December 9, 1952

CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Coldwell:

Faith again. Great faith.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Clarence Gillis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Gillis:

-it means more expenditure. The amendment to the amendment is very simple. It does not demand anything and does not tell the government that it has to do anything. It is very simple, and I am going to put it on the record again because anything that is worth while is worth repeating. It says:

We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:

(a) To recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial administration;

(b) To implement their proposals to the dominion-provincial conference of 1945.

There is no regimentation there. That does not take away any provincial jurisdiction. It advocates co-operation with the provinces. It is not unreasonable to ask the government to implement or try to put through proposals they have already made. In 1945 they made these proposals.

494 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Gillis

Now let us have a look at this business of a national health program. Some people here say it is state medicine. Well, nobody has defined state medicine. What is state medicine? I would call it co-operative medicine. I would say it is on all fours with old age security. Nobody objects to the government paying old age pensions. The scheme is on a contributory basis. The taxpayers pay 2 per cent on their taxes. They pay for it and they get it, and there is no stigma attached to it.

Let me give an example of what national health insurance would look like. I have two very good examples. With the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright)

I was in France in 1944. We visited a big German air force hospital there that was then in allied hands. During our visit I had a talk with a medical doctor, a very competent man who comes from Vancouver; 1 do not want to name him. We had seen him perform operations, and he was just about as fast and as competent as any doctor I have ever seen. We spent 24 hours or so with him and before we left he said: How are you getting along with national health insurance in Canada? I told him that we were still talking about it, that there was not very much being done about it, and that the government was still very reluctant. I told him I thought we were making progress and that we were selling it to the people of Canada at least. Ultimately, I said, when you make a demand popular, enough politicians looking for votes will generally give the people whatever they demand. If there is pressure enough they will. Well, he said,

I am very much concerned about it. He told me that prior to the war he was a young struggling doctor. He said that he was fairly good, and that he specialized in surgery in Vancouver. He said he had a little office with a miracle bottle on one shelf and another miracle bottle on another shelf. He said he was not in a hospital, not on a hospital board, but he was a general practitioner. He told me that when people came to see him he had a fairly good idea of what they required, but they could not afford to pay him and he could not afford to treat them. He said: "I gave them a little shot out of the miracle bottle. It did not do them any harm, but it did not do them very much good; so we were both happy, and it did not cost either of us very much".

Then the war broke out and he got a call from the government. They wanted him in the service. He said he was firmly opposed to national health insurance at that time. He was not opposed to it because of what he knew about it; he was opposed to it

because of what somebody had told him about it. When he came into the service he got a uniform, a good salary, his wife and two children got an allowance and he had economic security. He said he found himself in a hospital with nurses, a laboratory, technicians and equipment that he had never dreamed about before. With all the economic insecurity removed he went to work as a doctor, with others, and they began to develop new techniques. All of a sudden he realized that this was socialized medicine. He said: "I am concerned now about when I leave the service, and take off the uniform. Do I go back to the miracle bottle? What happens to all this equipment-nurses, technicians and all that kind of thing?" I told him that I did not know but that we were doing our best to popularize the idea against the time when those who were looking for votes would have to give it to the people of Canada in order to secure their votes.

That was one example. The second example is more recent. I had occasion just a month ago to visit Camp Hill hospital in Halifax, Nova Scotia. I want to tell the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg), and although he is not here it will be on the record, that in that hospital we have one of the most excellent institutions in North America. I spent two days there and I want to pay tribute to the doctors, nurses, orderlies, and the people whom I met there. I think they are as highly trained, as skilful and as conscientious as any people you will find in that profession in North America. The equipment in these veterans' hospitals-I presume it is the same right across this country- cannot be duplicated in 99 per cent of your private hospitals. They have not the funds.

During the time I was there I talked to one or two doctors on this very subject. In private discussion they were afraid of it, the same as the chap I met in France, because of the things people had said about it. It would mean regimentation and all that sort of thing. I asked one fellow this question. Do you believe you are any more efficient in this institution, working on a salary and with the equipment, the laboratories and technicians that you have here, than you would be back in a rural office somewhere with about 40 per cent of your patients unable to pay you? These veterans' hospitals constitute government health insurance for the veterans of this country. The medical care is provided on a non-contributory basis. We pay for it out of taxation, and the cost is spread over the nation as a whole. This scheme provides national health insurance in so far as the veteran population is concerned. We pay the veterans while they are taking treatment.

In 99 per cent of the hospitals across this country you have not the equipment or the personnel that you find in veterans' hospitals. In my opinion these institutions are second to none in North America. If we can do that for the veteran population of this country on the basis upon which we are doing it, and pay for it out of taxation without any financial contribution by the recipient, why can we not do that for everyone in this country on a contributory basis? It could be paid for through the income tax, just as we did for the old age security pension, by adding another 2 per cent to the tax or whatever percentage the actuaries worked out. It is not a vision or a dream any longer, and it is needed.

Some persons tell me we are not ready for it. When are we going to be ready for it? Let us make the facilities we have today available to all the people of this country. Anyone who listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) present his last budget must have realized that half the people of this country cannot pay for medical services at all. Half the salary and wage earners of this country are earning amounts below the income tax level. How can anyone with an income of under $2,000 a year if he is married, or $1,000 a year if he is single, pay hospital or doctors' bills with the present cost of medical services? The result is that these people do not get treatment at all. There is neglect and a lot of casualties because of that neglect. All this is due to the fact that the people cannot afford any more medical attention. We need more hospitals, more doctors, more trained personnel and all that kind of thing. Let us make what we have available to all our people; because there are thousands who cannot afford any medical attention at all.

Let us put the two plans side by side and look at them, the private plan and the national plan. Evidence before the president's commission on health in the United States showed that some private plans take out as much as 94 cents on the dollar, and give only 6 cents in service. Even in Canada, Associated Medical Services takes off 25 cents on the dollar and Blue Cross takes about 18 per cent, 9 per cent for expenses and 9 per cent for reserves. Physicians' plans take 10 to 15 per cent in administrative costs.

On the other hand the province-wide hospital plan in Saskatchewan takes out only 4-6 per cent for expenses, while the Swift Current health plan, a compulsory medical plan, takes out only 5-6 per cent The facts prove that government plans are cheaper to operate and give you more value for your health dollar. Private plans mean rationing

The Address-Mr. Gillis by the purse. They charge the same to the rich and the poor alike. On the other hand, a national health plan would graduate the payments so that low income groups would pay less than the high income groups getting the same service. The private plans reach only a fraction of the population at best. Today not more than half our population is covered by hospital plans, even if you include the government plans in Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and not more than 25 per cent have some kind of medical plan.

A national health program would cover everybody from Vancouver to Newfoundland. The protection afforded by a private plan is limited by all kinds of restrictions about coverage and payments; with a national plan there are very few or no restrictions. It provides all the protection you really need. Private plans cover people far more in urban areas than in rural areas, and the need is greater in rural areas. A national plan would cover rural areas as well as urban areas. Private plans do nothing to provide more doctors, dentists and nurses. A national plan would provide for the training of more professional personnel and build more hospitals; it is all part of the national plan. Private plans are voluntary, which means in effect they do not cover people who are not in a position to subscribe because they cost too much, who do not belong to groups or who just plain forget. Those who do subscribe voluntarily do not always get what they think they paid for. On the other hand a national plan is compulsory, which means in effect that everybody gets covered.

When the government introduces a plan in a democratic way, everyone pays a fair share through general taxation and a graduated social security contribution. Today, under private plans, Canadians are already spending about $450 million on hospitals, medical and other sickness needs. On top of this our governments are spending another $150 million to $200 million, a total of over $600 million. Under a national health plan, in the long run. we would probably spend no more money than we are spending now, but we would spend it more wisely. We would divert our present expenditures into the national plan and get more service for our money.

I see you smiling at me, Mr. Speaker, which indicates that my time has nearly expired. I wanted to make these few remarks about national health insurance tonight, and I think this analysis I have put on the record clearly indicates that national health insurance is no longer a political matter. These statements about regimentation, and all that kind of stuff, are so much nonsense. They

49G HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Drew should have no place on platforms or in the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada.

National health insurance is a must. It is one of the things, in my opinion, that are absolutely essential. I come from a mining district. We have a fairly reasonable medical plan there. Our doctors are paid on a panel. We built our own hospitals. Half our own men are on the boards. We regulate it in that way. In my opinion it is much better than that which is to be found in most parts of the country; but it is far from adequate. In the last ten years all we have done is step the rate up and up, and the hospital is going into debt all the time.

Half the people in the community require specialist service. We have the sad experience every week of the committee going from house to house in the community taking up a collection to send somebody to Montreal or to Halifax to have a major operation, because the local hospitals have not the facilities to do brain surgery and that kind of thing; and the need is becoming greater every day. The local hospitals are no longer able to carry the burden. The costs have become exorbitant. The services are not there. It is impossible to provide the equipment.

I should like to tell the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), or anyone in this house who takes the view that state medicine is regimentation, to visit some of the veterans' hospitals and take a look at them, take a look at the facilities, and see how simple it is for the doctors to do their work because of the nurses, technicians and so forth that are at their disposal.

I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) made an excellent speech this afternoon. I am sure the applause that greeted him on rising in the house indicated that we were all very glad to see him back on his feet and in here pitching again, doing the kind of job he has been doing for the last 25 years. He mentioned the means test in the war veterans' allowance, and suggested that we take the means test out of the blind pension. I am not going to elaborate on these things. I have spoken on them before. I merely want to say that I associate myself with him in all the demands he made for improvements in legislation that already exists. I trust that the amendment to the amendment that is now before the house will be carried unanimously.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with the amendment to the amendment

IMr. Gillis.]

because I wish to place on record the position we take in connection with it before the vote is taken. Before I do so, however, I propose to deal with certain points that have been raised since I spoke early in this debate, and particularly with some statements that were made after I had spoken, and to which I could not reply until the opportunity arose to speak again, as I now do.

I wish to speak about television, and the statement made yesterday by the minister responsible for that to this house. It was an interesting thing that the minister should choose to make a second statement of policy prior to the time that we actually have before us the legislation which will carry that policy into effect. Probably we shall have another statement of policy before long, because the one we received yesterday was not complete. It did not deal with the question of licence fees, a subject which the members of this house know is a matter of interest to hon. members on the other side as well as on this. I do not think it will be desirable to wait until we get the next statement of policy before dealing with that subject.

At this time I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that it would be desirable that we have an understanding in regard to these speeches which are made by ministers before the orders of the day, as was done by two ministers yesterday. It would help to facilitate the business of this house if we came to a clear understanding in regard to this subject.

I rose yesterday, immediately after the minister had made his statement, and made certain comments. At the time I made those comments it was indicated by some hon. members that they felt that I was out of order in doing so. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that there is no rule which permits a statement by a minister such as that which was made yesterday, and such as those which it is becoming customary to receive in that way. I do suggest that it should become an accepted practice that if ministers are to make statements in regard to policy, not simply answering questions which have already been asked or are asked in the ordinary manner before the orders of the day, there should be an opportunity to comment on that statement immediately; otherwise it would become necessary to insist upon the rules being observed, and to follow the practice which is adopted so frequently at Westminster, namely to precede a statement of policy of that kind by the introduction of a motion.

I feel sure many hon. members will believe that the business of the house can be facilitated and carried on satisfactorily by permitting a procedure of this kind to be

followed; but I would point out that if it is to be followed, then also it should be understood that there will be an opportunity to reply, and that those who have accorded to the minister the courtesy of permitting the statement to be made by consent should not then be denied the opportunity to make a subsequent statement. I take this occasion to make these remarks because the opportunity did not present itself to do so yesterday at the time the statement was made.

Now, to deal with the statement in regard to television: I believe it is appropriate to deal with this subject at this time, while the statement of the minister is still fresh in the minds of hon. members, and while there is still time for the government to reconsider its position before it places legislation before us, and then seeks the support of the members of the party to which the government belongs for the adoption of the legislation that will be introduced.

The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) made a statement yesterday which informed us that certain steps are being taken by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with the concurrence of the government, and that hon. members will be called upon to approve further loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of extending their facilities.

One of the great difficulties that all members of the house, outside of the government, must have experienced from time to time, is that, when it is convenient for the government to deny responsibility for the actions of the C.B.C., it does so, and when it is convenient to accept responsibility it also does so. Yesterday we were informed that it was the decision of the government that there should be an extension of publicly-owned television broadcasting to certain areas of Canada. The minister said, as reported at page 409 of yesterday's proceedings:

For some time the government has been giving careful consideration to the development of television broadcasting in Canada. In its consideration it has had in mind the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters, and sciences. The commission recommended that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation proceed with the production of television programs and with plans for national coverage. It spoke of extension of national coverage both through publicly and privately-owned stations. It said that no private station should be licensed until the C.B.C. had available national television programs and that all private stations established should be required to serve as outlets for national programs.

It will be seen that the government purports to rely upon the recommendation of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences; and it is

The Address-Mr. Drew stated that it is following the recommendation that no private station should be licensed until the C.B.C. had available national television programs-

-and that all private stations established should be required to serve as outlets for national programs.

We heard a statement on government policy in regard to broadcasting. At the end of his remarks yesterday in which he dealt with broadcasting the minister said, in response to a question of mine about a program which had been put out over the C.B.C. television station in Toronto, that it was not the responsibility of the government to supervise broadcasts of this kind. These were his words:

Under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, the C.B.C. itself has the full responsibility for all programming matters.

Either the government must accept responsibility or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation must accept responsibility, one or the other. The statement I have just quoted related to an abominable television broadcast over the C.B.C. station at Toronto, about which I have received numerous complaints from parents of children who saw it. We are told that this is the responsibility of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and not the responsibility of the government.

At the very time this statement is made, the government is accepting full responsibility for the policy that is to be followed, and of necessity for all the results from that policy. I wonder if the minister believes that a program such as the one entitled "Hilda Morgan", to which he referred in his remarks yesterday, is the kind of thing that was contemplated by the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, when it recommended that these media for the communication of ideas, of education and of culture should maintain the highest possible standards.

I hope the minister responsible will show a greater interest in the program than he has yet done, and will outline to the house the details of that program in regard to which he expresses no concern. I would hope the minister would be prepared to do that, because he has taken the responsibility for leaving this matter with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, leaving the inference that it is a matter about which members need not be concerned.

I mention this again because a very real problem is going to be raised in regard to these broadcasts of television programs. One of the things which presents itself even now for consideration by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and by members of the

The Address-Mr. Drew House of Commons, is the extent of supervision which should be exercised in regard to programs. A question has already arisen as to whether programs which are based upon moving picture films would be subject to the same provincial supervision as moving pictures now are. This is not something that can be dismissed with the statement that it has already been found that radio broadcasting is under national jurisdiction. A new element arises in connection with television.

Surely it would be a strange thing if a provincial government agency set up for the purpose of examining the films to be shown in moving picture theatres should have the right to say that a film should not be shown in a theatre, but that it could then be taken across the street to a television station and shown in the homes of all those having television sets, without supervision of any kind.

That would indeed produce an astonishing situation. It would mean that in the case of moving picture theatres, where there is at least some restraint in certain circumstances as to the way in which those theatres can be used, a film that might not be shown to persons of all ages in such theatres could, however, be shown right in the homes where children of any age might be looking at television broadcasts.

I do not need to extend the argument on that point. It is obvious that this presents a great difficulty. Unless there is likely to be an immediate demand for very rigid supervision of television broadcasting, then it would seem that a very high measure of responsibility must be accepted by the C.B.C. for the type of television programs it projects into the homes of the people of this country.

Let me come now to the statement of policy enunciated yesterday in regard to these new stations. The minister said, and I quote from page 409 of Hansard of December 8:

A television station can serve only a comparatively small area. Canada is very large and it will require a good many stations before television can be brought to the people in most parts of our country.

Those are the minister's words. I think everyone will agree that that is a statement which must be borne in mind when considering what is likely to happen in this country in connection with television broadcasting. Having pointed out that television stations can serve only comparatively small areas and that in a large country like this it will require a great many stations to serve the public, the minister then went on to say that as a matter of policy the government had decided that out of the taxpayers' money television

would be provided in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax.

The C.B.C. is to exercise its monopoly control to take over the areas where private investment would have most quickly provided television programs without expense to those receiving the programs and without expense to the taxpayers of Canada. Instead of doing that the government says it has decided that the C.B.C. will occupy these fields, that its monopoly will be absolute for the time being and that no private station will be given a licence in those areas to compete with the C.B.C. stations. In this statement of policy for which the government accepts full responsibility-and must accept full responsibility since it was announced as a statement of policy by the government- there is not one word to suggest why television broadcasting should be on an entirely different basis from radio broadcasting.

Why is it that in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Halifax and Ottawa several radio stations compete with each other, private stations competing with publicly-owned stations and vice versa, yet when we come to television there is to be no competition? The fact is that this is the very field in which there should be competition. Here is the very field where competition is the only thing that will assure a standard of programs such as will attract our people to this new means of communicating ideas, news, entertainment and cultural programs of different kinds.

There is another important factor. The minister informed this house yesterday that because television stations cover such small areas as compared with the enormous areas covered by the powerful radio stations it will require, to use his words, a good many stations before television can be brought to the people in most parts of our country. The policy of the government, as announced to the house yesterday, is that the government has decided -not the C.B.C.-that it is going to occupy the areas where the financial returns would have made it possible to obtain programs from private stations without cost to the public and leave to private investment those distant areas where the financial returns will make it most difficult to establish stations.

As I pointed out yesterday, the basic concept of a publicly-owned system of broadcasting was to make it possible to carry to the people in every part of Canada radio broadcast programs. That was the main reason for exercising certain controls and providing facilities for programs at distant points in Canada. The government is now stating that it accepts the responsibility for

denying to the people in distant points the opportunity to obtain programs from the organization maintained by the taxpayers' money. If the government stands by the policy announced yesterday it means that the taxpayer along the British Columbia coast, throughout northern Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, along the Atlantic coast-yes, in fact in most parts of Canada, because there is a very limited area within which these six stations mentioned can broadcast programs-is going to be paying out of his tax money for something that gives him no advantage, and is going to be called upon to

The Address-Mr. Drew provide the money which makes it possible for the people in the Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver areas to receive this advantage.

Surely that is wholly inconsistent with every basic concept of this publicly-owned system which was set up some years ago by a Conservative government here in this parliament.

On motion of Mr. Drew the debate was adjourned.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



United Nations


APPENDIX


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL; KOREAN RESOLUTIONS; RESOLUTIONS ON RACE


CONFLICT IN SOUTH AFRICA


December 5, 1952 Sir, The general assembly of the United Nations, at its 399th plenary meeting on December 3, 1952, adopted a resolution under item 16 (a) of its agenda-Korea: Reports of the United Nations commission for the unification and rehabilitation of Korea. Under the terms of that resolution, originally sponsored by the government of India, the president of the general assembly is requested "to communicate the following proposals to the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and to the North Korean authorities as forming a just and reasonable basis for an agreement so that an immediate cease-fire would result and be effected; to invite their acceptance of these proposals and to make a report to the general assembly during its present session and as soon as appropriate". In discharge of the duty placed upon me by the terms of that resolution, I have the honour to transmit to you the text of the resolution and to invite your acceptance of the proposals contained therein. 2. I send this message to you against the background of the casualties, the sufferings, and the destruction in Korea which are the inevitable consequence of war, and I add my personal appeal that you should give it your most thoughtful and sympathetic consideration. When the first committee of the general assembly, by an unanimous decision, agreed to treat the Korean question as a matter of urgency, its decision reflected the concern of all members of the United Nations, a concern which I am sure is shared by the peoples of the world, over the tragedy of war and devastation in Korea, and their deep desire to bring this war to an end on terms acceptable to both sides. To this end negotiations have been proceeding for some sixteen months at Panmunjom, in the course of which a wide measure of agreement on the terms of an armistice has been reached. The sole remaining issue which has not been settled in the course of these armistice negotiations concerns the principles and procedures by which the repatriation of prisoners of war can be effected. 3. In itself, the prisoners of war issue is a challenge to the fundamental humanitarian instincts which are shared by all mankind and urgently calls for solution. In camps on both sides, human beings have been kept for long months under military detention while the lengthy negotiations concerning their fate have been continuing. There is an inescapable moral obligation on both sides in the Korean conflict to make every possible effort to ensure that these prisoners of war shall be free to return to their homelands, and their speedy return facilitated. 4. The discussion of this matter in the first committee of this assembly has made clear the general agreement in the United Nations that this problem should be dealt with and the repatriation of prisoners of war should be effected under the terms of the Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war of August 12, 1949, under the well-established principles and practice of international law, and under the relevant provisions of the draft armistice agreement. It was also generally agreed that prisoners of war should be released from the custody of the detaining powers to a repatriation commission so that they can be free to exercise their undoubted right with respect to repatriation, and that it was inconsistent with common humanitarian principles that a detaining power should offer any hindrance to the return to their homelands of any prisoners of war. Finally, there was general agreement that the Geneva convention cannot be construed as authorizing a detaining power to employ force to effect the return of individual prisoners of war to their homelands. 5. The general assembly resolution clearly states the above principles with respect to the solution of the prisoner of war issue, and, in addition, makes concrete proposals with regard to the machinery of repatriation. It represents ideas put forward by many governments represented in the general assembly whose unanimous desire is to bring peace to Korea. The resolution can make this desire effective because its acceptance will make it possible to achieve an armistice and a complete and immediate cessation of hostilities. 6. The resolution, in addition, makes reference to the desire of the general assembly to expedite and facilitate, once an armistice is effective, the convening of a political conference provided for in article 60 of the draft armistice agreement already accepted by the military negotiators at Panmunjom. United. Nations 7. It is my earnest hope that the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China will accept these proposals of the general assembly as a basis for the solution of the one remaining issue which has prevented the conclusion of an armistice during the negotiations at Panmunjom. Once this issue is solved, it will become possible to bring the fighting to an end and complete the program for a peaceful settlement in Korea leading, we must hope, towards a more general settlement which would contribute to peace in Asia and in the world. 8. The United Nations is determined to do everything possible to bring the fighting to an end in Korea. This is also the declared aim of the Central People's Government. This common aim can be achieved if the proposals which are now submitted for your consideration are, as I earnestly hope will be the case, accepted in the spirit in which they are put forward. In this hope, as president of the seventh session of the general assembly of the United Nations, I appeal to you to accept these proposals of the United Nations as forming a just and reasonable basis for an agreement which will serve to bring about a constructive and durable peace in Korea. 9. I shall look forward to receiving as soon as possible your reply to this communication, which I shall report to the general assembly when it is received. 10. In accordance with the decision of the general assembly, the text of the resolution has also been communicated to the North Korean authorities, to whom I am sending a similar message. 11. Please acccept, sir, the assurances of my highest consideration^ LESTER B. PEARSON President, General Assembly. His Excellency, Mr. Chou En-lai, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, PEKING, China.



21-POWER RESOLUTION (This resolution did not come to the vote) Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay: Draft resolution on Korea


THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,


1. HAVING RECEIVED the special report of the Unified Command of 18 October 1952 on the status of military action and the armistice negotiations in Korea, 2. NOTING with approval the efforts of the United Nations negotiators to achiewe a just and honourable armistice to bring an end to the fighting in Korea in accordance with United Nations principles, 3. NOTING FURTHER that disagreement on one remaining issue has prevented the achievement of such an armistice, 4. REAFFIRMS the earnest intention of the United Nations to reach a just and honourable settlement of the Korean conflict; 5. NOTES WITH APPROVAL the tentative agreements which the United Nations Command has reached on behalf of the United Nations; 6. NOTES WITH APPROVAL the principle followed by the United Nations Command with regard to the question of repatriation of prisoners of war, and the numerous proposals which the United Nations Command has made to solve the questions in accordance with this humanitarian principle; 7. NOTES FURTHER that other suggestions consistent with the basic humanitarian position of the United Nations Command have been made by various Members of the United Nations; 8. CALLS UPON the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and upon the North Korean authorities to avert further bloodshed by having their negotiators agree to an armistice which recognizes the rights of all prisoners of war to an unrestricted opportunity to be repatriated and avoids the use of force in their repatriation; 9. REQUESTS the President of the General Assembly to transmit this resolution to the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and to the North Korean authorities, and to make a report to the General Assembly as soon as he deems appropriate during the present session on the result of his action.



(This resolution did not come to the vote) Mexico: draft resolution The General Assembly, WHEREAS it is the purpose of the United Nations to restore peace and, therefore, to achieve the cessation of hostilities in Korea through the conclusion of a just and honourable armistice;



United Nations WHEREAS from official reports at the disposal of the General Assembly it follows that the only obstacle to the conclusion of the armistice lies in the fact that it has not been possible to reach an agreement in regard to the exchange of prisoners of war; WHEREAS the United Nations must safeguard the application of the humanitarian principles that underlie the international instruments in force relating to prisoners of war;



REQUESTS the President of the General Assembly to invite, through the channels that he may deem appropriate, the Military Commanders of the North Korean and Chinese forces in Korea to consider the following general bases for the exchange of prisoners of war, with a view to facilitate the early conclusion of the armistice: 1. Prisoners of war held by either of the parties, who have voluntarily expressed their desire to return to the country of their origin, will be repatriated without delay upon the conclusion of the armistice. 2. Other prisoners of war held by either of the parties, desirous of establishing temporary residence in other States, would not return to the country of their origin until the coming into force of the decisions that, in order to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Korean question, might be adopted in the Political Conference that will take place after the armistice, in conformity with the agreement reached by the Military Commanders, on point 5 of the Armistice agenda. 3. Pending the entry into force of the above-mentioned decisions, the situation of the prisoners of war referred to in paragraph 2 shall be governed by the following rules: (a) The General Assembly, acting in the manner and through the channel it may deem appropriate, will negotiate with each State agreeing to participate in the plan envisaged in this Resolution, on the number of prisoners which such a State may be prepared to receive in its territory, as well as on the conditions inherent to their admission. (b) Once in the country of temporary residence, the authorities of that country shall grant them a migratory status which would enable them to work in order to provide for their needs. 4. When the situation foreseen for their repatriation arises as described in paragraph 2 above, the authorities of the countries of origin would grant facilities for the return of of the ex-prisoners of war and would furnish guarantees for the subsequent protection of their freedom and their lives. 5. In the case of those ex-prisoners of war, who, by virtue of the present Resolution, would be provisionally residing in another country and would express their will to return to their country of origin before the situation foreseen for their repatriation in the terms of paragraph 2 has arisen, the United Nations would provide the means to carry their wishes into effect.



REQUESTS the President of the General Assembly to report to the Assembly in due course concerning the result of the steps which he is asked to take by this Resolution.



(This resolution did not come to the vote) Peru: draft resolution The General Assembly, Expressing the desire of mankind for an immediate, just and honourable peace, and considering that the only issue which has prevented the conclusion of the armistice is that relating to the repatriation of prisoners of war, Decides: 1. To set up a five-member Commission on which each of the parties to the conflict shall be represented by one delegate. The General Assembly, for its part, shall appoint two delegates and invite the collaboration of a neutral state, not a Member of the United Nations, to be a member of the Commission and to serve as its Chairman. 2. The Commission appointed as aforesaid shall immediately take steps to co-operate in the repatriation of prisoners in accordance with their freely expressed wishes. 3. Prisoners not wishing to be repatriated shall remain under the protection of the Commission in a neutralized zone so long as no provision has been made for their future. 4. The said Commission shall propose to the United Nations at the earliest possible moment the most suitable measures for the final decision as to the future of the prisoners remaining under its protection, one of the measures to be considered being their transfer to the territory of such Powers as may be prepared to receive them, or their settlement in Trust Territories in agreement with the Administering Power concerned. Prisoners shall, in any event, be free to make a decision later concerning their return to their place of origin. 5. In the performance of its functions, the Commission shall be guided by the principles of the United Nations Charter and by the Declaration of Human Rights.



(This resolution was rejected by the General Assembly) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: revised draft resolution The General Assembly, Having considered the report of the Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea, Considers it necessary: To establish a Commission for the peaceful setttlement of the Korean question with provision for the participation of the parties directly concerned and of other States, including States which have not taken part in the Korean war. The Commission shall consist of the following members: United States of America, United Kingdom, France, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, People's Republic of China, India, Burma, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, People's Democratic Republic of Korea and South Korea. To instruct the said Commission to take immediate steps for the settlement of the Korean question on the basis of the unification of Korea-to be effected by the Koreans themselves under the supervision of the above-mentioned Commission, such steps to include comprehensive action to promote the repatriation of all prisoners of war by both sides.


REVISION OF SOVIET RESOLUTION ON KOREA


The Soviet delegation on November 23 submitted the following addendum to be inserted as the first paragraph of the revised Soviet resolution: "To recommend to the belligerents in Korea an immediate and complete ceasefire, i.e. the cessation of military operations by both sides on land, by sea and in the air, on the basis of the draft armistice agreement already approved by the belligerents, the question of the complete repatriation of prisoners of war to be referred for its solution to the commission for the peaceful settlement of the Korean question provided for in the U.S.S.R. draft resolution, in which commission questions shall be decided by two-thirds majority vote of its members''. United Nations


December 9, 1952