June 15, 1951

LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

I have no intention of making a general statement at this time, but I shall be glad to deal with questions that may arise during the discussion of my estimates.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Graydon:

Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a few remarks with respect to the

Supply-External Affairs estimates of the Department of External Affairs. As you know, they have just been returned to committee of supply after consideration by the standing committee on external affairs. I want to deal with only one or two matters which perhaps should be enlarged upon and emphasized at this time.

My first reference will be to the question of the proposed Japanese peace treaty and rearmament plan. I have no desire to discuss the Japanese peace treaty at this time, except to suggest to the minister that, when he is replying to the various questions that will be raised in committee of supply, he should deal with the matter of Canada's position in that regard. There must be a good deal of confusion in the public mind as to what is going on with respect to the negotiations leading up to the proposed agreement. First pf all we have Mr. Dulles going to Japan and then to Great Britain. Press reports from time to time have indicated that agreements have been reached. There is one this morning from London indicating that, on the question of representation of Red China as opposed to nationalist China, some agreement has been arrived at between the United States and Great Britain, a very familiar kind of agreement in diplomatic circles-that no decision will be made with respect to that matter until later.

I think a problem must be arising in people's minds as to where Canada fits into these unilateral or bilateral negotiations which are being carried on by the United States of America and their representatives. We have not had a call from Mr. Dulles in Ottawa. We would like to know whether or not we have been kept in touch with all the developments, whether or not in his various travels abroad he has carried with him some implied or express authority from Canada with respect to our stand, and what the reaction of this country may be expected to be after the agreements have been finally drafted and put into a form satisfactory to these other countries. We have a say with respect to the Japanese treaty, and I think the minister should advise the committee what method we have employed to make our voice heard in these negotiations.

I also want to raise another question, and it is also one that I think is in the minds of the public. While the military and political aspects of the Japanese negotiations are of immense importance, and I think no one would desire to minimize their importance in any way, there is a problem concerning economics, finance and trade which I trust the government will not allow to be disregarded when the final negotiations are in progress. We must be certain that not only the political

[Mr. Graydon.l

and military situations are given due consideration by the powers involved, but also the economics and trade effects of this treaty. That question should be dealt with by the minister during the course of this debate. We would be interested to learn how we fit into the picture so far as any arrangements for peace with Japan are concerned. As the minister well knows, some of the main markets of Japan are now cut off by virtue of Red Chinese domination of the great mainland of China. That in itself raises an obvious question which should not be disregarded in any consideration of a peace treaty with Japan.

I also want to mention another matter which was regarded as of sufficient importance to occupy a place in the report of the external affairs committee. I refer to the recommendation concerning the actions of future Canadian delegations at the general assembly of the United Nations. It is a recommendation with which I am thoroughly in accord. It gained unanimity in the committee, and is worth while mentioning. It reads as follows:

Your committee also recommends that future Canadian delegations to the United Nations general assembly continue to urge that the budgetary contribution which the Soviet union and associated countries make be increased to figures which more closely correspond to their capacities to pay.

As the committee is aware, there has been a scandalous disproportion between other countries and the Soviet union with respect to their assessments and contributions to the cause of peace as represented by the United Nations organization. The budget of the United Nations of course calls for a certain percentage from each country as its share of the upkeep of that organization for the preservation and maintenance of peace. Russia has 180 million people, and Canada 14 million or thereabouts; naturally that disproportion in population causes the raising of eyebrows when we realize that the 180 million people pay a little less than seven per cent of the entire United Nations budget, while Canada, with only 14 million people, pays 3-3 per cent.

I want to commend the delegation from this country for the stand they have taken on this matter. It is not Canada's fault that we have not had a better deal with relation to the Soviet union. I think the standing committee was the place to initiate such a recommendation, and we should tell the United Nations we are not satisfied to allow a nation like the Soviet union, which calls itself a great power and shows all evidence of being a great power, to pay only a little less than seven per cent of the total budget of the whole United Nations organization. A country that can boast of 178 armed

divisions and 30,000 aeroplanes, all poised for any eventuality of war, is not a nation that should be arguing that it should make a small contribution to this organization which would preserve peace. It does not make sense.

In addition, I think attention should be drawn to the fact that if the contribution is determined on the basis of the amount expended for war, then the Soviet union should make a corresponding contribution in the interests of peace. To some extent at least that would balance their activities in the international field. Moreover, they should pay more to the United Nations because they do more to sabotage that organization, and it seems to me there is no justification for the present arrangement.

I was amazed, as I suppose everyone in Canada was, at the last meeting of the United Nations to find a huge budget for the rehabilitation of Korea. That was somewhat premature, as events have developed; nevertheless something like $350 million was being set aside for that purpose, a committee was being set up, and all arrangements were being made under which we would play our part together with the other peace-loving nations in rehabilitating that war-stricken country. But of that $350 million the Soviet union were not putting up a single cent, nor was there any suggestion that they should put up any money. In other words, the people who were not to blame for the Korean problem were having to pay for the intervention of other people.

The whole picture is sordid; but by concurring in that part of the report we will tell the world that Canada is not satisfied with the way the Soviet union is meeting its obligations. It is bad enough to have them disturbing world peace as they are, without our having to pay more as our share of the cost of maintaining it. That, in simple terms, is what I wish to convey to the house-to say how strongly I endorse that part of the committee's report.

In addition I wanted to make one or two references to the recommendation with respect to the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. On this subject some evidence was adduced, though perhaps not as much as the committee might have liked. This question, of course, has a dual significance, and the matter may be said to be under dual jurisdiction. Some of these recommendations might have gone further had it not been for the fact that the committee was anxious not to tread upon the toes of another committee which might be dealing with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which of course has jurisdiction over the international service. Nevertheless

Supply-External Affairs it was made crystal clear that for geographical reasons, with the international service in Montreal and the external affairs department in Ottawa, questions of clearance concerning policy, details and the programs beamed to these other countries make for an unmanageable situation. That was one reason why we in the committee felt we could not go further than simply to call for closer liaison between the department and the international service with respect to policy.

However, I think most committee members have come to the conclusion that we have reached the end of the era of just trying to speak to our free-power friends through the international service. I believe the day has come when we must change our approach and try to reach some of those behind the famous iron curtain who may wish to become our friends. We are told by those who ought to know that there are millions upon millions of prospective listeners in those countries, behind the border between freedom and slavery, who are anxious to hear the message from this country, and there is a very good reason why Canada is in perhaps a much better position than any other nation in the world to speak to those people. We are not suspect as being a great power. We are not suspect as having any international axe to grind. Our reputation and prestige as a people are high, and for those reasons a message from this country would carry more weight.

I was amazed to find that only a very small percentage of our broadcasts is directed to those people. For instance, no broadcasts at all are being beamed to that great section of the Soviet union known as the Ukraine, though some of the most democratic and freedom-loving Ukrainians in the world are to be found in Canada. I mention that to suggest that the percentage of our shortwave broadcasts beamed to countries behind the iron curtain should be increased, and our whole approach to this question changed in view of the fact that we are in the twilight stage between peace and war. No longer can we be said to be in a definite period of peace. I had not intended to elaborate on that point, but I did want to suggest that there is a need, perhaps not for additional facilities, but for a change in the use of the present facilities.

Then I wanted to mention a matter having to do with questions of unanimity and unity at top levels among the major free powers. I suppose nothing has disturbed our people more than the fact that from time to time there have been superficial difficulties, particularly between the United Kingdom and the United States, at high international levels.

Supply-External Affairs I have heard it suggested from time to time, as indeed it was suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North during a debate in this house on a resolution which was later withdrawn, that consideration should be given the setting up of an Atlantic union. I believe most people understand my views in that respect. I think the objective is good; but I agree with what the minister said during that debate, that there is a time and season for all things, and I am not at all sure we have arrived at either the time or the season to proceed along those lines. I do agree that it is an objective we must always keep in view, to which this generation may properly look as a plan for the future.

I have been greatly impressed, as I think every member of this committee must have been-and particularly my learned colleague from Lake Centre-with the fact that at its various meetings the commonwealth parliamentary association has done an immense amount of good in acting as a clearing house for the exchange of views not only among governments but among those who have been elected to office, regardless of their political opinions. That is one of the great advantages of the commonwealth parliamentary association, and I believe those advantages are being realized more and more as the years go by. I believe there is a need for an expansion of that type of endeavour. I throw out this suggestion to the committee: I am wondering if we should not have, as an experiment, some kind of informal meeting of representatives of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, in which there could be frequent clearances of opinions as between men and women of the various political parties who have been elected to the parliaments of those countries. I am not so sure that that would not result in our finding some common denominator for understanding between the peoples of these nations.

It seems to me it is not good enough always to have governments meeting and deciding things, because all governments are not like this one in that they have not such a large majority in the legislature. A good example of this is found in the congress of the United States, and in the slim majority of the Attlee government in Britain. These are factors which might properly be considered. Personally, I should like to see some move made whereby selected representatives from this parliament, from the congress of the United States and the parliament of the United Kingdom, could get together in frequent meetings something similar to that of the commonwealth parliamentary association- not anything in the nature of a strait-jacket organization, but simply with a view to having informal discussions from time to time

for the purpose of clearing up misunderstandings which arise between the peoples of those countries. There would be the additional advantage that the representatives would bring back to their respective legislative bodies, just as they do from the commonwealth parliamentary association, an appreciation of the other person's point of view, which is essential if the free peoples of the world are to march together in common understanding and with common objectives. It is only a personal proposal that I put forward, but I suggest that it is at least worthy of consideration. *

I wish to refer now to a project which has been approved by every political party in Canada. It has been approved by governments, and it has been endorsed by the party to which I have the honour to belong. It has not yet, however, been the subject of the action which I believe should be taken. I should like to have seen in the report of the external affairs committee some recommendation in connection with the St. Lawrence waterway. Such a reference would have afforded the committee, for the first time since the agreement was made in 1941, an opportunity to discuss the matter and record its position. I believe this should have been done some time ago. The agreement was made on March 19, 1941. So far as Canada is concerned, the treaty that was signed at that time, and endorsed by the government, is awaiting approval by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.

In 1895 the first move with respect to this matter was made when the United States and Canada set up a committee of inquiry. In 1932 the St. Lawrence deep waterway treaty was signed by both countries, but it failed to achieve a two-thirds majority in the United States Senate, so the matter was dropped again. In 1941 the St. Lawrence basin agreement was entered into. At the instance of the United States Senate some changes were made in it in 1949 in order to make it more acceptable to both countries.

In order to show how this matter comes within the purview of the Department of External Affairs, I might say that in between those periods the permanent joint board of defence for Canada and the United States more than once urged that this waterway ought to be completed as a defence measure. From the strait of Belle isle to the lakehead cities of Fort William and Port Arthur is a distance by water of 2,225 miles. It is perhaps the most important inland waterway in the whole world, yet in between those points there is a forty-mile bottleneck which ought to be removed. In this enlightened day and age, when the needs of trade and

commerce, defence and power are all calling for the removal of that bottleneck, it does not make sense that we should delay the construction of this short protected route through the heart of a continent. There is a need for it in time of war as well as in time of peace, particularly in view of the high transshipment costs which the present undeepened waterway causes.

So far as my own part of the country is concerned we are perhaps more keenly interested in this project than some other parts of Canada. For that reason I hesitate to speak on behalf of anyone else in connection with it. On behalf of my part of the province of Ontario I want to say that we have enough power to care for our needs up to the end of 1956. Beyond that we are faced with a bottleneck so far as power is concerned, unless the 1,100,000 horsepower available in connection with the St. Lawrence river project are brought into being. In that forty miles there are 2,200,000 horsepower available to both countries. In addition to that, farther up the waterway there is another estimated two and a quarter million horsepower, but nothing has been planned yet with respect to its development.

This problem was emphasized by a recent visit to the Canadian international trade fair by representatives of the great lakes states bordering this country. Of course, they are interested in the project just as we are. They are just as much concerned as we- are about the lobby which is going on now in congress. They point out that the Mesabi iron range in the state of Minnesota is rapidly petering out and that the ore which normally would come from there is being depleted. That situation, of course, creates a special need, in time of defence preparations, for the necessary raw material which is available in Canada from time to time but which needs a waterway for its transportation. Representatives of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota have not only expressed their great anxiety, just as we have done, for a movement towards the St. Lawrence waterway development on a basis of immediate urgency, but have welcomed Canada's challenge to build this waterway alone.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that these states are so anxious-as we are-to have the waterway built that some discussion has taken place in their various legislatures or among their state officials with regard to finding some way, under international law, by which they could assume some portion of the cost of a joint undertaking. I want to say this-and when I do so, I speak personally; but as a matter of fact all the

Supply-External Affairs party platforms have called for a joint undertaking of the St. Lawrence development. Frankly, sir, I think that perhaps in the end the best thing that could happen to Canada and to Canadians would be for us to start now to build the St. Lawrence seaway on our own. There are a great number of reasons why that should be done. More than that, even if the present congressional committee makes a favourable decision-and there seems to be a good deal of doubt as to its decision-and recommends a joint undertaking on the St. Lawrence deep waterway, our experience has shown-and perhaps it is indicated in our own parliament as well- that there are a great many ways in which congressional delays can occur. Once that committee has endorsed the undertaking, some other committee or some other body through which it must go for final ratification and approval can block it in its course. One of our real problems is this: Are we now

running into a long period of indecision from which Canadians may find it difficult to extricate themselves? Americans may say: Of

course we are studying the matter, and we are still dealing with it; while we are still dealing with it Canadians would, of course not want to make any move with regard to it.

It seems to me that we as a nation should not delay any longer in saying to the United States government that Canada is now proposing to proceed with the great lakes-St. Lawrence waterway on its own, and that in the years ahead we shall look forward to the completion of this great project as a matter of national pride. In the past we have done great things as a nation, both in peace and in war. Let us do this one other great thing and show the United States people and the United States government, as well as our own people, that after all we have the capacity and the desire to see to it that this mid-continent waterway, the greatest of its kind in the world, shall no longer be bottlenecked by forty miles of unnavigable water.

In my opinion that is the course which should be pursued. I say it is my own personal opinion, because I do not want to bind members in any part of the house with respect to the matter. But it is my view that we should not delay a moment longer in arriving at our decision, making it known, and starting upon what would be one of the most beneficial ventures in the field of transportation, commerce and business- that Canada has thus far undertaken.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister will permit me also to ask him some questions, so that he may answer them when he is answering others that have been asked.

Supply-External Affairs May I just say to him that if I am obliged to leave before he speaks, I hope he will understand that it is because of a firm appointment I have made, and that I must leave on that account.

First of all, I think the standing committee on external affairs performs an extremely useful function indeed. Those of us who were privileged to be members of it, both this year and in past years, I think understand how valuable this committee is to the house, since we can have before us the officials as well as the minister, and can not only ask questions about the broad outlines of our external policy, but can get many of the details that it would perhaps be difficult for us to obtain in the house.

May I also say this, Mr. Chairman, because one likes to do these things once in a while. As one who has attended a number of international conferences with officials of the external affairs department and has sat with them at the meetings of the external affairs committee, may I express my tribute to the work that the officials of that department are doing. I think the minister is to be congratulated on having around him the able officials, both in the country and outside of it, that we have in that department.

I now wish to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Peel has said in one or two connections. I agree with him that, in spite of the failure of the Canadian delegation to obtain a fairer distribution of the assessments made by the United Nations, we should not give up the struggle; we should continue to press continuously for a fairer apportionment of the costs of running the United Nations. It is perfectly true that the Soviet union is paying a relatively small amount, namely, about twice what we are paying. That amount, it seems to me, is out of all proportion to the influence and power that that great country assumes and exercises in the councils of the United Nations and of the world generally.

I should also like to say that I agree with the views expressed by the hon. member, and which have been expressed by others in this chamber, with regard to an Atlantic union. The hon. member for Winnipeg North is performing a useful service to this country- and indeed to the nations associated in the North Atlantic alliance and to other nations that might be brought into the organization,- in promoting this idea. True, it involves a surrender to a greater organization of some of the sovereignties we now possess, but in the interests of peace that course probably

[Mr. Coldwell.l

will have to be taken sooner or later when public opinion and world conditions are ripe for it.

I wish also to refer especially to the news reports of the proposed Japanese treaty. I quite agree with those who think that western Germany and Japan cannot be kept permanently out of the family of nations. It is now nearly six years since the war ended, and, under ordinary circumstances, history would show that by this time peace treaties should have been written. They have not been written. It is essential that those countries should now, after six years, be brought into the relationships which are normal in peacetime between nations. I just want to say this, however. As the committee knows, we thoroughly approved Canada's support of the United Nations in resisting the aggression of the North Koreans. We shared with other hon. members-and with the government, I believe-the hesitation that was felt when the 38th parallel was crossed. We certainly feared the effects of the approach of the United Nations armies to the Yalu river and the provocation that might be felt by the government of China. I view with considerable misgiving the proposal to write a treaty with Japan, leaving out nations which are involved in the Far East, at a time when, to say the very least, there is some uncertainty about the future relationships of China. I fear that what we are doing, step by step, is to push'China, the new China, more completely into the Russian orbit. And I believe the new China as it exists today is the China of the future.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
?

Donald MacInnis

Mr. Maclnnis:

It is here to stay.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

As my hon. friend says, it is here to stay. The government of the China of the future might not have the same attributes as the government of the China of today, but at least the revolution has occurred; the revolutionary government is in power and is going to remain in power. The future of the world depends very largely upon the manner in which we can bring about a better understanding between the revolutionary government of China-and the governments that will follow it, arising out of this revolution-and the democratic world. It was with a good deal of misgiving that one read in the newspapers this morning and heard over the radio last night of the proposal for the signing of a peace treaty to which a government of China later on will be invited to attach its signature, and, as I understand the proposal to be, to co-operate in the terms of the treaty.

There is no question in my mind that Chiang Kai-shek and the group of reactionaries, as they have been described by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, are permanently eliminated as a factor in China. Any attempt to restore that government on the mainland of China will be, I believe, a tragedy for Asia and a tragedy for the world. We know pretty well the opinions of most members of the commonwealth of nations, including India and Pakistan. While Burma is outside the commonwealth, we hope that country will remain on the friendliest of relations with the commonwealth; and we know what their views are on this matter.

I do not know what part has been taken by the Department of External Affairs, the government or the minister in regard to these discussions; but I ask the minister very pointedly if he will indicate exactly what is the position of Canada and the policy of the government in regard to this agreement that is reported to have been made between the United Kingdom and the United States.

After all, we are a Pacific nation. Our borders are washed by the Pacific ocean on the west, and we cannot be negligent of or oblivious to what happens in the Pacific area. It would be well for the minister to tell the House of Commons and the country categorically just where we stand in connection with this matter, involving, as it does, what may be a fateful agreement or understanding.

I want to see communism stopped everywhere. I believe that totalitarian communism menaces the world, but I also believe that if we adopt policies that throw great masses of the people, whether because of their poverty and misery and want or because of situations similar to those in China today, into the orbit of the Soviet union, we are bringing about a situation which will mean a third world war and, in all probability, the destruction of the type of civilization to which we aspire. Certainly it will restrict the freedom we all wish so wholeheartedly to expand.

I know of no announcement in recent weeks that has caused me so much disturbance as the announcement made last night and repeated in the newspapers this morning. We were happy indeed when it seemed that the United States, in removing MacArthur, was endeavouring to reach the point where a negotiated settlement of the Korean conflict could be achieved.

China has unlimited manpower, and the suggestion that we can fight her successfully, that we can bomb her cities, and so on, into submission, seems to me to be quite unrealistic. With her manpower and resources she would ultimately swallow the forces

Supply-External Affairs of occupation of the nations that are associated together in what we call the democratic or free world. Success does not lie that way.

I would ask the minister to tell us as nearly as he can what part, if any, Canada has taken in connection with the agreement that has been reached; what the views of the government are in this regard, and what the policy of Canada is to be in connection with it. I am sure many people in this country will be anxious to have that information, and I suggest this is the opportunity for the minister to give that information.

That is the only point I am going to make this morning. I do hope we shall have a clear statement from the minister about the proposed Japanese treaty.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

Mr. Chairman, the hon.

member for Peel and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar have brought up for discussion some very important questions. Most of them, if not all, were given careful consideration by the committee on external affairs, which has now reported to the house.

Possibly at this point I might be permitted to pay tribute to the work of that committee, and especially to its chairman, who has the respect, and indeed the affection, of all of us.

I hope I shall not be expected to repeat on questions of general policy statements I have made in the house and before the committee. But there are some specific questions which have been raised, and of course I shall do my best to deal with them.

The first, and possibly the most important, which has arisen in the discussion so far is that of the proposed Japanese peace treaty. Our position as a government in this matter has been made pretty clear to the house: we are in favour-and I am sure the house is in favour-of the earliest possible conclusion of such a treaty-

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

-so that Japan may be brought back into the family of nations and play her part as a strong democratic country, especially in Asian affairs. So we have welcomed the discussions which have taken place to that end. When we were consulted, as we were some months ago, as to the form which these discussions should take, we agreed with our friends in Washington and London that possibly diplomatic talks initiated by the United States with other governments interested, rather than a general conference, would be the best way to proceed in the present circumstances. As the committee knows, these talks have been proceeding and are now reaching finality.

In all this process of consultation we have played our part and have been informed of

Supply-External Affairs developments as they occur. We certainly have no complaint to make in regard to the methods that have been adopted to keep us informed. Mr. Dulles has consulted with our representative in Washington and our representative in Tokyo. I was in Washington yesterday and had a discussion with the assistant secretary of state in charge of Far Eastern affairs. There was an official discussion in Washington between United States, United Kingdom and Canadian officials a few weeks ago, which discussions were resumed in Ottawa a few days after they had finished in Washington. This question has also been discussed in London. I think it is true to say that we have been kept informed and have played a reasonably active part in the negotiations leading up to the present position.

In the early days of these negotiations a draft was circulated by the' United States to the governments more particularly concerned. We made comments on that draft on May 1 and May 21 and gave our views in some detail on every single clause. Having received'the United States draft, at that time the United Kingdom made certain counterproposals of its own, and we also made known in London our views on those counterproposals. In recent days there have been discussions in London between Mr. Dulles and the United Kingdom government designed to remove the differences which had developed in the preliminary discussions between the United States and the United Kingdom approaches to certain of these questions. Those discussions have resulted in an almost complete measure of agreement between London and Washington, and I understand that as a result a combined United States-United Kingdom draft will now be submitted to the other governments concerned for their observations. Once those observations are received it is hoped that a peace treaty may then be speedily concluded.

I am in some difficulty in making known at this particular time our final views in respect of the agreement, if it is a formal agreement, reached in London. We have not yet received any final text of the discussions in London, and I do not think it would be wise for me to express any final view in regard to this matter until that text is received. Of course the committee and parliament know that there have been one or two contentious points in these discussions. They have been mentioned here this morning. One concerns the association of China with the peace treaty, and the other is the disposition of the island of Formosa.

Our position in regard to the former is that this question of Chinese signature on a

Japanese peace treaty should be postponed without prejudice- to any eventual solution. I think the reason for that is obvious. I think it is known to all members of the committee that the United States has recognized one Chinese government while the United Kingdom has recognized another Chinese government. Obviously it would be difficult indeed for them to agree at this time on a Chinese signature to a formal Japanese treaty. Therefore this device has been adopted which I presume will result in a postponement of this issue for the time being, I hope without prejudice to a final and satisfactory solution.

Similarly, with regard to the question of Formosa I think we are all agreed that Japanese sovereignty in Formosa must be brought to an end. I have no doubt that that will be done in the peace treaty. I think it is also pretty clear that the eventual disposition of Formosa cannot be made in any draft treaty at this time. I do not think I can say anything more at this time on this matter.

There were one or two other points that were raised in connection with the proposed Japanese treaty. The hon. member for Peel called attention to the difficulty that we had had in pre-war times in trading with Japan, and stated that he hoped the treaty would take those difficulties into consideration. I can assure him that we have been much alive to the problem. We realize that in pre-war times there were certain difficulties in regard to Japanese trade, and I hope that the treaty will make that situation easier in the future. We have been particularly interested in the fisheries clauses of the treaty. In order to discuss those clauses the Minister of Fisheries, accompanied by some of his officials, visited Washington to take up the matter there with the United States and United Kingdom people. We hope that as a result the fisheries clauses of the treaty will be satisfactory to Canada.

Perhaps I can now deal with one or two other questions that have arisen during the course of the discussion. Both the hon. member for Peel and the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar stressed the desirability of continuing the struggle in the United Nations to increase the proportion of the cost of that organization to be borne by the U.S.S.R. We have taken a most active part in that agitation, as the hon. member for Peel pointed out, and will continue to do so. The present proportions are most unfair to other members of the organization, and we hope we shall be able to make further progress during the next assembly in the direction of increasing the proportion of the cost to be borne by the U.S.S.R. and its satellite states. We made some progress in that direction in

the last assembly, but not sufficient. We will not give up that struggle. It hon. members are interested in this particular question they will find it dealt with at. some length at page 150 of the report of the department on "Canada and the United Nations".

Incidentally I should like to point out that the hon. member for Peel was mistaken when he said the United Nations had set aside $350 million for Korean relief. The objective which has been agreed upon is $250 million, but of course that amount has not been set aside as yet

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Graydon:

If I said $350 million I meant $250 million, because that was my recollection of the amount.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

I thought the hon. member

said $350 million.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Graydon:

I do not like to be careless

with a hundred million.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

Some reference was made

by both speakers who preceded me to the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This subject was dealt with at considerable length before the committee, and I made quite a lengthy statement on the matter, which will be found at page 85 of the proceedings. We are attempting to improve and develop our liaison with the C.B.C. international service. I think it is generally recognized by the two departments concerned that that liaison is working effectively. So far as we in external affairs are concerned, we have no complaint on that score. We are responsible for policy guidance in connection with the broadcasts, and our contact on policy matters is close and continuous. I hope it will continue that way.

The hon. member for Peel suggested that we extend our coverage behind the iron curtain. In view of the circumstances with which we are faced at the present I think the importance of that will be recognized by all hon. members. However, it would necessitate a considerable expenditure. It could not be done simply by transferring facilities now used for broadcasting, say to Latin America, for use for broadcasting to the Ukraine or Poland. An additional organization would have to be brought into the international service which would be familiar with this particular kind of broadcasting. The broadcasting now carried on to Latin America is to create a background for an increase in and development of our trade. The persons engaged in that work would not be satisfactory for the kind of broadcasting which would be directed behind the iron curtain.

Supply-External Affairs

The hon. member for Peel also made a very interesting suggestion-and he only threw it out as a suggestion-that possibly meetings of representatives of the parliaments of the United Kingdom, United States and Canada might be useful, and of course I think most members of the committee would agree. I am inclined to think, however, that that kind of interparliamentary consultation could be even more effectively carried on, if it is desirable in itself-and I think it is- if it were based somewhat more broadly than on the parliamentary institutions of the three countries. Steps toward that end are already being taken. I understand that the Council of Europe, which, as members of the committee know, represents not governments but parliaments, legislatures and all parties, has already invited observers from the United States and Canada to attend its next session at Strasbourg. The decision in that regard as to whether the Canadian parliament should be represented of course is not a decision for the government but would be a decision for parliament itself.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Graydon:

I should like to ask the

minister one question. He has brought up the question of the Strasbourg meeting. Has the minister any information as to whether or not representatives are to be sent from the Canadian parliament to the Strasbourg meeting? Has any decision been made?

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

I do not think so. That would be a decision made by parliament, and I assume the matter would be brought to the attention of parliament by the Speaker, to whom the invitation would be addressed, if indeed it has not already been so addressed.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Adamson:

Does the minister know

whether or not it has?

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

I think the invitation was sent a short time ago to the Speaker, but I am not certain whether he has received it yet. It would be quite simple to find out, and I should be glad to do so during the luncheon recess.

The hon. member for Peel made some reference to the St. Lawrence waterway. I listened to his remarks with great interest, and all I should like to say about it now is that the government still hopes that this great undertaking, which should be of benefit to both countries economically, and indeed politically and in other ways, can be carried out as the result of co-operative arrangements between the two countries. That is still our hope, and that is our objective. We shall be disappointed indeed if that cannot be achieved. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member that it is desirable for the Canadian parliament and the Canadian

Supply-External Affairs government to know as soon as possible if it can be done that way. It would be unfortunate if we were kept in a state of indecision indefinitely; therefore I hope our friends in Washington will be able to come to a decision on this matter before very long. What should be the proper course for Canada will depend no doubt on the nature of the decision reached in Washington, and I do not think it would be very wise on my part to anticipate that decision now by making suggestions for alternative courses of action. Therefore I would prefer to leave the matter at that.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

What did the minister mean by political benefits? He referred to economic benefits, and I should like to know what he meant by political benefits.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

I have in mind that it would possibly bring the two countries even closer together than they are now, because I think a co-operative undertaking of that kind, carried out by two peoples, should have some beneficial result on the general political relationships of those two peoples.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliot:

Not of narrow significance.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

I think I have dealt with the points that have been raised, and possibly I might postpone any further observations until new points are brought up in the course of the discussion.

Topic:   WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT
Subtopic:   GENERAL REVISION
Sub-subtopic:   WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES, ETC.- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Permalink

June 15, 1951