arrived at some time after the agreement with Biafra. As I piece the situation together-and my inquiries suggest that I am piecing them together accurately-the International Red Cross went to Biafra and obtained agreement on the modalities which it proposed. It then went to Lagos to get similar agreement from Nigeria, and Nigeria refused to agree to the ICRC proposals and made its own demands.
Listen to some of the demands.
Cargo and personnel aboard the relief aircraft shall be controlled at the ICRC operational base by
-a representative of the federal military government
-a representative of the ICRC
-a representative of the host government.
That is, the host government of the operational base. There is no room for a representative from Biafra in this arrangement for control; they are to be completely ignored. There is a proviso that the federal military government representative may function alone for certain of the purposes enumerated, to see what cargo goes on a plane and what people board it. The Nigeria representative may act alone as the sole controller in that
November 27, 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans situation. Further on there is a provision which my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood read, that the personnel belonging to other voluntary agencies may be on the planes; but how are they to get on? The provision refers to personnel belonging to other voluntary agencies recognized by the federal military government, so if Canairelief or Joint Church Aid is not, as is the case now, recognized by the Nigerian government, they cannot have anything to do with these flights. There is a further provision about the way the planes are to be marked. How are they to be marked? The agreement states:
Routings to and from Uli, call signs, radio communication, emblems, types of aircraft and flight schedules shall be as agreed from time to time by the ICRC with the Nigerian Air Force and the Nigerian Army.
Then, this document states:
This agreement shall be without prejudice to military operations by the federal military government.
Who is making military demands, Mr. Speaker? Is it Colonel Ojukwu? If the Prime Minister has not seen the document to which I referred earlier, I am sure it is somewhere in the files of the East Block and he ought to be able to get a copy of it.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? In case there is no assurance that the Prime Minister can get the information, would the hon. gentleman place those records on Hansard, because they would be very useful?


David Lewis: I read some of them, and I do not believe that as an ordinary Member of Parliament I can table anything. But I shall make them available, if the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) do not have them. Between my colleague and myself, we will provide copies. I think what is more objectionable, if anything could be more objectionable than the sections I have read, is the last one:
This agreement shall be for a period of three weeks from a date to be agreed by the ICRC with the Nigerian Air Force and the Nigerian Army.
The date is to be agreed, not with the government authorities of Nigeria but with their military authorities. There is no time limit in the other document which Biafra approved. It is an agreement for daylight flights without time limit, which is the humanitarian approach. Who are the people genuinely trying to help the dying in Biafra?

Mr. Speaker, the reason, in part, that this debate arose and the reason why some of us cannot be cool about it is that time after time and day after day the Prime Minister rose in his place and either from a document or from his mind, laid all the blame on Colonel Ojukwu as the evil Satan in the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: That was partisan; it was narrow; it was uncalled for; it was unwarranted and untrue, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: This is why some of us feel keenly about the matter. The Prime Minister says the actions of the government cannot be described as indifferent, as partisan, as obstinate. Maybe those adjectives are a little too mild, Mr. Speaker, to apply to what we have heard here today.


An hon. Member:: Very mild.


David Lewis: There is certainly indifference when for almost six months no aid has reached the people of Biafra except that from church organizations. And this government says, "Red Cross or starve".


An hon. Member:: Shame.


David Lewis: That is not an exaggeration, Mr. Speaker-"Red Cross or starve". For six months no relief has been brought into Biafra except through night flights, and the government of Canada says, "Day flights or starve".


An hon. Member:: And the Biafrans say "Ammunition or we will starve".


David Lewis: I do not know whether any guns got through, but I should like to remind the hon. and vociferous member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) that there is a war in Biafra and I have no doubt that arms are reaching Biafra. I do not blame the military leaders of Biafra for seeking arms to fight a war which they believe is right. I am not passing judgment on that point, I am not asking the government of Canada to pass judgment and I am certainly not asking the hon. member to pass judgment. I am not passing judgment; I am not asking the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this is a good time to ask hon. members whether the hon. member has unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 27, 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently he has.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member's reputation, aside from partisan debate, for being a very fair individual. He asked where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was at the moment. Knowing the calibre of the hon. gentleman as an orator, and the right hon. gentleman who preceded him, nothing would have kept the Prime Minister from the House other than the fact that he had a very important meeting at five o'clock with a representative of Canairelief, which he felt was more important than listening to the eloquence of both hon. gentlemen.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did the Prime Minister not follow the usual parliamentary course of saying, "I have an appointment; you will excuse me"?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) has a question of privilege. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has the floor and he has only four minutes to go. Perhaps the hon. member for Egmont would indicate his question of privilege.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps as a question of privilege I might again raise the point I raised this afternoon and, through the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), ask whether we could be assured that in order for this debate to be productive the Prime Minister will be here this evening to report on the meeting with Canairelief as well as to listen to the remainder of the debate.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we will have the privilege of hearing one of our representatives who has just returned from the United Nations.


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am only speaking to the point of privilege. I am sure the hon. gentleman-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you mean the observer?


Mr. Speaker:: I have to rule that there is no question of privilege and I invite the hon. member for York South to continue his remarks.


David Lewis: May I say to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) that I did not ask a
DEBATES	1331
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans question. I said that I assumed. Without reservation I think I said-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Did he know where the Prime Minister was?


David Lewis: No, I did not, but I said in my speech that I assumed he left because he had an unimportant appointment. I am glad to hear that the appointment was as important as the minister states. I can only hope that Ted Johnson and the others who are with him and who are seeing the Prime Minister will get much more satisfactory answers than this House has received.
I am not going to abuse the kindness of the House, Mr. Speaker. I say this to the Prime Minister, through the minister, through the parliamentary secretary, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, even through the member for Burnaby-Seymour who has just returned from the United Nations and therefore will have, of course, unlimited wisdom to impart to us. I say it without having to consult my colleagues or the members of the official opposition. If the Prime Minister will come to this House and tell us, not that he has intervened in the struggle, made any political judgment or taken steps which he believes quite sincerely are wrong, that since no food is reaching the Biafrans except that flown in through the joint church organizations the government of Canada will assist Canairelief for that purpose, he will have the blessing of all who sit on this side of the House.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: That is all this motion is about and that is all it asks the government to do. It does not attempt to settle the differences between Nigeria and Biafra. There is not a word in it about going to the United Nations or anywhere else. It is simply what French speaking hon. members would call a cri du coeur, a cry for the heart, which is made to the government of Canada. That cry asks the government to stop using protocol and excuses for inaction which help no one because the government's action, without its intending it, condemns tens of thousands of human beings to starvation. It is the starvation that we intend to end by this motion.
There is still time for the Prime Minister to say, on behalf of the government, that he accepts this reasonable proposition and that
November 27. 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans we shall work through or with joint church organizations and Canairelief in assisting the starving people of Biafra, and that way save lives. That is all we ask. If the Prime Minister cannot give an affirmative answer to that plea, he will stand condemned in the history of this country as a man who is in a strait-jacket of legalisms logistics and protocol which make it impossible for him to act as the human being he undoubtedly is.


Mr. Ray Perrauli (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the time, could we consider it as officially 5.45 p.m. and commence again after the dinner adjournment?


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the hon. member is referring to the fact that there will be royal assent in a few moments. Since it might take a few minutes for that to happen, the hon. member might begin his remarks at this time.


Raymond J. Perrault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have all listened attentively this afternoon to the eloquent expressions of concern about the fate of the youngsters in Biafra. It has been correctly stated that concern about the fate of these young people is not restricted to one party in this House; it is not restricted to the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the NDP or the Creditistes. We are all concerned about the needless and tragic death of little children. I regret that the right hon. gentleman who was so critical of the early departure of the Prime Minister did not himself come into the House sooner than he did today.
I have heard many arguments on this matter, but the nations of the United Nations see day by day what effort Canada is making to resolve this terrible tragedy in Nigeria and Biafra. Every week since September, Canadians have been meeting Biafrans and Nigerians-I can give the dates-and offering their good offices to arrange a permanent settlement of this tragic dispute. It is all right to talk about whether we are going to ship food during the day, in the twilight or in the evening; but the only way these youngsters' lives will be saved is by a permanent settlement of the dispute. That is the direction in which Canada is working.


Mr. Pelers:: That is unsupported propaganda.


Raymond J. Perrault: When I heard the irresponsible claptrap of a former prime minister who never at any time when he was prime minister of the country engaged in the kind


of unilateral action he is suggesting to this government, and when I heard the government abused by the deputy leader of the NDP, I could only listen in magnificent wonder.
What is Canada's record at the United Nations? I heard the official representatives of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, the social democratic parties of Europe, and they all supported the Canadian position. The issuing of guns-


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Burnaby-Segmour (Mr. Perrault) has the floor.


Raymond J. Perrault: I have the floor now, and I shall answer questions later. We have taken a great deal of abuse this afternoon and I think it is time for a reply. I met Dr. Otue, the Biafran representative in New York, yesterday afternoon and I heard that members of the opposition had been telephoning and telling him we would have a special debate on Biafra. They said to him, "Could you clue us in, Dr. Otue?". Do you know what he said? He said, "We are in a terrible way this week, Mr. Perrault, because tomorrow night the Labour government of Great Britain is sending a shipment of heavy artillery from Dover and it will be used against us next week."
I reiterate the position of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and suggest that one of the most effective steps which can be taken by the clique in the corner of this chamber is to send a spirited delegation to Harold Wilson of Great Britain and say, "Stop the shipment from Dover." Mr. Speaker, why did Right Hon. Michael Stewart, the British Foreign Minister, say "No" to the Canadian government when it begged him to stop the shipment of arms? Is this the kind of enlightened, social democratic government we can expect from the NDP if they come into power?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member should be given an opportunity to make his speech.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Stewart said, "We have important economic relations with Biafra"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
November 27, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest again the hon. member should be given an opportunity to make his speech.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has clearly implied that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has not taken the sort of position that has been taken. The hon. member for Greenwood specifically said that our party was critical of the stand the Labour party of Great Britain took on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege in the normal sense of the word. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? The hon. member who has the floor should be given the opportunity to make his presentation to the House.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, there is at times a great difference in the quality of research undertaken in the House. May I suggest, with deference to members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, that they have not done very much sound research recently. I have in my hand a photostatic copy of a resolution of the Organization for African Unity. It concerns Nigeria. The resolution was passed by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government at Addis Ababa in September, 1969. This is what it says in the final paragraph:
Makes a solemn and urgent appeal to all governments, international organizations, humanitarian institutions as well as to all political, moral and religious bodies in the world to facilitate the implementation of the present resolution and to desist from any action, gesture and attitude likely to jeopardize the efforts of OAU in finding an African solution to the Nigerian crisis.
I hear a knock on the door of the chamber, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition and to authorize the writing-off of certain costs and the deferral of certain payments connected therewith.
It being eight minutes after six o'clock the House took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Brewin:
That this House regrets that the government has failed to take adequate measures to relieve massive starvation in Nigeria-Biafra and, particularly, regrets its repeated refusal to assist Joint Church Aid and Canairelief operations which have continued to deliver substantial relief despite great hazards, and urgently requests the government to change its policy in this respect.
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault).


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It was my impression, and I am sure the impression of many hon. members in this House, particularly in view of the comments of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and others before supper, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would be here this evening not only to listen to the remainder of the debate but to indicate the results of his conversation just before the supper hour with the representative of Canairelief. I am wondering whether the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) or some other minister could inform the House whether the Prime Minister will be here some time this evening to indicate the results of his conversations.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I might point out that in my view that is hardly a question of privilege. If someone would volunteer this information, I suppose there is a way so to inform the hon. member.
November 27, 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, just before the dinner break I had endeavoured to point out that the Organization for African Unity had passed a resolution in Addis Ababa, the essence of which was that Africans want to find African solutions to the Nigerian crisis. They do not want the kind of charity that perhaps some of us would like to dispense and feel should be dispensed. A chap from one of the emerging states said to me last week, "How would you feel if you had a difficult situation in Canada and six African states decided unilaterally to make an airlift to Saskatchewan without reference to the government of the province or the government of Canada?" The leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) knows that these are the kind of attitudes that exist at the United Nations, because he must have encountered them while he was there. I am simply pointing out that, despite the attitude of the Organization for African Unity, Canadian initiatives to bring about a permanent and lasting solution to the Nigerian tragedy are among the finest in the world.
I have with me tonight a partial chronology of some of the things that we have been trying to do, but before I come to that let me quote the official Swedish position which that country adopted at the United Nations:
We deplore the continuing difficulties in making that relief action effective.
Some of these difficulties were outlined by Gordon Pape in an article that appeared in the Montreal Gazette of November 19, 1969. He is a respected member of the press gallery in Ottawa. In his article he said there is a growing feeling that Biafran aid is not being held up by government inaction at this end, but rather by General Ojukwu. His article goes on:
The U.S. government, acting under direct orders from President Nixon, then proceeded to obtain guarantees from Nigeria that no such military operations would be undertaken and that the flights would not be molested.
That has reference to the daylight relief flights.
Despite these assurances, Biafra again rejected the proposal October 24, opting instead to have relief supplies brought in by boat-an operation that is impossible-
There is virtually no sympathy at the United Nations for the intransigent attitude taken by General Ojukwu and the Biafran authorities. How can Canada be anti-Biafra when through Canadian initiative this agreement was negotiated? This agreement was to guarantee that airfields would not be bombed

if daylight relief flights were to commence, yet the plan was rejected.
Mr. Stanley Burke, a man deeply dedicated to alleviating the plight of youngsters in Biafra, said the other day, according to a newspaper report-I hope he was misquoted-that Canada was doing nothing to alleviate suffering in Biafra. I should like to point out that up to the end of March this year $952,594 worth of aid found its way into Biafra, as well as $1,491,514 worth through the Nigerian route. The total amount of aid topped $2.8 million. In face of these figures, how can it be said that Canada has contributed no aid at all to Biafra.
I return to what the Swedish foreign minister said at the United Nations:
The African States consider that their own Organization for African Unity has a special responsibility and a special possibility to contribute to a solution. We find that approach reasonable and realistic.
I would inform my social democratic friends at the other end of the House that Canadians, too, found this approach reasonable and realistic. Surely some of the members of the House who attended the session of the United Nations as parliamentary observers also realized, following the discussions that they had with the Biafrans and the Nigerians, that this approach was realistic. Conferences were arranged through the good offices of this government in order that they could hear the arguments on both sides. Some of these members significantly axe not going to participate in this debate because they realize the difficulties that are being faced by Canada at the United Nations. They also appreciate all that is being done despite these difficulties.
The position taken by the representative of Norway was that the Organization for African Unity can solve the conflict, and he went on to say that his government is of the opinion that this organization is especially well qualified to find a basis for a negotiated solution. Similar positions were adopted by the other Scandinavian countries. They were of the opinion that the OAU approach to a settlement of the tragedy was a sound one. Canada supports that position, along with most of the leading nations of the world.
Today the members of the government are pilloried and condemned. The right hon. gentleman who is a former prime minister stated that we are defying the wish of the people of Canada; that we have refused to place the issue before the United Nations. I would inform him that a meeting with U Thant was
November 27, 1969

held on September 16, at which the Canadian representative stated that perhaps the matter should be brought before the United Nations and suggested exploring ways in which this could be done. The answer of the Secretary General was that this would do more harm than good.
No man is working more diligently to bring about a settlement in Biafra than our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). On September 18 President Diori of Niger was in Ottawa and the minister discussed with him the situation in Nigeria and Biafra. While at the United Nations in New York, the Secretary of State for External Affairs discussed the Nigerian Civil war with the United States Secretary of State. He discussed the cessation of arm shipments with the French foreign minister and had meetings with the foreign ministers of Uganda, Ivory Coast, Tunisia and Ghana. This was followed by talks with the foreign ministers of Gabon, Dahomey, the Central African Republic, Italy and the Soviet Union.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In spite of all these meetings we are pilloried in this House by a former prime minister of Canada who lessens the hope of the people of Canada by saying that we are standing on narrow legalism and refusing to bring aid to these people. He said we are hiding behind protocol. As someone who has seen this team in action, I can assure all members of the House that government members are equally concerned about the plight of these young people. We are not standing on protocol.
Yesterday we met with Nigerians and Bia-frans at the Canadian Mission in New York. We had a series of meetings. When the final story of the Nigerian civil war is written, Canada will have one of the brightest pages in that book. Let me tell hon. members this, Mr. Speaker: if they study the long story of this tragedy they will find that a number of initiatives were filed by certain nations. I do not want to name them on the floor of this House because the matter would receive too much publicity. This is the reason Canadian efforts are being undertaken more discreetly than would perhaps be the case with other nations, but our efforts are just as effective.


An hon. Member:: They are non-existent.


Raymond J. Perrault: I feel sorry for the hon. member of the Opposition who feels he is such an expert, when really he does not know
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans very much about the facts of the case. Anyone who has studied this question knows that no one can become an instant expert on it.
Was it callous disregard for the plight of refugees that a meeting was held on September 26 among the Nigerian Commissioner for External Affairs, Mr. Arikp, our Secretary of State for External Affairs and others? Did we fail when we met with the Ivory Coast representative on September 26, discussed the whole situation with M. Usher of that nation and asked for his co-operation in getting relief into this starving nation? Was it disregard for the starving youngsters when we discussed with the Uganda Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Sam Odaka, on that same day how we could get aid to the starving Biafrans?
What was the attitude of the Biafrans when they met with the Secretary of State for External Affairs on September 27? The whole object of the meeting was to plead with the Biafrans to at least test a system of daylight flights. If a man's youngsters are starving to death, I do not care where they are living, whether it be Biafra, Canada, the United States or France-it is worth taking some risks in order to help them. There is not one form of aid which might be extended at this point to the starving young people of Biafra which would not involve some risk. In this regard we asked for some assurance; we pleaded with them. These are the facts. Let us not be vague about this situation.
These are the names of the Biafrans who were present when Canada's plea was entered: Mr. Eni Njoki, president of the University of Biafra; Dr. Pius Okogbo, Economic Adviser to Biafra; Dr. Ifegwu Eke, Commissioner of Information for Biafra; Mr. Matthew Mbu, Commissioner of education for Biafra, and Dr. Nwonye Otue, Biafran Special Representative to New York. Hon. members know Mr. Otue very well; they have talked with him on a number of occasions.
Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs fail when he told this group that Canadians were concerned that inadequate supplies were reaching Biafra, and when he told them that unless daylight aid was brought to Biafran youngsters thousands were going to die and that in the opinion of Canadians the only way the situation could be relieved was by bringing in a great many more planes? We offered planes and we offered food. We pleaded with them. In spite of this we are told on the floor of this House
1336	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans that we lack human compassion. I think this is one of the most unfair types of accusation to make.
Great compassion has been a characteristic of Canada ever since confederation. This has been true throughout our history; it has not mattered whether the Tories, the Liberals or anybody else was in power. So why is there this trading in accusations and the suggestion that we lack sympathy and are not concerned about this tragic situation? Frankly, I am proud of Canada's external affairs effort. The MPs in the opposition who were down in New York were proud of the professionals in the Department of External Affairs. They are doing a very good job there. Some of them know of the plight of Biafra.
Only yesterday I had the opportunity of meeting Mr. Moses Ihonde, Nigerian Counsul General in New York. It was a good meeting, a meeting which again reflected the desire of Nigerians and Biafrans to see this war ended, and also to see an end to the suffering which has been afflicted on families everywhere in Nigeria. Only yesterday I had a meeting with Dr. Otue, Biafra's representative in New York. I understand he is in Ottawa today. He has some knowledge of Canada and is a very personable gentleman. It was a good meeting.
I asked him this question directly, "Are Canadians doing enough to help your people?" I told him I would write down his answer and read it to the House of Commons. He said that the Canadian people are doing a great deal; they are doing magnificently, and Biafrans appreciate the help we are extending to them. He said several organizations have extended humanitarian aid at considerable risk, and they appreciate it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: It
was not the government he was talking about.


Raymond J. Perrault: I told him there has been criticism by some parties about Canadian contributions to alleviate this tragic situation.
I asked him what Canada should do to help. What was his answer? He thought for a while and then he said, "I hope you will do what you can do to de-escalate the shipment of arms to both sides. It is a power war now, with too much big power involvement. Let us try to end arms shipments. This may facilitate a peace settlement." That was his answer. There were no shrill exclamations from Biafrans that it is terrible that there is in Canada a government which lacks humanity, because it is not giving to Canairelief or trying to bring relief through the Red Cross. As a

DEBATES	November 27, 1969
member of this House, I frankly hope that those people who contribute to the military build-up in Nigeria and Biafra will stop the shipment of arms.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond J. Perrault: I appreciate the indulgence of the House, Mr. Speaker. Let me point out again that this is precisely what Canada has done in conversations with France and with Great Britain; we have proposed that arms shipments to Nigeria and Biafra be ended. Even if all official arms shipments were to be halted tomorrow, we know that the problem would not end there. We have discussed the problem and have expressed the view that arms shipments should be halted, but we are under no illusion that a large and thriving free arms market does not exist. We know that arms would still find their way to the combatants. As a result, there is a need for Canada and other nations to continue their efforts to bring about a peace settlement and to find a more immediate and effective way to bring in aid.
I want to report to the House that in the past 24 hours I have talked with the Organization of African Unity Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Thiam. He said Canada's position in this whole affair had been very commendable. He said there is no reason for relief to be denied the starving youngsters of Biafra. With Canada, they back the efforts of the Red Cross to get supplies in during daylight hours. He said this could be done and there is no reason why it should not be done.
Biafrans will read the debate in this House and will know of the program which is supported by the Organization of African Unity. There is no reason why this program cannot be carried out; rather than having destructive criticism and accusations made in the House. We think in this way we could perhaps get aid to these people at the beginning of next week.
Mr. Speaker, I must leave out much of what I had hoped to say, but let me say this: those who went to New York as observers will almost without exception gladly acknowledge the respect with which Canada is held by other nations of the world. Perhaps no other nation has established such an effective record of quiet, continuing effort to mediate
November 27, 1969

and conciliate. This also applies to the time when my hon. friends were in power.


An hon. Member:: More Liberal propaganda.


Raymond J. Perrault: It is not Liberal propaganda,
because it refers to a time when a previous government was in office.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I think it is particularly destructive when we come in this House and say about one another such things that would never be levelled at us by any other country or any other person. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have had the most searching conversations with the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, on the possibility of the United Nations considering this matter. Similarly, the Canadian permanent mission to the United Nations has consulted broadly on the prospects of United Nations initiative in this area. The Secretary General has stated publicly that he considers the decisions taken by the Organization for African Unity provide the framework for a just settlement of the civil war by peaceful means.
Let me again stress that I believe the Canadian people and the Canadian government are sincerely concerned about the tragedy which has befallen the people who live in this area. All political parties, indeed, are deeply concerned about the tragedy which has befallen Biafrans.
It is fair to say that those concerned about the question at the United Nations-and there are many-are convinced that daylight flights are essential if the children of Biafra are to be saved. Canairelief alone will not save enough lives. It is equally fair to say that the people who control Biafra do not seem to have a real interest in daylight flights, whatever their reasons and their motives. They have expended a great deal of energy in attempts to justify their rejection of a proposed agreement developed in very large measure by Canadians. They do not seem to have expended the same amount of energy in attempting to find an alternative way in which to bring relief to the starving. They maintain that they mistrust the federal military government, but both Canada and the United States have expressed willingness to assist in providing assurances to meet the Biafran fear of any military advantage flowing from the daylight flights agreement.
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans
Regardless of the statements we have heard today, the most effective way to deliver adequate supplies of relief to the starving youngsters of Biafra is by daylight flights. That position will be endorsed by any responsible nation at the United Nations. This method is more effective than any other that is available. At the United Nations one can find no support for the Biafran opposition to these flights. Daylight flying is safer, more planes can travel and the present confusion of night flights involving both relief and arms would be ended, with the daylight hours reserved for work of mercy. What is wrong with that kind of arrangement? Yet, Biafran leaders feel that risks remain. I think it is a supportable contention that when one's children are starving you accept certain risks in order that they will live. I have here a statement from the New York Times of yesterday, to the effect that the dying children get nothing and that this would be wasting food. I wonder why dying children are the first to be denied food.
I think it is fair to conclude that the Biafran authorities are, above all, concerned with the preservation of their regime, and that the mass starvation of the people about whom they profess to be concerned may be only a secondary consideration. Canadians should say to Nigerians and Biafrans that since they say they are interested, they should agree to a trial period to see how much relief can get through under the Canadian plan.
In conclusion may I say that Canadians are concerned with helping people. Since the formation of the United Nations Canada has dedicated itself to helping humanitarian causes throughout the world. It has done this in order to save lives in Palestine and in the Middle East. Canada has been the third largest contributor to saving lives in the Middle East. We were generous even during the period when our friends to my left formed the government. We are told the Canadian people are deeply concerned about the failure of this government to extend more aid through the church organizations. The question is whether that aid at some point in time is increased to these organizations, or whether Canada and other nations are successful in persuading the Biafran authorities to permit daylight flights, with Canadian aid channelled through the International Red Cross.
There is no disagreement in this House about the need to extend as much aid as we can. Especially at this Christmas season it is to be hoped that millions of Canadians will
1338	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans take cognizance of the suffering on both sides of the line in Nigeria and that they will give to the Red Cross and to other organizations attempting to assist in the alleviation of suffering. Hopefully the Canadian government, on behalf of the Canadian people, will be able before the Christmas season to establish aid in a way which will be meaningful to the people living in this area.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, however entertaining it might be to engage in a debate with my hon. friend from Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), I prefer rather to deal with the issue before the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Certainly in respect of the suggestion of the hon. member, that no one has done more than this country in resolving the conflict, I suggest that no one will be more surprised to hear this than the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), because he along with others in the government will know of the uncertainty with which he and this government has approached this grave crisis. I mentioned earlier that I was concerned that a major part of this debate might develop into more of a monologue than a dialogue. It is unfortunate that this proceeding in the House should not provide for a better exchange in respect of the matter under consideration.
I hope in the next few minutes to deal with the specific areas because I was disappointed that the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon really contributed nothing new to what is a very complex and difficult situation. I think it is perhaps unfortunate the Prime Minister did not choose to more adequately inform the House on questions that he himself has raised, questions with regard to the conditions which have been attached to daylight flights. This has been a preoccupation of the government. Then there are the questions with regard to the activities of the combatants with regard to their own security in respect of establishing effective daylight relief flights. One thing, however, that bore in on me again this afternoon and evening is that there is still a willingness, apparently, on the part of the government to discuss but not to act. There never seems to be any action.
I recall the remarks of the Prime Minister in the House at the opening of the debate on 
DEBATES	November 27, 1969
the Speech from the Throne, with reference to getting relief to both sides. He said:
-we are prepared to make further funds available when once the delivery blockage is removed. If it is not quickly removed, we shall take other appropriate steps.
Since then I have asked him to define what he means by "quickly". Five weeks have gone by. I shall not engage in a numbers game in respect of guessing how many more people have succumbed to starvation in Biafra, but I should like to know whether the government really intends to act quickly and when it Anally plans to take some specific action in assisting the one organization which has continued to carry relief to the Biafran people. I am speaking of Canairelief.
I find it a bit incredible that we should now, all of a sudden, be hearing a suggestion from the government that it is considering an air-drop. I maintain that this would be a great deal more difficult than the problems in respect of daylight relief flights. I think it would be difficult to even conceive of an acceptable format for any kind of effective air-drop operation. I have come to the view, not willingly, that even the suggestion of an air drop is some form of subterfuge. There is a means open to us now. This is the operation, an international ecumenical operation, which has operated as often as there have been resources available to move the planes. There is a new element, however, this fall, and I should like to mention it at the outset. W'e might even consider it the fall offensive because I have detected in this Parliament, from the lips of the Prime Minister and in other places, a new offensive this fall.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
It is an offensive in general against the Biafran regime but, more particularly, against General Ojukwu and the Biafran authorities. I ask myself, why has our Prime Minister taken this new offensive against the Biafran authorities? Then I look a little farther and I note-and of course the Prime Minister himself said this in the House-that the United States government has also substantially altered its own position in recent weeks, and I wonder why. Then I notice that in the United Kingdom the minister for foreign affairs, Mr. Stewart, has indicated an increase of some 15 per cent to 20 per cent in arms shipments to Nigeria, and I wonder why, knowing about the opposition from his own party. I know that there is a kind of coalition-I will not
November 27, 1969

call it a grand coalition'-of government interests in this country, in the U.S. and in the U.K., and I wonder whether, in face of the quick kill theory so popularly accepted and promoted by the British government a couple of years ago and now obviously a little too shoddy to be hauled out again, this coalition has given its assent to starvation as a legitimate weapon.
If you look at the war situation-if one is able to get an accurate picture of what is happening in Nigeria and Biafra-it seems to be relatively static. The lines have not altered substantially in the last few months. We have not had fresh word of new atrocities. We do not have any new information which would alter the position of these three governments. But there is one piece of news which perhaps can shed some light on what seems to be a very real hardening of positions in the last few weeks; that is that recently very important oil production-not only important to Nigeria but important to its allies-has been severely hampered by military offensives on the part of Biafra and by what could be described as the mini-Biafran air force which, in my understanding, has reduced the oil production of Nigeria by some 50 per cent. It has reached the stage where in fact a number of insurance companies are reluctant even to insure tankers approaching Nigeria to pick up oil.
Is there in fact some kind of an oil lobby or conspiracy that is exerting pressure which we are feeling perhaps not directly but at least indirectly? I think the question should be raised, because there certainly are lines that could be drawn very easily in recent months that show up clearly the fact that we are now acquiescing in starvation as a weapon of war with much greater ease than we should have even a year ago.
Today and earlier the Prime Minister referred in his shadowy way to political guarantees which have been demanded and which are tantamount to recognition. Of course, the diplomatic recognition of one of the combatants in a civil war is a difficult matter to resolve, and when the Prime Minister stated it, it suggested that perhaps Biafra is trying to achieve an advantage by linking daylight flights to diplomatic recognition as political capital.
The Prime Minister has indicated to the House and to the Canadian people that because of these unreasonable demands for recognition General Ojukwu was really trying to take advantage of the situation. But when
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans he has been pressed, both inside and outside the House, to spell out these conditions, when they were raised and with whom, the Prime Minister very conveniently says, "It is not really for me to say. I do not want to break a confidence". It is amazing how he can suddenly respect the confidence of people who to him do not legally exist. It is also very convenient that he can put forward an interpretation without having to clarify it. This is what I tried to do this afternoon following his speech, because I think there has to be honesty at least if we are to expose the situation as it exists and as we are faced with it.
What is the situation? Why has the Prime Minister talked about political conditions or guarantees tantamount to recognition? I think we have to be honest and say that the Biafrans, in order to permit daylight relief flights, have as I understand it asked for certain kinds of guarantees. Quite frankly, they have been led down the garden path too often to accept merely goodwill or the suggestion of our being "hail fellows well met" not to realize that their own security-and after all this is what the war is all about-is at stake. They have asked for guarantees, not necessarily only from Canada but from other countries. I am impressed by the fact that they are still willing to trust us to that extent. They ask for guarantees which may be with regard to trade or perhaps having to do with diplomatic recognition, not necessarily in terms of recognizing Biafra but perhaps intending to cut off our recognition of the Nigerians were they to forego or break their own commitments on a negotiated relief plan or some kind of military guarantee.
The Prime Minister, of course, is right in suggesting that if we offer a guarantee on the basis of trade, diplomacy or military matters, we are in effect taking a position which is tantamount to recognition. But put on the basis of a fundamental requirement for their own security, as the Biafrans see it, it is a vastly different thing than when it is simply brought in as a sort of back-door proposition, as a bargaining point, or as a kind of extra for which the Biafrans are looking in trying to build up their political bank account.
I think we have to be realistic, and I am sorry that the Prime Minister in his comments was less than realistic. I am using a kind word there. Some of the things that were said when he quoted the secretary of state of the United States, Mr. Rogers, were certainly not the kind of things that would
November 27, 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans appeal to me if I were found behind the lines and in some way involved in the Biafran fight for survival.
What did Secretary Rogers say in his statement of November 12 in terms of the kind of guarantees that he was going to offer the Biafrans in order that they be fully protected and that their security not be violated? His first point was as follows:
We sought and received the solemn assurances of the federal government of Nigeria that it would ensure that no hostile military action would be taken against the ICRC relief aircraft.
How utterly ridiculous it is for any person to believe that the first guarantee that would be meaningful to a combatant in a conflict is a pledge of good faith by his fight-to-the-death enemy. I find it absolutely incredible that any diplomat or government representative should make that kind of statement with a straight face. Surely it is sheer lunacy to believe that anyone could offer that kind of guarantee and expect it to be accepted as an assurance.
Further, it is a well-known fact that it has become increasingly difficult to know who speaks for the federal military government in Nigeria and who gave this solemn assurance. Was it General Gowan? Was it Chief Awolo-wa or Chief Enaharo? Was it one of the military commanders in the field about whom we have heard so much? One speaker at a conference that I attended many months ago was very quick to point out, on the information of the U.S. State Department, that General Gowan cannot really effectively control his army. As he said, each of the divisional commanders does his own recruiting, determines his own military strategy and has connections with one or the other power supplying arms. As a case in point, the House may recall that after June 5 when the Red Cross plane was shot down by the Nigerian military authorities and General Gowan was asked to comment, he said he was sorry; it was not his decision but rather a decision taken somewhere out in the field. How could anyone with any intelligence whatsoever accept the guarantees of a government which does not know who is in control, and expect the guarantees to be meaningful?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: What have they to lose?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: They have their lives to lose. Further, there has been a good deal of misunderstanding as to what was vital

in this situation. Many people thought that what was in question were the planes themselves because, of course, many of the planes have suffered harassment. But what has been vital to Biafran security is the guarantee of the security of their airstrip which has served as a lifetime, with everything that means- relief, arms and everything else-for well over a year and a half. The Biafrans are looking for the guaranteeing of their airstrip, not the good faith of the Lagos regime.
We have been told that relief has been used as a cover for arms. Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that anyone who is reasonably well informed on the facts as they relate to Nigeria-Biafra could continue to say that or imply it-and we have had some question as to whether it was really said. But in spite of the fact that people believe the church operation is used as an arms cover, let us look at the facts. On June 5, before six o'clock, a Red Cross plane was not down. For some days, stretching into two or three weeks, no relief planes operated-certainly not the church relief-out of Sao Tome; nor was there any Red Cross relief. What was moving during those two or three weeks was arms shipments. To know this is a fact, one has only to speak to the people who were on the ground and saw the arms shipments moving in quite independently of relief, which had stopped altogether during that period of time.
Some people are prone to forget that the shipment of relief items is a recent phenomenon with respect to the war. It began some time around August, 1968, while the war began over a year before that. It is certain a war cannot be fought without arms. It is quite obvious that in the months prior to the air shipment of relief, arms were going in by every means possible, and that means by air as well.
Perhaps a more important question to be raised is why the arms shipments have been as effective, to some extent, as relief. To the best of my knowledge no planes carrying arms have been shot down by the Nigerian air force, which is reasonably sophisticated with its Russian and Czechoslovakian aircraft. There has been little or no harassment of these arms shipments. Also, more than 50 per cent of the arms have in fact been captured as the battlelines move back and forth and the Biafrans, skilled as they are, have been producing as much as they can of their own arms during the course of this conflict. Those who quite neatly slough off the relationship between relief and arms have not looked at the facts as they present themselves.
November 27, 1969

It has been suggested that Biafra is not interested in relief, or more particularly daylight relief. Just to deal with the first statement, those who suggest Biafra is not interested in relief ignore the fact that Joint Church Aid alone has since its inception 14 or 15 months ago made more than 3,000 flights into Biafra. All this month they have flown about 14 flights a night. They will continue to fly. Ask the relief workers, the pilots, the technicians, the missionaries, all those connected with relief inside or outside who have lines going in, and you will find how interested the authorities are in relief. As a person who is an ordained minister of one church, I would point out that the very fact the churches are able to work together must say something for the co-operation they are getting from the Biafran authorities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It has been an incredible operation and could only have been successful with the utmost co-operation of those in control of the Biafran situation. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that there appeared in the Montreal Star, a New York Times Service article which told us, "Nigeria faces food, supply shortage".
For months now we have seen reports about the starvation in parts of federally-held Nigeria. What action is being taken to assist the people who can be reached by land, presumably? What is the fate of relief organizations working behind the Nigerian lines? We know the fate of Ambassador Lindt; he was shipped out when they ran out the Red Cross. We know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the
House, Mr. Speaker, for its indulgence. We know that in fact the Red Cross had a great deal of difficulty in carrying on their operations inside Nigeria and have been threatened with being supplanted by a government organization which has come into force in the last few days. Thousands of Nigerians are now living under difficult circumstances, but there is little action by those who presumably
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans have the confidence and the good will of the federal military authorities in Lagos. Quite frankly, I am disturbed, when the discussion centres on daylight relief flights, that we are caught in simplistic and naive statements in regard to what is a complex issue.
In this House just a few days ago the Prime Minister spoke of "General Gowon's single condition for daylight flights". Were General Gowon here tonight he might be the first to deny there was a single condition in connection with daylight flights. I notice that today the Prime Minister talked about the two conditions of General Gowon, and I suppose in three weeks' time he will be talking about three conditions. In fact there are many conditions and the problem is to try to get both sides to agree to a set of conditions. I am not going to rehearse the spectacle of trying to get one side, and then the other, to- agree to conditions. The closest any group came to effective agreement was the Red Cross in establishing agreement for daylight flights, but that agreement could not be considered generous when you consider that six flights were carrying only 90 tons and operating only three weeks. That is not ideal in this situation. Six flights does not compare with the program of Joint Church Aid which is operating 14 and 16 flights a night this month.
There has been too much innuendo and too much half-informed discussion on what is, of course, a very vital and basic problem. In the context of this debate I should like to ask why our government is clinging so strenuously to one agency in dealing with this problem. I am not here in any way to indict the Red Cross, and surely we sympathize as much if not more than most with the Red Cross in its difficulties in trying to work out an acceptable relief program. But why have we at this time so completely tied ourselves to the Red Cross? I suppose, as usual, the most obvious answer is that this was acceptable to the federal military authority of Nigeria. Why has it been so acceptable to the federal military government of Nigeria? Presumably, it is because no group has had more difficulty in operating its relief over the months than the Red Cross. That is obvious. It is significant that Joint Church Aid, which is still operating, will carry 10 per cent of its load for the International Red Cross. Joint Church Aid is presently sustaining Red Cross hospitals and feeding stations through their transportation facilities. The Red Cross has not paid one penny for this.
1342	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I should like to ask most sincerely-though it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister cannot be here-.what the government intends to do. How much longer shall we have to wait? I can only adduce from what the Prime Minister said today and in earlier days that, to narrow it down to one phrase, in effect the Prime Minister is saying, "Biafra give up." We have succumbed to the situation. We believe now that starvation is a legitimate means of war; therefore, let it be used and used quickly in order that the conflict may be ended. To some that is an attractive theory. It is one that was espoused, and I am tempted to believe is still espoused, by the government of the United Kingdom. It is saddening to think that our government is fully supporting a policy of starving-out the Biafran people.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
At a meeting in Montreal last night, the Canadian Council of Churches passed a resolution which I presume has come to the attention of the government. The council calls on the government as follows:
1.	To extend its efforts to hasten the peaceful settlement of the Nigeria/Biafra conflict.
2.	To register again its vigorous protest to all Governments providing any arms or permitting the transfer of arms to either side.
3.	To express to Governments of both sides our concern for those undergoing prolonged and massive suffering and to urge these authorities to arrange an immediate cease Are.
4.	To call upon the United Nations, the Organization for African Unity, other concerned Governments, and International agencies, to take all necessary steps toward a just and durable settlement.
The next paragraph applies particularly to the resolution before the House, and it reads:
5.	To increase its programme of relief to victims on both sides, and to give maximum support to such non-Governmental agencies as are effectively providing relief.
I understand this resolution has been forwarded to the Canadian Catholic Conference Which is meeting in Ottawa today and tomorrow. I take it that conference will pass a resolution similar to the one I have just read. Churches of all persuasions in this country and which represent millions of Canadians have asked that this government act. It is imperative for us not to be put off by subterfuge and unconvincing arguments. In the quiet and calm following this debate I ask members of the government to study the proposals that have been made, specifically by

DEBATES	November 27, 1969
representatives of Canairelief who met government representatives today. It is fortuitous that the two key representatives should meet personally with the Prime Minister on the day we are debating this matter. All Canadians look forward to a positive report on action which the government intends to take. Specifically, we are hopeful that the Prime Minister will make a statement within 24 hours.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I was greatly honoured to have the opportunity this afternoon of seconding the motion moved by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). May I also say that I was disappointed to hear some of the remarks the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Per-rault) made to us this evening. They did not add much to our debate. He said one thing in particular that struck me as odd. He was talking about some of the social democratic countries of northern Europe and said that they agreed entirely with the stand taken by the government of Canada. May I remind hon. members that countries belonging to that group, and Sweden in particular, have been giving aid to Joint Church Aid and that therefore their position is similar to the one we have adopted on this matter and to the one envisaged in this resolution.
In essence, the motion before us asks the government to help Canairelief, because that is the only organization bringing aid to Biafra at present. Tonight I appeal to hon. members, and particularly those of the government party, to treat this as a moral and not a political issue. Let us not talk of the complexities of international law, or be technical as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been, because in Biafra today 2 million people lie dead of starvation because of the war. They were not dying there until war broke out. Today they are dying because they are cut off from the outside world. I am informed that about every 40 seconds one person dies in Biafra. So while I am standing here talking, people are dying there. While hon. members on both sides of the House are discussing this matter, people are dying in Biafra. While we are engaged in the exercise of political polemics, people are dying there. We must try to relieve the suffering in that country by helping Canairelief do its job. We must also try to end this war.
If Canada acts, perhaps we can make a contribution toward ending the war and settling the dispute, because Canada is trusted
November 27, 1969	COMMONS
by both sides. If we decide that we can contribute something constructive, and I think we can, and can do something about ending the war, let us stop hiding behind arguments about who is right or wrong. Let us stop bickering among ourselves about the different political implications that the war between Nigeria and Biafra has for us.
I am greatly concerned about what is happening in Biafra, Mr. Speaker, because little more than one year ago I and the Liberal member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) went to Nigera and Biafra to see what was going on. I remember leaving the island of Sao Tom6 at night, not knowing whether we would make it into the airfield or whether we would come out again. We had to fly over anti-aircraft guns and land at a dilapidated airport where aircraft crashed sometimes on landing. There was also the possibility that we would be bombed on landing. The hon. member and I went to find out first-hand what was happening in Biafra and to gather as much information as possible so that we could be instrumental in alleviating the suffering there. I encourage all members of this House to go to Biafra and see what is happening, because most people who go there come back with the conviction that something must be done and all feel frustrated and helpless about what is not being done.
One wonders how the world community can tolerate what is happening in Biafra. I remember that the hon. member and I were standing in a place at seven o'clock one morning among 4,000 or 5,000 small children, all under ten years of age, and they were looking up to us and asking for help. Many of them did not have clothes on and many had swollen stomachs brought on by a protein-deficient diet. Their arms and legs were as thin as sticks. We asked ourselves: Just how concerned is the world community about all this suffering? How can it tolerate this situation?
I ask now: How international are we in our concepts, and how civilized are we? I often wonder if we do not wear just a thin veneer of civilization which, when penetrated, reveals the basic savage underneath. The world can tolerate only so much of this kind of thing before it affects all of us We can take only so much of it before the whole world blows up. I hope that Biafra will not become another gigantic Auschwitz. I hope that 20 years from now we will not look back and say that if we had done more to help 20
DEBATES	1343
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans years earlier a great many people would not have died needlessly. We can, and should, do much to prevent something like this happening.
When I speak about Biafra, I do so from an international point of view. I see the problem there not just as an African problem but as something that affects all people no matter where they live in the world. After all, with technical progress, the whole world has become a global village; everything that happens over there must affect us here at home, and vice versa. Many of the problems plaguing Biafra are plaguing other countries, because one can see starvation, depredation and discrimination in many parts of the world. There is fear all over the world. Worse of all, not only the people of Biafra but those at home feel helpless. Powerless and underprivileged groups exist in our own society.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
May I remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, said a few years ago that as long as about two-thirds of the world's population were starving, suffering or living in a great deal of poverty, none of us would be saved, regardless of our country or industrial situation. It must be our objective and hope to try and alleviate suffering no matter where or how it occurs, because a blow to or scar on any society in the world is indeed a blow to all mankind.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and government must do something constructive. They must start acting on some of the new politics they have talked about for the last year and a half. They must move toward eradicating some of the injustice and starvation that exists in Biafra and many other parts of the world. They must bring Canada into the forefront and try to ease some of the suffering in Biafra. The only way we will do this is by making all members of the House concerned and aware of what is happening there.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to remind hon. members of what is actually happening in Biafra. As I already said, many, many people are dying of starvation. About
2.000	people are dying every day. This has been happening for the last couple of years. When I was in that area last year, between
3.000	and 5,000 were dying of starvation every day. We were told this by the people who worked in the Red Cross centres, church
November 27, 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans organizations, people who were working with refugees and those in medical centres.
During our tour we visited refugee camps. We saw people from Biafra and Nigeria who were starving and suffering from many diseases. We toured feeding centres. We saw feeding centre after feeding centre where small children were being fed a bowl of soup, a glass of milk or maybe an iron pill. We visited hospitals where we saw babies dying of starvation. You also see other effects of the war. You could see many young people who had been to university, had started work and who are now suffering in hospitals because of the war. We had an opportunity to talk to people involved in relief work. We spent some time with government officials and the military.
We went to Nigeria the next week and compared notes. Biafra is a nation torn by death, suffering and fear. This is apparent everywhere. I shall give one example of a feeding centre we visited; I believe it was run by the Catholic Church. We arrived at six o'clock in the morning. The reason they were being fed at that hour in the morning was that they were afraid of being attacked afterwards. I remember the church people telling us that a couple of weeks before we arrived they were feeding 4,000 or 5,000 children when a Nigerian jet flew over, bombed the centre and killed some people. It was clearly not a military target. About half a mile away they were feeding 3,500 pregnant and nursing women iron pills and stockfish. This is what you see. This is what these people are going through every day of their lives.
The Biafran people are very determined. Life to them is a fight for survival. They will continue the war despite the starvation in their country, because they feel they have to. They will continue despite their inferior weapons. All this adds up to the possibility of a very long war. That is why we as Canadians and as parliamentarians must be concerned about it and try to help in the situation.
The churches are involved. They are getting food into Biafra tonight, tomorrow night and every night of the week. They are getting food into Biafra regardless of many of the technicalities and complexities that so many parliamentarians throughout the world are talking about. They say, "people are dying so we are flying." They have been doing this for approximately the last year and they are getting food into Biafra. The Red Cross has not flown since last June. This country still

refuses to contribute funds to Canairelief. We try to hide behind protocol and many legalities and technicalities. The Prime Minister again outlined many of these things today. He documented excuse after excuse. He said that all of us as individual members can get involved if we want to, but he refuses to involve the government of Canada in contributing to Canairelief. I suppose we could say the refusal of the Prime Minister of this country to act is similar to that of a hesitant virgin.
He is asking us to send money to Canairelief but will not commit the government of Canada to doing the same thing. He knows there is a great moral injustice happening over there. At least he should know it. However, he still refuses to act. I believe one of the real handicaps of the Prime Minister is that he tries to parallel Biafra with Quebec. I think this is one of the hang-ups he has because of his concept of federalism. I suggest this is a very idiotic comparison. You cannot compare the two situations at all. He has chosen starvation in preference to contributing money to Canairelief.
Let us look at what has happened in the whole relief picture. It has already been mentioned that the Red Cross has not flown into Biafra since last June. When I was there the Canadian Hercules plane had just ceased flying. We are told that it made only 10 or 11 flights and flew about 200 tons of food into Biafra. Let us look at the other operations. Joint Church Aid, of which Canairelief is a part, up until October 31 of this year had flown 4,183 flights into Biafra with a total of over 45,000 tons of food. This is what the people of Biafra are existing on today. The need there is great. They are not getting enough food into Biafra.
Many people have stated that a minimum of 500 tons of food a day is required to keep the people of Biafra alive. I believe that today the churches are getting in somewhere between 100 and 200 tons of food, depending on what sort of night it is. What kind of solution is necessary? The Prime Minister talks about day flights and night flights and all the pros and cons of each. I suggest that we need both day and night flights. It is necessary to fly both night and day to get enough food into Biafra.
It is necessary to have some kind of overland corridor from either Port Harcourt or Calabar, or perhaps even a river corridor up the Niger River. Many members have spoken
November 27, 1969

about daylight flights. Both sides must in principle agree with the concept ol daylight flights. The difficulty is in trying to get both sides to agree to the same conditions. Previous speakers talked about the agreement between Biafra and the International Red Cross that was signed on August 27. A few days ago the Prime Minister was trying to say that Biafra had not signed an agreement with the International Red Cross.
Then there is the agreement between Nigeria and the International Committee of the Red Cross. This has also been commented on at great length by many people. The Biafrans would have been fools if they had accepted this agreement, because they would have been cutting their own throats. Basically, it was an agreement that was to last for only three weeks. They were supposed to fly only between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., which is a very short time; indeed, it is much shorter than the flying time now being used by the churches in providing relief from Sao Tome. Even those flights were to be controlled by the federal army and air force. The Biafrans would have been foolish to have accepted an agreement of that sort.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
This is an issue in connection with which many of the complexities of international law arise. We get hung up deciding whether it is a civil war and whether genocide is being committed. The question of the sovereignty of Nigeria is raised. There are many complexities. But it is not a civil war as far as the sale of guns is concerned. Many countries are contributing guns and other arms to either side. Both the hon. member and I were in a bombing raid carried out by a Russian jet which dropped what were probably British bombs and the plane was probably piloted by a Japanese.
The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) mentioned oil. I suspect that the desire for oil is one of the main, reasons the war is continuing. A British Member of Parliament told me, "We don't want de Gaulle to have the oil. We want it. That is the reason we are involved in the war." It is ironic that oil profits should receive priority over human lives, but this is what is happening in Biafra today.
Many distinguished authorities on international law say we do have the right to intervene in this war on humanitarian grounds by supplying food and medical aid. If we allow ourselves to become bogged-down in legalistic
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans arguments, a lot of time can be wasted because both sides can produce convincing expert opinion to support their views. Let us not be carried away in debating technicalities of this sort while people Eire dying. What we should be considering is the course we should follow as a Parliament and as Canadians. What should the government be doing?
Basically our motion asks for just one thing: Since the Red Cross has failed to negotiate conditions acceptable to both sides, we should support Canarelief because that organization is getting food into Biafra, the only one which is doing so. In other words, we should join with the Netherlands, Sweden and many other countries which directly or indirectly have been supporting Canairelief or Joint Church Aid. This does not involve any infringement of the sovereignty of Nigeria as a whole. There are a number of further recommendations I would make.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member pursues his remarks I should draw to his attention that his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.
Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I thank the House very much. I shall take only one or two minutes. We should think of other contributions we can make as parliamentarians. The war must be stopped. As long as the war continues, people will die of starvation or for military reasons. First, the Prime Minister should send one of his personal representatives to see Colonel Ojukwu in Biafra so that we can get the story straight, so that information is not received second-hand. We do not recognize communist China but we still trade with them. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was talking with Biafrans in New York, so there seems no reason why someone should not talk with them in Biafra.
Second, we ought to put pressure on Britain, the Soviet Union and France, countries which are supplying weapons to both sides, in an effort to prevent them doing so. If the supply of weapons is cut off, the war will stop. Third, Canada must do everything possible to mediate in this war. When we were there we noticed that Canada is among the more respected nations in the world. If we do not undertake mediation ourselves, we should encourage nations like Switzerland, Sweden and Yugoslavia to do so.
1346	COMMONS
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans
Finally, we should put as much pressure as possible on the United Nations in an effort to get that organization to do something. It the United Nations does not act in connection with problems such as this, it will become even less important than it is today. After all, this is an issue of major concern; a couple of million people have died, and the world community ought to be involved. I conclude my remarks by once again asking the government to seriously consider making a grant of some type of Canairelief so that we can play a part in alleviating the suffering in Biafra today. If we fail to do so, how can we really establish a just society or participatory democracy?


Mr. Ian Wahn (Si. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, all members of the House, not just the opposition members, want the Nigerian war to end. They also want to get effective aid to the helpless victims of that war-innocent civilians, women and, above all, children. There can be no doubt on that score. The question is, how. What Should we be doing?
At times, contemplating this disastrous civil war in Nigeria, so cruel, so destructive, so futile and, basically, so stupid, one wonders whether it is anything more than a fierce power struggle between two militant factions for the control and disposal of the human and natural resources of that great country-a power struggle to control and dispose of its millions of people and its vast resources of oil, minerals and other wealth.
General Gowon and his military group in deadly struggle confront Colonel, now General, Ojukwu and his military group, though only a few short years ago they were sitting round the table together amicably discussing how they would govern all Nigeria. They were then on a first-name basis-it was Jack Emeka, Bob and Harry.


William Arnold Peters: Who's Harry?


Ian Grant Wahn: Is it anything more than the age-old, deadly power game in which ruthless military leaders contend for influence, wealth and power while their people groan and suffer and die? I remember an old Russian saying which expresses this thought very well, "When the nobles battle, the peasants have sore heads." Is this war in Nigeria anything more than one more example of the old power game?
Who is supplying the money to pay for the high powered publicity men and for the costly publicity campaigns which seem to be

DEBATES	November 27, 1969
so necessary in our modern society to arouse people to indignation, to activism, to crusades? Who is paying the bills? Where is the money coming from? Is it coming from commercial firms who hope to recoup themselves by obtaining concessions from one side or the other to exploit the rich natural resources of Nigeria? Are members of this House being asked to be dupes and pawns in a power game? I wish I knew for sure. Some opposition members have spoken with great authority. I wish I had their confidence and the knowledge they appear to possess. Do they really know what the answers are? Do they really possess authoritative information which the rest of us do not share?
The debate today has been wide-ranging. Some speeches have gone far beyond the terms of the motion, demanding for example that Canada should sponsor a United Nations' resolution calling for an immediate cease fire. Other speakers have said we should demand that the British, Russian and French governments immediately put an end to arms shipments to the combatants. Mr. Speaker, to respond to suggestions of this type would really be indulging in idle gestures on the part of the Canadian House of Commons. About this time last year the House referred to its Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence the whole question of the Nigerian civil conflict. After extensive hearings, our report was filed on November 6 of that year. In effect, it strongly recommended against any such flamboyant but, in the end, idle gestures. Instead, the standing committee made a number of practical suggestions many of which have been adopted and some of which were referred to in the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on this subject.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the hon. member indicate what was adopted?


Ian Grant Wahn: I would be glad to do that. However, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for this time avoiding such flamboyant and idle gestures and for raising in his resolution a relatively simple issue, namely, should the Canadian government, as a government, financially assist Canairelief in making night flights to Biafra? That night flights to Biafra is the basic issue is also recognized by the official opposition. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made that fact clear not
November 27, 1969

once but at least three times in his statement on November 25. At page 1196 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
I must charge the Prime Minister with stubborn-ess regarding aid that could be used to bring relief through night flights.
Later on the same page he is reported as having said:
Let the Prime Minister and his colleagues act to assist Canairelief in taking supplies to that country by night;-
Still later on the same page:
-the people of Canada will pass a harsh judgment on the Prime Minister for his failure to act in an area in which Canada can be of assistance, night flights, and I plead with the right hon. gentleman to move as rapidly as he can to make this important and helpful assistance available.
That is the basic issue before the House in this debate.
The hon. member for Greenwood also suggested the basic question, the answer to which will determine the conclusion that we will reach. The question is this: Is the Nigerian government sincere when it states to the Red Cross and to the Canadian government that it will permit daylight relief flights under reasonable conditions? If the answer to that question is yes, then the issue now before the House is settled and our government is right. I think all members will admit that daylight relief flights are the answer to the problem and are to be preferred over night flights if only they can be arranged. However, if the answer to the basic question is no, then our government, I agree, should immediately reconsider its attitude toward night flights.
Is the Nigerian government sincere in its offer of daylight relief flights? The hon. member for Greenwood has no doubts; it is all a plot, he says. It is not just a plot, but in addition a conspiracy. And it is not just a conspiracy on the part of the Nigerian government and some unnamed persons, but a conspiracy and a plot between the Nigerian government and the British government. At page 1197 of Hansard the hon. member is reported to have said:
As long ago as last January General Alexander, a British member of the Observer team in Nigeria, according to The Economist of January 11 spoke of a Nigerian plan, in collaboration with the British government, to propose certain relief measures which for military reasons would be unacceptable to the Biafran authorities, and which could then be used for propaganda purposes by blaming Colonel Ojukwu for Biafran starvation. This is precisely what has occurred.
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans
This is a very serious charge. The hon. member for Greenwood, who I regret is not in the chamber at the present time, knows very well that he cannot hide behind reports which he alleges to have been made by General Alexander or even by The Economist, because by repeating those charges from his seat in this House he has in fact adopted them as his own. If that was not his intention, he should immediately rise on a question of privilege and withdraw them. If, on the other hand, he refuses to withdraw them and adopts them as his own, he should be prepared to submit to this House evidence to support charges of such a serious nature involving conspiracy and plots on the part of the British and Nigerian governments. In the course of this debate I have been unable to find that the hon. member for Greenwood or any other opposition member has put forward any evidence which would warrant the House accepting any such allegations of deception and conspiracy. In the absence of such evidence, I repeat that those allegations should be rejected by this House.
A year ago when the Nigerian issue was referred to the external affairs committee, even more serious allegations had been levelled against the Nigerian government by some of the opposition members who levelled the most recent attacks. The allegations to which I refer were that the Nigerian government had been guilty of genocide, or of acts similar to genocide. After receiving evidence from numerous witnesses, including the Canadian representative on the international observer team, and after considering very carefully the reports of the international observer team, including representatives from the United Nations, all of whom were on the spot in Nigeria, the committee filed a report with this House, which report included a finding on this specific allegation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A minority did not concur in that report.


Ian Grant Wahn: There were several members who opposed it, but the great majority of the members accepted the report and particularly the following part of the report:
The evidence presented to us does not indicate that the Government of Nigeria has adopted a policy of genocide. On the contrary the evidence indicates it is doing its best to assist and to preserve the lives and properties of the people, including the Ibo people, in the area now under its control.
The evidence indicates that many of the Ibo people now living in the secessionist area fear genocide. This fear is based upon a large number
November 27, 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans of factors. These include (without attempting to be exhaustive or assess the relative strength of these factors) religious, tribal and economic rivalries, jealousies and hatreds, the bitterness of a civil war and the past history of atrocities and improper treatment of minorities.
While there have been atrocities and extreme bitterness in this civil war, there is no evidence that troop formations are engaged in genocide. The evidence indicates the government of Nigeria is attempting to impose and maintain proper standards of conduct and discipline among its troops. A code of proper conduct has been issued by the government to the Nigerian troops. In general, the attempt to enforce proper discipline and conduct seems to be as successful as could be expected in the difficult circumstances which exist.
Since that time there has been less talk of genocide in Biafra. But the idea seems to die very hard. This is indicated again by the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood, as reported at page 1197 of Hansard where in referring to the Prime Minister he said:
-it is clear the right hon. gentleman is now aware of the great concern felt by the Canadian people about the immense tragedy which has already cost between one million and two million lives and which threatens to exterminate a whole people.
I think all members will agree that this is an immense human tragedy. But we do not agree that it serves any useful purpose to overstate the case and to suggest that an entire people is threatened with extermination. Hon. members will recall the statement made a few months ago by former Nigerian president Azikiwe. A press clipping that I have read as follows:
Former Nigerian president Nnamdi Azikiwe said today he was kept under house arrest by Biafra last year when he was supposed to have been a supporter of its cause.
He made the statement at a press conference called to mark his declaration-broadcast in Lagos earlier today-that Biafra should negotiate for peace.
In the broadcast, Azikiwe, an influential member of the Ibo tribe, said he no longer believed Ibos were in danger of extermination by other Nigerians -and said the time was right to make peace.
In the same press conference I believe he also indicated that almost 70 per cent of all Ibos now live in territory occupied by federal Nigerian forces, and far from being exterminated, many held high positions in that territory. This, of course, is in complete accord with the findings of the standing committee of this House.
Hon. members of the opposition really cannot expect to cry "wolf" too often; their allegations of genocide a year ago were not substantiated. Can this House tonight give

any greater credence to the allegation of a plot and conspiracy between the Nigerian and British Governments to deceive the world with regard to the possibility of daytime flights? I remind members also that former Ibo President Azikiwe, in the statement to which he referred earlier, claimed that General Ojukwu has been too inflexible in his attitude toward daylight flights.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The basic objection to Canadian government assistance to night relief flights is that these might provide some cover for shipments of military supplies. The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) addressed himself courageously to dealing with this particular question. I believe he is perhaps the only member of the opposition who has dealt with it extensively. But he did not, nor has any opposition member, provided convincing evidence that the night relief flights which the opposition recommends could not and do not provide cover for military shipments to Biafra.
Until further evidence is advanced by opposition members I suggest that the House must accept the view, which appears to have been accepted not only by Nigeria but by the International Red Cross representatives and by our own government-indeed, by most governments-that night flights are desired by Biafran military authorities to help provide cover for military shipments and to assist in breaking the Nigerian blockade on military supplies to Biafra. If that is so, and the weight of evidence might indicate that it is, and if the night flights are desired by Biafran authorities for that purpose, it might explain a great deal. It might explain the difficulties experienced not only by the Canadian government but by other governments as well in their efforts to bring relief supplies to Biafra in the large volume necessary to prevent starvation and death in that country.
At this point, I should say that it is most unfortunate the International Red Cross has been subjected to the type of criticism voiced in the course of this debate. If it has not been able to arrange daylight flights, I am convinced it is not because of any fault on the part of the International Red Cross. It is rather that the authorities involved have been unable to reach the agreement which is necessary to permit such flights. The Red Cross, which has a proud record in providing relief in international emergencies, should not
November 27, 1969

be subjected to criticism in this House, express or implied.
In its report to this House last the External Affairs Committee said:
Under no circumstances should Canada supply arms either to the government of Nigeria or to the authorities in the secessionist area.
If in fact night relief flights are being used to cover arms shipments to Biafra, then opposition members are in effect asking the Canadian government to assist in supplying arms to Biafra. Our committee opposed this contention, and I believe most members also take this view. One other argument made by-


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon.
member permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) has the floor.


Ian Grant Wahn: After I have completed my remarks I will answer the hon. member's question. One other argument made by the hon. member for Greenwood deserves brief attention. As reported at page 1197 of Hansard, he said:
Why is it that this channel of help is being neglected?
He was referring to night flights. He went on to ask whether the Prime Minister was aware that the Red Cross contemplated only the delivery of some 90 tons of supplies over a three-week period, whereas Canairelief and Joint Church Aid were flying in about 200 tons of supplies nightly. He asked whether anyone in his right senses could expect that Colonel Ojukwu would accept daylight flights as a substitute for night flights. The entire argument breaks down if this assumption of the hon. member for Greenwood is incorrect. The assumption is incorrect. The proposed arrangement for daylight flights would be completely separate and apart from the night flights now carried on by Canairelief. At no time has it been suggested, as far as I am aware, that as a condition of obtaining daylight relief flights the Canadian government would be forced to bring any pressure whatsoever to bear upon Canairelief to stop its night flights.
The resolution before the House cannot be supported unless the opposition establishes that night relief flights are not being used to provide cover for military shipments and that the Nigerian Government is not sincere in offering daylight relief flights under reasonable conditions. Perhaps none of us can be
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans entirely certain what the correct answers to these two allegations really are. Surely we can say this, however, that the onus is upon opposition members to bring forward convincing evidence, and in this debate today they have failed to discharge that onus.


Randolph Harding: Would the last speaker permit a question? In view of his last remarks that night flights are possibly being used as a subterfuge for arms shipments to Biafra, is he recommending that the present night flights cease?


Ian Grant Wahn: The position I take is that the government of Canada should not finance night flights unless it is clearly established that they are not being used to provide cover for arms shipments to Biafra. That is consistent with the attitude taken by our committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Indirectly, that is a charge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The time allot-ed to the hon. member for St. Paul's has expired.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have noted throughout this debate that there has not been too much sharp partisanship, and I do not want to inject any into the debate. This is not the kind of debate or place for partisanship. I was impressed, however, with what the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) said. I was impressed by the fact that he quoted so much of the recommendations of a parliamentary committee. He knows and I know how much attention the government paid to many recommendations of that committee on many matters, and indeed on this very matter.
I am appalled by the suggestion that it is up to the opposition to prove that arms are not being brought in through Canairelief and other night flights. I am appalled that the government suggests and makes the implication that they are. I wonder how the government of Canada has knowledge of this matter, because so far as I know they have never sent a delegation or a group to speak to both sides in this war. They have had observers reporting on what they saw in Nigeria. That is hardly an objective appraisal of what is going on within Biafra and to the Biafran people.
I am not very proud of what our government is doing, or more particularly what it has failed to do. I am very proud of what some Canadians have been doing, and I endorse the remarks that have been passed
November 27, 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans about Canairelief and other groups of wonderful and inspired people in this country. It has been said more than once today that this is not surely a question of brittle formalism or narrow legalism. Surely, if ever there was a matter which should occupy the attention of thoughtful men and allow them to make their decisions on humanitarian considerations, this is one. Abraham Lincoln said that he was one of those who looked upon mankind through the pensive eyes of pity. Surely, we make no apology if we become emotional and profoundly concerned about this terrible tragedy.
I will not go over the discussions, the agreements broken or the confused statements and diplomatic obfuscations which have been so clearly and powerfully delineated by my colleague, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), and by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). This is a grim war that has brought agony, destruction and death to too many people for too long. Many months ago-it seems ages ago-I first raised this matter as a question to then Prime Minister Pearson. I cite this recollection as a mere and small matter of record and, heaven knows, not as a statement of righteousness.
I have been pained by what the Government has neglected to do.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Of late I have become concerned and shocked by the harshness of the Prime Minister's comment about Colonel Ojukwu and his struggle. I think we have missed so many opportunities. We have missed them within the Commonwealth. We did not move when we were on the Security Council. There were opportunities under the rules to have this matter placed on the agenda of the General Assembly. This was never done. We could surely have found some means whereby interested Canadians could have been brought in on both sides. I even thought at one time that perhaps the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association could have been a very active group in this regard. There is so much that could have been done. But today we sup the cup of opportunities missed and initiatives not taken. The suggestion of this debate is practical and pertinent. May I also say it is merciful.
The suggestion that tangible assistance be given to Canairelief is one which can be and should be carried out. I hope with all my heart this will be done. I am pleased that generally the debate has been on a high plane, although I cannot help but observe that


the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour, recently returned from the international conclave at the General Assembly, seems not yet to fit neatly into the garment of non-partisanship. I thought the attempt on his part to score a debating point on the NDP by noting out loud that the Labour party is in power in Britain was not too germane to the issue. Is it significant that this was or still is a socialist party, or that the NDP is or was a socialist party? Is that really the issue?
Is it not reasonable to conclude that governments of countries speak on foreign matters to governments of other countries? Does not the Prime Minister of this country confer with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? Is there not still a hot-line between Westminster and Ottawa? The time was when Canada's prime ministers gave leadership within the Commonwealth. It is not the NDP's major responsibility to talk to a Labour government. Surely the Prime Minister of Canada can confer with his opposite number there.
I am afraid that the United Kingdom's role in this tragedy has not been a glorious one. Along with the USSR and the UAR the United Kingdom is a heavy supplier of deathdealing armaments. I read with sadness that they intend to increase their contribution in that particular field. At an international gathering not long ago I heard a minister of the British government say:
-I invite my friends in all parts of the Commonwealth to ponder over one overriding principle of international behaviour which the United Kingdom in relation to Nigeria finds it really must abide by. And this is when an independent sovereign nation, a free and independent member of this Commonwealth, deems that its integrity, its territorial integrity, is in danger. It has a right to turn to friendly countries, especially in the Commonwealth, for the supplies which it considers necessary to maintain that integrity and that independence.
That is a shocking suggestion. When I got the floor I took the liberty of indicating I thought it was a shocking suggestion that it is concomitant with friendly relations that one had the right to call on a friendly state for arms to suppress people within its own borders. There is much that could be said abqut the dreary prelude to the present sad situation. I do not know all the stories about oil. I am not one of the economic determinants, but I am concerned by what I read and hear. I do know that the former colonial power left a bitter legacy. I was impressed by a debate in the House of Lords not long ago where the Archbishop of Canterbury maintained that to
November 27, 1969	COMMONS
get a federal Nigeria to work would be a political miracle. So it is not incumbent upon anyone to say that a structure once created by a colonial power is so sacrosanct that any group of people who suggest that it be altered are immediately to be hounded out of the land and be denounced and harried.
I think we must be positive. We note what has happened. We regret the leadership that was not given. I think, however, it is up to all of us in all parts of this House to try to adopt a positive posture and rally behind at least one remedial action or one avenue. The Canadian people, I am convinced, feel deeply about this question and are concerned about the suffering of mankind in a state that has suffered so much for so long. So I would join all those who plead and implore the government to follow the suggestion of this resolution. There still remains the whole matter of bringing about a cease fire and there is still ahead of us a challenge, but there is this one avenue through which we can do something. Let us, for heaven's sake, and for humanity's sake, do it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is getting a little late in the day's proceedings; therefore, I shall be as succinct as possible. Before I become involved in the context of my brief remarks I think it probably is worth noting that with perhaps one or two exceptions no government member has really dealt with the resolution which is before the House. They have addressed themselves to a whole host of questions. I should like to remind government members what this debate is not about.
It is not a resolution which recommends that the government of Canada ship arms to Biafra or anywhere else. It is not a recommendation that we take this problem to the United Nations. It is not about genocide. It is not a recommendation that we support one side or the other politically. It is not a motion that we condemn the United Kingdom and the USSR. Nor, finally, is it a resolution that the government recognize Biafra as a political state. All these proposilions could be very seriously entertained and they could be very seriously objected to. However, none of them are before the House today. But almost all the government members have chosen to speak on one or other of these matters which are irrelevant in this debate.
The motion before the House suggests that the government has failed to make adequate measures to relieve massive starvation in Nigeria-Biafra and, further, urgently requests
DEBATES	1351
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans the government to change its policy in this regard. That I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is what we should be discussing. I hope the Parlia-men'ary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Goyer) when he speaks next will address himself to that question. I should like to go back, therefore, to the argument which I think was put forward in moderate, reasonable and rational terms by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brew-in) at the outset of the debate.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
He tried to focus exclusively on this question and addressed himself to the problem which the government apparently has had in doing anything about the starvation in Nigeria and Biafra. The hon. member for Greenwood suggested that the government has given four reasons at various times for taking no action. He tried, in a very systematic way, to deal with each of these, and not one of them has been adequately answered by any member on the government side. First of all, he said that the government has recently concerned itself almost exclusively with daylight flights; it is not really interested in finding alternative methods to get medical and food supplies to that country. He pointed out, as has the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and others on this side of the House, that there are serious legitimate reasons for the hesitation of the government of Biafra to accept the various proposals that have been made concerning daylight flights.
It has also been pointed out that the government of Nigeria has raised serious objections to a variety of proposals that have been made concerning daylight flights. I suggest that daylight flights are not the issue and are not what we are debating tonight. The countless attempts by government members to turn the whole question of Nigeria and Biafra into a question of daylight flights must be seen as the kind of charade that it is.
The second point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood, the second reason, he suggests, that the government has given for not becoming involved in this tragic situation, has been that the government has said that the Red Cross is the one institution which we should support in our efforts to provide aid to the people in Nigeria and Biafra. It has been pointed out by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and by others that the Red Cross has not been functioning there since June in terms of flights, and the government knows this very well. Why can we not give
November 27, 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans assistance to Canairelief or to Joint Church Aid? It has been pointed out that this organization flies in every night, as it is doing tonight. We will come to the reason for that in a minute.
We go on to the third reason given by the government for not involving itself. This has been brought out outside the House quite recently and certainly in previous debates by the Prime Minister. I am referring to the matter of sovereignty. It has been suggested that to take medical or food supplies in any way, by any means which do not meet with the approval of the Nigerian authorities, would constitute an infringement of their sovereignty and perhaps implicitly the recognition of the sovereignty of Biafra. This argument has been conclusively shattered by eminent jurists in this country and abroad. I will not repeat the point that was made on this score by the hon. member for Greenwood this afternoon.
There has been no answer from the government side of the House on the third reason that has been suggested. There is no question now, in terms of international law, that to send in food or medical supplies to another country, whether or not they agree, would constitute an act of war or aggression. On this question, incidentally-and this may be a trivial point but a logical one at least-if the government is so concerned about the question of sovereignty, why are they so busy negotiating with the representatives of mainland China? After all, officially they recognize the sovereignty of the Formosa government, but they are certainly being inconsistent in their refusal to meet openly and frankly with Biafran officials when at the same time they do not hesitate to meet the officials of mainland China.
The fourth point that has been made is that the Biafrans are secessionists and rebels, that they have broken away from a federal state, and for certain Canadians federal states are sacrosanct institutions and we must not contribute in any way to their disintegration. It is now beyond questioning by anyone with the most elementary knowledge of the history of Nigeria and Biafra-and I do not claim to be an expert although I have some knowledge of it-that the reason for the break-away of the Biafrans was that they were subjected to very considerable human pressures, to understate the case somewhat. On balance, any civilized person would reach the conclusion that they were very sensible in making their decision. However-and I stress this point as
[Mr. Broadbent.l

well

the right of the Biafrans to secede from the federal state is not being debated here; that is not the issue. We are not being asked to recognize the separate state of Biafra or to decide whether secession in any form is legitimate and, therefore, whether we as a government should support that kind of activity.
1 have gone through the four arguments that have been raised by the government at various times and I have suggested that the hon. member for Greenwood presented them at the outset of the debate today. He argued in a rather conclusive fashion that none of the reasons that the government has put forward is tenable when we consider what we are debating today, which is whether the government has provided the kind of aid that it could provide to stop starvation in that unfortunate country. I suggested, further, that not one government member has tried to deal in a direct fashion with the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood. Therefore, at this point in the debate I can only conclude, being as objective as I can, that this side of the argument has won and that the case has been established.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
understand it is ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I may either make a request or give the House word about an agreement. About an hour ago the House leaders conferred and we agreed on the number of people who would speak before we adjourn tonight. The understanding was we would hear from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and then hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Goyer), who would be the final speaker. I think hon. members will find there would be general agreement that the House continue to sit through these two speeches and that the late show questions which were scheduled for tonight be postponed to another night.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we would be quite agreeable if the House wishes to make that order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.
November 27, 1969


John Edward Broadbent: I will conclude soon, Mr. Speaker. Having listened to the debate which proceeded from the original argument by the hon. member for Greenwood, one would have to conclude that the government is convicted of the charge that is levelled at it in the resolution, and that if the government wants to extricate itself from the guilt of the lack of action that has characterized it in the past, it should begin to do something. Most specifically, it could begin by providing governmental aid for the night flights being conducted by Joint Church Aid and Canairelief. I would look forward, Mr. Speaker, to hearing what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs has to say on this question.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, while civil war has been raging for over two years in Nigeria, the people of Canada have become aware of the situation and are increasingly concerned with the nature and the importance of this tragedy. They are concerned with the sufferings which this conflict has brought to the civilian population. It is of course this aspect of the situation which has preoccupied the Canadian government first and foremost. We have wondered what was the best way to bring relief to people in distress while the war goes on. And we have always kept in touch with those who try, by different means, to promote a peaceful settlement. We have kept ourselves ready to do our best to help, should an opportunity arise.
I should perhaps say more on this subject, Mr. Speaker, before examining the problem of relief supplies as such, even if the opposition is very much divided over the scope of this motion, since some members dealt with the political aspect of the conflict, while the member for York South (Mr. Lewis)-who is not the least important member in this house-took care to mention that the motion presented by the opposition was strictly humanitarian.

There are compelling limitations on what outside governments can do about furthering the settlement of this civil war. We can urge, as we have persistently, the critical importance of finding a peaceful solution, and the crying urgency of achieving this in order to 21545-15J
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans shorten the agony of the conflict. We can, as the government has also done, make clear our readiness to help in any way the parties might agree upon in the elaboration and implementation of arrangements for peace. What Canada emphatically cannot do is prescribe for the parties to the conflict the concessions each might make to bring about a settlement. Nor, sadly, is there any formula whereby we could introduce from without the essential conciliatory spirit which alone could make peace talks meaningful and a peace settlement lasting. This essential ingredient can be provided only by the parties themselves.
It should also be borne in mind that in so far as mediatory assistance from outside may be of help, there has been no lack of well-placed and well-intentioned conciliators. From the early stages of the conflict, African countries have made clear their fully understandable concern that it should be recognized as essentially an African problem and that a solution should be sought in that context. This view was endorsed by the Secretary General of the United Nations in a letter to the SSEA, tabled in the House on September 30, 1968, and was again expressed when he had discussions with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about Nigeria early this month. The Organization for African Unity in September reaffirmed its position in this respect. The Organization for African Unity, which is duly recognized as a regional organization of the United Nations, has been actively seeking to bring the two sides together for peace negotiations, and those endeavours are continuing.
It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is unable to be here today to give us his views on the motion before the House. So many of his activities, especially in the past few months, have centered around the conflict in Nigeria. Elsewhere I will mention his discussions with Mr. Stewart and Mr. Gromyko about arms shipments to the area. He has also had many opportunities in Ottawa and in New York to have talks about Nigeria with the foreign ministers of other countries, including a number from the African continent. Hon. members will also recall the visits to Ottawa of two distinguished African leaders, President Diori of Niger and President Nyerere of Tanzania. These meetings confirmed the view of the government that Canada should continue to concentrate on the humanitarian problems and that a dramatic peace initiative on
November 27, 19G9

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans the part of Canada would not help get peace talks started. Indeed, such an action might have an effect opposite to that intended. Rather, it has been the minister's resolve that Canada should be ready and willing to grasp opportunities to be useful in ameliorating the situation, as in Canada's continuing participation on the observer team, or in helping to bring about peace negotiations. But until peace comes, the humanitarian problem of relieving the suffering of war must be faced. In the absence thus far of any role Canada could play in resolving the complexities of Nigeria's internal struggle, the government has concentrated on helping to mitigate its tragic consequences. Unfortunately, the effort made by the population of Canada cannot be compared favourably to the one of other countries.
Like most other governments, we have made our relief contributions available through the organization which has always served with such distinction and efficiency in relief distribution throughout the world-the Red Cross. Through the Canadian Red Cross Society and the International Committee of the Red Cross, the government has contributed almost $3 million to relief for victims of the Nigerian conflict and, of this, almost one half in the Biafran area.
I need not dwell here, Mr. Speaker, on the complexities and frustrations which have beset all efforts to get relief supplies through to the suffering. The relief programs which the Red Cross has co-ordinated on both sides of the fighting lines have been persistently pursued in the face of acute physical risks, formidable political complications-


An hon. Member:: What has that to do with the motion?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: -and monumental administrative difficulties. The most severe problems, naturally, have concerned efforts to deliver desperately needed supplies of food and drugs to suffering civilians in the secessionist enclave, surrounded as it is by Nigerian government forces.


John Edward Broadbent: The speech was written the day before yesterday.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: And as the conflict has been prolonged, the tragedy of its impact on those innocent people has assumed ever more desperately urgent proportions in our relief efforts. In his statement to the House on November 25, the Prime Minister outlined the persistent efforts which this government and

other donor governments have made, in coordination with and in support of the ICRC, to break the tragic impasse which obstructs the expansion of relief deliveries. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when we examine this record of relief delivery efforts-efforts massively supported by many governments and organizations which share Canada's concern about the suffering in Nigeria-we cannot escape a conclusion which can only be heartrendering for all of us who earnestly seek to help relieve that suffering. It is not a conclusion which I derive any satisfaction from stating, but it is the single most relevant fact which we must recognize in the present agonizing dilemma over relief delivery. This is the abundantly tested and sadly demonstrated fact that the Ojukwu regime so far is not disposed to accept more effective relief delivery arrangements unless it thereby achieves political advantage.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
If we failed to face up to this distasteful conclusion, we should not only be doing less than justice to all those who have striven to overcome the obstacles to a freer flow of relief; we should also be deluding ourselves as to what are the real prospects for achieving our urgent objective of getting more relief to the suffering. Perhaps, most important, by ignoring the essence of this relief delivery problem we should only further prejudice the chances of yet breaking this impasse over expansion of aid to the hungry and undernourished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. parliamentary secretary permit a question?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Yes, but later, please. This government bears the Ojukwu regime no ill will, but we have much good will and compassion for the people who are suffering in the territory which that regime controls. And when it is clear that Colonel Ojukwu's policies are directly instrumental in denying them the relief we are trying to provide, we must be frank in declaring where our essential concern lies. Tireless efforts have been made over a long period to get a larger flow of relief into the Biafran area. The Prime Minister reminded the House earlier this week that these efforts date from last year. They have been stepped up steadily in recent months and weeks. After the successful airlift operation last spring had to be stopped, the Red
November 27, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
Cross determined to negotiate a firm arrangement which would allow a large, steady flow of relief supplies. They decided to press for daylight flights which the Nigerian authorities had indicated they might accept. I would like to point out that all observers, including Joint Church Aid and Canairelief, agree that daylight flights would be better and more effective than the hazardous night flights.

On July 10, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) informed the House of his offer to supply inspectors who would control the relief shipments. It was then obvious that the Ojukwu regime would not accept flights from Nigeria and therefore we had expressed the opinion that this kind of shipment inspection would make it possible for the Nigerian government to accept flights from elsewhere. Our proposal was well received and we think that it prompted the government to agree to another mode of inspection so that it could recognize direct flights from outside Nigeria into the secessionist area.
Early in August, the International Committee of the Red Cross proposed to both sides to set up day flights in the secessionist territory. By the middle of August, both sides had agreed in principle to these proposals; however, the Biafran answer stipulated that the Ojukwu regime would keep on using the Uli airport for its own operations. It is important to remember this point because, obviously, it has sometimes been forgotten when appraising subsequent events. There is no indication that the Ojukwu regime was then or later prepared to meet the only condition laid down by the Nigerian government to the effect that there should be no shipment of military supplies during the day as long as the proposed relief flights would last.
Although no agreement was then signed, the Red Cross felt encouraged to have these arrangements confirmed, which was done on September 13 by the Nigerian government. In so doing, the Nigerian authorities were making major concessions, namely the following which is the most important: relief flights would not necessarily have to leave from Nigeria but could reach the secessionist region from Dahomey, the neighbouring state.
The relief cargos could be inspected beforehand at Cotonou by representatives of the ICRC, the government of Nigeria and the government of Dahomey. The measures agreed to by the Nigerian government would have
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans allowed numerous direct daylight relief flights while enabling them to make sure that the flights carried nothing but relief cargos and, in addition, they would have respected the condition made a long time ago by the secessionists, namely that they would accept no help from Nigeria.
Two days after the federal military government and the ICRC had signed an agreement for the implementation of this daylight relief flight program for an initial period of three weeks, a Biafran spokesman repudiated it. The Biafran press release invoked certain technicalities stating that the agreement did not give enough guarantees against Nigerian military exploitation against those relief flights. The only acceptable guarantee in this regard, said the press release, would be that of a third government or of a politically oriented international organization.
The Canadian government, judging that the September 13 agreement offered a practical solution to the pressing necessity of transporting more relief cargos, immediately attempted, in agreement with other governments, to meet the new requirements of the Ojukwu regime. In the course of discussions with the American authorities, we now studied the possibility of putting Canadian observers on board the relief planes. Ambassador Ferguson formulated specific proposals concerning the guarantees that could be offered to alleviate Biafran concern with regard to the military advantages that might be derived from daylight relief flights, but the secessionist authorities rejected those proposals.
The Canadian government, through the I.C.R.C. has also reaffirmed its willingness to consider every practical means of promoting an agreement. It has asked the Ojukwu regime to reconsider its approach. All these efforts have remained fruitless.
It is obvious-and I can prove it-that during the direct talks we had with them, the Ojukwu regime wanted to obtain political guarantees. In other words, the Ojukwu regime will not facilitate the relief flights its people so desperately need unless the Canadian government and the other governments concerned accept the de facto recognition of Biafra as an independent state. Such are the facts.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances, the government cannot be blamed for a lack of interest in the welfare or even in the survival of the so sorely tried civilians of the secessionist area of Nigeria.
The fact that we openly refuse to interfere in the political matters of another country
November 27, 1969

Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans cannot simply be termed a technical reason or a matter of protocol. The fact that the Canadian government is bent on acknowledging the resolutions of the O.A.U. cannot be termed merely a scruple. The fact that we respect what we have helped to build-in this case, a friendly country, a member of the Commonwealth-cannot be termed stupid.
All these considerations are still significant if we want to play our part in the restoration work that will have to be undertaken as soon as the Nigerian conflict is over, if we want to retain the respect of the African continent as a whole, if we want to preserve abroad the image of Canada as a responsible country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but I must advise him that his time has expired unless there is a disposition to allow him to continue.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: hope he will be allowed to continue so that he can answer the question that he said he would answer at the end of his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With unanimous consent, the parliamentary secretary may continue.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I thank hon. members. The Canadian government also believes that no one should send arms to the Nigerian war theatre. This is a firm statement which has been enunciated publicly many times. It has also been expressed to the leaders of other governments by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the statement is well known to Britain, the Soviet Union and the other countries involved.
Recently Mr. Stewart, the British Foreign Secretary, and Mr. Gromyko, the Foreign Secretary of the Soviet Union, were in Ottawa, and when the Nigerian conflict was discussed during their talks here they were reminded of Canada's own policy of not supplying arms to this theatre, as well as our own view that none should be supplied. Those are facts; I suggest nobody can accuse the government of being passive.
Hon. members will agree that the cessation of arms shipments to the Nigerian side only

will not necessarily bring about an end to the war. Arms shipments to both sides must be stopped. But those countries who are reported to be supplying arms to the Biafran side deny such activity. As a result, it is extremely difficult to find a means of stopping all arms shipments. The government of Canada again calls upon all who are supplying arms to the two sides in this tragic conflict to look again at their policies. A complete cessation of arms shipments would undoubtedly help bring the end of this tragic war more closer and would save the lives of many. To conclude, I might recapitulate briefly the fundamental elements of the government's position. First, we are prepared to make further substantial contributions to relief needs in Nigeria, through whatever feasible and appropriate means may be open to the government.
Second, we, like many others, remain convinced that the urgent inauguration of daylight relief flights offers the most practicable and effective answer to immediate relief problems in the secessionist area.
Third, while keeping in close touch with the persistent efforts to bring about agreement on daylight flights, the government is also exploring possible alternative means of improving the relief delivery situation. Fourth, we stand ready to assist, in any way that both parties wish we might do so, in promoting a negotiated peace settlement. Fifth and finally, we look toward an effective role for Canada in the work of rehabilitation and reconstruction which must follow conclusion of this tragic conflict. I know the whole House, with all Canadians, shares the government's earnest hope that the day when this reconstruction process can begin will not be much longer deferred. Nigeria has always been an important area for Canadian economic aid, as shown by the nearly $20 million that we have provided since independence, in addition to the $3 million in relief. Peace will allow these important programs to go forward with new vigour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might now put my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I followed his remarks with interest, and I noted the things he said we cannot do. Granted, there are some things that Canada cannot do in the present situation, and granted that some relief efforts, such as those of the Red Cross, have broken down, is it not possible for Canada to support at this time the one
November 27, 1969
relief operation that is being carried on; and is it not clear that that, and that alone, has been the purpose of this motion and has been our request throughout all of this day's debate?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, in view of the development of the conflict and the many practical reasons I have just pointed out, no doubt, it is not good enough merely to say: From now on, let us forget the past and seek other solutions.
We ought to consider new solutions keeping in mind the complexity of the Nigerian problem. It is in that spirit that we consider the negotiations with other organizations which now provide assistance to the afflicted population.
As stated by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) in the House, the Prime Minister had consultations with representatives of Canairelief and, indeed, it is up to him to make his conclusions known.
Alleged Failure to Aid Biafrans


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, would the parliamentary secretary answer a further question? I am still a bit puzzled because of some of his remarks and I should like him to tell us whether he is in favour of or against this motion. Could he give us a simple yes or no answer as to whether or not we will contribute?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the reply I have just given also applies to this other question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58 the proceedings on the motion are considered to have expired.
It being 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



Friday, November 28, 1969