January 3, 1958



On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could direct a question to the Acting Minister of

Interim Supply

Citizenship and Immigration. Will the minister bring us up to date on the status of Christian George Hanna, in whom he took a great interest just a year ago?


Edmund Davie Fulton (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. E. D. Fullon (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would have to get a review made of the files and see what information is on hand, but I might say that since we took what I think was the reasonable position of giving Mr. Hanna a chance to establish himself I am not aware that he has come officially to our notice in any adverse way.


John Whitney Pickersgill


Mr. Pickersgill:

Did the hon. gentleman not see the press report which appeared in the newspapers two or three days ago that this gentleman had surrendered-that is the word that was used in the press-to the department? Is that true or is it not?


Edmund Davie Fulton (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fullon:

I have no official confirmation of that, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to look into it and find out.

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




Donald Methuen Fleming (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fleming moved:

Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $257,324,674.84, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, except items 16, 52, 57, 69, 71, 100, 116, 117, 131, 132, 134, 153, 156,158, 217 , 218 , 219, 227 , 248, 252, 281, 307 , 322, 324,328, 333, 334, 335, 336, 355, 361, 364, 365, 367, 373,

389, 391, 397, 399, 422, 428, 432 and 460, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $983,904.25, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 148 and 301 of the said estimates; in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $1,393,571.59, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, except items 621, 626, 635, 640 and 654, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $2,138,888.89, being one-ninth of the total of the amount of items 669 and 670 set forth in the further supplementary estimates (1) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and a sum not exceeding $125,000, being one-twelfth of the amount of item 668 of the said estimates; in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $7,338,888.17, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the further supplementary estimates (2) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, except items 692, 729, 732, 737, 754 and 759, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition a sum not exceeding $3,067,583.34, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 692, 729, 732 and 737 of the said estimates, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958.


Charles Edward Rea

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rea):

Shall the resolution carry?

Interim Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fleming:

Mr. Chairman, we have now entered the tenth month of the present fiscal year. In general, apart from the exceptions named in the resolution, funds have been voted by parliament only for the first nine months of the year, to December 31. Perhaps it would be of assistance to the committee if I gave the committee certain figures at this point.

There are, as hon. members will recall, four groups of estimates now under consideration. They total in the aggregate $5,597,316,555. Of that total the statutory items amount to $2,172,621,097, and the total amount required to be voted at the outset was accordingly $3,424,695,458. Thus far in the present fiscal year parliament has voted on account of the appropriations for the current fiscal year a total of $2,631,646,330.52 in a total of five appropriation bills. This present measure, which contemplates the introduction of the sixth appropriation bill in respect of the estimates for the current fiscal year, asks a vote of a total of $272,372,511.08. If the bill is passed the total voted by parliament will aggregate $2,913,253,431.68.

May I express the hope, Mr. Chairman, that this will be the last time it will be necessary to ask for a vote of interim supply during the course of the present session. The present request would provide the funds required to meet the expenses of government to January 31, and it may be hoped that all the items will have been voted in full by that date so far as the house approves of them.

In the present resolution, Mr. Chairman, with regard to most of the items the proportion sought is one twelfth. In some cases, as on previous occasions when interim supply was asked for, one ninth is asked of those items that were introduced having effect from July 1 and applicable therefore only to the last nine months of the fiscal year. In some cases one sixth is the fraction required, as to those items which were introduced to have effect from October 1, 1957, and accordingly apply only to the last six months of the present fiscal year. With only two exceptions there is nothing more required than that particular fraction of one month. In the present resolution the two exceptions are of a nature that has been encountered in connection with previous votes of interim supply.

There are two items, numbers 148 and 301, where the amount required exceeds one twelfth for very good reasons. In the case of item 148 the amount now requested would bring the total not to ten twelfths but to eleven twelfths. It is one of those items in the fish culture and development branch [The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rea).]

where the expenditure does not correspond exactly with the progress of the year. More of the expenditure necessarily requires to be made before the late months of the fiscal year.

The other exception is in the case of item 301, where again the amount now requested would bring the total fraction voted not to ten twelfths but to eleven twelfths. The item relates to the national parks and historic sites service, construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, and the reason in that case is that construction in the parks is usually concentrated in the summer and fall months and good progress has been achieved this year, particularly with the road construction program.

Apart from the items in the Post Office Department which were voted in full last spring, in no case where parliament has not already approved the item in full will the total amount voted following the adoption of the bill exceed eleven twelfths.

The rights of the house are preserved, therefore, with respect to the discussion of such items because of the necessity of having approval given to the items, and by reason of that proportion of one twelfth remaining yet to be voted.

In accordance with the time honoured practice, Mr. Chairman, I assure the house of its rights; and to avoid duplication of debate I give the usual undertaking that the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


George Carlyle Marler


Mr. Marler:

I should like first of all to say, on behalf of the official opposition, that we have no objection to voting the amount of supply which is provided for in the resolution now before the committee. The minister has assured us that in no case will the amount voted represent more in respect of any particular estimate than eleven twelfths, except for the few cases in which the estimate has been fully approved by parliament and funds voted accordingly.

I think the minister will agree that there are a large number of estimates that are affected by the various interim supply bills that have been passed. It is difficult for an opposition to follow the course of the votes in connection with each of the individual items, but so far as it is possible to tell, in no case covered by this resolution is more than eleven twelfths proposed to be voted.

I am sorry that the minister, in making some comments this morning regarding expenditures covered by this resolution, did not see fit to do more in the way of enlightening the committee with regard to the general program of expenditure than he has already done. He will probably recall that when we voted interim supply for the first time in the present parliament on October 17, he outlined-I think more particularly for the benefit of the new members of the house-the procedure that is ordinarily followed with respect to estimates. The explanation which he gave I thought made it quite clear that the tradition of the house is, and always has been, that the estimates are tabled early in the session and hon. members are therefore given an opportunity of reviewing them. There is, in fact, usually some lag in time between the date on which estimates are presented and the date when they are actually considered in the committee.

This year what we have is that despite the fact that the estimates were deposited on October 15, and despite the fact that the customary recommendation from His Excellency accompanied them-I might merely quote what was said by the minister in this connection on page 11 of Hansard of October 15, 1957:

However, this is not to say that the present government will support all of the detailed programs contemplated when those estimates were originally prepared. Rather, such changes as this government proposes to make in the current year programs will be brought to parliament's attention when the individual items affected are being considered by the committee of supply.

On various occasions, Mr. Chairman, we have endeavoured to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that this was not in keeping with the tradition that had been followed in the past. I am sure the minister himself would agree that in the past when estimates have been tabled, hon. members of the house fully expected that the expenditures they covered would be discussed and justified when the individual items were considered in committee. I fully realize that in rather exceptional instances in the past the minister has proposed reductions in these estimates when an item has been before the committee. In those cases events transpired since the preparation of the estimate, and probably since the tabling of the estimates, which made it expedient to ask for less money than was covered in the printed book of estimates.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the procedure the minister followed in October was a rather radical departure from past practice. It did seem to me that there could

Interim Supply

be no real objection to the minister acquainting the members of this committee with the reductions it was proposed to make; in other words, to put all hon. members of this house on a plane of equality so that those who were considering the estimates would know what the government's intentions were with regard to the various expenditures. As hon. members will recall, although the matter has been raised on a number of occasions the minister has steadfastly refused to give us information in the form of a table so we could see in the case of each department what items were not to be voted as presented but were to be reduced in amount.

I still find it difficult, Mr. Chairman, to understand why the minister has not seen fit to table a statement of those reductions in expenditures for the various departments. I observed that when he made his speech on the first item of his estimates he then informed the house that there were to be savings and reductions amounting to some $64 million. It seemed to me at that time, and on reflection I am even more convinced of the fact, that quite obviously the minister is aware of the changes to be made in the expenditures and is therefore in a position to tell the members of this committee just where those reductions are to be made, and what is the nature of the savings and reductions that make up this figure of $64 million to which he referred in his remarks.

One realizes immediately that $64 million is no minor reduction of a single item in the estimates of a department. It represents some very considerable changes in the estimates as presented to this house by the previous government. It does seem to me that the minister should lose no further time in giving the members this information, which they are entitled to have, as to the reductions totalling $64 million.

I have not been able, in going through Hansard, to find any case in which the estimates of any department which has been considered by this committee have been reduced. I take it, therefore, that all this reduction of $64 million to which the minister referred must be in some other items. When I say there have been no reductions in any items before the committee, I am referring to the resolutions that have been voted. I am aware of the fact that the estimates of some departments have been given preliminary consideration without a vote or resolution having been passed in consequence. I believe, therefore, it is a fair statement to make that no member on the opposition side of this house has any idea whatever as to how this figure of $64 million is arrived at.

We are not in a position, therefore, to decide whether these are real reductions and

Interim Supply

savings; whether in effect they amount to anything more than a shortfall, a lapsing of part of the estimates, or where that lapsing has taken place.

Bearing in mind what the minister said a moment ago to the effect that we are now entering upon the tenth month of the present fiscal year, it seems to me that the minister ought to be in a position to acquaint us with the details of this item of $64 million so that we may form our opinion as to whether these are real savings or whether they are merely shortfalls in expenditure; whether because of one reason or another programs are not being carried out, and whether or not there is something significant about them.

Everybody realizes that by merely curtailing a program or by merely refusing to undertake the carrying out of public works in one form or another by one department or another it may reduce the amount to be expended under a budget, but I do not think any objective person would consider that such actions represented savings. It is no saving not to build a building that is needed. That is a lapse, if you like, of the estimate, but nobody should think it is an economy, if this ordinary meaning is to be given to the word "saving".

There is one other comment I would like to make on this particular occasion, and that is that the Minister of Finance, when he sat on this side of the house, continually referred to the subject of waste and extravagance on the part of the various government departments. I have recently had the opportunity of rereading some of his speeches. I would not say these were recommended reading for the Christmas season, but as a matter of duty I felt I should read some of his remarks as recorded in Hansard of former years.

I do not think in recent times there has been a single debate on the budget in which the present Minister of Finance did not use those very vigorous terms which he is accustomed to using-which in fact he was more accustomed to using when he sat on this side of the house than he is today-and I found that in almost every year we had at least one very formidable paragraph on the subject of waste and extravagance. Yet we have been through the No. 1 item of several departments and through nearly all the estimates of some of the other departments, and in not one single case has the minister, in presenting his estimates, been able to point to an example of waste and extravagance which he has found to be carried on in his department.

The Minister of Transport, my successor in that department, seemingly found that the

department had been efficiently managed. The Minister of Public Works, who I see is just coming into the committee, has also spoken in the most glowing terms of his own department and those forming part of the permanent staff who assist in its administration. I think the last thing he would wish to imply is that this excellent staff of employees whom he has praised so highly would be guilty of such a thing as waste or extravagance.

The Secretary of State, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Minister of Veterans Affairs in almost every case have made, if not a positive statement, at least a statement by implication that their departments were well run and that there was no waste.

I think, Mr. Chairman, this does afford an excellent opportunity for the Minister of Finance to deal with the subject on a very general basis, and that before discussion of this resolution comes to an end he should give us some specific instances of this waste and extravagance to which he referred in such vigorous and vehement terms in the past. I think it would be very enlightening to those of us who have had the opportunity to be members of the treasury board if we could find out in what particular departments that waste and extravagance existed, because it was my own experience that all the recommendations of all the departments were given the most careful scrutiny, not only of course by the permanent officials of the treasury board with whom the present minister is now so closely associated, but also by the members of the treasury board itself. In fact, as the minister knows, meetings of the treasury board occupy a great deal of time, and I am sure that he and his colleagues, our successors on the treasury board, are just as vigilant today as we were in endeavouring to make sure that no money is spent wastefully or extravagantly.

I think the minister owes it to the permanent staff of the various departments to admit that since he has come to office he has not been able to find the waste and extravagance of which he spoke previously, not having access to all the facts.

I am not going to take any further time of the committee, but I would say that we desire to facilitate the passing of this resolution, and I hope that if other members take part in the discussion today and if they take advantage of this occasion to discuss other matters which are properly the subject of discussion at this time, the minister will not conclude the debate by scolding the members of the committee for taking so long in the discussion of the estimates. It seems

to me he should realize that if scolding was in order, some such scolding could be administered retrospectively to the minister himself, as he was not always the most silent member of the opposition when it came to discussing interim supply.

I say this, Mr. Chairman, merely to make it perfectly clear that although we intend to support this resolution, that does not mean that other hon. members of the party to which I belong will not wish to participate in the general discussion.


Alistair McLeod Stewart

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

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that we are going to support this resolution, but we are also going to take advantage of the opportunity which it gives us to discuss some matters which some of us think are very important.

One of the matters we want to bring out is that of governmental policy toward NATO. The committee will remember that on the day the house adjourned the Prime Minister came before us and gave us his agonizing reappraisal of what had taken place in Paris; and that right hon. gentleman had many words with which to disguise what he probably felt were the facts of the case. He subjected us to a torrent of words; he inundated us with a Niagara of words, and it has taken some time to get the spray out of our faces, but we have succeeded in doing that today, due in no small measure, of course, to the Minister of Finance.

The minister, however, leaves me wondering exactly how many voices there happen to be in his cabinet. There are so many voices that at times it sounds like a hydraheaded monster. The minister tells us that the position of the United States, for instance, with regard to the restriction on oil is wholly untenable. He tells us that the attitude of the United States does not at all concur with the communique. Then I read these words of the Prime Minister telling us that the atmosphere in Paris was certainly one which indicated a new spirit of unity among the nations, although I gathered the impression that perhaps the Minister of Finance did not share that feeling of unity which the Prime Minister obviously had. Or, as the Prime Minister went on to say later at page 2722;

At the meeting this week the flowering of this concept of the Atlantic community was very much in evidence.

Sir, there are some weeds in this flower bed. The Prime Minister did not speak about them. The Minister of Finance does. How does he propose to eradicate these weeds? What course of action does he pursue? The hon. gentleman makes a press

Interim Supply

statement which he assumes that United States officials will read. I know the excuse which has constantly been put up by governments that nothing official has reached their ears. How do we know that this press statement put out by a member of the Canadian government has reached the ears of the state department?

The Prime Minister went on to say:

There was not a great deal of divergence of view as to the necessity of greater and more expanding developments.

That is economic expansion. This, I say, does not agree-far from it-with what the Minister of Finance said today, and I think we have to get some clarification on this. I suggested earlier that the minister was conducting diplomacy by press statements. Perhaps I was not altogether right, because according to what he said he was having negotiations and discussions with the United States officials in Paris. So perhaps what we are being subjected to now is cocktail diplomacy.

But I do not think we should come to either the diplomacy of the cocktail party or the diplomacy of press statements. What this house would like to see is an official protest made to the government of the United States. It is no use having a minister of the government telling this parliament what he would like to say to the United States. Let him say it to the responsible people there, not to the opposition in the Canadian parliament.

When the Prime Minister made his statement on NATO my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, stated that there was not a concrete proposal in anything he had to say; in other words we were rehashing what had been said throughout the years with regard to NATO's hopes, aims and aspirations. We see now more than ever that those who are leading NATO have a Maginot mind complex, and we do not want minds like these in days such as we are going through now. I notice that the Prime Minister tried to defend himself from a very obvious charge, and I am going to say that the declaration from NATO, and his own speech, were a veritable mass and mess of cliches. The Prime Minister said:

I know what the cynics will say. They have done it all down through the ages. They will contend that the declaration and the communique are simply the same old tired cliches strung together in a different arrangement but leaving the old patterns substantially unchanged.

Well, when it comes to the Atlantic community and the fundamental concept of NATO, I am not a cynic. Throughout the years in this parliament I have been one of

Interim Supply

the protagonists of an Atlantic community. I have gone even further and asked for an Atlantic federation. It is not a matter of cynicism with me; it is a matter of disgust at this brutal use of the English language. I think the NATO declaration ought to be sent to every high school and every university in Canada as a grim example of how not to use words. Let us examine this declaration and see how many cliches there are in it. It begins:

We, the representatives of 15 nations of the North Atlantic alliance, believing in the sanctity of those human rights which are guaranteed to all men of free nations by their constitutions, laws and customs, rededicate ourselves and our nations to the principles and purposes of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Here is a startling new thought, something which must make us all shiver with expectation. The declaration goes on:

We have agreed together upon means to give added strength to our alliance.

Here again is a brand new idea, something we have really never thought of before, and I am sure it excites us. And it continues:

We are always ready to settle international problems by negotiation.

Surely that too is an exciting new discovery, and I am certain that the hon. member for Algoma East must be kicking himself because he never thought of that during all the time he was secretary of state for external affairs in this country. Then the document goes on:

The free world faces the mounting challenge of international communism backed by Soviet power.

What an amazing piece of research. Who else could have discovered it? This is the sort of research which, perhaps, makes the friends of NATO tremble with apprehension while making its potential foes quiver with hope. The declaration goes on to say-and I hope the Minister of Finance is listening-"for this purpose we have agreed to co-operate closely." This is a magnificent new concept never revealed to this house before. All new ideas, and not a cliche amongst them.

And then:

We shall reach this goal only by recognizing our interdependence.

Mr. Chairman, what a blinding vision has been given to men, something which has never been thought of before. To give another example:

We are an organization of free countries.

Surely this is revelation according to St. John. Or let us look at something which, I am told, the Canadian government took pride in having inserted in the declaration:

If the free nations are steadfast, the totalitarian menace that now confronts them will eventually recede.

"If the free nations are steadfast", Mr. Chairman. They have been steadfast long enough; steadfast for doubt, steadfast for cross purposes, and steadfast for confusion. What we need now is to be steadfast for imagination and some leadership, and that certainly was not given in Paris by this Canadian delegation. "If the free nations are steadfast the totalitarian menace will eventually recede." What an example of pre-sputnik thinking. What an example of the Maginot mind which, I said earlier, was working in full force.

This declaration is an insult to the intelligence of the people of the western world. I say it is full of cliches. I could go on and quote more; I could quote as many from the speech of the Prime Minister himself. The relation between the Prime Minister and the cliche is not that of master and servant; it is that of master and slave because he beats these cliches and bruises them, sets them dangling before us, and then having bludgeoned them with such violence he buries their bleeding bodies in the pages of Hansard. If we want to find out what is happening we have to disinter these victims of verbosity, and when we conduct a post mortem we find that nothing has been happening.

But there are some statements in the communique with which we can agree. For example:

The aim of the Soviet bloc is to weaken and disrupt the free world.

We are agreed on that. That menace confronts us. The Soviet union is the leader of one of the big power blocs, and as an individual I am supremely suspicious of great powers and power blocs. We in the western world have seen how power can be taken and abused, but there is always the safeguard of public opinion to act as a brake and put a stop to it. On the other hand, in totalitarian nations there is no such safeguard and no such brake, and so we are faced today with two great power blocs in a world of anarchy which may mean yet a world which is at war. The consequences of this situation can be tragic for people all over the world. The one thing that saves us is that both sides know that war would be a matter of mutual extermination and anihilation. And so it is possible that both blocs, or the peoples of both blocs, want to come to terms with each other.

There has been a certain disinclination on the part of the west to come to terms with the Soviet union for reasons which in the past were perhaps good. But the situation today is so precarious that we believe it is essential that another attempt be made to test the sincerity of Russian intentions. We know what has happened in the past; we

know the disappointments we have encountered, but we still have to make another attempt. We have to be prepared to negotiate but not on the broadest basis, because that, I think, would mean failure. Rather we have to take two or perhaps three cases in which we can negotiate, those which are probably the most perilous to mankind. We have to see if we can come to some modus vivendi with the Soviet union in this connection. The following is mentioned in the communique:

We have especially in mind the problems of the reunification of Germany in freedom-

Many are convinced that unless this problem in the centre of Europe is solved there will not be much hope for peace, and therefore it is essential that we try and have Germany reunited, not on the basis of western terms and not on the basis of Soviet terms but on the basis which perhaps the Germans themselves want. In other words there has to be a compromise between the two groups.

It might be worth while considering the suggestion that both East and West Germany and Poland and Czechoslovakia be to some extent neutralized in the hope that free elections can be held there, properly supervised, and Germany eventually united. I know there are many who oppose this. For instance, there is the pentagon type of mind. It was this group or clique, call it what you like, which was responsible for bringing Germany into the North Atlantic community. They argued that the defence of Germany and the creation in Germany of an army was essential to the safety of the west. Probably they were thinking in those days of the policy of containment, but surely the advent of the intercontinental ballistic missile has shown that containment can no longer work because we cannot contain those missiles.

On the other hand there is the economic argument, which may not be expressed but which I suppose is deeply felt in nations such as the United Kingdom; the fear that if Germany does not have to spend money on rearmament she may become a more intense competitor in the markets of the world, and the other fear that as the result of not spending money on rearmaments the standard of living of the Germans would so rise as to be an incentive to other nations to follow Germany's example. I recognize that these arguments have been made, and I think I know why they are being made. Yet I still insist that one of the most important things we must try and achieve is the reunification of that country.

There is another area and again the communique mentions it; that is the Middle East. The people of the United States had better realize quickly that Russia is in the

Interim Supply

Middle East and intends to stay there. To ignore that fact is to blind oneself to the true facts of the situation. If we are going to achieve peace in the Middle East, which I am sure is the wish and hope of all of us, then we cannot fail to recognize that Russia is a power in that area. Here again, I suggest, is another place or another area, if I may repeat the word, where possibly we can negotiat% with some hope of success, but at least we will find out how serious the Russians are in their desire for peace.

I think in many ways they are sincere. I think the Russians realize the havoc which would be wreaked with all-out war as well as anybody else, but we face the problem that in the United States we have a secretary of state who I have no doubt in his private life is a very estimable gentleman but who as secretary of state for that country is nothing short of an international calamity. The Russians certainly do not trust Mr. Dulles, and the words he has used throughout the years perhaps might give the Russians some valid reason for distrust. Nevertheless this distrust to some extent has to be removed if it is humanly possible, and a fresh attempt made to bring peace to the Middle East.

Then there is a third area in which there seems to be an opportunity for agreement at least between the east and west, and that is in the cessation of the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes, the reduction of existing stocks of nuclear weapons and the suspension of nuclear weapons tests mentioned in the communique. Great numbers of people in the west want these things achieved and it is possible that the Russians want them achieved, but we can find out only by trying to negotiate with them just how far they are prepared to go.

Now, how do we undertake these negotiations? The communique is completely unrealistic, I think, when it says we should try to promote these negotiations through the framework of the United Nations, bearing in mind the committee which has already been set up in the United Nations and of which the Soviet union is going to have no part whatsoever. The communique was equally unrealistic, in my opinion, when it suggested that we should welcome meetings at the foreign ministers' level to resolve the deadlock. Whether the meetings be between the foreign ministers of the 15 NATO nations or of a few-and I do not care how few- Mr. Dulles will be there, and I think his use has long since passed.

But perhaps there is something else we could do. Possibly we can beat the Russians

Interim Supply

at their own game of propaganda if we have the intelligence and imagination to do so. Why should this matter not be referred to the United Nations as a whole? We know perfectly well that this large number of nations cannot settle problems such as these. They will have to delegate power and responsibility. Is it beyond the bounds of reason to suppose that power and responsibility could be delegated to a representative of t)|e NATO powers such as Eisenhower, a representative of the Warsaw pact such as Khrushchev, and a representative of the uncommitted nations of the world such as Nehru? These three men would meet not with the intention of giving the world a blueprint as to what could be done but in order to explore a method in which diplomacy could carry these discussions even further.

The first meeting could be held. Of course there would be great fanfare, but it would be naive to expect any concrete results from such a meeting. However, it could pave the way to more harmonious relations. Afterwards discussions could be carried on, not necessarily at the foreign ministers' level but on a level appreciably below that so we could have open covenants discreetly arrived at. Perhaps there is a promise there, and we cannot tell how promising it may be until these meetings are held.

Another point where I again disagree quite strongly with the Prime Minister is with regard to the creation of a food bank through NATO. It is time we realized that although we regard NATO as a means for our defence and protection, it is regarded in the rest of the world as a tool of imperialistic powers. We may say that is not true and disagree completely with the idea, but this concept does exist and we cannot kill it.

May I call it one o'clock?

At one o'clock the committee took recess.


AFTER RECESS The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Alistair McLeod Stewart

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

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Chairman, when the committee took recess I was discussing the suggestion of a NATO food bank and economic aid being given by the NATO countries to the less fortunate nations of the world, and I oppose it.

The reason for my opposition is this. No matter how highly NATO may be regarded as a means for our own defence, nevertheless in the underprivileged areas of the world it is regarded as an instrument of imperialistic powers, and I argue that if NATO is to administer aid that aid is going to be suspect. It

would be far better if we intend to help the underprivileged countries of the world, as we should do, to do it through the United Nations and through the agencies which are already there.

But I would like to think that we would do it in a more generous way than has been indicated by the government this year in the increase it has made under the Colombo plan. The government may take some pride in the fact that it is giving another $600,000 or so, but nevertheless that merely means that one cent per capita of our population is to be given every 90 days for further economic assistance to those nations which could do with more help, and I and my party are convinced that we are not doing nearly enough in this form of aid to less fortunate countries of the world.

Then there was another matter the Prime Minister mentioned. He talked of those who were behind the iron curtain, and all of us sympathize with what he says. We are just as concerned about those people as he is. The Prime Minister said in his speech, as reported at page 2723 of Hansard:

We thought of the people behind the iron curtain, people who believe in freedom as we do. Sometimes we are apt to forget them.

It is most unfortunate that the Prime Minister and the government apparently have already forgotten about many individuals who fought against communism, who left their homes and are now denied the right to come to this country. I refer, of course, to the Hungarians and to the orders which were issued this year preventing by and large any further entry into this country of Hungarian victims of communist persecution. The Prime Minister went on:

When the declaration was being drafted I had the honour to move that there should be the inclusion of a paragraph to give to those people, whether in the Ukraine, in Hungary, in Poland . . . some hope.

I should like to give them hope; I am sure every hon. member would, but I would like to see something practical done so that hope can be translated into fact. After all, there are displaced persons in camps in Europe today who are the victims of communist persecution, Ukrainians and Poles who suffered under communism yet who, because they are ill or old, are not able to come to this country. If we feel so strongly about those people, those victims of communistic persecution, then we have to do something more than just more or less hold out hopes. We have to couple those hopes with action.

In the communique itself there are quite a number of points which demand answers. There are too many words in it and nothing

much is at all clear. For instance, the communique contained the following:

We are therefore resolved to achieve the most effective pattern of NATO military defensive strength, taking into account the most recent developments in weapons and techniques.

Let me ask the Minister of National Defence this question. How does the government propose to go about this? Later in the communique we find the following; we have-

. . . decided to bring about closer co-ordination with a view to ensuring that each NATO member country makes its most effective contribution to the requirements established by the alliance.

But how are we to do so, Mr. Chairman? These are words. We want to have these words explained; we want to know what government policy is in this regard. Then later on we find the following:

As regards defence production, We have decided, in view of the progress already made, to take further measures within NATO to promote the coordination of research, development and manufacture of modern weapons including intermediate range ballistic missiles.

There are many of us who have been asking for this close co-ordination for a long time, and we have been promised it for a long time, yet nothing has been produced which we can really get our teeth into. The government owes it to this house and to Canada to explain many of the questions which arise out of the words used in the communique.

Then there were the usual platitudes about economic collaboration and close co-operation among the countries of NATO, the need for greater unity, and so on. Yet, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, the United States is making a mockery of these high protestations which we hear and about which we read. What is the government doing to ensure closer economic co-operation with the nations of Europe? Well, there has been set up a European free trade area, and the government's only concern about it, apparently, is to see that we should not be excluded from its scope in regard to food, drink and tobacco. I would have thought, if the government was really desirous of improving the trade situation in this country, it would have made a much more decided attempt to get closer in an economic sense to the nations of Europe.

We have to do that for this reason if for no other. Earlier this session I spoke about the increasing United States economic domination of this country. We have to rectify this imbalance, and the only way we can do it is by trying to increase our trade, not with the United Kingdom only but substantially with this European free trade area. There there might be some hope for us; there, I am certain, will be the salvation of NATO.

Interim Supply

A lot of lip service has been given to article II throughout the years. But if there are doubts in Europe-and I at times share those doubts-I think they can be dissipated very rapidly by entering into the closest economic collaboration and co-operation with our European allies. When we do that, then I think we shall be much safer than by relying solely upon the words which we see in this communique.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald

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

Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too much time of the committee; nevertheless I do want to follow up what the hon. member for Winnipeg North has been dealing with and deal with something which is of tremendous importance to the world at the present time.

On March 1, 1954, the Americans detonated their first hydrogen bomb near Bikini atoll, and for the first time the world was shocked into an awareness of the dangers of atomic radiation as it could affect the health and even the life and being of future generations. As we all remember, radioactive dust from that explosion settled on some Japanese fishermen who were fairly close by with terrible results.

We all know that we receive radiation to some extent anyway. It comes from the natural environment, and probably has always been there; and to some extent we get radiation poisoning when we subject ourselves to X-rays for diagnostic purposes. Now we have added a new and potentially vast source of radioactive poisoning as a result of the testing of nuclear weapons. Therefore we have entered into the fourth year of what might be called the age of radiation without representation. Without representation, I say, because the people of the world who are being subjected to these extra doses of radioactive poisoning have in no way given their consent or approval to or any voice in what is happening to them. Most of them have never had a chance through any kind of institution to say whether they approve or do not approve of the kind of danger with which they are now faced.

There are three questions that urgently require answers. First, is there a serious danger to the health and life of present and future generations as a result of the detonation of these nuclear weapons? Second, is it possible and practicable now to reach an agreement for the suspension of tests of these weapons? Third, is it necessary and desirable in the interests not only of health but of national security that we should reach an agreement to bring this process to an end? In my opinion the resounding answer to all these questions is yes.

Interim, Supply

Just how harmful to human beings the bomb particles are that come from the detonations, which from the mushroom clouds go into the atmosphere, into the soil, from the soil into plants and animals and from there to the human dinner table is at present a matter of doubt. But the Japanese people, an intelligent and aware people, have no doubt of the extent of the danger.

It was the Japanese fisherman, of course, who first felt that danger at close hand. The Japanese government has even gone to the extent of warning its people officially to boil all of their drinking water. They are, of course, perhaps more exposed than any other area of the world because they have on the one hand the south Pacific testing region and on the other hand Siberia where the Russians have been testing their megaton bombs. There is no doubt that public opinion in Japan is overwhelmingly in favour of the prompt stopping of these tests, and I do not think there is any doubt that this is the opinion at the present time of the vast majority of civilized and thoughtful mankind.

Speaking of Canada and the west, I think our failure to take an adequate lead in bringing a halt to these tests has gravely injured our position in the thoughts, hearts and minds of most of the people of the world. In 1956 Japan moved a resolution in the general assembly of the United Nations stating that we should deal with this question first, not as part of any package proposal mixed up with other things, but that we should first get over the hurdle of the suspension of nuclear tests and deal with that matter promptly in order to bring such tests to an end. Whatever the merits of the scientific controversy may be, it seems to me that the very least we can say is that, in the words of Earl Attlee, "humanity should be given the benefit of any doubt".

Various committees have discussed and studied the dangers of atomic radiation. The general assembly of the United Nations established such a committee in 1956 and it is continuing to observe and study in this field. But I wish to refer to one committee which has been at work more recently, namely the joint committee of the United States congress which, starting on May 27 of last year, received testimony from many experts in this field, from physicists and doctors, from soil analysts and meteorologists, from chemists, biologists and geneticists.

The committee heard 5,000 pages of testimony, and while it is not possible to summarize all the findings of the scientists who took part in the investigation I should like

to read the question that the joint committee of the United States congress considered. It was this:

How much radiation from cosmic rays, medical X-rays and weapons tests combined can man tolerate before this radiation does appreciable harm to the life span and health of the present generation, and brings about a significant increase in deformed children born in succeeding generations?

The committee were able to reach no clear answer to the question they propounded for themselves, and that in itself is a disquieting thing. We are dealing here with unknown, malignant forces about which there is no certainty of scientific knowledge. Nevertheless the evidence given before the committee was most important. Dr. Alvin Graves, an employee of the United States Los Alamos project, flatly stated, for example, that there was no such thing as a clean H-bomb. All of them, he feaid, gave out radioactive poisons, and it was just a matter of degree between what is called a clean bomb and a dirty bomb.

Another scientist carefully investigated the question of whether cow's milk is already hazardous to the health of children. His answer was no, that the chance was only about one in a million. But another scientist replied that even if the chance ratio were put that low, which he did not think it should be, 3,000 cases of cancer in young children would be apparent, spread across the whole population of the world at the present time.

The consensus of agreement-I am not dealing with points upon which there was disagreement-on the joint committee is summed up in an article by the scientific editor of New Republic magazine in its issue of July 1, 1957. The points on which there was substantial agreement among all the scientists taking part in the proceedings before the committee are summarized in that article in these words:

1. The fall-out of bomb particles from the stratosphere, which continues for 40 years after each big bomb tested, is not uniform around the world, as had previously been assumed by the government. It is concentrated in some areas by rainfall, and possibly by high altitude air currents. The northern hemisphere gets much more than the southern . . .

In other words, in the case of Canada we are more subject to this particular hazard than the world generally, and in my own province of British Columbia where there is heavy rainfall I dare say that the risk is greater still.

2. Geneticists agree there is no "safe" level of radiation. Even a small amount produces some adverse changes in future generations.

There is no safe level; in other words every bomb tested produces some undesirable changes in the human species.

3. As to the increase in bone cancer and leukemia in this generation from strontium-90, scientists do not know whether there is a "safe level", or a threshold, below which no damage occurs. The majority of experts assumed there is no safe level, even though the increased incidence of cancer cannot yet be proved . . .

4. The number of persons who could be damaged by increased radiation in this generation-either with cancer or with abnormal offspring-is "roughly calculable". Estimates by individual scientists using various hypotheses ranged from 50,000 to several million in a world population of 2.6 billion . . . The increase will be proportionate to the increase in total radiation: that is, if bomb testing has thus far raised total radiation one per cent, cancer and leukemia should go up one per cent.

5. A group of five scientists, including three atomic energy commission officials, concluded that once the atmosphere is saturated with bomb particles-a situation which one witness estimated would arrive in 10 years-the maximum rate of bomb testing without jeopardizing the entire race would be between 2 and 10 megatons of bomb materials blown annually into the stratosphere by all nations.

The upper limit-10 megatons-is the average rate at which the United States has been testing for the past five years.

The last point illustrates the fact that we are already testing-at least one nation, the United States alone, is already testing-at above what these scientists consider to be a safe rate of maximum radiation in the atmosphere.

The first question I propounded was, is there grave danger from radiation from bomb testing now, and I think the answer is unquestionably yes. How great that danger is we may not know, but that danger is there and the damage is being accomplished, as no one can seriously doubt. Already we have too much radiation in the atmosphere, and we have to consider this fact in the context of the world around us.

There was a time when only the United States had the bomb. In 1949 the Soviet union tested its first bomb. Now the United States, the Soviet union and the United Kingdom all have the bomb and are conducting tests. Does anyone seriously believe that the process will stop there? What country will be next? I presume it will be France, in the absence of international control. I presume that communist China will not be far from achieving its bomb and its series of tests. I would presume that with technological progress increasing from year to year and the techniques becoming simpler and better known, all military nations will one day have their bombs unless control is achieved.

Can you imagine what a world we would have if every South American dictator had at his disposal a hydrogen bomb with which to threaten annihilation of his adversaries unless they came to his terms? Is it going to be easier to control that situation now or when the bomb is already in the hands

Interim Supply

of half a dozen or a dozen more countries? Clearly the time to act is now, not only from the point of view of the dangerous increase in radiation in the atmosphere which is showing up in the bone tissue and blood stream of the people of the world, but from the point of view of a secure and peaceful world.

The objectives we should set for ourselves, Mr. Chairman, could be expressed simply in this way. First, we should seek to stop all further testing of nuclear weapons. Second, we should seek an agreement to prohibit the manufacture of nuclear fuel for military purposes. Third, we should seek ways of reducing the world's stockpile of atomic weapons, as a preliminary to full disarmament.

We cannot achieve all those objectives in the world as it is at the present time. I appreciate that, but I say we can now achieve the first one. On June 14, 1957, the Russians proposed or rather agreed before the London subcommittee on disarmament to the suspension of all testing of nuclear weapons, with control stations to be set up in Russia and other countries to make sure those countries would abide by the agreement. There were no conditions to that offer. The Russians were willing, and presumably still are willing, to treat that one point alone as something upon which agreement can be reached.

What was the answer of the west and in particular of Canada, which was one of the five nations represented on the disarmament subcommittee? Our reply was a package proposal on disarmament. We proposed four points and said we would accept the suspension of nuclear tests with control and inspection provided we reached agreement on the other three points. I agree that our package proposal was good. There was provision for a reduction of conventional armaments, for aerial inspection and for cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, not just their testing. These things were good. But it has been clear that we cannot achieve agreement with the Russians on the package, so I say we should take out of that package point No. 1, the suspension of tests, and get agreement on that.

If we do that, Mr. Chairman, I do not see how it could be said that it would imperil our military security any more than the security of the Soviet union. It seems to me that once again we would have seized the initiative in these disarmament talks. We have lost that. Russia, to a very large extent, has captured the imagination of the world. She has presented herself as a nation pressing for disarmament and for peace. I know that to

Interim Supply

a large extent she has done that by presenting unacceptable proposals, but there is no doubt that the west has lost the initiative.

I believe that in the interests of human health as well as peace we should achieve control now before these nuclear weapons get out of hand. We should reach agreement on point No. 1 because agreement with Russia is possible now on that point, which involves the prohibition of further tests of nuclear weapons, with proper control and inspection to make sure that the agreement is carried out.

We are too apt to assume, as were the citizens of Rome, Carthage and Byzantium, those civilizations of the past, that our life will go on smoothly. We are smug about that. We do not seem to realize that the danger of mass destruction of the world in which we have been living is present and is becoming greater every day. Unless the two giants in this world today, the United States and Soviet Russia, can reach an effective agreement, the chances of this civilization surviving are very slight indeed.

It may be ironic that the great capitalist power of the world and the great communist power of the world must form an alliance and work out a settlement of their differences; must divide up their spheres of influence in the world, if this world is to survive. It is this point to which we have come at the beginning of 1958. The point is that the beginning of an agreement can be based on the ending of bomb tests.

I do urge this government, as one with great responsibility in the matter because of its membership on the United Nations disarmament subcommittee, to take the lead in pressing for the suspension of the testing of nuclear weapons. We have a chance for agreement now. The nations all over the world expect it of us. Let us take that chance. It is only a beginning, but once you have made a start then you can seize the initiative and press for other things such as the abolition of the manufacture of these weapons themselves.


Paul Joseph James Martin


Mr. Martin (Essex East):

Mr. Chairman, I think I should say a few words on the very important matter about which we were informed, a few days before Christmas, through the press of the country. I refer to the decision of the United States to curtail oil imports from Canada, a decision about which we learned a great deal more this morning from the Minister of Finance when he made his important statement.

It is true that after his announcement there was an opportunity for some hon. members to put some questions, but because of the item in our deliberations under which the minister made his statement there was, under our

[Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1

rules, not the same opportunity for comment about the implications of what the minister had to relate.

It seems to me that this matter is of such great importance that the opposition would not be fully discharging its responsibilities if it did not make some comment, both on the position taken by the United States and what might be regarded as circumstances altogether apart from the internal situation in the United States which may have encouraged this very far-reaching action in so far as Canada is concerned.

I am sure all hon. members recognize the significance of the development and the discovery of oil in western Canada, notably in the province of Alberta. This discovery more and more affects the economic life of our country and, as the Minister of Finance quite properly said this morning, it is a discovery which can play a very important part in our own defence efforts and in the joint defence operations of our two countries and indeed of the free world.

Anyone who has perused one of the interim reports of the Gordon commission with respect to the potential long-term value of the United States market to Canadian trade, particularly in so far as it applies to our natural resources, will appreciate how significant is this curtailment of imports of oil by the government of the United States. It is significant that from time to time there have been indications, since this government has been in office and also while we were in office, that consideration had been given by legislative and other bodies in the United States to the kind of step announced by the United States government on December 24 last. It is also significant that Canada, until recent days, was excluded from the policy pursued by the United States government in the matter of the restriction of oil imports from other producing countries in the world. We have an obligation in this house to ask ourselves why, in this particular instance, this serious action has been taken by a friendly country.

I have made mention of the study by the Gordon commission of possible Canadian sales in the United States over the next quarter century. Anyone who examines that study will see how important the United States market could prove to be for Canadian natural products and how careful on that account any government of this country must be with respect to its trade policies with the United States, in order to safeguard this great potential for trade which is available to us if we act wisely in the conduct of our commercial relations with the United States.

This does not, of course, mean that we should not also have an appreciation of our

trading relations with other countries. However, the Canadian government, both of the moment and of the morrow, should give the gravest consideration to the formulation of its economic and trade policies, having regard to our position as a country of some 16 million people, a neighbour to a country of almost 200 million people and one of the most powerful economic countries in the world.

My hon. friend said this morning that of course this government had taken steps to indicate to the United States government its strongest disapproval of and objection to the course taken. The minister reminded us that during the course of the summer, as a result of action being taken by what might, I suppose, be called an administrative tribunal, diplomatic representatives of Canada in the United States had been alert and had brought home to the United States government our concern in this matter. The minister further said that he himself, when recently attending the important North Atlantic Treaty Organization meeting in Paris, had taken advantage of the presence of Mr. Anderson, his opposite number in the United States government, to communicate to him on several occasions the importance of the possible step which he understood might be taken on the part of the United States government.

If my hon. friend engaged in that discussion with the secretary of the treasury, then he undoubtedly had strong reasons at that time for these private and informal discussions in which he expressed the concern and indicated the objections of the government of which he is a member; indeed he would be expressing in that case not only the concern of the Canadian government but that of all hon. members of this house and certainly of the people of Canada, particularly those people directly involved in terms of their own economic interest in oil production in various parts of our country.

It seems to me, however, that there is a significance in the decision taken by the government of the United States on December 24 which must not be lost to any of us. We are all aware that during the past few years, as the former secretary of state for external affairs and the former prime minister have repeatedly indicated, the economic and trade policies pursued by the government of the United States have been a source of much irritation in this country.

This is nothing new; indeed the very committee of ministers which met in Washington at the end of September-with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture

Interim Supply

and the Minister of Fisheries all, I believe, in attendance-represented an organization

which came into being, if my memory serves me correctly, as a result of a discussion which took place between the then prime minister of Canada, the present Leader of the Opposition, and the President of the United States several years ago when they met in the capital of the United States. The suggestion was made that because of these trade policies of the United States which were so disturbing to us, some mechanism should be set up for the purpose of enabling our two countries, at the top level, to discuss matters of serious economic concern to Canada and the United States.

So the very fact that the government of which the Leader of the Opposition was the head had something to do with the setting up of this body indicates in itself the concern the government of that time felt about some of the policies of the United States in the field of trade, as to the disposal of agricultural surplus products and the like. The significant thing, however, is this; that while the secretary of state for external affairs in the previous government did find occasion from time to time to make public pronouncements of Canadian policy in this respect, and while the former minister of trade and commerce likewise expressed the concern of the government, I think Canadians generally will now conclude that there has been a great difference between the particular diplomacy pursued by the present administration in this regard and the kind of diplomacy pursued by the previous administration. [DOT]

It is certainly clear that not by loud speeches made at strategic points in the United States by ministers of the crown of this government, not by these single oratorical efforts can it be hoped that the United States government will be caused to change the course it has contemplated and embarked on. We have the statement of the Minister of Finance after he returned from his talks in Washington that he and his colleagues had received certain assurances from the United States government which gave the government of Canada reason for satisfaction. Then we were told a short time afterwards in a speech by the Minister of Finance in New York that he was far from satisfied with the assurances he had been given in Washington by officials of the United States government with regard to certain features of their trade and agricultural surplus disposal policies. Then we had the very strong speech made by the Minister of Finance in Florida, and we

Interim Supply

noted the speech made by the Prime Minister himself last summer at Dartmouth college, New Hampshire.

Then on top of all this, serving as a sort of background, we have the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada himself within a few moments of his return from the United Kingdom that in Canada's economic interests and those of other friendly powers it was now desirable that Canada should shift 15 per cent of its purchases from the United States, from one friendly country to another.


An hon. Member:

Hear, hear.


January 3, 1958