March 8, 1962


Item agreed to. Loans, investments and advances- 668. To authorize the purchase in the current and subsequent fiscal years of United Nations bonds in an amount of $6,240,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars estimated as of January, 1962, which is, $6,493,500.


LIB

Paul Joseph James Martin

Liberal

Mr. Marlin (Essex East):

The minister indicates, Mr. Chairman, that he does not intend to make a statement with respect to this item. This is a matter of great importance.

Canada, of course, is doing its duty in providing $6,493,500 in respect of the purchase of its quota of bonds that have been offered for sale to meet the present financial difficulty into which the United Nations has been plunged. The comments that have been made in many quarters suggest that the necessity of extending this form of financing to the United Nations is regarded as an indication of the ineffectiveness of that body.

I rise at once to say that regardless of its inadequacies this is not the time to belittle the work, the purpose and the potential role of the United Nations. We strongly support the government in the affirmation of this principle. There are on both sides of the iron curtain people and countries that have engaged in a depreciation of the effectiveness of the United Nations. However, I would strongly support the observations made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and indeed by the Leader of the Opposition in speeches that both have made outside of this house to the effect that all we have to do is to glance at the world, its problems and its turbulence in order to realize how much worse the situation would be if it were not for the United Nations. The time that we would lose, the experience that would disappear, in the process of building up a world community if the United Nations were to disappear, I am sure will cause most people to regard these attacks on and depreciations of the United Nations as idle indeed.

The fact is that the United Nations has presented its members with this financial situation for a number of reasons. Not the least of these reasons is that this deficit situation arises out of the fact that the United Nations itself was engaged in the accomplishment of one of the purposes for which it was created, namely to deal with situations that threaten the peace or actually violate the peace. It also arises out of the fact that all

countries have not lived up to their obligations as their membership in the United Nations commands. I understand that 82 members or 87 members-I am not sure of the figure; there seems to be some dispute about it-of the United Nations are in default. This is, of course, a serious consideration. When one thinks of the millions of dollars being spent in armaments today and when one realizes the relative low cost of the operations of the United Nations, this deficit and the need for providing for it should not occasion the criticism or depreciation that has been made of the United Nations.

Canada's foreign policy is based upon a number of factors, one of which is the United Nations. I take it that in this house we are all united on that one point, at any rate, and that we are determined to see to it that this collective security organization is maintained, is strengthened and is not allowed to lapse into a position in which its usefulness is no longer apparent.

The charter of the United Nations, in article 19, deals with the case of members who are in default. It provides that there may be a period as long as two years in which defaulting members may have an obligation of paying their dues. Then under article 19 likewise provision is made for countries which, in certain circumstances, cannot pay their dues. A country may have suffered some particular catastrophe such as a severe earthquake, may have undergone an economic crisis or may have a government which is so unstable that elections are not possible. Circumstances of that kind may be extenuating circumstances explaining why a nation has not met its obligations. While these are descriptions of possible situations, the fact is that many nations are not living up to their obligation to bear their portion of the cost not only of peace keeping operations but of the general work of the organization itself. What are we to do? Are we to take punitive action against those nations which do not even meet the requirements of article 19? I think that course would be unwise. In any event, before punitive action could be taken, I think there would have to be an amendment to the charter. As that course in turn requires action by the security council in which the veto operates, we cannot look for any solution through that particular form of procedure. However, even if we could take it, I would think that course would be unwise.

In examining the list of countries which are in default we note that there are a number of them which do not offer the kind of excuse which is permissible under article 19. Among those countries are two at least

Supply-External Affairs of the great powers. Just by way of digression may I say this. I believe that the amount of contribution that Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom is going to take up of this $200 million bond issue does not represent fully the percentage requirement which the United Kingdom would be expected to take up. Her contribution would be 7.58 per cent which would mean the purchase of $15 million worth of bonds, whereas actually the government of that country has decided to take up bonds to a maximum value of $12 million. I am assuming that the figure represented by the intended purchase by Canada of United Nations bonds represents our complement or our obligation as a member of the United Nations and that we have taken up the full amount. The minister will correct me if I am wrong in this regard. I certainly think that we should take up the full amount. However, I think that we have done so.

As I observed a moment ago, the fact is that some of the greater powers have not met their obligations. Notable among these is, of course, the Soviet union. The Soviet union has refused not only in this instance but in many others since 1946 to assume obligations not only with regard to peace keeping operations that were contrary to what she regarded to be her foreign policy interests but has also refused to take up certain other obligations. Moreover, her payments have not always been payments that were made on time. Other countries-and France is among these-have refused to bear their share toward certain peace keeping operations. It seems to me that this situation is regrettable. However, these remarks are not intended to be exclusively applicable to France. While they apply to her, they apply as well to other countries. There certainly ought to be a distinction made between an obligation to pay one's financial obligation to the organization and willingness to accept certain consequences of the decisions of the United Nations. There should be no equation between the decisions of the United Nations in matters of policy and the payment to the United Nations by any member state affected by that policy.

Fortunately, Canada has in this regard an unblemished record and we may well pride ourselves on that fact because, whatever we may think of the United Nations, whatever may be the weaknesses in the voting procedures of the general assembly, whatever we may think about some of the abuses that may have developed, the fact is that the United Nations is the instrument of the world that speaks for the conscience of mankind and which has been a stabilizing factor. The fact

1622 HOUSE OF

Supply-External Affairs that the question of disarmament in a sense is now being discussed outside of the United Nations, the fact that such questions as Germany are being resolved or attempted to be resolved outside the precincts of the United Nations, must not be regarded in any way as an indication of the failure of the organization to accomplish its purposes.

Nor are we going to gain much by suggesting that because we now recognize the principle of universality of the United Nations the interests of some of the great powers are being seriously affected as a result. It should not be forgotten that between 1946 and 1955, when the United Nations was half what it now is in size and membership, we in the west were able to find concurrence for many of our policies and many of our international objectives. Now that new members have been added to the United Nations, now that as a result the balance of power in the United Nations has changed, and on some occasions materially changed, that should not cause us, disturbed possibly by some of the consequences, to embark on the kind of campaign of depreciation that has been launched, notably by the Soviet union.

This was begun, of course, a year ago last September when, because the Soviet union recognized that its particular objectives were not being realized in the United Nations, the Soviet union sought to change the character of the organization. It sought to give expression to this determination by urging a reform in the office of the secretary general itself. It did so by proposing the principle of the troika instead of the secretary general operating as he does now under article 99 of the charter as one who speaks, not for any one nation but for the interests of all of the nations, which they regarded as something not in their interests.

Canada resisted their proposal, and the Leader of the Opposition in speeches he made in this house and elsewhere supported the government in the expression of support they had given through the Secretary of State for External Affairs and others in joining the majority view that that kind of procedure would result in the emasculation of the United Nations itself. This problem has been temporarily met and it has been met by catastrophe. The death of the secretary general created a hiatus of which the Soviet union took advantage to seek again to urge a majority of the United Nations to accept its recommendation for a division of the office of secretary general to take into account the three important divisions of world opinion-the western world, the communist world and the uncommitted world. Undoubtedly we shall have to face this situation in 1963 when the

office of secretary general will become vacant and when an opportunity will be provided to elect a permanent secretary general.

In talking about a permanent secretary general, I have never mentioned this before but I should like to take this occasion to note this fact for purposes of the record.

I think it should be noted that there is a long history attached to the office of secretary general that is not unrelated to one of the members of this house. I hope he will not be embarrassed by what I am going to say tonight. In 1946 I was one of the delegates from this country at the United Nations first general assembly that was held in Church house in London. I was privileged to go there with the then minister of justice, Mr. St. Laurent, later to become Prime Minister of Canada.

At that time, following meetings of the preparatory commission which had met in London during the fall of 1945, a number of names were being discussed for the office of secretary general and among those names were the following: General Eisenhower as he then was, later to become president of the United States, Monsieur Henri Spaak, then foreign minister of Belgium, the present Leader of the Opposition who was then under secretary of state for external affairs, and Mr. Trygve Lie. I do not think I do any injustice to Mr. Lie when I say that at first his name was not a prominently mentioned as other names.

General Eisenhower indicated that, if offered the position, he did not propose to accept it, and Monsieur Spaak, for reasons best known to himself, indicated early in the proceedings that he would not be a candidate. But I can attest because I was there that the name that was most prominently bandied about from one delegation to another was that of the Leader of the Opposition. That was in 1946. As we all know, Mr. Trygve Lie, who was at that time foreign minister for Norway, became secretary general. Mr. Vishinsky, then foreign minister of the Soviet union and the head of the Soviet union delegation, indicated in a press interview the reasons why Mr. Trygve Lie had been selected, and among those reasons was the fact that he came not from a commonwealth country but from one of those areas of the world where it could be said a greater measure of apparent neutrality in foreign affairs prevailed.

Mr. Trygve Lie served with distinction as secretary general of the United Nations. He resigned and when he was not asked to carry on it became necessary to elect someone in his stead as permanent secretary general of the United Nations. At that time the present Leader of the Opposition was

president of the United Nations general assembly. I was with him at that time as head of the Canadian delegation and again I can attest to the fact that it was almost the unanimous wish of every nation in the United Nations at that time that Mr. Lie's successor should be the present Leader of the Opposition.

The security council met one day. Ten of the eleven members indicated their preference for the present Leader of the Opposition. The Soviet union indicated that the Leader of the Opposition's name would not be acceptable. I want to say now, as one who went through those days and who perhaps more than anyone else knows what happened, that the reasons which motivated the Soviet union in rejecting the present Leader of the Opposition as secretary general were reasons that were associated with the view that as one of the architects of NATO he would not be acceptable to them.

The communists did not want him. That was the real reason. I think all Canadians in this country who do not know the details of this episode should be so informed. I do not want to embarrass the Leader of the Opposition in recounting these details. However, he was the choice of most of the nations because he incorporated, in everything that he had done, something that I think is symbolic of the convictions and the feelings of the Canadian people, that is the belief that in this interdependent world, in this period of turbulence, if we are going to have peace in the long run it will only be by establishing on the international plane those processes of law, adjudication and conciliation that have proven so successful on the domestic plane. I think that every Canadian will be proud of the fact that one of our own was the overwhelming choice of most nations who would have preferred him. This is in no way to be construed as an expression of depreciation of the great services of Mr. Ham-marskjold.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs may be assured that we support strongly the efforts of this government to make the United Nations a vital force in this world of ours. We support the present vote to enable Canada, its government, to purchase bonds, a rather unique device conceived I believe by the United States, to enable the United Nations to meet its present financial difficulties. All this does not mean that we regard everything as satisfactory in the United Nations. I think we can say this because Canada had a lot to do with extending the membership of the United Nations. We recognize that in sup-26207-1-103

Supply-External Affairs porting the principle of universality and giving it effect, problems have been created for all nations.

But this is the essence of the United Nations. We can only hope that wise statesmanship, patience in diplomacy, will enable us to see developed in the general assembly of the United Nations, those attitudes, postures and procedures that are calculated to make it more effective than seems to be the case at the moment.

While it is not easy, we ought to try to develop a tradition in the general assembly to resolve some major issues at least by other means than merely voting. Some of these great issues of international consequence cannot be resolved by vote. The procedural questions are of a different order, such as whether there should be 10 or 14 members on the disarmament committee. That is another matter. However, the great issues that divide the world, the great issues involved in policy are such that I would hope the reputation Canada has built up over the years would enable us to make a contribution in the assembly by indicating to the newer members, towards whom we have much in common and towards whom we have great sympathy, that the way to resolve many of these issues is not always by the mere act of voting.

On the other hand, we want it to be clearly understood that if there have been abuses, the abuses do not lie on one side alone. When we think of the attitude of some of the great powers between 1946 and 1955 particularly, even up to the present time, we see that the abuses were by no means the monopoly of the newer members of the United Nations. We recognize, too, that there have to be changes made, changes in the security council to take into account the number of newer members; changes in some other organs of the United Nations to likewise take into account the increases in United Nations membership. These are things, however, that we can only deal with in the light of circumstances at the time. I believe that the words of Mr. Nehru, delivered in the 15th general assembly, are perhaps applicable here. He said:

It would not be desirable for the executive to be weakened when rapid decisions have to be made; that would mean abdication of responsibility undertaken by the United Nations. If the executive itself is split up and pulled in different directions, it will not be able to function adequately and with speed. There is always a particular time when decisions have to be made and this applies equally to the United Nations.

The minister may be assured that we in this party believe that Canada is taking the right course in having decided to purchase these bonds. The necessity for the creation of this issue of $200 million does not represent

Supply-External Affairs the bankruptcy of the United Nations, although in actual financial terms that may be the case. It represents rather the dangerous situation in so many theatres of our world in which the nations of the world have been projected. It is because the United Nations has a role to play that it finds itself at this time in the embarrassing position of having to devise a method for obtaining financial assistance beyond the normal procedures provided in the regulations under which the United Nations operate. When we think of the moneys that are being spent all over the world on armaments, how anyone could criticize the United Nations because it has resorted to this particular form of financing is difficult to understand.

I have taken the liberty tonight of saying these things with which we all agree because I think it is appropriate that in this parliament those of us who believe in the rule of law amongst the nations should fearlessly affirm our faith in the purposes of the charter, recognizing at all times its weaknesses, but firm in the conviction that it is the only instrument in the long run by which we can hope to make any progress in laying a solid foundation for peace amongst the nations of the world.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
PC

Gordon Harvey Aiken

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Aiken:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words on this item when it is being considered. Last fall I had the privilege of being one of the Canadian delegates to the 16th assembly of the United Nations and, at the assembly represented Canada on the second committee. No one, I think, has any doubt that the United Nations is now facing a serious crisis. This is brought about by two particular matters: First, the financial problems with which we are being faced tonight because of the delinquency of some members of the United Nations. This has resulted in the United Nations going to the governments of member nations and asking to borrow funds with which to carry on the work of the United Nations. The second problem results from the material change in the balance of voting power which is unpalatable now to some of the great nations who contribute largely to the finances of the United Nations. There is a potential danger of the day arriving when a majority of the members of the United Nations may vote money matters to which the majority contributors are not prepared to contribute. When that time comes, although I hope it will not, there will be a very serious crisis in the United Nations.

A change in the voting procedure on money matters is one of the changes which I believe must be effected in order to keep the United Nations operating. Even municipalities in this and other countries recognize there is a difference between voting on matters of principle

and voting money supplies, and even the municipalities have separate rules for the type of voting procedure as between two different matters in principle. I believe the United Nations will have to grapple with this very difficult subject in order to avert the day of crisis.

To deal specifically with the item under consideration, it is my belief no one will deny that the small sum which we are being asked to vote tonight for the purchase of bonds is very insignificant in the light of armament and other tremendous expenditures made to maintain peace in the world. I would go further and say we in this parliament should be prepared to leave the way open for further contributions should the United Nations not reach its objective after all the countries have been canvassed and their contributions received.

Canada has always taken its fair share in the work of the United Nations. It has been a respected member and has contributed to every worth-while project that the United Nations has sponsored. Therefore I heartily approve the expenditure of this sum of money for purchasing the bonds and I express the hope that if further funds are required Canada will not be found wanting.

In conclusion I want to express my appreciation of the very great work our Secretary of State for External Affairs has done to maintain and increase the great stature which Canada has gained among the nations of the world.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Before the vote carries I should like to make one or two points. Reference has been made to bonds being purchased only by the members of the United Nations. That is an erroneous idea. For example, it is hoped that West Germany would buy quite a substantial amount of bonds as well as various specialized agencies of the United Nations itself. The bond issue is not restricted in any way to those countries which are members of the United Nations.

To date the subscriptions come to $136,810,000, including $100 million which it is anticipated will be paid by the United States. The United Kingdom is the second largest subscriber with a sum of $12 million, and next comes Canada with $6,240,000, Sweden $5,800,000, Australia $4 million, Denmark $2.5 million, India $2 million, Norway $1,800,000, Malaya $340,000, Ireland $300,000, Pakistan $250,000 and Burma $100,000.

Canada was the first country to subscribe to this bond issue and we co-sponsored the resolution which provided for the undertaking of the bond issue. We are very hopeful that the total issue will be subscribed.

Another important factor is that there has been the reference to the international court

of justice in the hope that that court will decide that payments for such operations as the Congo operation should be considered as regular assessments. If that is done I believe there is a very good prospect that most members of the United Nations would pay their regular assessments, which would mean they would be paying their share for the refunding of this bond issue. As I told the hon. member for Essex East some days ago, Canada has placed a submission before the international court of justice and we are very hopeful that the decision which is finally made will be to the effect I have mentioned.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

This vote for $6,493,500, which we on this side of the house certainly support, is made necessary, as the minister and the hon. member for Essex East pointed out, by the additional expenditures incurred by the United Nations and by the refusal of certain members of the United Nations to discharge their financial obligations in respect of those expenditures as well as in respect of normal expenditures. These additional expenditures have to do with such special and vital activities of the United Nations as the operations in the Congo.

I have not the figures at my command. Perhaps the minister has, but I know that the expenditures on these special operations like the Congo will soon run into amounts which will be comparable to, if not in excess of, the ordinary expenditures of the United Nations. This of course involves a new problem of finance, a problem which if it is not solved will create grave problems and dangers for the future effective existence of the United Nations.

There are member states who are in default of their ordinary obligations and the charter, at least in theory, has a way of dealing with that, but there is no provision in the charter, as I understand it, for dealing with special expenses for special activities. If they do not do so now, these will soon involve sums in excess even of normal expenditures. It is one thing to be in default of normal expenditures. We have some way of dealing with that in the charter, and I shall return to that in a moment.

But there is no way of dealing with these special expenditures in the sense that any particular obligation can be imposed on any particular state to pay its share. We are now getting into a position at the United Nations where if a member of the United Nations does not accept a particular operation-if it votes against a particular activity of the United Nations-it then claims it has no obligation to bear its share of the expenditures of that activity.

The best example of that, I suppose, is the Congo, where the Soviet union and the other 26207-1-103J

Supply-External Affairs communist states have washed their hands of all responsibility financial or otherwise for an activity of which they do not approve, at least in the form in which it is being carried on, although they voted for it in the first instance.

The Soviet union and the communist members are the most striking examples of this default, but there are other countries too. There are countries of the west which have taken the same attitude; they do not support the decision of the United Nations in respect of a particular matter and they will not pay their share of it. What do we do? We are now floating a bond issue in order to take care of these emergency expenses. The United States, which is always under criticism by these countries which do not take their share of these international responsibilities, is of course going to be asked to bear the great share of the burden. One hundred million dollars out of $136 million is to be taken up by the United States. If the United States does not do this, what will happen to the United Nations? There is only $36 million to be taken up by the other members, and with regard to that amount I think only eight, nine or 10 members have indicated that they will do anything at all. I think that is what the minister said a moment ago.

This is the problem, and I am glad this problem of the obligation of members of the United Nations in respect of the financing of these particular activities has been submitted to the world court. I hope the world court will come up with the kind of solution the minister has mentioned. That may be a good solution, but it will be one thing to get the verdict of the court and another to get the members of the United Nations to accept that verdict in terms of payment.

As my hon. friend from Essex East tells me, it will only be an advisory opinion in any event; it will only have the weight of an advisory opinion. So this is a very serious problem. It would be the tragedy of all tragedies if the United Nations were allowed, perhaps not to collapse-because it cannot collapse; it cannot be permitted to collapse- but if these activities were diminished because funds could not be found for that purpose, funds which are very small indeed in relation to the expenditures on modern armaments by some of these countries which are refusing to pay anything for this. We on this side of the chamber hope, Mr. Chairman, that this money will be made available in the way suggested.

I should like to ask the minister one or two questions. He has said that the United States is proposing to take up $100 million.

I take it that this matter is now before congress. I do not think it has been approved

Supply-External Affairs by congress yet. What will happen if congress does not approve of it, we do not know, but it will certainly involve a very serious problem for the organization in New York if the United States-and I hope this will not happen-does not find it possible to pay as its share such a high proportion of the total amount that is required.

Mr. Chairman, in this house on January 22 the Prime Minister had this to say in respect of the default of members of the organization on their ordinary contributions and in respect of the application of article 19 to members who are defaulting. This article is a way of dealing with these members. If they are in default after a certain length of time-I think it is two years-and if there are no circumstances which are considered as mitigating by other members of the United Nations, their franchise can be taken away from them.

I am not suggesting that this would be a wise course of action to follow. It has not been followed in the past. If it had been followed in the past we would have been in great confusion and difficulty at the United Nations. There have been cases in the past when nations were four or five years in arrears and then paid up. Therefore I am not suggesting that this should be done at this time. However, the Prime Minister did say at that time:

There should be no free riders in an International organization designed to maintain and preserve peace.

Therefore I should like to ask the minister what steps, if any, the government proposes to take to implement that statement of the Prime Minister that there should be no free riders; and is this a matter which the government proposes to take up at the next assembly of the United Nations in respect of those members who are now more than two years in arrears?

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Mr. Chairman, we believe that if the court's opinion is in the affirmative, then the United Nations will have improved its prospect for insisting upon the payment of assessments for the United Nations emergency force and for the Congo force, and for taking action against the defaulters. But it has not been considered practical to invoke article 19 which, as the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, concerns the suspension of voting rights in the assembly, in the absence of an authoritative opinion on the legal obligation, in view of the actual response of members to the financial assessments levied for the emergency force and for the Congo force.

The court's opinion is to be rendered in time for the 17th session of the assembly,

which will begin about the middle of September. If that decision is favourable, then I think there would be much better ground for taking action against defaulters; but in the meantime there is nothing practical that can be done to deal with the question of the nations which are in default.

Payments are made from time to time, and in some cases nations simply are not able to pay. We do not quarrel with their failure at all. But it is in the case of the nations who can pay and will not pay where the blame is due. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the communist countries will not pay anything either for the United Nations emergency force or for the operations in the Congo, and some other countries-some of our best friends- will not pay anything for the Congo operations. The question of expelling members of the United Nations or depriving them of the vote for failure to pay is a rather complicated one. There is some doubt as to the effectiveness of the working of the organization as a whole if action of that kind was taken.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
LIB

Paul Joseph James Martin

Liberal

Mr. Marlin (Essex East):

Does the minister have readily available the list of states in arrears and the length of time for which they have been in arrears?

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

I have not got it by states, but as of January 31, 1962, four states-here I am referring to arrears on the regular budget- were in arrears on 1959 contributions amounting to $37,885. Fourteen states were in arrears for 1960, amounting to $3,127,709.80 and seven of those had paid something on account. Forty seven states were in arrears for 1961-this was as of one month after the end of the year.-amounting to $9,066,297.63. Of those 47, there were 18 had paid something on account. Communist countries, I believe, keep up their assessments on the regular budget.

The position with regard to the special peace keeping operations is of course very much worse. Twenty nine states were in arrears for 1957, amounting to $3,988,931; eight had paid something on account; 31 states were in arrears for 1958, amounting to $7,272,756; two states had paid something on account; 36 states were in arrears for 1959, amounting to $4,415,462; one state had paid on account; 41 states were in arrears for 1960, amounting to $4,768,882.75; two states had paid on account.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
NDP

Murdo William Martin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):

Did that last figure relate to 1960?

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Yes. To continue, 73 states were in arrears for 1961, amounting to $5,060,074.18; three states had paid on account. I point out again that that was only 31 days after the end of the year. That was for the United Nations emergency force in the Gaza strip.

For the Congo force, 66 states were in arrears for 1960, amounting to $18,844,853,75; 3 states had paid on account; 78 states were in arrears for 1961, amounting to $33,125,008; 2 states had paid on account. I believe the hon. member referred to 82 states.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
LIB

Paul Joseph James Martin

Liberal

Mr. Martin (Essex East):

I said 82 or 87.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Yes. Actually 78 states were in arrears for 1961.

Obviously the position is extremely serious. Canada has been very active in trying to get something done about this situation. We were a member of the small working group which devoted a great deal of time to this during the whole of last year. Also we were one of the co-sponsors of the resolution providing for the bond issue.

I think it should be pointed out again that if the decision of the international court of justice is to the effect that assessments for the repayment of this bond issue are to be considered in the same category as assessments for the regular budget, then there is far more likelihood that the payment will be made. Of course, we are hopeful that the decision of the court will be to that effect.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

Mr. Chairman, I believe the total amount involved in this bond issue is $136 million odd. It is interesting to note that the main reasons for this are the special activities of the United Nations such as those in the Congo, and the United Nations emergency force in Palestine. But one source of additional expenditure to the United Nations and one source in which we can all take pride is the fact that the United Nations activities have been so greatly widened and extended because of the inclusion in its membership of a number of Asian and African countries which were not long ago colonial territories.

Seven or eight years ago the ex-colonial territories members of the United Nations who were then members of that body, could have been numbered on your two hands. Now there are 25 or 30, I should think, members of the United Nations who only a few years ago were colonial territories. Because of the weakness of their economy, they cannot, of course, make any great contributions to the United Nations in terms of money and I suspect their contributions are assessed at a very low percentage of its costs. They do, on the other hand, add to the expenses of the United Nations and this is an additional expenditure which I am sure the other members are very glad to bear except perhaps those members of the United Nations which have their own colonial territories which are not likely to become members of the United Nations; and I am talking about the communist empire.

Supply-External Affairs

I wonder whether the minister in respect of the $136 million which is required and of which we are being asked to contribute roughly $6.5 million could relate that expenditure to the cost of operations in the Congo, let us say, since the operations began. I may be wrong but I would not be surprised if the costs of the Congo operations would be in excess of the figure of $136 million. If that is the case, that itself would explain the necessity for this extra amount about which certain members of the United Nations refuse to do anything.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

The cost of the Congo operation is running, I think, at approximately $10 million a month.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

Ten million a month?

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Yes. I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition got his figure of $136 million. That is the amount that has been subscribed. The bond issue is for $200 million which it is estimated will allow the United Nations to carry on until the payments come in under the regular assessments for the amount required to be refunded.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was wrong in my figure. The minister now says that $200 million is being asked for and that $136 million is, we hope, being subscribed by those members who have already indicated their intention so to subscribe.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Provided the United States will contribute $100 million.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

Yes. That leaves, of course, another $64 million to be raised by other members which have not yet indicated any intention. If in fact $136 million or $140 million is subscribed that will only carry the United Nations through the Congo operations for a year, roughly, at $10 million a month. That would not be enough to meet the expenses of the Congo operations since they began, at the present rate. This underlines the serious financial position of the world organization and the necessity of doing something about it above and beyond even the present subscription of $200 million, if that is all subscribed. This is one temporary way out of a very great difficulty, but it is only a temporary solution to this difficulty.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

That is right.

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   $ 70,500
Permalink

March 8, 1962