Mr. COLDWELL:

That is the whole point.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is the matter which is now under discussion between the Department of External Affairs here and the United States ambassador in Ottawa. The first conversation about it was held this afternoon, and the investigation is proceeding.

It sometimes occurs that some of these representations are made. Representations were made by our department in similar cases. The hon. member referred to a summons from the senate committee.

Mr. HACKETT:

The summons from the senate committee to the pulp and paper companies to appear in Washington with their books.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think that was a summons from the senate committee. I think that was from a court of justice.

Mr. COLDWELL:

That is right.

Mr. HACKETT:

Yes.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: That was a subpoena applied for by the attorney general of the United States against what he asserted were Canadian companies operating in the United States, a matter which was under discussion, and which we thought a few months ago was satisfactorily settled, which has arisen again and about which negotiations are continuing. As a matter of fact, that was the thing I had in mind in my opening speech on April 29, when I said that sometimes there did arise, at administrative levels, things that were annoying; but that even when we had reason to complain about them, we were able to do so, speaking the same language and arriving at settlements. I am quite sure that we shall get a satisfactory explanation of this incident. It sometimes happens that an official is overzealous. I am sure that we shall get a satisfactory explanation of the incident. I wanted it to be known here that what this gentleman is reported to have done was to express in that place-untimely, I think-what was well known to be the attitude of the United States with respect to the matter.

Mr. COLDWELL:

I do not think that

excuses him.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. I think it was untimely for him to go out and repeat it.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Or the department, if he acted under instructions.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: We are inquiring as to whether it was under instructions from the department.

Mr. COLDWELL:

That is the point.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know whether

he asserted it to be.

Mr. HACKETT:

He did assert it.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: We are inquiring whether it was under instructions from the department or whether it was something he did on his own, after, no doubt, having been spoken to by representatives of that United States company who were present in Toronto pressing this application. That is something which is being inquired into. I am sure that there will be no assertion anywhere that it was a proper thing for him to be instructed by the state department to go before a Canadian court, and the matter is being inquired into. I fully agree that there must be mutual respect for all the rights and even the susceptibilities of each other. I hope that there will never be more serious occasions than those that have arisen. But cases arise from time to time where we feel that officialdom has been a little bit officious and has taken it for granted that what it would be proper for them to do in their own country they could do in ours. That was what I meant by saying they embarrassed us in their perhaps intentionally flattering desire to consider us so much a part of themselves. But they know-and when this fact is overlooked they are reminded of it- that we are sensitive about these things, that we must be careful and that they also must be careful.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Will the minister report the findings to the house?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will when I have had an official report from the ambassador.

Mr. CHURCH:

I just want to call the

minister's attention to one thing. I am opposed to these estimates being dealt with in such a committee. I opposed this way of considering foreign affairs consistently right from the start, because the onus is on the government itself.

The second thing is this. What are we doing at the present time? The government depends on UNO, so does the opposition.

Estimates oj External Affairs

Their policy is based on Lake Success. 1 want to point this fact out, it is one which is forgotten. The Soviet union has been using the UNO to insult Britain and the United States in every known way and in the worst language ever known, which in any other age would have led to the severance of diplomatic relations. I believe the Soviets will soon leave UNO for keeps. The Soviets are using this for home consumption in Russia, to tell the people there that the United States and Britain will attack them. That is what they are doing. They are using that at all times in Russia, or they would have had serious internal trouble there. They would have trouble in their own country but for UNO, which is a most mischievous agency. The way business is carried on down there, the thing is a tower of Babel. We are making a great mistake. If we could get a one year's holiday at Lake Success, we would have peace and happiness.

I do not believe that the external affairs committee will ever do anything. I have found that some of these committees, like the external affairs committee, as the minister knows, do not know anything about the matter, and the public today do not know anything about it except what they read in the press, because they do not come down to fundamentals or consider the experience of history. I believe it would be better for the government to take the responsibility, because they must take it. By the action taken, we are just inviting something which the Soviet wants at Lake Success. Our policy should be to work with Britain and the dominions and America and obtain security by re-armament. Lake Success has been a failure for a long time, and I believe it would be far better if we were to give Lake Success six months' or a year's holiday. It would be the best thing for the British empire and the world.

Mr. HACKETT:

Will the minister make known the results of his inquiries?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.

Mr. CHURCH:

The committee should not have been appointed. It is far better to have the discussion here again for a day or two in May or June. In Great Britain they have a couple of days debate every once in a while. Here we have had four days and the minister has been most patient. I believe we have succeeded in bringing some facts before the country and the public.

Item stands.

Progress reported.

Mr. BRACKEN:

They will come back here for consideration afterwards?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, they will come back here, and will have to be gone over again. But before being dealt with here, I understood it was the desire that they be quite fully considered in the committee on external affairs.

Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

Does this mean that if this motion is carried, no statement having been made by the minister, they will be sent to the committee on external affairs? It seems to me that we might just as well face the fact that they will be sent back from the committee, and that when they come back there will be no disposition to have them discussed here at all. The result will be that there will be no discussion here, and no statement by the minister. Is that what is intended?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not understand the hon. member. I made a statement which lasted more than an hour and a quarter, and which has given rise to a debate lasting four days. I am not anxious to have these estimates go to the committee on external affairs; but I promised I would make this motion because I had gathered from all parties that they wished to bring before that committee the officials of the department so that they could get the detailed information which they could not get as satisfactorily when it must be relayed from the gentleman who sits in front of me now.

If there is any opposition to this procedure, I shall carry on and deal with these estimates in the same manner in which other estimates are dealt with.

I think the minister is right, that there was a general desire on the

Estimates of External Affairs

part of all parties, as I understood it, that this procedure be followed. I take it that this will not in any way block a statement being made by the minister in reply to what has been brought before the house by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett).

Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.

Mr. COLDWELL:

The minister will give that opportunity at some other time?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.

Mr. HACKETT:

The desire was that the estimates should go to the committee so that people might be summoned and full information made available. So far as I can speak for my party, I am willing that that should be done.

Mr. MacNICOL:

Was not one of the purposes that of trying to avoid what we have been doing in the last four days?