1970-05-01

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF SPEAKERS AND DEPUTY SPEAKERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will permit me to bring to their attention the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a group of very distinguished parliamentarians and their wives who are to be in Ottawa today and tomorrow to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Area Council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It is with much pleasure that I introduce to hon. members a group of parliamentarians noted in their respective Houses for their wisdom, impartiality, tolerance, judiciousness, patience and forbearance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: By this description hon. members will immediately recognize the Speakers and Deputy Speakers of our provincial houses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

On behalf of all my colleagues of the House of Commons, I welcome them most heartily to Ottawa.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third and fourth reports of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Watson.
Fourth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

['The hon. member for York South has given the Chair the required notice under the terms of Standing Order 26. I have had time to give a bit of thought to the submission contained in the proposed motion of the hon. member for York South. Unquestionably this is a matter of great importance and concern to all hon. members.\nWhether there should be an adjournment of the proceedings of the House today under the terms of the Standing Order is the decision the Chair must make at this time. It is not an easy decision to make. It may well be that such an important debate could be held\nMay 1, 1970', "in the House more effectively and more constructively by prearrangement among the House Leaders. However, this avenue is not provided in Standing Order 26 and the decision has to be made by the Chair.\nIn view of the fact that from a procedural standpoint I would find it extremely difficult to reject the motion and in view of the importance of the matter I feel I must put the motion proposed by the hon. member. I will therefore ask whether the hon. member for York South has leave to move the motion for the purpose of the House discussing the matter introduced by him under the terms of Standing Order 26(8).\nAs there is no opposition, the proposed motion will stand over until three o'clock this afternoon."]
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) may I lay on the table of the House copies in both official languages of the wheat inventory reduction regulations referred to yesterday in the question period by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang).



Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the House might expect me to make a short comment on the situation in Cambodia. I am sure we all listened to President Nixon's speech with deep anxiety. There can be no doubt that the decisions he announced were hard and momentous at what is bound to be a difficult time for our sorely tried neighbour and a dangerous period for the world.
During the period before the International Control Commission was asked to leave Cambodia we were aware, as a member of the commission, of abuses of Cambodian territory by North Viet Nam and we deplored the inability of the International Control Commission to do anything about it, despite our best efforts over a period of years.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What date was that?


Mitchell William Sharp: Ever since the conflict began in South Viet Nam one of our objectives, and I am speaking now of Canada-


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow one question so that the record might be kept straight? On what date were we asked to get out of Cambodia?
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: I will come to that later.


John George Diefenbaker: You do not have the
information?
COMMONS DEBATES	May 1, 1970
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to continue my statement?


John George Diefenbaker: If you do not even know that-


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps my right hon. friend has not been listening to the number of statements I have made in the House.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked a simple question which should have been answered.


Mitchell William Sharp: Ever since the conflict began in South Viet Nam, one of our objectives as a member of the commission was to try to insulate Cambodia from the effects of the Viet Nam war. To achieve this we tried to have the International Control Commission consider a Cambodian government request in 1966 to have the Control Commission supervise Cambodian ports and borders.
In 1967 we tried to have the commission strengthened by having it accept a United States offer of helicopters which Prince Sihanouk suggested the United States should provide for the International Control Commission. We tried in 1968 to have the commission undertake investigations into the presence of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces in the very area of Parrot's Beak, now the subject of military operations, on the basis of prime facie evidence provided by the Cambodian government and Prince Sihanouk himself.
Had we been successful in convincing our commission colleagues to take these measures, the International Control Commission might at least have been able to provide some warning of the magnitude of the Vietnamese Communist intervention in Cambodia which has elicited the present United States and South Vietnamese response and might even have helped avoid the situation developing to the present stage.
I certainly hope the situation in Cambodia will not now be allowed to develop as did the situation in Viet Nam. I deeply regret that the United States government has considered it necessary to take this step, but we are somewhat reassured that President Nixon has given an assurance of the limited nature of these operations and that United States forces will be withdrawn once their immediate objectives are achieved. It would be tragic, and I am sure this view is shared not only by all members of this House but by the American people themselves, if these operations were to result in a further escalation of the conflict in Indo-China.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we must all be very concerned about the developments to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has referred and the announcement made by the President of the United States last evening concerning armed intervention in Cambodia. I am quite disappointed that the minister has not been able to tell the House this morning of any initiatives the government of Canada has in mind to be helpful in this situation.
Yesterday he indicated, and I agreed, that before the President spoke it would be premature for the Canadian government to decide what initiatives, if any, it might take. But the President has spoken and, indeed, announced somewhat more drastic action on the part of the United States than had been contemplated or expected up to that time.
I suggest that the government of Canada should not abandon hope for a conference like the Geneva conference. I am not in a position to know fully what difficulties there may be in this regard, but it seems to me it is of the utmost importance that every prospect be explored that may achieve some kind of international regulation of this situation which may very well escalate despite the hopes of the President and despite the hope expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I therefore urge the government of Canada to take the initiative in association with other countries that are concerned to see whether there is a possibility of a conference, along the lines of the Geneva conference that took place earlier, in order to try to find a solution to this difficulty.
I regret also that the government of Canada has chosen this time to cut back on its International Control Commission commitment. I recognize there have been difficulties in this regard. The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to them this morning. But here again it is important that we retain and pursue every prospect of being helpful.
I do not know what efforts the government of Canada made in the past within the International Control Commission, other than those mentioned by the minister, to protest the presence of North Vietnamese troops in Cambodia. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs said this was a definite fact. As I say, this relates to the past. I am not minimizing the difficulties of the efforts of the government of Canada within the ICC as they relate to the past; I am not minimizing the difficulties of continuing to use the ICC in
May 1, 1970	COMMONS
a productive way. But I urge that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his colleagues utilize every prospect of initiative, including the full utilization of the ICC rather than cutting back at this time. I also urge that they pursue vigorously the possibilities of any diplomatic initiative leading to some kind of an international conference to regulate this eruption which is causing so much concern to all of us and, indeed, to the whole world.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we did not have an advance copy of the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We had to follow it by ear. I am sure all members agree with the minister when he said that we listened to the speech of President Nixon last night with anxiety and that we all regret the action which has been taken in the form of military intervention by the United States and South Vietnamese troops in Cambodia.
The minister has detailed the steps which led to the withdrawal of the International Control Commission because of their failure to insulate Cambodia. The fact is, of course, that the International Control Commission, particularly in Viet Nam, has been totally disregarded by both sides. This can be seen by anyone who takes the trouble to read the reports of that commission.
I think the important thing at the moment is to ascertain the reasons for the military intervention at this time. The President of the United States said in his television speech last night that North Vietnamese troops and the Viet Cong have been in Cambodia for years. What is the particular reason for action at this time? It is significant that the Cambodian government spokesman in Phnom-Penh said yesterday that the government had not approved the South Vietnamese-United States intervention and added that Cambodia is a neutral country. In Washington Thay Sok, the ranking diplomat at the Cambodian embassy, said:
There is no agreement between Phnom-Penh and the United States to bomb Cambodian territory. We sent a protest to the U.S. government over a new bombing incident only last week.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
So what was held out originally as an intervention at the request of the Cambodian government would now appear on the face of these reports to be a unilateral intervention. This is something which it seems to me is
DEBATES	6481
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia most serious. We have a special concern in this matter. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a comment that I had not protested about Vienamese troops being in Cambodia. I would point out that we do not have a defence-sharing arrangement with North Viet Nam, nor are we selling weapons to North Viet Nam, nor do we have North Vietnamese bomarc bases in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Thank God.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are involved, whether we want to be or not, in any action which the United States government takes and in this case, unless there are facts which have not come to light, it would appear there has been a unilateral military intervention in Cambodia without either the approval or the consent of the Cambodian government-an intervention which the President said in his television address was to make sure that the United States did not become a second-rate power and that it did not suffer its first defeat in its 190-year proud history.
I think the government must do more than make a statement here on motions. I hope there will be an opportunity for a full debate on this question so that the Secretary of State and his colleagues can tell us what initiatives they intend to take.
During the past few weeks I have asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government would follow the lead of the government of France in asking for a reconvening of the Geneva conference. I drew attention to the fact that Mr. Jacob Malik, the Soviet ambassador to the United Nations, had said that the Soviet Union would be inerest-ed in having the conference reconvened. It seems to me that this was the time to have seized the initiative and to have joined with other countries in pressing Britain and the Soviet Union, the joint chairmen of the Geneva conference, to reconvene the meetings in the hope that some settlement could be reached which would prevent the Viet Nam war becoming an Indo-China war.
Unfortunately, the only reply I got from both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs was that Canada was willing to participate. Canada was not prepared, apparently, to take any initiative or to express publicly its desire for such a conference. When I suggested we might attempt to have this matter placed before the United Nations again, the Secretary of
6462	COMMONS
XJ.S. Invasion of Cambodia State for External Affairs was most hesitant and timid. Full discussion of this subject is needed so that we may know whether the Canadian government intends to take any initiative whatsoever or whether it intends to stand idly by and watch a very serious and barbarous war in Viet Nam become a major war in Asia which may well have disastrous consequences for the human race.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, allow me in the first place to thank all my colleagues for the token of regard they gave me this morning, because 78 per cent of the people of Quebec have proved that they are definitely against separatism. In my opinion, all the right-thinking Canadians are as pleased as we are.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I think that we all regret foreign interventions in Cambodia whether they are from the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese or the Americans. I believe that Cambodia is entitled to its sovereignty and to the respect of all nations.
However, some of the attitudes we witness in the House are unfortunate. I have just heard the NDP leader (Mr. Douglas) taking the Americans to task for their intervention in Cambodia. But he did not censure-we are all convinced of this-the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese for their intervention. Why? He has just explained that they did not supply weapons to North Viet Nam, that the NDP did not mobilize troops or force anyone to come to the assistance of that country. He did not say however whether the Chinese Communists or others have given help and advice to these people to enable them to settle in Cambodia or to try to take it one way or another.
In any case, blaming one side and ignoring the other will not solve the problem. A general debate on this question in the House of Commons will not solve the problem either. Even if soldiers armed with pea shooters were sent to Cambodia, they would be unable to drive out the Americans or the North Vietnamese, even if they were under the command of the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: In my opinion, it is the duty of all Canadians to suggest that meetings, discussions and debates be held between par-

DEBATES	May 1, 1970
ties concerned so that understanding prevails. However, the Canadian government or the Canadian people have no business in interfering in that matter. Even if we discussed it for three months, the situation would not be solved. Canadians must appeal to the good judgment of parties concerned because finally, North and South Vietnamese, Americans and Chinese are human beings. It is a matter of appealing to their reason, not to their lower instincts which lead them to kill one another. On the contrary, we must teach them the great rule of brotherly love. Thus will Canada be able to contribute to the settlement of the conflict which has already lasted for too long in Viet Nam and Cambodia.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS CAMBODIA-INVASION BY UNITED STATES AND SOUTH VIET NAM ARMED FORCES
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, as evidenced by the brief statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) a few minutes ago, namely, the announcement last night of the widening of the war in southeast Asia, which increases the dangers to world peace, and the urgent need for the government and Parliament to debate the seriousness of the situation, and to seek ways and means of avoiding further escalation of the war and of promoting effective international action to bring peace to the area.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South has given the Chair the required notice under the terms of Standing Order 26. I have had time to give a bit of thought to the submission contained in the proposed motion of the hon. member for York South. Unquestionably this is a matter of great importance and concern to all hon. members.
Whether there should be an adjournment of the proceedings of the House today under the terms of the Standing Order is the decision the Chair must make at this time. It is not an easy decision to make. It may well be that such an important debate could be held
May 1, 1970

in the House more effectively and more constructively by prearrangement among the House Leaders. However, this avenue is not provided in Standing Order 26 and the decision has to be made by the Chair.
In view of the fact that from a procedural standpoint I would find it extremely difficult to reject the motion and in view of the importance of the matter I feel I must put the motion proposed by the hon. member. I will therefore ask whether the hon. member for York South has leave to move the motion for the purpose of the House discussing the matter introduced by him under the terms of Standing Order 26(8).
As there is no opposition, the proposed motion will stand over until three o'clock this afternoon.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to pursue a question or two with the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the difficulty in Cambodia, but in view of the debate this afternoon I shall turn my attention to the Minister of Finance. In view of the apparently changing international business climate, is it contemplated that any reduction in interest rates in Canada will be considered? Also, is it contemplated by the Minister of Finance that the present bank rate will be continued or does he intend to open discussions with the Bank of Canada regarding this matter?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on Wednesday, I am in very close consultation with the Bank of Canada. If there were any such decision it would be announced in the usual manner.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the extent of unemployment in the country and in view of the concern that has been expressed about unemployment, as well as the apparently changing climate internationally, would the minister be prepared to reconsider the hard stance he has taken both in respect of interest rates and economic policies generally?


Edgar John Benson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the matter of our fiscal and monetary policy is constantly
Inquiries of the Ministry under review. If there is to be any change I would announce it to the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance not take into consideration that this is not simply a matter of policy to be announced in due course but a matter of the policies being pursued which are placing unnecessary strain upon the country and the people of the country?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very interesting statement but it is not a question.



LOWERING OF HOUSING INTEREST RATE

Mr. John Gilberl (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the serious decline in housing starts for the first quarter of this year and the need to stimulate housing and provide employment, would the minister make representations, to the Bank of Canada and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to lower the interest rate so that there may be more activity in the housing field?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the only interest rate controlled by the Bank of Canada is the rediscount rate.



EASING OF BANK LENDING POLICY IN SLOW-GROWTH AREAS

['Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important question and I will attempt to answer it during my intervention in the debate.']
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the loan acts which are administered by the Department of Finance. In view of the representations which have been made to his department, is he in a position to say whether the banks are ready to ease their lending policies under these three acts in the slow-growth areas of Canada? This question has been brought to the minister's attention.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking into this matter in consultation with officials of the department who are in touch with the banks, particularly in the hon. member's province, and I hope to have further progress to report shortly.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to antici-
6464	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry pate the debate this afternoon but it would be useful if the Secretary of State for External Affairs could give the House some information. Yesterday he said the Canadian government had not been consulted regarding the United States intervention in Cambodia. Since that time have any communications been received from the government of the United States setting forth the reasons for its action in respect of Cambodia?
Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker; the
Canadian government was not consulted about the United States' step in moving its forces into Cambodia. So far as I know there have been no further communications. The President himself gave the reasons to the public in the speech he made yesterday.
May I also be permitted to answer the question put earlier by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. The International Control Commission was first asked to terminate its mission by the Royal Cambodian government through an oral request on October 7, 1969. The request was repeated in a formal note in early December when the ICC was asked to adjourn sine die by December 31, 1969, and all ICC personnel were withdrawn by the end of the first week of January, 1970.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when I asked the question originally I did so so that the record would be complete. I am glad the minister now has the information which was requested and has placed it before the House.
I should like to ask him this: When suggestions are made that Canada should be making representations to the United States while we ourselves are not taking any of the responsibility nor are expending our blood and treasure, does the minister not consider that such gratuitous advice from Canada to the United States is not in keeping with our responsibilities as a nation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the minister. Has he or the government been in touch with their friends in Peking with respect to taking initiatives?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Esquimalt-Saanich on a supplementary.

DEBATES	May 1, 1970


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the minister should get up and tell us what initiatives they are taking with their friends in Peking.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not my impression.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalf-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's reply to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, but can he inform the House whether or not the Cambodian government has protested to the International Control Commission for Viet Nam, the country from which these forces are moving across the Cambodian border, and whether he has knowledge of any communication that may have been received by the Viet Nam commission rather than the Cambodian commission?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the statement I made at the beginning, there have been many efforts by us to bring to the attention of the world the presence of North Vietnamese forces in Cambodia. It is because of the many frustrations we have experienced that we do not want to return if asked-and we have not yet been formally asked-unless we can carry on our responsibilities. I am sure this is a view which must be shared by all members of the House. We have been frustrated also in all our efforts, whether in Viet Nam, Laos or Cambodia, when the International Control Commission was in operation.


David Anderson: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the hon. member a supplementary but again I must point out that an emergency debate has been allowed on which I assume some hours will be spent today. I do not think the question period should be reserved or set aside for questions on that same matter. However, the hon. member will be allowed to ask his supplementary.


David Anderson: I appreciate your generosity, Mr. Speaker. It is really to obtain information that I ask these questions, and perhaps it is easier now than it would be in the debate. I appreciate the frustration the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to as I served for a short period of time as acting Canadian commissioner in Cambodia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is anticipating the debate. If he has a question he should put it now.
May 1, 1970


David Anderson: Has there been any protest or communication to the International Control Commission in Viet Nam by the Cambodian government? I am not referring to the now defunct commission in Cambodia but to the commission in Viet Nam, in the country from which these forces are actually crossing the border into Cambodia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important question and I will attempt to answer it during my intervention in the debate.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Several months ago he stated in no uncertain terms that if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation did not improve its news services, he would close the shop. Well, last Wednesday night we all noticed that the new premier of Quebec was given about ten minutes on the CBC newscast, Mr. Bertrand about five minutes, Mr. Samson three or four minutes, but half an hour was devoted to Mr. Rene Levesque and the separatists of the province of Quebec.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he will consider the situation, and should he find it necessary to close the shop, will he make it snappy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Speaker, I can give this undertaking to the leader of the Ralliement creditiste. For my part, I am busy dusting my Chinese vases.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister moves on this matter, could he also find out from the CBC how many complaints it received on Wednesday night about the election coverage or the lack of it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will refer this question to the minister who will no doubt refer it to the corporation.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

['No, Mr. Speaker.']
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister a question in view of the circular that I presume has come across the desks of all hon. members. Would he take this opportunity to explain these remarks which he made during a press conference:
-of course I can't go into the mind of Quebeckers-
And then almost in the same breath:
I think there is a lot of confusion in the minds of the people of Quebec.
Would he mind explaining these statements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Prime Minister would want to present this explanation by way of a statement oh motions.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any harm in trying to direct the Prime Minister's mind-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



Mr. G. W. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of a recent statement by the Chairman of the Ontario Water Resources Commission that Canada and the United States are on a collision course over the Great Lakes pollution problem, has the minister discussed with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, or any other member of the U.S. administration, some means of providing better co-operation by Canada and the United States on this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the International Joint Commission has submitted its report on pollution of the Great Lakes to me. I have asked the United States government to agree with us on a time for release of this report which I think will provide a basis for action by both governments. We are working very closely with the United States and I expect our co-operation will be even closer in future.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the minister take up with the United States authorities the question of Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. corporations which apparently are not adhering to some of the programs and standards of the Ontario Water Resources Commission?
May 1, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that all these questions will arise out of the action that will be promoted by the report of the International Joint Commission.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government of Canada was acquainted with the contents of the speech delivered by the Chairman of the Ontario Water Resources Commission before its publication and, if so, can he tell us to what extent the accusations made by the Chairman of the Ontario Water Resources Commission reflect the official Canadian position?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he any report to give on the meetings that have taken place between representatives of the government of Canada and the government of the province of Quebec with the Eskimos? He stated a couple of weeks ago that he expected a report shortly.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing new to tell the House. I suggest, however, that it would be advisable to wait until the appointment of the new minister before having serious discussions on this matter.



GIFT OF MONEY BY SOUTHEAST ASIA COUNTRIES

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he has acknowledged with thanks the contribution made by certain countries in Southeast Asia in the form of assistance for Eskimos and Indians in Canada, for the reason that the plight of Canada's native people requires assistance? Is he aware that a gift of over $1,000 was made available by these countries in Southeast Asia? This shows the image which Canada has abroad in this regard.
(Mr. Aiken.]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have read the statement that appeared in the press on this matter, and I hope that the policy that the Prime Minister and myself have announced last June, in an effort to ensure equality to all Canadian citizens in accordance with the Canadian Bill of Rights, will be enthusiastically received by all Canadians, including the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the minister will now answer the question, has he acknowledged with appreciation the gift from these countries in Southeast Asia, some of which are poverty-stricken but which, because of the reported conditions of Canadian Indians and Eskimos, have made a contribution to raise the standards of these people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what association can have sent those funds. However, if there is some confusion in the minds of some people abroad, it results from the fact that members of Parliament try to derive some political benefit from the situation, instead of suggesting adequate solutions.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister speaks for himself. What an admission on his part.



SHIPPING


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the recent federal report in regard to dangerous conditions in the tugboat industry of British Columbia. Can the minister indicate whether any progress has been made in the discussions between the workers and the operators to reduce the hazards in this industry which were brought to light by the federal report?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated two days ago in the House I took the initiative to have the head of the steamship inspection branch convene a meeting in Vancouver. I think four sessions have been held. At these both the employers and the various unions have been represented. The meetings are continuing and the last word I had was that progress was being made, and there is some
May I, 1970

optimism that recommendations will be brought forward unanimously which will help us to introduce the appropriate regulations. I do not know how long this will take.



FISHERIES


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the province of Saskatchewan requested some arrangement for the provision of assistance to those fishermen whose livelihood will be affected as a result of mercury pollution in Saskatchewan?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister completed his study of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to perpetual leases in the national parks, and is he now prepared to provide answers to the questions I asked on March 20 last?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to report any decision in this regard to the House. Officials of my department and of the Department of Justice are examining this Supreme Court decision and we will subsequently announce government policy for the solution of the problem.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate whether discussions have been held between officials of his department and General Dynamics of the United States concerning tanker submarines
Inquiries of the Ministry for transporting oil under the Arctic ice? If so, would he indicate whether a study is under way to determine the best type of undersea navigational aids required and whether such a study would involve the establishing of an east coast terminal?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might want to reply to the first part of the question. The second part appears to me to be very technical and it seems to me should be replied to by way of a statement on motions. If the hon. member will agree to the suggestion, the minister might reply to the first part of the question.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: What might be described as low-level talks-that is, I cannot say there is any great degree of urgency in them-have been initiated with various groups who come to see us with various proposals for the transportation of substances under water. But I do not think it is something I would regard as being a priority item in the government's mind at present.



ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBMARINE IDENTIFICATION ZONE

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmoulh-Halifax East):: I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the question just posed and all the discussion of anti-pollution measures, can the minister indicate whether the government is giving any consideration to the establishment of a submarine identification zone inasmuch as military vessels are also great sources of pollution?


Mitchell William Sharp: I find the question rather general in nature. Perhaps the hon. member could be more specific. What area is he referring to? Is he talking about the Arctic?


J. Michael Forrestall: Perhaps I should rephrase my question. Is the government giving any consideration to the establishment of submarine identification zones in our Arctic and off our east and west coasts?



POLLUTION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister will recall that some time ago I
8468	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry asked him whether he would be prepared or would ask an appropriate minister to make a statement on motions in the near future outlining to the House the measures that the government proposes to adopt and follow relating to the enforcement of Bill C-202, establishing anti-pollution control in the Arctic waters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Leader of the Opposition asked me this, and at the time I answered him that the bill is still before the House. It is still before the standing committee, so I see no need to make such a statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister will recall, on reflection, that he said he would consult his ministers to see whether such a statement should be made. I ask him to bear in mind that the bill itself does not deal with the question of enforcement. In view of the importance of establishing the will of Parliament to combat pollution in the north, would the Prime Minister not agree that it is equally important that we know what measures the government proposes to adopt to enforce this bill? That is the question I asked the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree that his supplementary question is argumentative and cannot be accepted procedurafly.



HOWE SOUND-RESULTS OF TESTS OF FISH

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I ask this question in the hope that the minister's reply can assist members of the House of Commons from the British Columbia coast. Is it possible for the minister to advise us how long he anticipates the scientific analysis of fish at Howe Sound will take in order to determine whether or not the present closure should be continued or relaxed?


John (Jack) Davis: I hope we will get the results on Monday, if not today.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In

DEBATES	May 1, 1970
view of the continual representations by the residents of the Eskasoni Indian reservation deploring the poor and inadequate housing and the lack of adequate money for housing, would the minister at the first opportunity ascertain if remedial action can be taken to correct this serious problem?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation in which the Indians in the Eskasoni reservation, on Cape Breton, find themselves. I know that they are facing housing problems that need immediate attention and to which I shall give particular consideration. The hon. member must understand that we find the same problem in all parts of Canada and that it is always difficult to set priorities. If there is a more urgent problem at the Eskasoni reservation than elsewhere, it will be looked into immediately.


Robert Muir: Would the minister not agree that situations where 10 to 12 citizens of Canada live in three or four rooms are probably not too common?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I know that the situation brings particular hardships-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport further to a question asked on November 4 by the hon. member for Moncton. Can the minister indicate what progress has been made with the study of traffic patterns in the Maritimes and the possibility of a central New Brunswick jet airport? I ask this question because the minister, very com-mendably, has some transportation meetings scheduled in New Brunswick and undoubtedly this information would be required.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If the hon. member will permit,
I will take the question as notice so as to get the most up-to-date details and I will try to answer it early next week.
May 1, 1970



TRANSPORT


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker I have a related question for the Minister of Transport. Last Friday I asked the minister about the delay in grain shipments at Thunder Bay. Has he had an opportunity to investigate this situation, and can he assure us that every effort will be made to expedite grain movement into and out of all our ports in order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is only distantly related to the previous one, but it has been asked and the minister might be allowed to reply briefly.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: While I am examining air patterns in the Atlantic provinces I will certainly take into account this related and clearly closely allied question having to do with grain movement in the west.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whit-by):: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could the minister inform the House whether the government has decided to extend the June 30 expiry date of the automotive manufacturing assistance regulations?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: As I said a few days ago, this is under study and I will report to the House when a decision has been made.


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker, the question asked a few days ago referred to the TAB agreements and not to the automotive manufacturing assistance regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIRPORTS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to direct my question to the genial Minister of Transport. It concerns the proposed auxiliary airport at Toronto. In view of the great number of rumours in the newspapers and on
Inquiries of the Ministry television concerning a proposed site in the Beverley Township area, could the minister say now whether this area is or is not being considered?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I cannot say for the very simple reason that I personally have deliberately avoided getting involved in the actual locations. I can only repeat what I have said on many previous occasions, that about four or five different locations are being examined. There will be no disclosure concerning these until such time as a final decision has been made.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In view of the fact that the minister said there were four or five areas, could he say if this is one of them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POLLUTION


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Because of the concern that has been created in all communities bordering on the Ottawa River by the announcement of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry concerning mercury pollution in the Ottawa River, and also in view of the announcement today, I believe, by the provincial Minister of Lands and Forests of a ban on commercial fishing in the Ottawa River, is the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry prepared at this time to indicate the section of the river about which there is the most concern?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is that stretch downstream of Ottawa and Hull.



TRANSPORT


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is prompted by statistics which indicate the very serious inadequacies in surface transportation between Newfoundland and the mainland of Canada now existing, of which the minister is well aware and in which he is interested, and which are underscored by the sinking of the Patrick Morris.
May 1, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


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


James Aloysius McGrath: This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, and I thought a short preamble would point up the seriousness of it. What steps is the government taking to correct the serious inadequacies in surface transportation between Newfoundland and the Mainland of Canada as a consequence of the sinking of the Patrick Morris?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to the problem, one involving the transportation of cargo and the other the transportation of passengers. In so far as the passenger side of it is concerned, a number of proposals are now being considered but there is difficulty with regard to maintaining adequate service at both the western and eastern terminals. I am looking to see if there is a substitute ship which	could	be	added during the peaksummer months. On the question of the sinking of the Patrick Morris and a replacement, we are searching now to see if there is a vessel that might be suitable as a replacement. We are also looking at the possibility of using,	during	the	summer months, a	towbarge	or a system	such as that used on	thewest coast. A number of alternatives are being	looked	at	and we will make	an
announcement as fast as we can.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swiff Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport about transportation on the prairies. When will a decision be made by his department to inaugurate some type of air transportation between Regina, Swift Current, Medicine Hat and Calgary?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is hardly a supplementary but the minister may want to reply.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am doing my very best to see that the hon. member gets adequate transportation to and from his headquarters. I hope that the Canadian Transport Commission will be able to make its decision on the pending applications within a very short time.


Mr. McIntosh:: When? Before my old age pension is due?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. C. Scoff (Vicioria-Haliburfon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of statements made recently by the federal government's committee on youth that United States draft dodgers and deserters admitted to Canada are getting involved in crime on a greatly increasing scale, is the government considering any new steps to try to screen such immigrants more carefully in future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that the question asked by the hon. member invites a very general statement, and I would think that kind of statement ought to be made on motions. The minister might like to indicate for the benefit of the House whether such a statement is being considered.


William C. Scott: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do so in view of statements made by the committee on youth that a large percentage of draft dodgers and especially deserters coming into this country are poorly educated. Many of them lack trade skills or professional training and consequently a large percentage of these people have found it difficult and even impossible to find jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a supplementary question. It cannot be put to the House in this way. It is a submission which the hon. member must assume has been noted by the minister.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has to do with the previous inquiry I made regarding the study of foreign concessional financing. When I asked the question the minister indicated that the study would be ready soon. Is it now ready?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we are still trying to develop a policy statement. In the meantime we have sent one of our officers to Great Britain to discuss this matter with the British authorities. As is well known, this concessional financing is coming to Canada from Great Britain.
May 1, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Western Nova. I apologize to the hon. member. I am sure his patience will be rewarded in a few seconds. I think the hon. member for Waterloo has a supplementary.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give some indication of how long it will take before he is in a position to give some definite information to industry in Canada which will indicate that there are some answers to this problem?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as is so well known, my difficulty lies in attempting to reconcile the conflicting interests in the Canadian business community.



TEXTILES-ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Inasmuch as the statement on textile policy was to have been forthcoming in the month of April and since the month of April ended yesterday, can the minister now tell us, without using the word "soon", when we may expect such statement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the month of May immediately follows the month of April.


Louis-Roland Comeau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister now tell us whether he has met with the provincial ministers and whether he will be able to make a statement next week?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have met with as many people as I could, and when it was not physically possible for me to do so my officers have done so.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker, after I had almost given up hope. My question is to the Minister of Transport. Since it is almost six months since the crash of the DH-125 jet at Wabush which claimed the lives of a number of officials of Churchill Falls Corporation, can the minister give any indication when the report on the investigation by his department will be released?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I could not attempt to give a date but I hope it will be very soon.



RESEARCH


Mr.   Doug. Rowland@Selkirk: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board? In view of the current surplus of grain in Canada, will the minister give consideration to making a statement on motions in order to inform the House of the sort of research in which the National Research Council is involved with respect to industrial uses of grain? Should he decide to make such a statement, would the minister also make specific reference to studies respecting the feasibility of adding quantities of grain alcohol to fuel for motor vehicles as an anti-pollution measure?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not make the statement himself.


John Gilbert: Answer!


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting proposition. I will be glad to look into it.



PRIME MINISTER


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of his upcoming Asian trip, when is the Prime Minister going to release his itinerary? Also, does it include Viet Nam?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the itinerary is subject to approval by all the countries I am visiting, and is not final yet. Thus far there is no indication of Viet Nam in it.



EFFECT OF REPORTED AGREEMENT TO BE SIGNED WITH NEW ZEALAND

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? It has been reported that a new trade agreement will be signed with New Zealand. Will this in any way change the trade arrangements that we now have with New Zealand?
May 1, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to divulge what agreements might transpire between Canada and New Zealand.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the likeable and lovable Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
An lion. Member: Now you will have to answer, George.


John Gilbert: I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether, in view of his desire to incorporate into legislation the recommendations of the report on juvenile delinquents, he will bring in amendments to the Juvenile Delinquents Act or bring forth a young offenders act? If so, will that be done before the present session finishes?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of drafting legislation on the subject of young offenders. The name of the new bill, of course, will not be determined until shortly before it is disclosed to the House. We are now at the stage of the fourth draft of the legislation and it will have to be considered by the government for official approval before being presented to the House for its consideration. I am unable to say at the moment whether or not that will be done during the present session.


William C. Scott: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will this new legislation also apply to the young American draft dodgers?



ATTENDANCE OF CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVES AT CANTON FAIR

David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I should like to know whether the apparent impasse in the Canadian-Chinese talks at Stockholm has affected the presence of officials of his department at the Canton Trade Fair, which it is normally their practice to attend twice a year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my officers and trade commissioners are there, as 
well as 50 Canadian businessmen. I might say very confidentially to the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: -that Canadian trade commissioners are the only ones in the world who have been allowed to stay there for the full duration of the fair.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-AMENDMENTS TO WHEAT BOARD ACT REGULATIONS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board who is on the roster for today. In his absence, I will direct it either to the government House Leader who tabled the wheat inventory reduction regulations, or another appropriate minister. In view of the fact that these regulations tabled today cover only one portion of the Operation Lift program, can the minister indicate if the amendments to the regulations under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, also involved in this program, have been passed by this date?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know Mr. Speaker. I will find out and report next week.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the wheat inventory reduction regulations were passed on April 21 and only made available today, will all necessary steps be taken to expedite both the passage and publication of the regulations under the Canadian Wheat Board Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that he is now making a submission which he has to assume has been noted. Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with regard to today's business. I may say there have been some discussions and the order has been inverted. The first item to be called will be the Supreme Court Act, to be followed by the Bill of Exchange Act. I also wish to report there have been some discussions regarding the calling of the Law Reform Commission Bill today. There is no agreement amongst the parties to bring it forward; therefore it will not be called today.
May 1, 1970



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-182, to amend the Supreme Court Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, this bill can be classified as a housekeeping bill because the amendments, although they are important, are not extensive. I am sure that when the amendments have been passed they will greatly expedite the business of the Supreme Court. I read that last May and June there were between 48 and 50 cases listed to be heard in those two months. This indicates the weight of the work these judges must do.
I hope when the minister brings forth his next amendments to the Act he will adopt some of the suggestions that have been made to the effect that there should be an increase in the number of judges in the Supreme Court.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Are
you available?


John Gilbert: I might say that I am not available, nor am I volunteering. There has also been some criticism with regard to the distribution of the judges on the Supreme Court. I understand that three are appointed from Quebec, three from Ontario, one from the east coast, the Maritimes, and two from the west coast, making a composite of nine.


John Napier Turner: That is from the whole west.


John Gilbert: I have heard the recommendation that the number should be increased to at least 11 judges so that there could be a wider representation from the Maritimes and from western Canada. I hope the minister will take that into consideration when he next presents an amendment.
There has been some discussion as to whether certain types of cases should be referred to the Supreme Court, cases such as negligence cases, taxation cases and expropriation cases. These constitute a fair number of the cases before these judges. I hope when
Supreme Court Act
the minister is considering any amendments in the future he will take this into consideration.
With regard to negligence cases, I hope that the provinces will see the wisdom of compulsory automobile insurance and take those cases out of the provincial courts. I notice some of my legal friends winced when I said that. It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that justice be done. Justice will be more than done when these cases come under compulsory automobile insurance, and are taken out of the courts. They take up a great deal of time and sometimes the results are not too favourable to the people who have been injured.
My last point is probably the most important. I mentioned it briefly to the minister when the bill was before the committee. I refer to the necessity of a possible direction to the Supreme Court, by way of an amendment, permitting the court to take the sociological view with regard to constitutional questions. Studies in the past have shown that the judges closely follow the words contained in the constitution, and this has resulted in our laws being ineffective from a sociological point of view at times.
There is a great deal of legislation which is coming forth that impinges on the constitution. I think that the members of the Supreme Court should have some direction from the minister or they themselves should make a statement that they intend to follow the sociological view which incorporates the economic, cultural and sociological aspects of Canadian life. They have been tied too closely to the literal interpretation and to following precedents. If the minister does not deem it wise to make this type of amendment to the Supreme Court Act, I urge the Supreme Court judges to make a statement with regard to it.
I noticed that when welcoming the new judges to the Supreme Court the other day the president of the Canadian Bar Association gave a direction to the court, ex cathedra. He said he hoped they would not become involved in a sociological view. I want to say, as a member of the bar for Ontario and as the representative of the constituents of Broadview, that this is very important and should be done. It is done in the United States and I understand it is also done in England.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The Minister of Justice is very progressive. He has put some forward looking legislation on the Statute books of Canada. I look forward to the minister taking the initiative

May 1, 1970
Bills of Exchange Act
with regard to future amendments of the Supreme Court Act which will be in keeping with the times. The administration of the law, Mr. Speaker, is very important. There is a social confrontation which is taking place. It is our duty to keep the law in tune with the times. I feel sure the minister will follow that suggestion.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, before the minister replies, I wish to indicate my interest in the appointment of new judges. I ask the minister if all the vacancies in New Brunswick have been filled. If not, when does the minister expect to fill any vacancies that exist?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak further on the bill because I spoke at length on second reading and in committee. In answer to the hon. member's question, I am searching for the best possible replacement for the Court of Appeal vacancy in New Brunswick.


Thomas Miller Bell: There are a lot of people who are anxiously waiting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: that Bill C-208, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, being a Minister of Consumer Affairs has its advantages and disadvantages. Today, one is conscious of the advantages, because it is with a great deal of personal pride and happiness that I introduce this bill and urge hon. members to support it. The bill seeks to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, and the proposed changes as outlined are intended to remedy a defect in the existing law which has created a serious injustice for many consumers. The difficulty arises from the application of rules originally applied to dealings between merchants in connection with consumer credit transactions. Merchants who deal with promissory notes and similar negotiable instruments are supposed to be completely aware of their significance. People in the commercial world are, I believe, conscious of the obligations they assume when

signing a promissory note, but the same cannot be said of the great bulk of ordinary consumers who are often not fully aware of the legal obligations they are assuming when they sign promissory notes which are collateral to conditional sales contracts.
It is standard practice for vendors to assign such promissory notes to third parties, usually finance companies or banks. If the assignee of the note qualifies as a holder, in due course under the conditions laid down in the Bills of Exchange Act he is legally entitled to collect on the note without regard to any disputes that might arise between the buyer and the seller. Performance of the sales contract may be unsatisfactory for many different reasons. The most flagrant case is non-delivery. In other cases the goods may have been misrepresented or may be defective. Sometimes the sales contract calls for the provision of services which the vendor does not perform. It is not uncommon for the vendor to become bankrupt and fail to fulfil his part of the contract for this reason. In such cases the purchaser does not escape his obligation to pay the finance company or other third party which is holding his note. The holder, in due course, is by law insulated from any defects in the performance of the contract and can enforce payment through the courts. Most consumers do not fully understand the process of assigning promissory notes. Some of them believe they can force a vendor to perform properly on a contract by withholding their periodic payments. The finance companies may express sympathy with the difficulties of the buyer and often do, but it is ultimately made clear to the victimized consumer that this solution is not open to him. It is a regrettable fact that unscrupulous and fly-bynight operators have taken advantage of the holder in due course doctrine.
In discussing laws relating to credit or bills of exchange it is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that all credit is wrong and that all those engaged in the credit industry are bad. This is not true. The wise use of credit allows many of us to own things which we otherwise could not possess, and to live better than would otherwise be possible. That is the wise use of credit. There are companies in the industry which are fully conscious of the responsibilities they bear in allowing credit and helping people to use that credit prudently. It is also true, unfortunately, that there are some elements in the industry which are not as responsible as those I have mentioned. Glib and persuasive salesmen, often operating
May 1. 1970

May 1, 1970
Bills of Exchange Act
not the complete answer to faulty performance on time payment contracts. I want to emphasize that it is not the complete answer, and that we. should pass this legislation in full knowledge of that fact. It will be of great value, but the action we are proposing to take today needs to be supplemented by remedial action by the provincial legislatures. This is because a conditional sales contract itself may contain, and often does contain, many clauses which impair the right of the consumer or the purchaser under the contract. Since the regulation of contracts is clearly under provincial jurisdiction, co-operative action by the provinces is essential if the effect of Bill C-208 is to be as complete as all of us would like it to be.
There is a standard clause in most conditional sales contracts in which the purchaser binds himself not to raise any defences against an assignee of a promissory note. This is another technique designed to isolate the finance companies from any arguments about the quality of the goods or performance under the sales contract. Similarly, there are the so-called disclaimer clauses by which the purchaser waives any common law protection he might have relative to the fitness of the goods. This means that the guarantees and warranties in the contract, which are usually limiting, replace any other legal rights of the consumer respecting the quality and performance of the goods he buys.
There have been extensive discussions between the federal and the provincial governments on this range of issues. The federal-provincial conference of officials on consumer affairs in October, 1968 explored the problem in detail and concluded that remedial action was highly desirable. The matter was again discussed at the later federal-provincial conference of ministers on consumer affairs which I hosted in Ottawa in April, 1969 and informal discussions have been carried on with the provinces since that time.
I have been confidentially advised that some provinces have already developed detailed proposals to support the federal initiative that we are taking today. The Bills of Exchange Act, as it now stands, discourages the introduction of reforms by the provincial legislatures. There is little point in changing the provincial laws relating to contracts if the changes can be frustrated, as they are, by the holder in due course provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act.
The changes proposed in the present amendment, Bill C-208, are overdue and I am
IMr. Basford.]
confident that if they are achieved, supporting action will be taken by the provinces. This will pave the way to offering consumers in general more meaningful guarantees and warranties and the kind of protection under the various sales of goods acts and conditional sales acts of the provinces which they have been denied for so long.
When this Bill C-208 is passed by this Parliament and becomes law, the door is open to all the provinces to reform or, revise completely their laws relating to the sale of consumer goods, their sales of goods acts and their conditional sales acts. I hope, as I am sure all hon. members of the House hope, that when this bill is passed, the provinces will take advantage of that doorway, will go through it and revise their legislation applying to consumer purchases.
The Bills of Exchange Act is a formidable piece of legislation which constitutes part of the fundamental law of the country and we are making a fundamental amendment in the law. Any amendment to it must, therefore, be carefully formulated in order to avoid unintended effects on the law respecting negotiable instruments in general.
The amendment today is confined to promissory notes and bills of exchange "issued in respect of a consumer purchase" and by definition does not apply to business transactions-those transactions between traders as a matter of trade. Although a cheque is a bill of exchange, cheques and near-cheques-nearcheques are those issued by trust companies and certain savings associations-are only covered by the amendment if they are postdated by more than 30 days. The inclusion of post-dated cheques and other bills of exchange is designed to prevent the evasion of the intent of the amendment by the substitution of these instruments-cheques or postdated cheques-for promissory notes.
The first substantive provision of the amendment is that consumer bills and notes shall be prominently and legibly marked with the words "consumer purchase" on their face. If this is not done, if the notes are not marked in this way, the note or bill or post-dated cheque becomes void except under special circumstances where the holder is a holder in due course without notice. In addition, it is an offence to transfer such an instrument if its character is known; that is to say, if its character of being a consumer note or a consumer purchase is known to the transferer.
The second and main feature of the amendment is that the right of a holder of a con-
May 1. 1970

sumer bill or note to collect is subject to any defence or right of set-off that the purchaser would have had in an action by the seller. In other words, the equities in the original transaction between the vendor and the purchaser travel with the note and a finance company or subsequent assignee will not be able to claim the special status it has hitherto had. The purchaser will be able to raise, on an action or collection of the note, all the defences against the assignee that he could have raised against the original vendor.
One almost certain consequence of the amendment is that finance companies and others buying promissory notes will have, in order to protect themselves, to exercise greater care that the sellers from whom they are receiving the notes are not engaged in any fraudulent or shady operations. This is, to me, a very healthy development in the law. The new rules will make it more difficult for the "gyp" artist and irresponsible sellers to operate.
It has become a commonplace observation that credit has become a way of life. The growth in the volume of consumer credit since the Second World War has been explosive and is involving an increasingly higher proportion of the population. Many innovations have been introduced in the consumer credit field and the law must be as innovative as the practices in the consumer credit industry. We cannot expect consumers to be fairly treated in the last half of the 20th century if we rely on laws and legal concepts which are outmoded and in some cases irrelevant. I would hope that this bill will receive the enthusiastic support of the members of this House so that it can become the law of the land and provide relief and rights to consumers that they have not had up until now. I would also hope that it will pass and become law, certainly by the end of June.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we find very little to criticize in the principle of the amendment before us. I heard with interest the minister's speech which was an enlargement of the statement he made on April 27 following the introduction of the bill. I do not doubt the minister's tremendous interest in protecting the consumers of this country, but he certainly must be complimented on the tremendous public relations division he has set up within his department. If not every other day, certainly not a week goes by without a most interesting
Bills of Exchange Act
statement appearing across our desks from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford).


Stanley Ronald Basford: I want to keep you informed.


James Aloysius McGrath: If it is not a policy statement from Vancouver, it is a statement explaining the introduction of a bill before the debate has commenced. My point is that the minister would be better advised to make his statement to the House of Commons first, and use this House as a vehicle for making his statement to the public, especially when he makes a statement following first reading of a bill before the House has had an opportunity to debate it. We are concerned about the tendency of this government to erode, by this device, the traditional rights of Parliament.
In his statement on April 27 the minister said, and he repeated it here today, that the change in the law follows the recommendations made by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Consumer Credit, the Consumers Association of Canada, the Canadian Consumers Council, various authorities responsible for consumer credit legislation and various experts on consumer law. I am amazed that the minister did not give credit to the members of this House who during the past years have introduced bills on this very subject. As a matter of fact, it was as a consequence of these private members' bills that the government of the day in 1966 referred this subject to a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons which was then established with the minister as co-chairman. Although I was not in this place at that time, I read these bills with a great deal of interest. I read with interest the bill of the hon. member for Essex South. I understand that this was one of the important planks in his election campaign during that year.
I think of the bill presented to this House by the honourable and distinguished member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) in the same year when he came here as an eager and enthusiastic supporter of the Liberal government. I think also of the bill presented by my colleague in the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). These are three bills which come to my mind, but I believe there were a half dozen at that time dealing with this subject. All these bills were referred to the Special Joint Committee on Consumer Credit when the minister was co-chairman of that committee. I find it strange that the minister did not give any

May 1, 1970
Bills of Exchange Act
credit to these hon. members for their interest in the consumer market before the government showed any interest.
But, Mr. Speaker, this brings up the whole subject of private members' bills and their future in Parliament. I believe it is about time, in setting up its rules, the House of Commons took a long hard look at the matter of private members' bills and the rules that govern them as well as the frustration of a private member, such as the then member for Essex South, who, in compliance with a promise to his electorate, introduced a private member's bill to do the very thing the minister is now doing. He found, however, his enthusiasm was dampened by the whip who mustered up all the government backbenchers he could get to talk out that particular bill. That is a deplorable practice, Mr. Speaker, which has evolved in this House and is one which I think should be changed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: If the bill of the hon. member for Essex South, the bill of the hon. member for Timiskaming or the bill of the hon. member for Spadina had been accepted, we would have had this legislation on the books at least six years ago. So, as 1 say, we should end the practice of talking out private members' bills. I say we should do this because I think it is a practice which is not in keeping with present-day Parliament and what the people of Canada expect from their Members of Parliament. The government may expect us to merely rubber stamp everything it chooses to bring in, but governments are not infallible. This government certainly is not infallible. This government probably will And that its most serious error in judgment is its failure to recognize the rights of Members of Parliament to contribute to the laws of this country by bringing in private members' bills.


Mr. Gibson:: It is getting better.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member who interjects from his seat is probably one of the members who has been thoroughly hurt by this practice and probably, as a consequence of being hurt, has become a little cynical. This is a great pity, because I know the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) came here with good intentions and full of enthusiasm. Certainly, he did not expect his own party to sabotage all his efforts to make a contribution in this House and to the laws of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: This is also a great pity because I am sure if the government would allow the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth to do so he would probably make quite a considerable contribution; but with this government he will never have that opportunity.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
The minister referred to the report of the committee of which he was co-chairman, the committee on consumer credit. This should be his Bible. Perhaps when it is convenient he quotes from it, as he has done today. But on other occasions I am sure that this document must come back to haunt him. However, in using the recommendations of this committee as his terms of reference for introducing this amendment, the minister forgets to tell us why it took three years to carry out this unanimous recommendation of the committee.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not get the mantle immediately upon the establishment of this department, although he thought he would. He had to wait on the bleachers for a while. On looking through the records I find that during the course of the discussion of the legislation setting up the Department the minister's predecessor, who now holds the portfolio of Minister of Justice, said that the government already had many pieces of legislation in the hopper, waiting to present to parliament, and all in the area of consumer protection. Mr. Speaker, we have not seen them.
First of all, the then minister had to take some considerable time setting up the department under the new act. But notwithstanding the fact that he then referred to the presence of galling injustices against consumers, injustices so prevalent across the nation that they required immediate attention, it has taken all this time to bring in these amendments.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Now, now.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) could more usefully consume his time by going out and selling some of our surplus wheat.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Then, you would accuse me of not being present in the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the minister has the wheat situation in hand he could take a look at the Grand Banks of Newfoundland where there are loads of fish waiting to be sold.
May 1, 1970


Jean-Luc Pepin: They are selling very well.


James Aloysius McGrath: Another recommendation
which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs may rediscover one of these days deals with another injustice which the minister knows about, and upon which the committee heard evidence. It concerns the provision of low interest loans to families on low income, and it might be worth while to quote this particular recommendation. It is recommendation No. 3 and appears at page 4 of the report:
In order to prevent low-income families from becoming mired in debts from which they can never hope to extricate themselves, we recommend that the federal government make available, through the regular banking system, guaranteed consumer loans under specified conditions to all with annual family incomes of $4,000 or less. The loans would be repayable over an extended period, and would bear a low rate of interest. They would be made only for provident and productive purposes related to the preservation of home and family. The maximum size of such a loan would be $1,500.
That is a very good recommendation. We are wondering when the minister will get around to convincing his cabinet colleagues to implement it.
The recommendation on which the amendment before us is based, is No. 6. But, Mr. Speaker, there is another recommendation which I think the House would be interested in noting. It is one dealing with the practice known as captive sales financing, and I think the record should show what the committee recommended in this regard. It is recommendation No. 5, and I quote:
We are concerned about the practice known as "captive sales financing," which is common in the merchandising of consumer durable goods, particularly in the sale of motor cars. Parliament has expressed, in the Combines Investigation Act, its desire to encourage the regulation of industry by free competition. However, the act does not at present apply generally in respect of service industries. The committee recommends that the scope of the legislation be enlarged, so as to ensure that such free competition will obtain, at least in the sales finance industry, by providing for the regulation of the so-called "captive sales financing"; that is, of the operations in that field of manufacturers, distributors, dealers and others not principally engaged in sales finance.
That is an excellent recommendation. I am sure the minister is prepared to endorse it today, and hopefully he will tell us why the government has not seen fit to carry it out, because abuses across the country are prevalent. As a consumer, why should I be obliged, because I buy a car from a dealer of one of the big three, to go to a finance company owned by the same automobile company?
Bills of Exchange Act


Stanley Ronald Basford: You should not.


James Aloysius McGrath: Of course, I should not be, but why does the minister not bring in legislation to do something about it? Why shouldn't I, as a consumer, have the right to go and make the best financing deal I can make?


Stanley Ronald Basford: You should.


James Aloysius McGrath: Such a provision would not weaken the sales finance industry; it would strengthen it. The sales finance industry, if it continues with this particular type of abuse against the rights of consumers, should be regulated according to the provisions of recommendation No. 5.
There are other recommendations in this report to which I would like to refer. Again, I would recommend that members of the House read this very interesting bible, this very interesting document, which in many ways could be called the bill of rights of the consumers of this country. If one reads it one suddenly realizes that the interests of the minister, when he was chairman of the committee, were totally different from the interests he now displays as a minister of the Crown. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a question of privilege before the House adjourns, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to do this formally during the last hour, but now I want to draw Your Honour's attention to a situation which shows the very serious direction in which this House is heading. I did not draw attention to it earlier in order that the House might not rise in the middle of this important debate, but I wish to point out that there have been as few as nine members present in the chamber during the last hour, and most of that time there were only 12 members present-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would point out that this is not a question of privilege. At any time during our proceedings the hon. member was at liberty to draw my attention to the lack of a quorum of the House. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
James Aloysius McGrath: The minister made reference
during his speech to the fact that the effectiveness of this legislation would be dependent to

May 1, 1970
Bills of Exchange Act
a large extent on action being taken by the provinces to bring in complementary legislation to deal with their area of jurisdiction. Under the constitutional provision concerning property and civil rights, they would have the jurisdiction over sales contracts and so on. This points up what we believe to be one of the major weaknesses of the minister's department, namely, the areas of constitutional conflict. In order for the minister to be totally effective in the area of consumer protection, it would be necessary for him to have powers that one could only have in a unitary state. But we do not live in a unitary state. Under our federal system and under our constitution, our provinces also have rights and responsibilities.
This amendment certainly is not something new; it has been talked about at least since 1963 and has been considered at least since 1967 when the joint committee made it's report. We are wondering if the Minister would take some initiative to get agreement from the provinces to bring in the necessary complementary legislation to make the amendments to this particular federal statute, the Bills of Exchange Act, totally effective. For example, we would have expected that the minister would come to the House, during the course of the second reading of this bill, and tell us that he had obtained agreement from the provinces or, at the very least, that he had had consultations with the provincial governments and could tell us what hope there would be for obtaining some type of agreement with the provinces to bring in the necessary provincial legislation. But apparently that is not the case because the minister made no reference to it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I did so.


James Aloysius McGrath: But the minister did not indicate that agreement had been reached. He merely expressed what I would call a pious hope that once the amendments before the House were passed the provinces would act. I do not think that is good enough.
One other thing about the legislation that disturbs us is the fact that before the amendments can go into force they would first of all have to be proclaimed in the Canada Gazette, and there is no indication when the proclamation will take place. We feel the House is entitled to know when the legislation is to be effective. For example, the Bankruptcy Act, for which the minister is responsible, contains a provision similar in nature to the amendment to the Bills of Exchange Act we are now considering. The Bankruptcy Act [Mr. McGrath.1
Amendment was passed in 1966 and is in the Statutes of Canada, 1966-67, chapter 32. Section 22 was amended, and it was a very important amendment. It provided for the orderly repayment of debts and made provision to protect consumers from the hazards of bankruptcy and all that go with it.
My point in bringing this out is the fact that this legislation has not been proclaimed to date.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It has.


James Aloysius McGrath: I was under the impression that it had not, but the minister corrects me. However, certainly the necessary concomitant proclamations have not taken place in the provinces.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I value the hon. member's comments very highly, and if I might just explain the situation with his permission, I believe his intervention will be even more valuable. Part X of the Bankruptcy Act is only proclaimed in those provinces which request it. It has been proclaimed in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Nova Scotia. The other provinces have not requested its proclamation.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has set the record straight because he has bolstered my argument which questions the effectiveness of the legislation before us. The amendments to the Bankruptcy Act, passed by Parliament in 1966 and now included in the statute books, are only effective in four of the ten provinces. That means that Canadians in the other six provinces do not enjoy the protection Parliament meant all Canadians to have when it passed this particular amendment to the Bankruptcy Act providing for the orderly repayment of debts in the case of people who find themselves facing the rather unpleasant consequences of bankruptcy.
The same argument could be applied with the same force to this legislation, because the act will not come into effect until it is proclaimed. In addition, there is a jurisdictional problem. For this legislation to be totally effective, and we want it to be because everyone in this house is interested in protecting the rights of consumers, especially those consumers in the lower income brackets who are usually preyed upon by those unscrupulous operators, complementary legislation must be introduced by the provinces; otherwise,
May 1. 1970

Canadians will not enjoy the full protection of the legislation. We should like to hear the minister's assurance that the government intends to bring this legislation into force and that the act will be proclaimed.
In conclusion, sir, the minister said this legislation will protect consumers from unscrupulous operators who would prey on them. These operators usually take the form of door-to-door solicitors who prey upon unsuspecting housewives in the lower income brackets, generally speaking, or upon old age pensioners and those who really cannot protect themselves because of educational handicaps or other circumstances beyond their control. The minister referred to an incident involving a lightning rod salesman. We must protect our people from these successors of the lightning rod salesman, the peddlers of magazines, encyclopedias, roofing, aluminum windows and roof repair jobs-in short, the peddlers of those things which can be bought legitimately on the open market at competitive prices. We know the consequences of some of those promotions. Hon. members and the minister may remember the knitting machine operation which swept through Ottawa in 1968 and affected some 300 innocent consumers. If the minister does not remember it, I will send the necessary materials over and remind him.
I will not take up the time of the House in going over the details now. It is from such operators as these that our consumers must be protected. In that regard, we hope this legislation will be effective. We hope the minister will explain to the House why he is not prepared immediately to implement the amendments to the act before Parliament upon their passage through the House and the other place. I think the House deserves to know when the government proposes to proclaim the legislation, because the need for it is greater now than it was in 1967 when the minister, in his capacity as co-chairman of the joint committee on consumer credit, brought in the recommendation in the first instance. We hope it will not take another three years before the legislation is implemented.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, there is always a temptation when a long overdue measure is introduced to praise the minister for bringing it forward. However, I will try to resist that temptation and control myself.


An hon. Member:: Better call a doctor.
Bills of Exchange Act


Max Saltsman: May 1, 1970
Bills of Exchange Act
have been implemented many years ago. As usual we are about 20 years behind. I hope this measure will get speedy passage through the committee and that other issues connected with consumer credit will not take as long to resolve.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I believe this measure goes a long way toward correcting many of the abuses which have taken place in the area covered by the legislation. For many years, now, there has been evidence of serious problems encountered particularly by those in low income groups in connection with the signing of promissory notes and contracts. In some cases the goods were not delivered, or were delivered too late, or were found to be defective. Then, the finance companies moved in like vultures to collect the amounts due on the notes and contracts.
I would call the attention of hon. members to the reference to section 190 in clause 2 of the bill:
Every one who, knowing that an instrument, other than an instrument described in paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (1) of section 189, has been, is being or is to be issued in respect of a consumer purchase, obtains the signature of the purchaser or of any one signing to accommodate the purchaser to such instrument without its being or having been marked as required by section 190 is guilty of
(a)	an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars; or
(b)	an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.
That provision enforcing the consumer credit aspect of these notes is most praiseworthy, in my opinion, and it will add a great deal of uniformity to the law on sales throughout Canada, particularly sales of such goods as refrigerators, automobiles and other consumer goods sold today on a time basis.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said the government had delayed taking action. Mr. Speaker, over the last three or four years there have been several conferences between the provinces to try to speed up the laws in their provinces relating to conditional sales and I am advised the provinces have come close to an agreement with regard to the standardization of many of their requirements. In the meantime, the time has come for Parliament to move on to clean up this aspect of our statutes and I hope the action taken will prove most beneficial to the Canadian people.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, the news
[Mr. Saltsman J
release from the minister's department respecting Bill C-208 is headed "Bills of Exchange Act-Amendment to Aid Victimized Consumers." The amendment is designed to stop abuses of promissory notes by unscrupulous or irresponsible sellers. At the moment, I am neither a seller, responsible or otherwise, nor am I a consumer; I suppose I am a consumer, but I do not regard myself as one who has been victimized.
Having had considerable experience in the appliance sales field for a number of years- ten or a dozen years-I can say that I wrote thousands of consumer sales contracts. I am not now associated in any way with that kind of business or with any finance company. Neither do I presume to be the champion of finance companies, as the minister presumes to be the champion of the consumer. That is not my point at all. But I do feel that in a responsible Parliament we cannot have certain images created-perhaps not deliberately created-without somebody saying something about it.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
First of all, let me say I have written thousands of contracts. I come from the province of Newfoundland, and according to the current rash of Newfie jokes we are not supposed to be the most understanding people in the world. But I have yet to remember a purchaser coming back to my dealership and saying that he did not know that his purchase was financed through a finance company. I say that with honesty, and I have a good memory for such things. I remember the first appliance that I sold 15 years ago, and I could name almost every one sold subsequent to that, so the House can see that I know what I am talking about. I cannot remember one single person coming back to me and saying he did not know he had purchased one of these appliances through a finance company.
In his statement this morning the minister said that one of the most flagrant abuses was non-delivery, and I should like to comment on that. Before the noon adjournment I checked, to confirm my own memory, with one of the prominent finance companies that take nonrecourse paper, and they confirmed that 98 per cent of the deals that they accept acknowledge delivery of the merchandise by telephone before they issue the cheque to the dealer. The real point that I want to make is that the relatively new Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is one of the most necessary departments of which I know.
May 1, 1970



I attach prime importance to it, more so than any other department of government. But when we see headlines dealing with amendments to bills of exchange acts to "aid the victimized consumer", and "Basford steps up war on false ads", and so on, then in view of the wide scope of the minister's department I can only describe this sort of thing as nit-picking.
From what I have seen of the operations of this department so far, the real abuses against the consumer have not yet been recognized, and I do not know the reason for this.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The provinces have the
jurisdiction.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I am not making a political speech. I realize there are a heck of a lot more consumers than there are dealers and finance companies. Perhaps this is why this legislation might be of great appeal to consumers. But let us stop for a moment and wonder whether we are not being a little irresponsible so far as the minorities in this question are concerned.
Finance companies in this country are generally regarded as responsible business corporations. 1 think the big majority of dealers are regarded as responsible people. If, in making laws to cope with the occasional fly-by-night operator we are going to make every finance company that takes non-recourse paper become a service station, then I do not think we are being responsible. The business of a finance company is money, the same as the business of a car dealer is selling cars. If all the responsible finance companies in the country have to devote their office time to dealing with service problems, then I say it is a case of the tail wagging the horse and I do not agree with it.
I agree with the principle of this bill. I agree that the consumer needs protection against unscrupulous sellers. But for God's sake, let us put the onus where it belongs and tighten up the law regarding people who get licences to sell instead of turning the office of every finance company in the country into a service station. Perhaps we can provide better guarantees. Perhaps the law should provide that a merchant who sells a refrigerator should issue a more legally drawn guarantee. Let the buyer go to the dealer and, by taking legal action if necessary, work out his problem with him. But let us not inflict this sort of law on people in the money business, any
Bills of Exchange Act
more than we inflict the money business on people in the appliance business. Let us be fair about this.
I do not think the minister is naive enough to think that he can legislate the old warning "caveat emptor" out of existence. If so, he has another think coming. Since human beings being what they are, caveat emptor will always be a very important warning for people to observe.
This is my only point, Mr. Speaker. I think this bill should be studied, and studied very carefully. As I say, I am not the champion of the finance companies. If I had been around on the day they were given legal licence to operate, I would probably have refused them the breath of life. But since they are legally in existence, let us not, for political purposes or otherwise, use them as a whipping boy.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this bill before us today and should like to make some brief comments on it.
It is not often one gets a chance to toot one's own horn, but I introduced a similar proposal in 1963 in response to an individual series of problems that had arisen in my own riding. Somebody said that northern Ontario is a very gullible market, that the people there can be sold almost anything. They are very trusting people and not used to shysters who come in from southern Ontario and take advantage of their trusting nature. I presume the same is true in Newfoundland and in other parts of the country.
My colleague from Toronto says, "'Who are they?"


David Lewis: I must correct the hon. member; he misheard me. I merely said I would get out of his way.


William Arnold Peters: What prompted my interest in this matter in northern Ontario, though not in a financial way, was the knitting machine operation. There was nothing much wrong with the knitting machines, but it was a little like going to a circus where you see a man or a woman with a very small knife making all kinds of fancy doo-dads out of radishes, carrots and so on. This little device sells for about 25 cents, and the first thing that happens when your wife gets it home is that she cuts her finger. The knitting machines were somewhat in that class, but they carried another problem. The company selling the knitting machines said that it would also sell

May 1. 1970
Bills of Exchange Act
the proper type of yarn to be used and that in return for the person buying the machine it would guarantee to take all the knitted products. If the person made 10 pairs of socks per week, the company would take that amount or as many as the person made.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The machine salesman immediately went back to Toronto. The finance company was one door down from his office. He transferred the promissory note to the finance company and as soon as the going became hot and heavy he went into bankruptcy. That was the end of that. The bankruptcy helped him in two ways. He did not have to pay the manufacturer for the machines which had been delivered and, secondly, he owned the finance company two doors down from his operation. Both were shysters and both went out of operation in a matter of months. There are names. I investigated them. I know some of the operations which changed hands five or six times without anything happening.
The minister is well aware of the inadequacy of the Bankruptcy Act of Canada. In passing this piece of legislation what we are really doing is stamping on the promissory note something to the effect that if a person buys this promissory note or piece of paper then he has the responsibility of the original contract. In other words, if the car was guaranteed for two months then the person who buys the promissory note will have to carry a guarantee for two months. The responsibility will be carried over. I know it is not quite that simple, but it means that a person can go to court and have redress against the purchaser of the promissory note. Then, there is the case which the minister mentioned this morning of a person buying $4,500 worth of building supplies, being taken to court and having to pay the $4,500 even though he did not receive the building supplies. He still has not received them and probably will not. So, this principle is very simple.
The Department of Justice of Canada, like many other departments, has people who get carried away with paper work. We have some of these people even in our parties. However, in the Department of Justice, the intention should be to produce in terms of effectiveness rather than in terms of volume. I notice that this bill is almost twice the size of the bill I produced which originated from an act that was passed in 1884, the original act for the prevention of fraud. The basis of the bill the minister is introducing is exactly the same as my bill with more verbiage.
fMr. Peters.]


An hon. Member:: More input.


William Arnold Peters: More input, yes, and not much more output. There is in this bill one particular clause which was not in the bill I introduced because I was interested in the transferring of promissory notes. The minister has introduced a new proposition which I am certainly prepared to support because I believe it is an excellent idea. I did not include it because I did not think of it.
The minister has introduced the additional provision concerning post-dated cheques and the closeness of association there may be between trust companies and others who issue pseudo-cheques and who are involved in the post-dating of cheques. This I believe is valuable because the shysters who are involved in this field will obviously go through this legislation with a fine tooth comb. They will hire the best possible lawyers in this field whose only job will be to find a loophole.
The one point I should like to leave with Members of Parliament who have a direct relationship with their constituents is something with which the officials of the Department of Justice and other departments often are not fully familiar. It seems to me that when a Member of Parliament has a good idea some consideration should be given to that idea. I congratulate the minister for having taken the action he has in this case, but I suggest to him that if he would look at the Order Paper he would find a number of bills containing significant recommendations. I do not believe any private member would disagree with me when I say that the ideas put forward in the form of private members' bills are perhaps in a rough form which could be improved upon, as I believe this piece of legislation has improved upon mine.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has said that he gets some of his ideas from Box 99. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker that I hope these ideas are better than some of the ideas given to the minister from some of the civil servants. If the minister would deal with his own correspondence he would find that the problem of Mrs. Jones might contain a lot more useful information than the problems he finds in Box 99 to which one of his executive officials gives attention. I hope the government, in adopting this bill which was first introduced seven years ago in the form of private members' bills, will have the minister and some of his executives sit down and look at some of those private members'
May 1, 1970



bills. A number of these bills were considered by the committee of which the minister was joint chairman and I believe they led to this legislation. I believe this particular bill will affect the welfare and peace of mind of more Canadians than will much of the legislation which will be adopted in this Parliament. So, I suggest this is very worth-while and overdue legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is there a disposition on the part of hon. members that before the House proceeds to the consideration of the motion under Standing Order 26 the question be put?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the House would be disposed to give the minister a few minutes to reply to some of the arguments raised.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Thank you, very much. I am particularly grateful to the member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for his suggestion. I should like to acknowledge particularly his very fine contribution to the debate which I thought to be a very well-prepared and thoughtful discussion of the issues raised by this bill. If, however, he is unable to resolve his difference of views with the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle), I would be delighted to mediate although I believe I would vote on the side of the hon. member for St. John's East who seemed to support the bill more forcefully than his colleague.
The hon. member for St. John's East has raised a number of points as have other speakers, namely, the recommendations made other than by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on consumer credit and consumer matters. All those recommendations are being considered by the department. The hon. member for St. John's East has referred to this as a sort of consumers' bible. That is the way I regard it also, Mr. Speaker. Being the author of the report, and referring to it as a bible, I do not know quite where that leaves me. However, unlike the premier from British Columbia, I do not claim to be plugged in to God.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to being another Moses.
Bills of Exchange Act


Stanley Ronald Basford: But I do regard it as a bible. We are, for example, working on all the recommendations of that report regarding packaging and labelling and I am working on legislation which I hope to introduce shortly. We are reviewing the whole system of nomenclature of grades and standards, which is recommended in that report. We have before the House legislation dealing with the corporate disclosure of private companies of economic significance, which is recommended in the report. All of those recommendations are receiving very careful study by the department.
With regard to the matter of the captive sales finance companies, which the hon. member raised, I have indicated and made it very clear that we are, following the receipt of the report of the Economic Council of Canada, revising the Combines Act as quickly as we can. I have said publicly that I see no logical reason why services should be excluded from the application of a revised Combines Act.
With regard to discussions with provincial governments, a point which a number of hon. members raised, I did indicate that this matter has been discussed at a federal-provincial meeting of officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and also a federal-provincial meeting of ministers of consumer affairs. At that time I undertook to introduce this legislation, and subsequently have had indication from a number of provinces that they intend to take the complementary action that is really required with this legislation. They, of course, must be left to state their own position. I cannot state it for them. But I am assured in very firm terms that a number of provinces will. I think it would have been a mistake, however, as seemed to be the hon. member's suggestion, that I should have waited until I had agreement from all ten provinces before acting. I think we have assurances from some that they will act, and we will proceed.
With regard to part X of the Bankruptcy Act, it is being revised, and I will have an important announcement to make on this matter, hopefully next week.
The matters raised by hon. members are very much on our mind, and I hope the announcement I have to make next week will clear up many of the difficulties.
With regard to proclamation of the bill, we hope that it will be proclaimed immediately
6488	COMMONS
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia following royal assent. Of course I have no control over how quickly the bill will go through Parliament.
I want to thank hon. members for their contribution and for their support of this bill which causes a fundamental revision or change in some aspects of our consumer credit laws, and I hope that the support that was indicated today will assure a speedy passage of the bill through the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

David Lewis: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, some years ago the American Professor Hans J. Morgenthau made the following statement in the opening words of an article on Viet Nam:
It illuminates the many misunderstandings that beset our Viet Nam policy that in order to criticize that policy in public one has first to justify one's right to do so.
This seems also to be the case in this House, judging from some of the reactions of some of the hon. members to my party's position on this matter. I want to make it clear from the outset that I do not intend to apologize for our position. We are and have always been opposed to the U.S. war in Viet Nam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: We believe and we have always believed that the U.S. forces had no right to go there in the first place, that it is a war which is legally and morally indefensible, that it is a war which has helped the spread of Communism in Asia, that it has achieved nothing either for the United States or for the world, whilst devastating an entire people.
It is said that because we are friends with the United States and because of our special relations with that country we ought to be soft in what we say about any policy of the

DEBATES	May 1, 1970
U.S. administration. In my opinion the opposite is the case. It is precisely because we have special relations of friendship and association with the U.S.A. and because we have such things as the defence sharing agreement with them under which we produce at least some of the armament which is used in Viet Nam, that we have a special responsibility to watch the developing situation and to speak out about it without hesitation and without using weasel words.
Some hon. members keep chiding us of the New Democratic Party that we do not condemn the North Vietnamese, China or the Soviet Union. Anyone who says that is quite wrong. We do. We have no illusions-and I have looked up a speech on the subject of Viet Nam which I made in 1966 and in which I said exactly the same thing, and so has my leader on many occasions-about the long range policies and objectives of world communism. We are agreed that there is need to find proper, effective and peaceful means to counteract the possible appeal of the communists to the hungry and desperate peoples of the underdeveloped world.
But we do not agree that the U.S. policy has served this purpose. On the contrary, I am convinced that the U.S. war in Viet Nam has been a magnet to Communism throughout that area. I agree with what Senator Ful-bright said in a recent article in the New Republic of April 18, and I will quote this important passage.
He said:
They cannot-
The Communists.
-drive us out of Indo-China, but they can force upon us the choice of either plunging in altogether or getting out altogether.
It is this choice that the Nixon Administration has thus far refused to make.
He might have added "the Johnson administration before it".
"Myth" is a mild word for madness on so grand a scale. Not only has the rationale for Viet Nam proved unfounded; it has shown itself to be disastrously mistaken. Instead of deterring Communist intervention in Southeast Asia, American military involvement has turned out to be a powerful magnet for it.
I think Senator Fulbright is right in every word that he stated in that short article. It is for this reason, precisely because in our view the American policy assists Communism in the underdeveloped world, that, in addition to our opposition to the war on general principles, we believe Canada must speak out against the recent action.
May 1, 1970	COMMONS
I also agree with the obvious validity of a statement in the New York Times editorial of last Monday where the following statement was made:
Military victory in Indo-China has always been a mirage, receding as rapidly as it is pursued. Lyndon Johnson learned that to his sorrow, and it inconceivable that President Nixon would set off at this late date on a similar chase.
It may have been inconceivable to the editorial writer of the New York Times but it is now a fact that that is precisely the course on which the American administration has embarked in Southeast Asia. May I remind the House that when this editorial was written the New York Times was dealing merely with the suggestion that America ship arms to Cambodia. Now, we are faced with an actual invasion of that country. Yet, the President of the U.S. has gone to dangerous extremes through the action of his forces. He has entered on a massive escalation of the war, the end of which cannot be foreseen. He threatens the peace of the world by that action, and it is important that this parliament and this government say so in no uncertain terms.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The fact is that in the present situation the same thing has happened as in the past, except that it happened in a matter of days rather than months. Hon. members will recall that there were originally a few hundred United States military advisers in South Viet Nam. Their numbers were later increased by President Kennedy to 15,000. Then a small army was sent to do the actual fighting. In the debate in 1966, to which I referred, it was reported that, in 1966, there were about 200,000 American soldiers, airmen and marines there. Now, we are speaking of between 400,000 and 500,000 troops despite recent withdrawals. In the present case we heard on April 28, a few days ago, reports that the United States had supplied communications equipment to the South Vietnamese for their entry into Cambodia. We heard on April 30 the reports of advisers and the engagement of United States aircraft; and on May 1 we heard of United States ground troops being in Cambodia.
This action, Mr. Speaker, has produced an outcry of dismay and opposition in the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Those in this chamber who accuse members of the New Democratic Party of all sorts of things because of our outcry, dismay and opposition at this action had better remember
DEBATES	6489
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia that almost unanimously the foreign relations committee of the United States Senate has condemned the action of the president and that there are millions of people in the United States of America who are dismayed and opposed to what the president announced last night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it will be of great assistance to those millions of Americans and to people of the world opposed to this immoral war if we as a neighbour and friend of the powerful nation to the south of us have the wisdom and courage to join with those voices that are opposed to this policy. United States Senator Frank Church is reported to have said, "This is just a first step of a new set of obligations. It can only lead to a deeper mess and to the borders of China." It is this kind of wisdom that we ought to express through the mouths of our minister and Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This is not merely an action confined to Cambodia; it threatens the peace of the world, because the war is being escalated.
Let us be clear about one point. In the case of the American intrusion into South Viet Nam, the administration peddled the myth, and it was a myth, that the United States was invited by the government of South Viet Nam. That was the government which the United States administration had set up in South Viet Nam and it was therefore a selfinduced invitation. But the government of Cambodia, a government which it is suspected United States authorities were instrumental in setting up, had not the slightest knowledge of American intentions or American action. According to reports I have received, General Lon Nol, the Prime Minister of Cambodia, had no advance warning of the action; that he had just heard of the operation through the press; and that he knew nothing of the American strike until informed by the U.S. Charge d'Affaires, Lloyd M. Rives, after President Nixon's speech. Please note, Mr. Speaker, that here is a country which has been invaded by the most powerful nation in the world; and not only did it net ask for the American action, but it was not informed about it until President Nixon announced it last night over the radio and television to the American people and the people of the world.
There is no excuse for what the Americans have done now. There is no possible suggestion that they were invited by Cambodia. I say without any qualification that the Ameri-
May 1, 1970

U.S. Invasion of Cambodia can action is a straight invasion of Cambodian territory without any information having been given to the government or people of that country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Of course it is true that the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong had been in some parts of Cambodia for five years, as the President said last night.


An hon. Member:: Even longer.


David Lewis: And perhaps even longer. But this, I suggest to you, cannot excuse the United States action. It is no consolation to the world that President Nixon has decided to meet North Vietnamese duplicity by similar action on the part of United States. This is not the way in which peace can be sought in that area or anywhere else. I believe that Canada must speak out in this kind of situation. I hope that when the minister enters this debate he will say, not only as he said this morning that he regrets that the United States found it necessary to do what it did but, that on behalf of Canada he deplores the action, that he considers the action dangerous and that it is not helpful to the search for peace in our troubled and anxious world. Nothing less from this government in my view can satisfy the present situation.
I simply cannot accept the explanation of the President of the United States. He talked about the need for his country to show itself strong, about his fear of humiliation and about the need for the United States not to be a helpless giant. Indeed, in his foreign policy report to Congress of February 18 last, the President stated this significant sentence: "When it comes to maintaining peace, prestige is not an empty word."
What are we dealing with, Mr. Speaker? Are we dealing with national prestige, or with the fate of the world? Is it important for the world that President Nixon maintain his own prestige, or is it important for the world that the war in Viet Nam come to an end?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: All these statements underline the role which the United States has been trying to play in the world, wrongly, for some time. No one nominated the United States of America as the policeman of the world, and in an international community no one should try to act in that capacity.
It seems to me that the action of the United States and the explanation President Nixon 
tried to give last night indicate a complete reversal of the alleged search by the United States for peace and the intention to withdraw American troops. I suggest that it is difficult for anyone who looks at the situation objectively to believe in the good faith of some of the words expressed. It is difficult to accept good faith when the President promises peace while escalating the war. Sure, there is not good faith with the Communists, either at the present Paris negotiating table or anywhere else; but, I repeat, our answer cannot be to try to match Communist hypocrisy.
In our view, and in my view, the action of the United States yesterday and today has spread the war in Southeast Asia in a way which makes it impossible to see the end of the war. I suggest to you that some of the words that the President used indicate that it is the intention of the United States to retain a sizeable army in Southeast Asia, no matter what may come. The President said, you will recall, that he was taking this action in order to assure the lives of those who will remain in Viet Nam after the withdrawal of the 250,000 troops that he has so far promised to withdraw. I read into that a definite warning to the world, and it is with great sadness that I read the warning, that United States does not have any intention of withdrawing all its troops from Southeast Asia. I believe that to be a pre-condition for any kind of development in that part of the world.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I want to say to this House that there are some steps Canada might try to take. I do not know whether they would be entirely successful. We have suggested on a number of occasions that Canada should try to bring the matter of the new developments in Southeast Asia to the security council of the United Nations. I appreciate that we are not a member of the Security Council now, but we are a member of the United Nations and have every right to seek to have this subject put on the agenda of the Security Council.
I also appreciate that some of the major nations involved, such as China, North Viet Nam, and for that matter, South Viet Nam, are not members of the United Nations and therefore there are limits on what the United Nations might be able to do. In my submission this ought not stop us from trying to put it on the agenda of the only international organization available to mankind to save itself from complete destruction. At least it
May 1. 1970	COMMONS
would be the start of some kind of international discussion of the matter in the United Nations forum.
It may be possible that members of the United Nations could express their view on American policy. It may also be possible for members of the United Nations to influence the United States in its further pursuit of a disastrous and dangerous policy. Canada should try harder to get the Geneva conference back in order to seek a solution to the Southeast Asian problem. I do not deny that the minister is trying to do this. The present situation is so serious and dangerous that it is unforgivable for the government of Canada, or, indeed, the government of any other western country, to just sit and wait for developments to occur.
The situation is so serious and dangerous that the government of Canada must show a sense of urgency about the matter. The Canadian government must try every available avenue to try to get the various nations of the world together to seek a peaceful solution to the disastrous war in Southeast Asia. We must have the courage to speak out and, as I have said, continue the search without letup, indefatigably. Canada is in a good position to do these things precisely because of its special relationship with the United States.
Nothing less than the future peace of the world, and nothing less than the credibility of the democratic world to the rest of the world, is involved in this terrible action which the president of the United States announced last night. I urge the government to deal with the matter as seriously as the matter deserves.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, one of the most difficult things to do today is to get a decent perspective on the situation that confronts us. War is not only hell, but it does more than any other human phenomenon to confuse the logical and rational sense of most of us. Emotional responses are, of course, to be expected. I do not like war. I do not happen to like violence in any of its forms. I believe that killing and torture are the antithesis of everything that we call civilized, but war or wars will not be solved by emotion.
Wars of national liberation, national pride or national survival will not be ended by emotional responses. I think it is the height of folly, perhaps one of the worst aspects of human pride, to allow ourselves to approach this problem either on the basis of our intense dislike for Communist states in all their
DEBATES	6491
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia forms or on an emotional reaction that American involvement seems to stir up in some circles in that country.
Anti-Americanism simply will not do as the basis of Canadian reaction to the Cambodian crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In this instance, anti-Americanism is equivalent to total irresponsibility and abandonment of meaningful and useful Canadian initiatives. Personally, I have great sympathy for the terrible predicament of the American people in Southeast Asia. I believe the United States became involved in what it believed to be an honourable cause. I recognize that it is easy for us who are not involved to give advice. We are not involved in the agony. I assume that those in authority in the United States would love to be out of the whole thing if they could do so honourably.
We must also concern ourselves with the agony of the people who live in the area of conflict, Viet Nam, and now Cambodia. I approach this problem with deep feeling and with a considerable degree of humility. I indicated this morning that I believe the expansion of the present war is one of the worse possibilities we can imagine in terms of ending the unhappy conflict.
It may be that the generals and admirals who are reported to have counselled this move across the Cambodia border will prove to be right in military terms. It may be that the government of the United States will achieve its objectives in this way and bring a speedier end to the battle. However, I must confess my very grave doubts on that score in view of the history of this affair. United States generals and United States presidents have been wrong before in situations like this. I very much fear this is another example of the old saying that you can't be a little pregnant.
In all, the United States has been dragged deeper and deeper into this conflict, each time hoping that some measure would bring the terrible experience to an end. In giving the first indication of American involvement in Cambodia, the United States Assistant Secretary of Defence said that it was:
-a necessary and effective measure to save American and other free world lives and to strengthen the Vietnamization program.
We were all shocked by this development. As has already been indicated, in the United States there may be a considerable degree of
May 1, 1970

TJ.S. Invasion of Cambodia condemnation. The Times of London stated yesterday in its lead editorial and I quote: Has Mr. Nixon learnt no lessons from the way his two predecessors In the White House got involved in Viet Nam? ... In spite of all the warnings the military men seem to have won again. This was where President Kennedy came in eight years ago, always under pressure from the generals, always assured that victory was round the corner with that little bit extra of American commitment. But victory never did come and the machine ground on inexorably through all the suffering and the waste to the stalemate that finally unnerved President Johnson.
I mention this mainly because I believe the world is afraid that this type of military operation will escalate to the point of no return. While the newspaper headlines this morning were full of the Cambodian tragedy, at the same time there were reports from Peking of the Chinese jubilation over the launching of their satellite and nuclear accomplishments. I think the world has good reason to fear.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Perhaps we ought to remind ourselves of part of the history of southeast Asia; there are many ways of looking at the situation in these countries which now occupy the headlines. We were all appalled at the savage treatment of Viet Nam civilians in Cambodia recently, and we may have wondered what led up to this situation. The Economist of April 25 gives an account of the differences which have soured relations between Cambodia and Viet Nam long before the present crisis. Perhaps I might quote a paragraph from the Economist of that date:
Educated Cambodians believe they have been the victims of Vietnamese expansionism for centuries. Even today they are thankful that the French saved them from what might have been permanent Vietnamese domination.
The article goes on to explain this at greater length.
Certainly, Cambodia is not Viet Nam. Although it lies next door, it is now, as it always has been, a country of a very different people. Those people are a nation which has learned to beware of invaders. And the ones they have for centuries feared most have been the Vietnamese. It is for that reason cold comfort, if any at all, that the main burden of the Cambodian incursion is being carried by Vietnamese rather than American forces. The Cambodians have been neutral in a very real sense. They have been anti-American, anti-Viet Cong, anti-Vietnamese and anti-Communist. In short, they have been simply pro-Cambodian. Now, they find themselves militarily threatened by virtually everybody. 
Although for five years North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops have held substantial segments of Cambodian territory, that country did nothing. The former chief of state, Prince Sihanouk, did not try to prevent the use of his country by Communist troops. When the Communists became even greedier for control of Cambodian territory, Prince Sihanouk was overthrown. The new government decided to resist the Communists. South Viet Nam began making raids across the Cambodian border. Today, South Vietnamese troops are engaged in battle with Viet Cong forces in Cambodia. The Americans are helping. The North Vietnamese are also engaged in that same battle in a country which wants only to be neutral, to be left alone.
It is in these circumstances, recognizing the complexity of the situation, the tragic situation in which the American people find themselves, I realize the situation in Southeast Asia, that Iask the government, if it has started to intensify its work in Washington, Geneva, Paris, London, Moscow and Hanoi if possible. Our envoys and diplomats must call for an immediate and complete freeze on all military activity in Cambodia plus, of course, effective machinery to enforce this. North Viet Nam must be persuaded to recross the border and get out, as must the Viet Cong, the South Vietnamese and the Americans. Of course, there must be methods of enforcement if this is to have any meaning. The question is, of course, how to make them go. That is the major problem. I do not expect the Canadian government to make them all get out by itself. But is it even trying, Mr. Speaker? I suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affaires (Mr. Sharp) that we ought to go to New York and call for an emergency session of the Security Council of the United Nations. Surely, if ever there was a threat to world peace justifying Security Council action, this is it.
The Security Council should immediately set up a new and third version of the Geneva Indo-China talks. It must build on the admittedly imperfect foundations of those talks, to arrive at a new modus vivendi for the people of Indo-China. If the original sponsors of the Geneva Conference are now inappropriate, as I suspect some of them are, then the United Nations itself must sponsor those talks.
I admit the Soviet negotiator, Jacob Malik, has been both encouraging and discouraging on the topic. But he must be approached and every possibility explored. Has Canada made
May 1, 1970	COMMONS
any overtures to Great Britain? Have we sought to cash in on our special relationship with that country and with France to give them encouragement, to give them a good hard push, in the right direction, if that is what is needed?
What can we do on our own, besides the steps I have outlined? I suggest that the attitude expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with respect to the I.C.C., for example, is not good enough. Although I recognize the difficulties which have been encountered I believe the hon. gentleman's attitude to be defeatist. Unquestionably, the
I.C.C.'s chore has been difficult, frustrating and ineffective. There has been little glory to it and it is dirty slogging, especially when one considers the attitudes displayed at times by Poland and by our other partner, India. But we ought not to abandon the one channel of direct action which Canada possesses. The minister says we left because we were asked to go. Very well. But there is now a new government in Cambodia. Would it not be proper for Canada to approach this new government to see whether it would not accept, indeed, welcome, the I.C.C. back?
The I.C.C. will not be able to settle the whole business but it could make a useful contribution particularly if it could be established in a workable form. I believe we ought all, as Canadians, rather than indulge in condemnation, to concentrate our efforts on exploring methods and approaches which might be helpful in the circumstances of this tragedy. Canada dare not pass up the opportunity of even doing this much. We must not pass up any opportunity to persuade the countries involved and the international community generally to freeze the fighting and to get the talks started again. Of course, all this will be of no avail unless there is efficient machinery for seeing that what is decided will be carried out.
I want, now, to make four points in this discussion of the situation. I put them forward with considerable humility and great sympathy for all those involved. I suggest:
1.	The terrible conflict in South Viet Nam must not be escalated; it must be isolated and brought to a halt.
2.	Canada's fundamental approach must be to use every possible diplomatic and political opportunity which exists for restricting the expansion of the conflict.
3.	We should demand an emergency session of the Security Council, asking it to set up,
DEBATES	6493
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia under United Nations sponsorship, a new Geneva conference on Indo-China.
4.	Simultaneously we should examine the possibility that a different government in Cambodia would be prepared to take a new approach to the International Control Commission, one which might allow it to work effectively, at least for the achievement of a limited purpose.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It is on this basis, with the hope that some of these suggestions may be constructive, that I put them forward.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be useful to the House if I were to begin my remarks with a short historical background to the events that we are discussing this afternoon.
The 1954 Geneva Conference on Indo-China drew up cease-fire agreements for each of the three Indo-China states. As one of the countries invited to serve as a supervisory power on each of the three International Commission provided for in the cease-fire agreements, Canada undertook, together with India and Poland, to see whether or not the parties involved in the agreements properly implemented the terms of those agreements to which they had subscribed. In Cambodia these parties were the Cambodian national armed forces, on the one hand, and the Cambodian resistance forces and Vietnamese military units on the other.
The implementation of the 1954 cease-fire agreement for Cambodia proved to be a straightforward matter. The more purely military provisions were put into effect without too much difficulty and, with the Cambodian elections of 1955 over, the Canadian delegation urged that the commission should be disbanded. In Canada's opinion, the job for which the commission had been established had been completed. We were not, however, able to convince our Indian and Polish colleagues, particularly when it became clear that the Cambodian government wished to see the commission continue in being. So the commission remained in Cambodia with its personnel progressively reduced until by 1958 only a token staff was left.
Until about 19C3 there was not much for the commission to do. The renewed conflict in Vietnam, however, began increasingly to be felt in Cambodia-often with tragic loss of Cambodian lives and property. As the situa-
6494	COMMONS
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia tion in Viet Nam deteriorated, incidents in the border area between Cambodia and South Vietnam became more and more frequent. For their part, the South Vietnamese and the Americans maintained that any incidents in which they were involved resulted from clashes with Vietnamese Communist forces who were making use of Cambodian territory as a sanctuary to which they retreated or as a base from which they operated against South Vietnam. The charge was also increasingly made that the Vietnamese Communists were making use of Cambodia as a supply route both in the northeastern province along what was called the Sihanouk trail and through the ports along the Gulf of Siam.
Since early 1968 the Cambodian government itself has complained publicly of the activities of Vietnamese Communist armed forces on Cambodian territory. Evidence substantiating these complaints were contained in an official Cambodian government report made public in October 1968 in which the Cambodian Secretary of State for National Security reported that armed Vietnamese continuously installed themselves in certain frontier districts of Svay Rieng province. In another report published in October 1968, the estimated strength of these Vietnamese Communist troops was given as 4,000.
By early 1969 public statements by Prince Sihanouk more and more frequently contained charges of extensive Vietnamese Communist infiltration in the border area. In his March 6, 1969 press conference, Prince Sihanouk declared that Viet Cong and Viet Minh units had infiltrated into Cambodia near Mimot and other areas in an apparent attempt to establish a Vietnamese frontier along the Mekong River. In his press conference of March 28, 1969 Prince Sihanouk declared that Viet Cong and Viet Minh units, in some cases in batallion and regimental strength, had infiltrated into Cambodia along Cambodia's eastern frontier and that they had actually engaged in armed conflict with Cambodian military forces in the Parrot's Beak.
In the Canadian government's opinion, these indications constituted prima facie evidence of a violation of the 1954 cease fire agreement on Cambodia by one of the parties and the ICC had a clear obligation to initiate an investigation to verify the facts. The Canadian delegation proposed such investigations but this was not taken up by our colleagues before the Cambodian government on October 7, 1969 indicated its intention to have the commission "terminate its mission by the

DEBATES	May l, 1970
end of the year". Earlier, two Canadian proposals were put forward in the commission in response to a general request by the Cambodian government in August 1968 to investigate the alleged presence of Vietnamese Communists in the Parrot's Beak area. These, however, were rejected by the majority in the commission.
Thus, prior to 1969, the Cambodian government appeared to us to be genuinely interested in the International Commission. It gave the commission virtually carte blanche to fulfil its responsibilities and provided the permissive framework within which the commission could act if it so decided. We were unable to convince our colleagues on the commission to do so and by early 1969 the Cambodian government ceased asking the commission to undertake any kind of investigation-even of border incidents allegedly involved U.S.A.-South Vietnamese forces which the commission had been carrying out. On October 7, 1969, as I mentioned in the House this morning, the Cambodian government indicated the desire to have the commission terminate its mission, and on December 4, 1969 it asked the commission to adjourn sine die by December 31, 1969.
It is against this background that we must weigh the present situation in which the United States and South Vietnamese forces have entered Cambodia. The President has declared that this is not an invasion of Cambodia. I express no view on that; that is the statement that he has made. He went on to say that the areas in which these attacks will be launched are completely occupied and controlled by North Vietnamese forces.
He has also made clear that it is not the purpose of the United States to occupy these areas. He said, as I mentioned this morning, that "once enemy forces are driven out of these sanctuaries and their military supplies destroyed, we will withdraw".
I should make it clear here that Canada was not informed about the United States decisions ahead of time. We had no previous knowledge whatever, and there was, of course, no reason why we should. As I said in the House this morning, there is no doubt that these decisions were hard ones and certainly very momentous. It remains to be seen whether they will accomplish what the President has in mind.
I have no doubt whatever that the President is very conscious of the risks of uncontrolled escalation in this situation, and that
May 1, 1970

this must be a governing factor in the implementation of his policy. I think it is fair to say too that the President made his decision in full knowledge of the opposition of many leading figures in the United States, including Senator Fulbright, as referred to by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).
The United States is a democratic country. There are many countries in the world where decisions of government are made without attention to the views of their people. The American people can at any time reject a government that makes decisions that are contrary to what they believe to be in their interests. I believe, if I may say so, that the American people are as fully conscious as we are as Canadians of the implications of the decisions that have been made by the U.S. government.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
It is for this reason I doubt either the utility or the appropriateness of many of the simplistic appeals such as have been suggested in the House today by the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party. I understand the anguish expressed by him. I share it and I am sure all members of this House share the anguish about the war in Viet Nam and in Indo-China. I doubt very much, however, whether the anguish in Indo-China would end if the United States were simply to withdraw its forces immediately and without condition. This seems to me to be the dilemma in which we all find ourselves today.
Hon. members of the opposition have made a number of suggestions. I should like to comment on some of these now. First, it has been suggested that we ought to do more to have the International Control Commission in Cambodia revived. It has also been suggested that we should do more to reconvene the powers involved such as the members of the Geneva conference. Others have suggested we should take steps to bring the matter before the United Nations.
Let me deal first with the question of reconvening the International Control Commission. We have been discussing this question with those governments directly involved in any decision that would be taken on this matter and there is no indication yet that they see the reconvening of the commission as being helpful. I have made the Canadian government's position clear. We are of course prepared to see the commission reconvened if there is any reasonable prospect of it being able to do a job. We have indicated our readi-

U.S. Invasion of Cambodia ness to participate in a tripartite meeting in New Delhi in order to discuss with India and Poland the function of a reconvened International Control Commission as well as improvements in its methods of operation which would be necessary in order to make it more effective than it was before. Whether there is now any better prospect of the commission being reconvened is at least doubtful. The only responsibility which the commission has is to supervise a cease-fire which has already been agreed upon. It may facilitate the implementation of an agreed cease-fire, but it has no mandate and indeed no capacity to stop the parties engaging in a full-scale conflict.
The French government has put forward the idea of negotiations among what they call interested parties with a view to the neutralization of the whole of Indo-China. When I discussed this proposal with Mr. Schumann in Paris a few weeks ago he made clear that this was not a new proposal for a new Geneva conference, although that possibility was not ruled out. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) pointed out, the Soviet Union appeared to show some interest in the idea of a Geneva conference. However, the Soviet Union made no specific proposal as some believe and subsequently made clear, in the words of the Soviet Ambassador to the United Nations, that "Convening such a conference is unrealistic at the present time". The New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr. Keith Holyoake, has also urged the convening of a new Geneva conference on Indo-China. No concrete proposals, however, have been made by anyone and from our own reports we have concluded there is no agreement on the part of the parties most directly concerned that a Geneva conference should be called.
There is some movement toward the convening of a meeting of Asian countries in Djakarta on May 11 and 12.


An hon. Member:: It was postponed to the 16th.


Mitchell William Sharp: Thank you. While Canada has not been invited to attend this meeting naturally we have a keen interest in it since it represents an effort by the countries of the region to reach a consensus on the Cambodian situation and to make recommendations to the parties involved.
It has been suggested that Canada should bring the question of Cambodia before the United Nations. In fact, the Cambodian gov-
6496	COMMONS
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia ernment is capable of doing so itself and has, indeed, brought the situation in Cambodia to the attention of the United Nations. So far, however, it has not pressed for a Security Council meeting. If in fact the Cambodians believe they have been invaded, notwithstanding the view expressed by President Nixon, then of course they could certainly take this matter before the Security Council.
The difficulty about discussing the situation in Southeast Asia at the United Nations remains as it always has. Many of the parties are not members. Neither North Viet Nam nor South Viet Nam, as the hon. member for York South said, are represented and of course the chair of China is occupied by the Republic of China government rather than by the People's Republic. Furthermore-and I point this out to the House-the Communist side in the dispute has always vigorously denied the authority of the United Nations to discuss the war in Viet Nam.


David Lewis: Of course they would.


Mitchell William Sharp: All I am saying to the House is that it is very difficult under these circumstances to feel that this would be the most useful thing today since there seems to be expressed opposition on the part of one of the parties to the conflict. For the moment the prospect of any Security Council consideration of the Cambodian situation does not look promising, but there may be other United Nations machinery which might be employed.
I throw out this suggestion. In the past the despatch of a personal representative to troubled areas by the Secretary General has proved a helpful intervention. This is something which I think might be a useful initiative at the present time. When it comes down to it, however, any of these efforts will be successful only when the various parties agree to negotiation. Until the parties are prepared to discuss the issues, a Geneva-type conference or any other initiative cannot be forced on them. As soon as there is any hope in this respect, there will be an opening for Canada, and indeed the other interested governments, to make a helpful contribution. All we can do in the meantime is to urge the parties to get together, but the idea that one could call upon a group of countries that are not involved in the dispute to settle the dispute is obviously unrealistic. There must be a disposition to negotiate and there must be a disposition to agree. In this case, Mr. Speaker,
I can assure the House of the Canadian gov-

DEBATES	May 1, 1970
emment's desire to see this agony in Indochina come to an end as quickly as possible. We will spare no effort.
I am sure the House will support the government in avoiding what might be called diplomatic gestures, and I hope the House will support us in concentrating upon the hard slugging and even upon the quiet diplomacy that is so often derided but which is of the essence of effective work in the cause of peace.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all over this nation and throughout the world today there is deep fear on the part of mankind and I think all of us should restrain ourselves on this occasion and not engage in incendiary statements. I am sure that when the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) reads some of the statements that he made so freely today he will regret having done so.


David Lewis: I will not.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, there are some to whom common sense will never appeal. I remind him that his party in the United Kingdom has not engaged in the type of speech or action that he has placed before this House. He has a power of language and debating skill that I have always admired, but his reaction to the tragic situation that faces mankind today was not marked by that degree of self-control which is necessary.


David Lewis: Which the right hon. member always uses.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not get the benefit of that interruption. Apparently the hon. member is annoyed already; the interruption indicates that. I listened as he covered the whole gamut of Socialist condemnation of the United States, and one wonders who is the wrongdoer. I am one who has had disagreements with the United States. The state department interfered in Canada in 1962 and 1963 in a way that was completely unjustified. Today we are facing a situation that will not be made better by incendiary speeches, however attractive they may be as headliners for the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: One would almost think that the United States has become a criminal in the dock. There are many things with which one disagrees but there is one thing
May 1. 1970

that this House should not forget, that is, that had it not been for the U.S. assuming the titanic responsibilities that Britain had carried for 200 or 300 years without thanks, freedom today would not be in existence anywhere in the world. I am distressed to hear so outspoken a condemnation on the part of this country while across the line the U.S. pours out its blood and its treasury.
I am not in agreement with the hon. member concerning the circumstances under which the U.S. entered Viet Nam. Today that is simply a dialectical exercise. I feel convinced that the United States was invited there. He says it was not. Whichever is correct is of no consequence today. What would we have the U.S. do-get out?


Mr. Nystrom:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It's the young one
speaking.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has made it clear that in his opinion the United States should get out of Viet Nam. If it did, he and young men all over the western world would find themselves in a dangerous situation.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In uniform.


John George Diefenbaker: Forty thousand Americans are dead so far. The United States has tried to get out by negotiation. I am surprised that the hon. member would say nothing in criticism of the degree to which North Viet Nam has refused to negotiate no matter what the United States has offered. The President of the United States offered to reduce the number of forces, and he has done so. Did that bring about any softening of the attitude on the part of North Viet Nam?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: None.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It's their country.


John George Diefenbaker: The President offered almost everything except the withdrawal which has the support of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. He says "withdraw". Well, you can ridicule the domino theory all you will, but Southeast Asia would fall to the Communists if the United States walked out without a political settlement. The only reason Indonesia stood when there was a Communist coup was the United States.
It is so easy for us to judge what should be done. We face one of those situations where the heart of mankind is shaken by what is
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia taking place. We are fearful. What of the future? What of tomorrow? We do not know the circumstances of which the President of the United States has full knowledge. He cannot reveal those things. Mention was made that there was no knowledge that there was going to be any entry into Cambodia by the U.S. That is not the way I read it. One person made that statement but others said the very reverse. The Americans are in a desperate position in Southeast Asia. I do not think they should have gone in originally when President Kennedy, making one of his various monumental mistakes, moved in there with troops. However, they are there. And my hon. friends as the CCF in 1939 were not right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: They spoke with the same sophistication, the same assurance that from above, they alone had the answer to all the questions. I do not see them turning to that volume of Hansard of 1939 when freedom was in danger and they said that Canada should stand aloof except for economic assistance. When we face problems such as this it is so easy to place the U.S. in the position of being the accused in the dock. As the minister said, I do not want to see this House placing Canada in the role of the accuser. It is a dangerous thing for Parliament to be meeting for the purpose of telling the U.S., "It is your sacrifice. You have poured out the billions to maintain freedom, and a few members of our Parliament sit here on a Friday afternoon and determine whether your course is right and we condemn you". I will have no part in such a proposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Winston Churchill in his famous speech in Fulton on March 5, 1946, said:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American democracy. For with primacy in power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future.
The United States was new to power, steeped in liberty and a stranger to tyranny. It took over world leadership from Britain which had carried that load for 200 years. Senator Fulbright was a word for every occasion; he has an answer to everything. Since he has been chairman of that committee there has not been a President, whether a Democrat or a Republican, who has been right. They
May 1, 1970

U.S. Invasion of Cambodia are always wrong. Can you show me where he ever saw that anything was right? I have no such occasion in mind at the moment. Naturally, there will be condemnation in the United States, because there is fear there, too.
Away back in 1914-and I lived through that period-nobody thought a war would come. We read that if there had been a little more industry shown on the part of diplomats in Great Britain, France, Russia and Germany, there would have been no war. Mankind does not want a world war; everybody agrees with that. But, Mr. Speaker, if the United States were out of Asia, the marching legions of Communism would take over in Asia in those places where today they march by subterranean methods.
Do you not think the President of the United States faced one of those awe-inspiring appointments with destiny while others slept? The responsibility was on his shoulders. It was obvious as he spoke last night that he did so with the realization that he and the United States, by risking this action, had undertaken an appointment with destiny. I do not want to see the message go out from this chamber that, with 40 or 50 members present, it endorses any widespread and unqualified criticism of the United States. That responsibility which Britain had and the United States now has is awe-inspiring. In the words of Matthew Arnold, it is like a "weary Titan-staggering on to her goal, bearing on shoulders immense, Atlantean, the load, well nigh not to be borne."
Sir, as I listened to the speeches today I wondered whether we realized how fortunate we are in Canada that our neighbour is the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I had every reason to take strong umbrage because of what happened in 1962 and 1963. What was heresy then, when we refused to take those nuclear weapons after the bomber no longer was the primary danger to North America, was completely approved in the speech of the President to Congress on March 12, as I recall the date. Having said that, I ask, what recommendations can you make? I do not know what recommendations should be made. Should the Geneva Conference be convened? Who will accept the invitation? Is there any nation that will?
For over one year the United States, in facing North Viet Nam across the negotiating table, has continued to make allowances.

Whatever the United States has offered has been spurned. Consult the United Nations, someone suggests. My friend, the leader of this party, Mr. Stanfield, thinks this would work and that we should try it. Well, I have no reason to object to anything being tried, but as I see it there is no possibility of anything being achieved. The United Nations today is a denuded shadow of what we believed it could be in San Francisco in 1945. The blame rests on the veto. Some say, "Bring this matter before the Security Council." How long would it last there, with the power of veto? It could be tried, but the attempt would be innocuous unless there has been a complete reversal of opinion on the part of the U.S.S.R.
The minister wondered if there is not some initiative we could take. I would like to suggest two, and I do not want anyone to think I am being facetious in what I am about to say. First, how about sending Chester Ronning again to Southeast Asia? He has gone on two occasions. He has entree in Asia. He has an unusual personality and a capacity to transmit his views. Second, the Canadian government is negotiating with Communist China the question of recognition. The minister smiles now.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am waiting.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not suggest that any close relationship from the discussions would permit Canada to place her views with the representatives of Communist China, but when you get right down to it that country is the backbone and the bulwark support of North Viet Nam, and has been throughout the entire period of the war in Viet Nam. Three years ago I was talking to an audience at a United States university. What I said on that occasion was not very acceptable to many. I said at the University of Miami that a military victory by either side cannot be achieved and that a political settlement is the only possible solution. In the light of subsequent events, that statement was well-founded.
Can you imagine the position in which the United States finds itself? It has its troops in South Viet Nam and across the border in Cambodia the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong are accumulated in large numbers. Whenever they want to, they can come out and attack. If a criminal were to commit a crime on one side of the street, would you deny police officers the right to cross to the other side of the street and arrest the wrongdoer?
May 1, 1970

It is very easy to criticize the United States.
I am not surprised at the widespread criticisms. After all, there are to be congressional elections in the month of November and, naturally, political considerations will have some degree of weight among the members of the United States Congress. The suggestion has been made over and over again that we should neutralize much of Southeast Asia, including North Viet Nam, South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, and that the security of those nations should be guaranteed by the United States, Great Britain, Russia and France. That is an objective that can never be attained.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to make just two further observations. That objective cannot be attained. It is all right to put these phantoms in the air and try to pick them out. Theoretically they are fine, but there are no one-way streets in negotiations. There must be traffic back and forth, and there is no such thing today between Viet Nam and the United States or, indeed, in any of the countries.
I am not taking a view different from my leader. He said there should be a declaration that the United States and Viet Nam should get out of Cambodia; that is what I understood. That is fine. However, who is going to put them out? Would they agree to leave the protected position in which they find themselves today and from which they carry on their activities? It is a frightening problem. It arouses the fear of mankind as it has not been aroused for a long, long while. Yet in the midst of all these fears a number of members have indicated that most Canadians and Americans do not fear that this will lead to a worldwide, extended conflagration.
It is easy to attack those who have responsibility. I have often been in disagreement with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). Today I thought he dealt with this subject in a more statesmenlike manner than he has dealt with subjects in the past. I do not say that in a manner of criticism, because the minister knows I have disa-
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia greed with him strongly in the past. I think today he will keep open our lines of communication with the United States. I hope he will extend those lines of communication by sending Chester Ronning abroad once more to see whether he can bring about a sense of reality that will immediately lead to a national settlement.
I do not want the message to go out from this Parliament today that the United States is in the dock in the view of the Canadian people. Our two countries have been together too long on behalf of freedom to permit such an idea to go out over the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate I wish to congratulate the previous speakers for their efforts. I think the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) made great speeches. However, these speeches indicate to many of the younger members of this House that their points of view are not completely applicable to the matter under discussion. I think the speech of the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party will certainly endear him to delegates of that party's leadership convention which will soon be held. It was a good speech in terms of delivery and what he said, far better than my speech will be. However, in terms of content I think he has forgotten precisely the point we are debating this afternoon.
The American involvement in Cambodia which started yesterday is a matter of great concern. It has been well dealt with by other speakers. I wish to emphasize one aspect to which the hon. member for York South made passing reference. He referred to the dismay in the U.S. Senate and in the Congress regarding this action. Just as worrying as the international aspect of this enlargement of the conflict are the internal results that might come from it. This, of course, cannot be predicted, certainly not by a Canadian as far away from the border as we in Ottawa. However, it is one aspect which is extremely worrying. There is a conflict between the President of the United States and Congress, a situation which our system happily avoids. This particular aspect of the problem is just as worrying as any other arising out of the actual ground involvement in Cambodia. President Nixon stated that the expansion of the war is to be of limited duration for limited objectives. Only time will tell.
6500	COMMONS
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia


An hon. Member:: That was also said about Viet Nam.


David Anderson: The hon. member has mentioned that this was also said about Viet Nam. I concur in the criticisms of the right hon. member for Prince Albert about the naivety of late President Kennedy in getting involved in Viet Nam the way he did. Nevertheless, I wish to deal with this particular aspect of the war. No resolution of this or any other House, or the United Nations, regardless of all the problems involved in getting such a resolution passed, will deter the President from this action-certainly not at this particular time. I feel that at this moment we should not attempt to harden American opinion in the way that has been suggested. Nothing concrete can be done to deter them until such time as the results of this action are known. As the NDP member mentioned, this will not be until such time as it is proved incorrect that the American involvement in Cambodia is not limited-if that is proved to be correct.
We must realize that this expansion of actual fighting in terms of the area where the fighting is taking place is not really an expansion of the war zone if considered in general terms. For years this area of Cambodia has had an extensive Vietnamese population and an undefined border. For years it has been used by the Viet Cong. I do not wish to minimize the fact that fighting is now on the Cambodian side of the border. I do not accept the suggestion that this is of a very dramatic and different nature than previously. This area was always part of the war. It is exactly in that area where the Viet Cong forces were treated, regrouped, retrained and recovered from wounds. It is that area which is now being included in the scope of American operations. Much of what has been said in the last 24 hours concerning the expansion of this war is not entirely valid. This area has always been part of the war zone. It has now become part of the front line. Front lines shift, and this particular area now finds itself engaged in fighting.
An example was given by an hon. member for the NDP that the American President said the United States was pulling out of Viet Nam. I think that should be considered in light of what took place in the bombing of North Viet Nam. Obviously there was a counter-productive and unnecessary military activity which the Americans gave up despite objections from their generals and from their Congressmen and Senators. They gave it up because they felt it was counterproductive.

DEBATES	May 1, 1970
Perhaps I am only throwing out a ray of hope, but to suggest there is a certain type of inevitability in this type of escalation is to ignore the fact that over the last two years there have been modest reductions in the scale of operations. From this point of view we can take hope that the Americans mean what they say, that they are not in Cambodia to stay.
The hon. member for York South made much of the fact that this was actually an invasion. He said that Cambodia was being invaded, that the Cambodian head of state did not know of this and that they regarded it as aggression. The first question in my mind is why the Cambodians did not object. They have diplomatic representation abroad; they are represented at the United Nations. On this particular point we ought, I believe, to leave it to the Cambodians to decide whether or not they are victims of aggression rather than accept the too simplistic suggestions of the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party basing his account on hearsay evidence reported in a newspaper.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As a matter of fact, today's paper talks about Viet Nam task forces linking up with Cambodian troops defending the capital, and about the commanders conferring. It seems unlikely to me that Cambodia is a victim of aggression if the Cambodian commanders are conferring with their Vietnamese opposite numbers rather than opposing them. There has been no indication in the press so far of opposition, and this should be borne in mind when the artificial distinctions made by the deputy leader of the NDP are considered.
I am inclined to think the debate today should be concentrated upon the steps which Canada might be able to take in this trying and unhappy situation. It has been suggested we should go to the United Nations. If we simply wished to satisfy our own public opinion-and members of the public perhaps know less than do members of this House about the effectiveness of the United Nations-I am sure this suggestion is a good one.
We could go there and make speeches as has been done in this House today, speeches which have little value except in terms of political advantage-not that I, as a politician would say that political advantage is something to be ignored. But we should bear in mind that the major parties to this conflict, namely, the North Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese are not represented at the United Nations. Neither, of course, is the People's
May 1, 1970	COMMONS
Republic of China. How there could be a meaningful discussion in these circumstances is hard to understand. I personally regard this approach as a very unlikely avenue. The reluctance of the Secretary General to become involved suggests that this is not the best approach to take.
There has been a proposal that the International Control Supervisory Commission should be re-established. This suggestion was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who urged us to take a positive attitude toward this organization. I think it would be helpful if before making further speeches on this point his speechwriters and advisers were to read the terms of reference setting up this commission. If they did, they would find that the commission was set up to "control". The word "control" in French, the language of the original text, has a meaning which differs from the meaning of the word "control" in English; perhaps the best word in English would be "supervise" or "oversee".
If the hon. gentleman's advisers would examine this document they would find that the commission is entirely dependent on the good will of the country in which it is operating. If the Cambodian government really desired the commission to operate effectively, and if there were co-operation from Poland in this regard, it is conceivable that the commission could report violations of the Geneva accord or of other accords which might be reached in the future.
However, if the government of Cambodia does not really want this commission to function-and in the past this has been its attitude-there is no earthly hope of it being successful. These are harsh words, but they are realistic. What can three men sitting in Phnom Penh, 300 miles from where the action is, do to observe and report on the violations of the Geneva agreement? They could do no more than three men sitting out in the wilds of Ontario could do to analyse and report on such a thing as a Quebec election. Unless they are allowed to carry out their investigations on the spot, interrogate witnesses and so on, there is no likelihood of their being effective.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member not agree that my suggestion was that the government should inquire whether the new government in Cambodia would take a different attitude toward this commission?


David Anderson: In that regard I accept the correction of the hon. gentleman. I agree with him on this point. This must be examined.
DEBATES	6501
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia There is no magic attached to the ICC. The hon. gentleman does realize this, I think. My comments were directed more to his advisers than to himself. Perhaps those who wrote his speech had overlooked the limitations built into the Commission. But if there is a chance of co-operation, this might be a useful vehicle and I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is not ruling it out.
The most useful possibility which has been mentioned is the reconvening of the Geneva Conference. I realize this is unlikely to occur. The Soviet Union, one of the co-chairmen, is very doubtful about such a move. I suspect from what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us that in recent weeks the nations making up that conference have been canvassed, and that in future they will be continually asked whether their attitude to reconvening the conference has become more favourable. So if it should appear as though a new conference might succeed, one could be reconvened.
This is a difficult subject. It would be easy to wax angry, as did the eloquent member for York South, or to speak in broad terms referring back to dates as long ago as 1914 as the right hon. member for Prince Albert has done. But in situations of this kind I believe we should avoid actions taken merely for the sake of appearing to be active in the eyes of the Canadian people.
This international event in Indo-China might to a certain degree be limited if nations such as ours did not try to involve other nations in this exercise. One reason international events or border activities escalate is because too many nations leap into too many conferences and make statements based on their own experience rather than that of the area involved. It is with great sadness that I suggest we must be careful not to escalate this problem simply out of a desire to show the Canadian people that we are sensitive and active on the Cambodian issue.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) have spent most of their time telling us about all the things that will not work, all the things we cannot do, and how completely futile it is to do anything at all about what is undoubtedly one of the most serious problems facing the world today. The Secretary of
May 1, 1970

U.S. Invasion of Cambodia State for External Affairs seems to place his entire faith in silent diplomacy-a policy of hear nothing, see nothing, say nothing.
I thought that some of his arguments were most ingenious. For instance, he said that President Nixon is undoubtedly conscious of the risks involved in the policy which he announced last night; that he undoubtedly made this decision in the full knowledge of the opposition which it would incur. Then he went on to say that after all, the United States is a democratic country and the people can remove the government if it is doing something that is wrong.
Surely that is a most invalid argument. Are we to wait till the people of the United States at the next presidential election change the President before dealing with an international crisis? In 1956 when the British and French governments, along with Israel, attacked the Suez Canal, surely it was not suggested that when the people of those respected countries decided to change the government the problem would be resolved. The United Nations stepped in and sought to find a solution to the problem.


Mitchell William Sharp: They changed their policies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They changed their policies under pressure from the United Nations, that is why.


Mitchell William Sharp: Under pressure from their own people.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The policies were not changed by waiting until the next general election in each of those three countries. Here is the Secretary of State for External Affairs telling us that the only way to resolve this problem is to wait until the United States has a presidential election.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, I did not say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He said that he doubts the value of simplistic appeals.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We would welcome hearing what he does think would be of value. He says there is no value in taking this matter to the United Nations. He points out, quite accurately, that some of the countries most involved are not members of the United Nations, and that is true. But they could be invited to sit in on

the discussions, and if they accepted it would certainly help them become involved in the world community.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs points out that the Soviet Union on the Security Council has the power of veto, and again that is true. But as I painted out this morning, only a few days ago Mr. Jakob Malik, Soviet ambassador to the United Nations, indicated in New York that the Soviet Union would be interested in having the Geneva Conference reconvened.
If the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is right and there is a danger of Southeast Asia falling under the control of Communist China and the great hordes sweeping across the Pacific and endangering the freedom of the people on the North American continent, not only would we be concerned about that but the Soviet Union would also be concerned about it. I am sure that Members of Parliament who accompanied the former Speaker of this House to the Soviet Union on a visit in 1965 would all agree that one of the greatest concerns that the Russians have today is the threat of the growing power of China at their back door. I think there is nothing that guarantees that the Soviet Union would not be prepared to find some solution to this problem in Southeast Asia and they would not be just as anxious as we are to prevent a conflagration in Indo-China which could involve Communist China and which could eventually involve most of the nations of the world.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert referred to the United Nations as a denuded shadow. I would not go that far. Certainly the United Nations has not had either the cooperation of the great power or the essential powers in its constitution that it needs in order to maintain the rule of law in the world. But the fact is that it is the only international body we have from which we can hope to establish the rule of law in the world. To have this matter discussed in the Security Council and the General Assembly, to invite the various nations involved to come to such a discussion, to ask the United Nations to step up the kind of machinery or some type of international commission that might work out a solution in Southeast Asia at least offers some hope.
What disappoints me about the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is that he has offered no hope at all. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich detailed one by one the things we cannot do. Today the
May 1. 1970	COMMONS
world needs leadership. I am not suggesting for a moment that Canada can save the world or can end the war in Southeast Asia. But Canada could join with other nations who are not directly involved and who have no colonial interests to serve in giving moral leadership to the world. The world today is crying out for moral leadership, for nations that are prepared to support the rule of law, that are prepared to condemn aggression whether by the Communists, the United States or anybody else. We might not succeed, but surely we ought to try.
The right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert said that the United States is not in the dock.
I say that before the bar of history every one of us who holds any public responsibility is in the dock unless we raise our voices and use our influence to try to find a way of establishing peace in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs it sounded to me like a counsel of despair-"There is nothing we can do. Just sit tight and hope that this problem will go away". We have been saying this since 1963, and during those seven years the situation in Southeast Asia has grown worse. The only genuine opposition, the only thing that has been effective has been the outcry of the ordinary people of the world. In the United States itself the people who demonstrated, the people who signed petitions, the people who held a moratorium day are the people who ended the bombing of North Viet Nam, not the politicians. I had hoped that this government would go over the heads of the politicians, the diplomats, the admirals and the generals and call on the common people of this country and other free countries to speak out and say, "In God's name, stop this insanity!"
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Instead of that we have had this mealy-mouthed explanation that there is really nothing we can do except sit back and let events take their course. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that we share the anguish of what is happening in Southeast Asia, but he also said he doubts whether that anguish would be ended by the withdrawal of the United States forces. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not being helped by including another nation in this holocaust. The fact is that this is a continuance and an
DEBATES	6503
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia extension of the sad and depressing story of the Viet Nam war which started now some seven or eight years ago.
I have no hesitation in saying and make no apology for saying bluntly, as I have said in this House before, that in my opinion the United States had no business being in Viet Nam in the first place. I was glad to hear the right hon. member for Prince Albert say that he thought they had no business being there in the first place. I find it a little illogical, however, for one to say that they had no business to be there in the first place, but being there they have a right to stay there.
I think he will have great difficulty reconciling those points of view.


Mr. Osier:: What about the U.S.S.R?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My friend can make a speech about the U.S.S.R. He probably knows more about it than I do.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I doubt it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So far as I know, the U.S.S.R. has no troops in Viet Nam.


An hon. Member:: They have them everywhere else.


An hon. Member:: What about Canadian reforms at the United Nations?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My friend can make a speech later. I have only 20 minutes. We can be here until midnight, so my friend can make a speech any time he likes. I say that before we can understand what is happening in Southeast Asia today we must remember how this appalling situation came about. When the French were defeated at Diem Bien Phu the Geneva Conference was held in 1954 at which the French were given two years to withdraw. A temporary line of demarcation was drawn between the north and the south. At the end of two years there was to be a vote in which the Vietnamese people were to decide for themselves whether they would be one nation or two and what form of government they would have. The United States was not a signatory to that agreement. It is true that General Smith submitted a letter signed by President Eisenhower saying that the United States agreed with the general principle, but they did not sign the agreement. During the two-year period provided for the French withdrawal the United States set up a puppet
6504	COMMONS
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia government under Diem. Then under the pretext of having been invited they moved in their military forces and military hardware.
The International Control Commission of which Canada was a member protested the fact that this was being done. The myth was that they were invited in by Diem. This was like a dummy inviting the ventriloquist to [DOT]dinner. The elections were never held. What had been a temporary military demarcation line became a fixed border. Some of the previous speakers who spoke about freedom should look at the sort of freedom there is in South Viet Nam. I doubt if there is very much more there than there is in North Viet Nam. The only difference is you have an elitist military dictatorship in the south and a Communist dictatorship in the north. But the United States had a vital stake in Southeast Asia and used its puppet government as a pretext for being in Viet Nam and for preventing the implementation of the provisions of the Geneva agreement. Through the protests mainly of the American people themselves it was finally recognized there could be no military solution. President Lyndon Johnson was defeated largely because of his policies in Viet Nam, and President Nixon was elected on his commitment to de-escalate the war.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich said that perhaps the invasion of Cambodia will prove to be counter-productive and consequently may not amount to anything. Mr. Speaker, the invasion of Cambodia is merely opening a new chapter in a ghastly story. As someone mentioned today in the press, this is not a turning point in the war; it is a turning back in the war. Anyone who reads the history of Southeast Asia will realize that a western industrial power invading any country in Southeast Asia is like a fly landing on flypaper; you can get in much easier than you can get out. The French learned that. The Japanese learned that and now the United States is learning it. The announcement last night by President Nixon that the United States is sending ground troops and bombing planes into Cambodia opens a sinister chapter in this already bloody story.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has pointed out, as did the President last night in his speech, that there have been Viet Cong and North Viet Nam troops in Cambodia for five years. This is the business of the government of Cambodia. Apparently Prince Sihanouk, who was the head of state,

DEBATES	May 1, 1970
did not object. As a matter of fact, I gather from the comments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that one of his quarrels with the International Control Commission was the fact that they were reporting the presence of the Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops in Cambodia. But Sihanouk was deposed. A military government took over. It could be assumed that they would be much more in opposition to the presence of foreign troops. But it is interesting that they have not asked for intervention. They have made no appeal to the United Nations, to the United States or to the government of South Viet Nam.
This morning's Globe and Mail states:
A Cambodian government spokesman in Phnom Pehn said yesterday that the government had not approved the South Vietnamese-U.S. intervention, adding that Cambodia is a neutral country.
The article points out that the ranking diplomat at the Cambodian embassy in Washington made a similar statement. As a matter of fact, President Nixon himself in his television speech to the United States people said that the government of Cambodia had been informed but not consulted.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
When a country is invaded and merely informed that it is going to be invaded, without its having asked for help, without its having requested intervention, that constitutes aggression. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich says, "Cambodia can protest to the UN". He said, "The fact that they have not protested proves that they are very happy with the situation". They have not had much time to protest since they only found out about it last night. But are we to accept the situation in which the United States, the Soviet Union or anybody else can invade another country merely because they do not like the troops that are stationed in that country? If we accept this doctrine, it is a dangerous precedent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired unless he has unanimous consent to continue. Is there such agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will make my remarks brief. We have to recognize, I think, that for several years now every time there has been an escalation of the war in Southeast Asia we
May 1, 1970

have been told by politicians, and particularly by the Pentagon, that a few hundred thousands more troops and in increase in military activity will bring the war to an end. Surely we have not forgotten that for a long time General MacArthur pleaded with President Truman, saying that the North Koreans were using Chinese territory as a sanctuary for their planes and asking for permission to invade right up to the Yalu River. He did so, and the roof fell in.
This invasion of Cambodia is not going to be a mere side issue. It means being sucked further and further into the jungle, it means involving more and more American troops, it means involving the west in a war which they cannot win on the battlefield because all the history of Southeast Asia indicates that a nation that is prepared to take to the jungle and fight a gueriila war can go on for years.
The action of the U.S. yesterday has shocked the world and saddened the friends of the UK. both at home and abroad. I still hope that we can persuade the Canadian government to take a more forthright position with reference to this matter. We are not asking the Canadian government to be antiAmerican. What we are saying is that as the closest friend and neighbour of the U.S. we have the responsibility to tell the U.S. when we think they are wrong, when we think their actions are endangering the peace of the world, when we think that an act of aggression such as was committed yesterday will only strengthen the Communist position rather than weaken it. It is no accident that Peking today is very happy, because this gives them the kind of confrontation which they like without it costing them a single soldier.
My plea is that this government make a clearcut declaration that it wants to see an end to the war in Southeast Asia and that it deplores the invasion of Cambodia. The French government has already said this. There is no reason why the Canadian government should not say that. There is no reason why the Canadian government should not make contact with other governments in the western world, other democratic countries, to make representation to the U.S.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have already exceeded my time. When I am finished, if the Speaker will allow it, I will gladly answer the question.

U.S. Invasion of Cambodia
There is no reason why Canada, in concert with other friendly, democratic nations, should not bring this matter to the United Nations. If the UN is able to reconvene the Geneva Conference, fine. If the UN is prepared to set up an international commission in an endeavour to bring the parties together, that is all to the good. But our plea is twofold: let the government make a clearcut statement that will challenge the conscience of the people of the world and will call upon the people of the U.S. to give leadership in bringing this barbarous war to a close. Second, we ask the Canadian government to become actively engaged in the task of mobilizing the various countries of the world to seek ways and means of ending this war before it escalates to the point where it threatens, as it may well do, the survival of the human race.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would the hon. member allow a question now, with the indulgence of the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member's time having expired, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) will need unanimous consent to ask the question. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House. It is a very simple question, but I think the plea could be more easily endorsed unanimously if the hon. member would invite the government of Canada to do what it could to join with all other like-minded governments to tell all the great powers how stupid they are being in relying on the use of force in this day and age.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would endorse that statement completely. I have made it clear again and again that I am just as opposed to the aggression of the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia and Hungary as I am to what is happening in Viet Nam or what happened in the Dominican Republic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, today the House is involved in a debate that is very important to everyone, not only in this country but potentially important to everyone around the world. If you follow the history of the Vietnamese war as it has affected the United States, you will see that it
6506	COMMONS
U.S. Invasion oj Cambodia has had an effect on that country on almost every issue possible. It has divided families, it has divided communities, it has split the generations.
I think some of the speeches we heard in the House today have emphasized the rift between the generations in their interpretation of the Vietnamese war. The reply that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made to my suggestion that the United States withdraw from Viet Nam was, I think, a good example of the different interpretations of the two generations. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) sometimes understands the feelings of most people in the younger generation, judging from some of the things he said today.
People of my generation throughout Canada and the United States feel very strongly about this war for a number of reasons. People of my generation are going into the jungles in Southeast Asia and are dying there. Many of them do not know why they are going in, why they have to die, or even what the cause may be, and many people in my generation do not like the attitude that is so conspicuously evident in speeches like the one given by the right hon. member for Prince Albert or, as a matter of fact, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), Vice-President Agnew or President Nixon.
This type of speech suggests that we are continuing on in the same old world in which we have been living for so long, a world that has placed humanity on the brink of disaster, a world that has produced the types of weapon that can destroy us in a matter of minutes, a world that on both sides seems to be emphasizing military might rather than the importance of sitting down and trying to rationalize and discuss our problems. I suggest that the most recent American intervention in Cambodia will do nothing but escalate the possibility of even more insecurity and the possibility of an all-out war not only in Asia but perhaps even around the world.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It is with great anxiety, concern, frustration and anger that I rise to say a few words in this debate. There is a lot of fear around the world, no matter which continent you are looking at; and all members here, I think, share the same concern over what has been happening in Cambodia. That does not mean that we are anti-American or anti-anything. You can look at the press clippings which

DEBATES	May 1, 1970
have appeared in the last few hours and see that members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives are condemning the President of the United States for intervening in Indo-China. I should like to quote briefly from one or two such clippings. Senator Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho said, "This is just a first step of a new set of obligations. It can only lead us to a deeper mess and to the borders of China." Senator Church is a member of the foreign relations committee which will meet today for the second successive day to consider the Cambodian situation and give the presidential speech its first thorough scrutiny.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member's argument does not make much sense.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is again interjecting. May I remind him that all people of his generation do not look on the Viet Nam war as he does. The leader of my party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and many Senators of the United States and members of Congress have spoken out against the United States policy in Viet Nam. I am sorry the minister cannot see it this way. If he did, perhaps he might influence his leader and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to adopt a different position in this whole matter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If it is a question of age, lets get the age of everybody who has spoken on the subject.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: May I continue? The committee to which I referred will also consider a proposal by Senator Church and Senator John Sherman Cooper that would cut off funds for American military or civilian personnel in Cambodia and also ban the furnishing of military aid to the new Cambodian government. Senator William Proxmire called the President's decision a tragic mistake and said, "We are going into the same sad mistake that we went into in Viet Nam." I could quote many statements showing that both Democrats and Republicans in the United States Congress condemn the action of President Nixon.
This brings me to a number of reasons as to why we as Canadians and Canadian parliamentarians ought to be concerned about what is happening in Viet Nam. It appears that the President of the United States once again has listened to his generals and sent troops into Cambodia. His troops now are 20
May 1, 1970

miles inside the Cambodian border. We ought to be concerned, because this is a threat to the peace of the entire world. This type of activity in my opinion will only escalate the war which has gone on long enough in Southeast Asia. It will spread the war and proliferate it, in the real sense of the word. It will invite extra participation on the part of countries outside Cambodia. It may well provoke the Chinese government to send more arms and even troops into both Viet Nam and Cambodia.
By intervening this way in Cambodia, the United States are risking the escalation of the war. Any country in the world, regardless of its political affiliations or alliances, I believe will speak out against outside intervention in the affairs of Cambodia and Viet Nam on the part of the Americans, the South Vietnamese, the North Vietnamese or any other country. We must look at new methods of solving these problems, because if we continue with this process of escalating the war we are only inviting disaster. The war will spread from Indo-China and perhaps engulf the rest of the world.
My second reason for being concerned and for saying that Canada should take a stand and act is that whether we like it or not we are involved with the United States. Canada and the United States participate in a defencesharing agreement under which each and every year we send millions of dollars worth of equipment to the United States. We are involved because we are part of NATO and NORAD, and we are very much involved with the American way of life. Whether we like it or not, the United States controls a huge portion of our economy and much of our lives. For these and other reasons I believe we are obligated to tell the United States that its latest moves in Indo-China are wrong. They are wrong in intervening in Cambodia. Their actions in Viet Nam and Cambodia are wrong from a political and moral standpoint.
The defence-sharing arrangement we have with the United States makes us party to what has happened in Southeast Asia. In 1969 we sold $600 million worth of defence and military equipment to the United States. In 1964, five years earlier, we sold $161 million worth of such equipment to them. In 1969 there were about half a million troops in Viet Nam, and in 1963 there were about 23,000 troops there. As you can see, our sales of military equipment to the United States have gone hand in hand with the increase or escalation in the Vietnamese war.
22218-65J

U.S. Invasion of Cambodia


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would the hon. member tolerate a question?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will tolerate a question as soon as I have finished my remarks, if the minister does not mind. Much of the equipment that goes to the United States is used directly in the war in Viet Nam, and the equipment that is not used there directly contributes indirectly to the entire United States military offensive. For reasons like these we must be concerned; for reasons like these we must speak out. We must end our complicity, if you can call it that, in the matter of Viet Nam as soon as possible.
The main thing we must be concerned about, as I have already said, is the real possibility that the latest United States activity in Cambodia will escalate the war to embrace the whole of Indo-China. For years the people of Viet Nam have been dominated by foreign powers, by the Japanese, by the French and now by the United States. What is happening in Cambodia today is a natural extension of the war in Viet Nam. That is why we must try to end it as soon as possible.
The leader of my party outlined a number of things that have been happening in Cambodia. He told us that the head of state of Cambodia, Prince Sihanouk, was out of the country visiting Moscow and Peking when ousted. He wanted to ask the Soviet Union and China to protest to North Viet Nam and ask for North Vietnamese troops to be pulled away from his borders. It was while he was out of the country that these events occurred. Many people have said that there may be a strong possibility that the government of Cambodia was nothing more than a puppet of the United States. The United States recognized the new regime in Cambodia only hours after the ousting of Prince Sihanouk. A few weeks later the action we are speaking of occurred.
I should like to make a few more comments about what has been happening. When making his announcement last night to the United States people, the President justified this new American action by saying that it is justified and necessary because, "This will bring to a quick end the war in Viet Nam." Apparently this is a necessary type of activity which will save the lives of U.S. soldiers in Viet Nam today. May I suggest that this is nonsense and sheer hypocrisy. If we look at the history of the Viet Nam war we find that the United States authorities have always justified any escalation in this way. They have always said, "If we want to bring real order
May 1. 1970

U.S. Invasion of Cambodia and peace to Viet Nam, we must escalate the war. We must do this if we are to bring about democracy and peace there."
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
We must also remember something else which is important. It has been referred to here today. When the Americans are moving into Cambodia and attacking some of the Vietnamese sanctuaries, they are not attacking a fort, a big holdout, road or something of this nature; they are attacking a guerrilla or commando headquarters. As soon as the Americans come in, the tendency is for the Communists to establish new headquarters a few miles away. This is the history of the war in Viet Nam. It is one of the reasons why the war is becoming so complicated and involved and why it is increasingly difficult for the Americans to withdraw.
They say they are only going in for six weeks or two months. If they go in at all the chances are they become entangled and will remain in Cambodia for a long time. It is just not possible to go in and wipe out guerrilla headquarters in one march or offensive. Because of that there will probably be a real escalation of the war in Viet Nam and Cambodia. This is something we should not tolerate. We should speak out against it as strongly as we can and as soon as possible.
The President justified the latest American step in the intervention in Cambodia by saying that the United States had to do this because they did not want to become a second-rate power. They do not want to suffer their first defeat in 190 years as a nation. This type of attitude and national pride by any nation really frightens me. This type of ultra-nationalism and national pride has led to many wars in the past. A gentleman in Germany between 1935 and 1939 justified many of his activities because of national pride, necessity and democracy.
We cannot sit idly by and let any country, whether it is the United States, the Soviet Union or China intervene in small countries because it might hurt their national pride or inflict a bad image on the president of their country in the world community. As the leader of my party suggested, this type of move would help destroy the credibility of the United States among the countries of Southeast Asia and many other countries in the third world. It will not improve the credibility of the United States.
The President's statements of national pride should be of concern to each and every one of 
us. When the Americans intervened in Cambodia they did not consult the government of Cambodia. This has already been pointed out in the House. Passages have been read from newspaper articles quoting diplomats in Cambodia saying they did not ask for help from the United States; they did not ask the United States for armed intervention. This type of unilateral activity or declaration can be very, very dangerous.
This leads me to the conclusion that there are a number of things we as a country should be doing to try to bring about an end to the terrible crisis in Southeast Asia. We cannot sit idly by while countries on many different sides of the camp, either Communist or non-Communist, are intervening in another country. We have a responsibility to speak out as loudly and as clearly as possible. Canada is greatly respected in the world community, but Canada cannot end the war by herself. No one can end the war by himself. However, we can play a leading part in a great movement to end the war in Viet Nam and in turn bring peace and security to the people of Southeast Asia.
We have to intervene and speak out on behalf of the Canadian people from coast to coast as well as on behalf of mankind in general. Canada must tell the United States that it is wrong in intervening in Cambodia. They must tell the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong the same thing. They must call on all belligerents to talk this over immediately. Canada must tell the United States to withdraw from Viet Nam immediately. Canada should discontinue its defence-sharing arrangements with the United States. As long as we are sending them ammunition, defensive and offensive materials, we are partisan; we will not be taking an unbiased attitude in the war in Viet Nam. Through the United Nations we must do all we can to bring about a peaceful settlement of the war in Viet Nam. Today mankind has built the weapons and has the technology to destroy itself. The sad thing about the situation is that we live in a state of international anarchy. We do not have an international organization with any real power, influence or sovereignty that can solve problems such as this.
I appeal to the government to do all that is possible to convince the Americans to withdraw from Cambodia and Viet Nam and to do the same with respect to other countries involved from the outside. Everyone in this country must speak out. If they do not, the war cannot help but escalate and become more and more serious each and every day.
May 1. 1970	COMMONS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I propose only to add a footnote to the eloquent and effective statements of our views on this crucially important matter that have already been expressed in this House by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), by my leader and by the hon. member who has just spoken. I want to devote my few remarks to denying the canard that is sometimes put about regarding criticism and condemnation of American intervention in Southeast Asia. The latest phase of it is the invasion of Cambodia. In so doing, we in this party are often referred to as anti-American, inspired by some hostility toward the United States of America. The reverse is true.
For the approximately eight years I have been a member of this House I have had the honour to be one of my party's spokesmen on external affairs. I have always recognized that the intimacy of our relations with the United States makes it one of our first interests to maintain friendly relations with that country and to be concerned with her interests. What is in the interest of the United States? Has it been in the interest of the United States to have this disastrous involvement in Southeast Asia? I think clearly not. We have consistently spoken of this intervention as a ghastly mistake. Surely the facts have fully justified our stand. Thousands of lives have been thrown away. People have been devastated. Billions of dollars have been poured down the drain. To what end? We said this was wrong
DEBATES	6509
U.S. Invasion of Cambodia then, and we say it is wrong now. We will continue to say it is wrong.
It is time for the friends of the United States to speak up in clear tones and not in any form of quiet diplomacy. The nature of the American commitment to the war in Southeast Asia is such that it is open-ended; it never ends. It is always a good military argument to go a step further and give another turn to the wheel of escalation. That has always been a good military argument, and always will be. However, there is no end to the process unless you start doing the opposite, that is, stopping what has gone on.
The most heartening aspect of this whole matter has been the growing body of American opinion, and to some extent even official opinion in the United States Congress and Senate, about this involvement. This is the time for the voice of mankind, whether it be American, Canadian, European, Asian or African to issue the united call to end the tragedy that threatens to engulf the whole world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to Standing Order 26 (13), I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded. Therefore, I declare the motion carried.

At 5.32 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 4, 1970