January 29, 1968

UNITED NATIONS

NORTH KOREA-STATEMENT RESPECTING SEIZURE OF U.S. SHIP

?

Hon. Paul Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs

Mr. Speaker, on Friday last a number of questions were raised with regard to the serious situation which has developed as a result of the seizure of the United States ship known as Pueblo by North Korea and their continued detention of that United States naval vessel and its crew. It was suggested by the hon. member for Ontario that I should make a statement today.

I am sure all hon. members will understand that the fullest possible statement cannot be made at the present time because of the important discussions and consultations that are now still under way at the United Nations. The United States authorities have stated categorically that at the time of its seizure on the evening of January 21 the vessel in question was in international waters. We accept the United States statement with regard to the ship's co-ordinates at that time. The information available to us strongly indicates that this point does lie in international waters and not in territorial waters. North Korea has alleged otherwise but so far had not put forward any evidence in support of its contention.

The ship in question was under United States command and not under the command of the United Nations in Korea. The dispute therefore is essentially one between the United States and North Korea. We do not consider it to be a violation of the Korean armistice of 1953. Canada therefore on that account is not involved. However, we are concerned with the potential danger to international peace which this incident involves. We have a particular responsibility as a member of the Security Council to make every effort to find a peaceful solution.

On Thursday last when I was not in the house questions were asked about our obligations to Korea under the declaration made by the 16 contributing countries in the United Nations force. Canada's present obligations to

Korea derive from the 16-nation declaration on Korea issued at Washington on July 27, 1953 immediately following the signing of the Korean armistice agreement. That declaration includes this statement:

We affirm, in the interests of world peace, that if there is a renewal of the armed attack, challenging again the principles of the United Nations, we should again be united and prompt to resist.

The United Nations command remains in Korea with the full sanction and authority of the Security Council. Canada still has a liaison officer attached to the United Nations command but the last of the Canadian contingent, which was the third largest national force sent to Korea as a result of the Security Council's appeal in 1950, was withdrawn in 1957, four years after the conclusion of the Korean armistice agreement.

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

There is not at this time any specific Canadian commitment to supply military forces or equipment. Should the situation in Korea develop adversely, and I sincerely hope it will not-it is certainly a matter of concern that there has been in recent months a marked increase in the number of incidents investigated by North Korea-it would be for the Canadian government and parliament, in the absence of a new United Nations resolution, to decide whether the situation fell within the meaning of the 16-nation declaration of which this country is a signatory. In any event the matter would have to be referred to the Security Council before any action could be taken by the United Nations.

The Security Council met on January 26 at the request of the United States. The Canadian representative, noting the council's primary responsibility for international peace and security, supported inscription of an item on the increase of tension in the area of Korea and welcomed the decision of the United States to seek the assistance of the United Nations to help it solve a difficult problem through diplomatic channels. Our ambassador suggested that one possible way of bringing about a speedy and equitable solution might be an arrangement for an intermediary or intermediaries.

6060 COMMONS

Seizure of U.S. Ship Pueblo

At a second meeting of the council on Saturday there was unanimous support for the further Canadian suggestion that progress might best be achieved by private consultations which would enable members of the council to consider and develop any ideas or suggestions they might have. This seemed to be the best way of dealing with the immediate problem of the Pueblo.

Those consultations, in which all members of the council have been participating, have been proceeding over the week end in New York and in a number of national capitals. They proceeded this morning, and they are taking place again at this very moment. A number of ideas have been explored I think in a useful and constructive fashion. I am encouraged to date by the sense of responsibility and restraint, as well as by the sense of urgency, which have marked these consultations. I must say that the government of the United States has displayed moderation and a commendable desire to seek a solution through diplomatic means. I hope all countries which may be involved in the consequences of failure to resolve the controversy will show an equal determination to seek a settlement through peaceful means.

Furthermore, members of the Security Council, and this includes Canada, have a special responsibility to seek a reasonable and early solution. I can assure the house that the government is following this matter very closely, is in continuous contact with the parties concerned, and I hope the end result of these consultations will be the resolving of this matter in a way which will not add to the dangers in the situation.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   NORTH KOREA-STATEMENT RESPECTING SEIZURE OF U.S. SHIP
Permalink
PC

Robert Lorne Stanfield (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to say it is reassuring to know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs recognizes that we are in a position of special responsibility along with other countries in connection with this grave dispute which, of course, is a serious threat to international peace. While we are not directly involved here, as there is not a breach of the armistice, there is always the possibility that developments can lead to this.

So I think we have a particular responsibility not only to do what can be done in the interests of international peace, not only to discharge our responsibilities as a member of the Security Council, but also in view of our own situation as a signatory of the armistice. Certainly we cannot be mere spectators, and it is reassuring that the Secretary of State for

DEBATES January 29, 1968

External Affairs recognizes this. I would commend the activity and energy of our ambassador, who has helped buy time, which is important, of course, in reaching a solution. It is important also, I think, in connection with the safety of the members of the crew, which is a factor that we cannot overlook. I therefore wish to urge that this government continue to make every possible contribution in seeking solutions to this very serious problem.

One cannot help but be impressed by the number of disputes and the recurring difficulties arising in connection with what one might call divided countries, of which this is one. My understanding is that none of these divided countries is a member of the United Nations. While I have no doubt there are very considerable difficulties involved in this question, I think it would be useful for our country to explore the possibility of involving these divided countries with the United Nations, as members if possible; because it seems pretty clear that the absence of membership in the United Nations is one of the added difficulties involved here. Therefore, if I may presume to do so, I would urge upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs a full exploration of the possibility of reducing future difficulties by a closer involvement of these countries with the United Nations.

The Secretary of State for External Affairs has emphasized the seriousness of this particular dispute, with which all members of the house would agree. We encourage the minister and the Department of External Affairs to explore with all possible energy every possibility of reaching a solution.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   NORTH KOREA-STATEMENT RESPECTING SEIZURE OF U.S. SHIP
Permalink
NDP

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

New Democratic Party

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the house will welcome the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think we should look upon it as very commendable that a great power like the United States should have referred this serious incident to the United Nations rather than taking unilateral military action which could have far reaching consequences for the peace of the world.

It seems to me that from Canada's viewpoint there are two main points to be underscored. The first is that we do not look upon this incident of the seizure of the United States ship Pueblo as a violation of the North Korean armistice of 1953. I think we have to see this incident in the context of the cold war and the long series of incidents that have

January 29, 1968

arisen out of espionage and counter-intelligence carried on by both ships and planes. There have been many of these instances over the past few years, and this is simply another one of them.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)

I am glad the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made a clear declaration with respect to Canada's position. I noticed that last Friday the United States state department called together the diplomatic representatives of the 16 countries which were signatories to the Korean armistice agreement. Although that meeting may have been called merely for the dissemination of information, in the light of some of the statements that have been made by congressional leaders in the United States to the effect that their country was still at war with North Korea, and that if hostilities were resumed it might be necessary to use tactical nuclear weapons, I think it is imperative for Canada at this time to make abundantly clear that we do not regard the Pueblo incident as a resumption of hostilities in North Korea, and that consequently Canada has no military obligation.

The second point that must be understood is that the immediate task is to secure the return of the ship and its crew to the United States. I do not think there is any value in arguing now about the location of the ship. This is something that will have to be determined by some international body or some intermediary. The United States claimed that the ship was 25 miles from the mainland, and later set the figure at 15.4 miles from the Korean island of Ungdo. North Korea claims that the ship was 7.6 miles from the mainland and was in its territorial waters.

I think the most pressing problem is to secure the services of an intermediary acceptable to both sides who can try to find a solution under which the ship and its crew can be returned. Later, if it were found there was some invasion of territorial waters, whatever indemnification is necessary could be set at that time. The difficulty will be in securing an intermediary who is acceptable to both sides to be appointed by the United Nations, in view of the fact that North Korea is not a member of the United Nations.

I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs is giving some thought to the possibility of using the neutral supervisory commission, which was accepted by both sides on July 27, 1953 and which might now be acceptable to both sides as an intermediary. I think this incident points up the necessity of having

Seizure of U.S. Ship Pueblo established at the United Nations some type of international tribunal which can ascertain the accuracy of facts in a dispute of this nature and report these facts to the Security Council.

I think the minister and our representative at the United Nations are to be commended for the contribution they have already made in pressing for an intermediary who will be acceptable to both sides, but I think the important thing at this stage is for the government to make it abundantly clear that this isolated incident, regrettable though it may be, cannot be looked upon by Canada as a violation of the Korean armistice agreement and that it does not involve Canada in any military commitments.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   NORTH KOREA-STATEMENT RESPECTING SEIZURE OF U.S. SHIP
Permalink
?

Mr. C.-A. Gauihier@Roberval

Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the members of the opposition to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). We think that he displayed great wisdom until now, for this is a special case. Indeed, it is in similar circumstances that world wars often break out and the minister knows that perfectly well.

Not only is it our duty to see to it that the 1963 treaty is not violated by either country, but also to bring out the truth, in order to give justice to both parties.

Nevertheless, we find it rather strange

and I think that will be the stumbling-block for the United Nations, which will probably have to settle the question-that only one party, the United States, is represented at the United Nations, since the other party, North Korea, is not a member of the organization and therefore will probably not be present to defend itself.

But the first thing that strikes us, we who are not military men, is to hear that a spy ship was navigating in either territorial or international waters, and the crucial question will be to determine the location of the ship. The United States, naturally, will say that it was in international waters, and North Korea will maintain that it was in her territorial waters. I think it will be rather difficult to get at the truth, because only the crew of the American ship really knows where the ship was.

Allowances will have to be made but, once again, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was very prudent. We must be increasingly careful because, while we want

6062 COMMONS

Seizure of U.S. Ship Pueblo to make allowances, we do not want the United States to blame others for its own errors.

The matter now before the Security Council of the United Nations will surely be discussed thoroughly. We feel that unless the whole matter is clarified completely, it could lead to a third world war. Our authorities, and especially the Secretary of State for External Affairs, must therefore at all cost continue their good diplomatic work in order to prevent all those squabbles that could degenerate into a world war.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   NORTH KOREA-STATEMENT RESPECTING SEIZURE OF U.S. SHIP
Permalink
SC

Robert Norman Thompson

Social Credit

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, we in our party join in the expression of gratitude that has been mentioned by the other speakers in relation to the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I might say that while he is right in explaining that this is not actually a transgression of the armistice agreement in Korea, technically the United States and North Korea are at war because they never have signed a peace treaty. This makes the situation all the more serious.

Furthermore, there have been continuing provocations of increasing intensity across the demilitarized zone. Early last year it was my privilege to be at Panmunjom to see the actual evidence of such provocations and to speak with soldiers who had been involved in what was then apparently a pattern of provocation on the part of the North Koreans. However, we do share the minister's expression of satisfaction at the degree of temperance shown by the President of the United States and his government. We hope Canada will maintain the initiative in attempting to have an intermediary appointed in the hope of settling the problem by peaceful means.

It is interesting to note that if only the U.S.S.R. were a little bit interested in peace, she would join others in attempting to work out a settlement of this affair. It is interesting to note also that the second practical suggestion to come out of the Security Council, in addition to that which came from Canada, has come from the country of Ethiopia. Perhaps it is worth mentioning here that both countries played a very important part in the Korean war, and both are members of the Security Council today and tomorrow in an worthy way the free nations of the developed part of the world; the other is in like position with respect to the emerging nations of Africa. I only hope that the initiative taken by these two countries may be pursued in the

[Mr. Gauthier.)

DEBATES January 29, 1968

Security Council today and tomorrow in an effort to force that body to make practical suggestions that will result in some section being taken to bring together the two parties concerned in this affair in the realization that the rest of the world wants a settlement and wants it quickly.

[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)

While we may express gratification at the show of moderation by the United States we must still recognize that time is short. If the United Nations is to be of any assistance at this time it must move very quickly. Our representative on the Security Council, supported with all the strength of the government, should push forward our efforts so as to make the Security Council an effective instrument to deal with the problem facing it as a result of the North Korean affair.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS
Subtopic:   NORTH KOREA-STATEMENT RESPECTING SEIZURE OF U.S. SHIP
Permalink

BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN RESERVES MINERAL RESOURCES ACT

REPEAL OF PROVISION RESPECTING SURRENDER OF ENTITLEMENT

NDP

Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved

for leave to introduce Bill No. C-198, to amend the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act.

Topic:   BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN RESERVES MINERAL RESOURCES ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF PROVISION RESPECTING SURRENDER OF ENTITLEMENT
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Explain.

Topic:   BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN RESERVES MINERAL RESOURCES ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF PROVISION RESPECTING SURRENDER OF ENTITLEMENT
Permalink
NDP

Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Howard:

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the degree of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments reaches its zenith when somebody desires to take away Indian rights. This is what happened in 1943 when the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act was passed by this parliament as a result of an agreement entered into between the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada without consultation with or the advice of our native Indian people.

One provision of the act requires that the native Indian people must surrender, in other words give up, their entitlement to mineral resources on the reserves before these resources can be exploited and developed. This is an obstacle in the way of any such development and this bill seeks to remove it by repealing the act itself.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

January 29, 1968

Questions

Topic:   BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN RESERVES MINERAL RESOURCES ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF PROVISION RESPECTING SURRENDER OF ENTITLEMENT
Permalink

QUESTIONS


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAM

PC

Mr. Nielsen

Progressive Conservative

Is the housing improvement program for Indian people as described in press release No. 1-67107 dated November 8, 1967, of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development available to the Indian people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and, if so, how many houses have been built in each territory under the program?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAM
Permalink
LIB

Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Liberal

Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):

No, but the

previous Indian housing programs which have been in effect in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have been accelerated and continued. During the fiscal year ended 196667, 41 houses were constructed for Indian people in the Yukon Territory; in the Northwest Territories 98 houses were constructed under the Indian housing program during the same fiscal year.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAM
Permalink

LIBAU, MAN., POSTMASTERSHIP

NDP

Mr. Schreyer

New Democratic Party

1. In ordering the transfer of the postmastership at Libau, Manitoba, did the Postmaster General receive any recommendations in this regard from the Winnipeg District Office of the Post Office Department?

2. Did the Post Office Department inform the Postmaster at Libau at any time from July to September, 1967, that a competition would be held prior to the appointment of a permanent postmaster for that district?

3. Was such a competition held and, if so, how many applicants were there?

4. What percentage of the postal subscribers of the Libau Post Office district signed the petition submitted to the Postmaster General October 30-November 10, 1967, asking that the postmastership not be transferred?

5. Was Mr. Ewald Greening selected for appointment as Postmaster in 1964?

6. If so, was he in fact appointed at that time and, if not, for what reason?

7. As of January 1, 1963, on how many occasions have law enforcement officers been called upon by the Post Office Department to assist in the transfer of Post Office locations or postmasterships within a given postal district?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   LIBAU, MAN., POSTMASTERSHIP
Permalink
?

John Cole

Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Poslmasier General):

1. Yes.

2. No. On appointment as temporary postmaster, he was made aware that the appointment was temporary pending the appointment of a postmaster on a permanent basis.

3. No.

4. The term "postal subscribers" is not used by the Post Office Department. A record is maintained of the number of householders served from each post office in rural communities. A householder is defined as a person who occupies a house or an apartment, alone or as head of the household. The relationship of householders to "postal subscribers" is not available from departmental records.

5. Yes.

6. No. The initial selection was changed in favour of another applicant because of the latter's superior education and related clerical experience.

7. None.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   LIBAU, MAN., POSTMASTERSHIP
Permalink

January 29, 1968