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

Mr. Speaker, as I previously informed the house, this government has already protested formally and strongly to the United States government in the only way open to this government with regard to the action of certain members of the United States Senate subcommittee on security in making public again, years after their first appearance, slanderous insinuations against the loyalty of a high Canadian official, which helped to bring about the tragic results that have so shocked and saddened us.

The note of protest to which I have referred was dated March 18. It was from our ambassador in Washington to the Secretary of State, and it reads as follows:

Sir:

I am instructed by my government to bring to the attention of the United States government the allegations of disloyalty which have been made in the United States against Mr. E. H. Norman, the Canadian ambassador to Egypt, a high and trusted representative of the Canadian government. The irresponsible allegations to which I refer, and which in any event would concern matters to be dealt with by the Canadian government and not by a subcommittee of the United States Senate, were contained in the textual record of the internal security subcommittee of the Senate committee on the judiciary, which was officially released by that body to the press in Washington, D.C., at 4.30 p.m., on March 14.

I am instructed to protest in the strongest terms the action taken by an official body of the legislative branch of the United States government in making and publishing allegations about a Canadian official. This procedure is both surprising and disturbing because it was done without the United States government consulting or even informing the Canadian government and without taking account of relevant public statements made earlier by the Canadian government.

The Canadian government examined similar allegations as long ago as 1951, and as a result of an exhaustive security inquiry the full confidence of the Canadian government in Mr. Norman's loyalty and integrity has been confirmed in all respects. The conclusions of the Canadian government were made public at that time and must have been 82715-212

known to the subcommittee particularly as the State Department was requested at the time and again on December 11, 1952 to draw them to their attention. I am attaching the texts of two statements made by the Canadian government on this matter in 1951.

The repetition of such irresponsible allegations in the subcommittee and the publication on the authority of this official body of a record containing such allegations is the kind of action which is inconsistent with the long standing and friendly co-operation characterizing relations between our two countries.

Accept, sir, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.

A. D. P. Heeney.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I have received from the acting secretary of state of the United States a reply to the communication which I have just read. It reads as follows:

Excellency:

I have the honour to refer to your note 155 of March 18, 1957 protesting, on behalf of the Canadian government, against certain references to Mr. E. H. Norman, the late Canadian ambassador to Egypt, which were made during hearings of the Senate internal security subcommittee and which were later made public.

I should like, at the outset, to express to the Canadian government and to Mrs. Norman my sincere condolences and those of my colleagues over the death of Ambassador Norman in Cairo.

As for the substance of your note, I wish to assure you that any derogatory information developed during hearings of the subcommittee was introduced into the record by the subcommittee on its own responsibility. As you are aware under our system of government the executive branch has no jurisdiction over views or opinions expressed by members or committees of the United States congress. The investigation being undertaken by the subcommittee lies entirely within the control of the subcommittee.

It is the earnest desire of my government to continue to maintain friendliest relations with the government of Canada, and it deplores any development from any sources, either American or Canadian, which might adversely affect those relations.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

We followed up, Mr. Speaker, the first note to the United States government, the one I have just read and pending a reply to it which has now been received, by oral communications through our embassy in Washington and through the United States embassy here. Our views on this matter have reached the very highest authorities in the government of the United States, who have understood our feelings and our position and have tried to be helpful in this matter.

In making this statement, Mr. Speaker, I venture to express the hope that the action in question about which we complain, and

External Affairs

which has aroused resentment and even bitterness in Canada, can be kept in proportion in so far as our relations with the United States generally are concerned. This action was taken by only one or two members of a legislative subcommittee, and by one of its employees. It has been attacked by other Americans and deeply regretted by more. May I mention, for instance, the sincere letter sent to our ambassador in Washington by the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, and which included the following words; this is from Senator Green:

It was with the deepest sorrow that I learned of the death of Mr. E. Herbert Norman, your ambassador to Egypt. Indication that his death may have been attributable to unfortunate publicity arising from activities in connection with the work of the Senate leads me to express my deep regret to the Canadian government and to the Norman family. Please convey this message to them.

I have, myself, received a great number of communications from, and read many articles by, Americans which express the same kind of indignation which we feel. Perhaps I might be permitted to quote one paragraph from a letter sent to me by a man of whom I have never heard, in a small town in Maryland. He writes:

I sincerely believe that the vast majority of the people of the United States have the warmest regard and admiration for your great country and its people and regret exceedingly the action of the subcommittee.

Please don't direct your ire at the people of our country or our government for I truly believe that in this case a handful of men have cast a bad reflection on over 160 million people.

I hope, therefore, that we will not permit our strong feelings in this matter to be directed against the people of the United States or the government as a whole. They remain our close friends, and we must do everything possible to maintain and strengthen a friendship which has meant so much to both countries in the past and may mean more in the trying and dangerous days ahead. To indict the whole United States because of our just resentment regarding the acts of two or three individuals, even though in high legislative positions, would be indulging in that guilt by association which we so rightly condemn in others as a dangerous and disintegrating threat to the freedom and order in our society today.

The issue before us, however, is not only the tragedy of one man, victimized by slanderous procedures in another country and unable to defend himself against them. There is a broader question of principle involved, the right, to say nothing of the propriety, of an agency of a foreign government to intervene in our affairs in such a way as to harass

one of our citizens who held a responsible and important position in the service of our government.

Such intervention, I am sure the house will agree, is intolerable and should not take place. It is this government's, this Canadian government's, own responsibility to deal with accusations against its citizens within its own jurisdiction in matters concerning security, as in other matters. It is not the responsibility of any subcommittee of the legislature of another country. We try to accept our responsibility as a government in this regard, and we will discharge it to the best of our ability, having regard not only to the security of our own country but also to that of a friendly neighbour, and to the danger to free institutions generally from the international communist conspiracy.

I hope we will also act in these matters, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with principles of justice and fair play, which do not include the making public of charges made in secret session of a committee, which concern officials of a friendly foreign state. If we fail in the discharge of our security responsibilities as a government, we are answerable to our own people and not to a subcommittee of any foreign legislature. While of course this government cannot control in any way, and has no desire to control, the practices of any governmental agency of another country, we have also a duty to refrain from any action which might assist or facilitate those practices to the prejudice of our own citizens.

We have, therefore, with this purpose in mind, examined our procedures regarding exchange of security information with the United States. I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that nothing we could have done would have prevented the action taken against Mr. Norman by the United States Senate subcommittee on security because the information they gave out, covering allegations going back years and dealt with by this government years ago, was secured from other than Canadian sources. Nevertheless, this experience has emphasized that we should now take steps to ensure that information received from us on these matters could not possibly be used for wrong purposes against Canadians in the future.

With this end in view, our ambassador in Washington today delivered the following communication to the United States acting secretary of state, and I will put this communication on the record:

Sir,

I am instructed by my government to take up, as a matter of urgency with the United States government, the question of the procedures which have been followed intermittently by the internal security subcommittee of the Senate committee

on the judiciary in releasing the names of Canadians who have been mentioned in the proceedings of that subcommittee particularly in its executive sessions.

The Canadian government has more than once complained of the methods employed by that subcommittee in releasing the names of Canadians and has stated that if the names of Canadian officials appear in evidence before investigating committees in Washington, those names should be sent in confidence to the Canadian government so that the allegations can be investigated and dealt with in Canada.

In our view it is essential that this procedure, requested by the Canadian government, should be followed, and that references made in proceedings of the subcommittee to individual Canadians should not first be made known to the Canadian government through the press.

As the United States government knows, the Canadian government finds the procedures actually adopted by the subcommittee with respect to Canadians difficult to understand, unfair and indeed intolerable. The Canadian government therefore requests again that these procedures be altered in so far as Canadians are concerned along the lines indicated above.

The Canadian government has a duty to protect Canadian citizens by all means legally at its disposal from unwarranted interference by any foreign government. There is little that the Canadian government can do, however, to make this protection effective for those Canadian citizens, whose names are made public by congressional committees, unless it is able to secure the co-operation of the United States government.

The United States government is aware that the appropriate security agencies of the two governments have in the past exchanged security information on a reciprocal basis when such information formed part of an investigation important to the security of either country. This reciprocal exchange of information has assisted substantially in maintaining the security of our two countries, and the Canadian government is not suggesting that it has been improperly used by the security agencies in the United States with which this exchange takes place.

Nevertheless the Canadian government must take every precaution which lies within its power to protect Canadian citizens from the danger of this information falling into the hands of persons who might use it without any sense of responsibility or fairness, or regard for the rights of Canadian citizens, within the jurisdiction of Canada. In view of the conduct of congressional investigations affecting Canadians, and because of its responsibility for taking every precaution in its power to protect Canadian citizens, the Canadian government requests that, in the reciprocal exchange of security information, the United States government give its assurance that none of its agencies or departments will pass such information to any committee, body or organization in the United States over which the executive branch of the United States government has no executive control, without the express consent of the Canadian government in each case. The Canadian government for its part assures the United States government that any security information on United States citizens supplied by United States agencies to the security agency of the Canadian government will be given similar protection in Canada to that now requested with respect to security information about Canadians from the United States government.

Unless such an assurance can be given, I am instructed by my government to inform you that the Canadian government must reserve the right in future not to supply security information concerning Canadian citizens to any United States government agency.

82715-212i

External Affairs

That, Mr. Speaker, is the end of the note which was delivered today. I can only hope that very shortly a satisfactory reply will be received to that note, that the assurances we have asked for will be given, and that the rights I mentioned will not have to be exercised.

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposiiion):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say no more at this time than that without regard to party considerations Canadians believe that the sovereign rights and independence of Canadians must be preserved and maintained. As I look back over the history of the investigation in question I can but say that if a similarly strong attitude had been taken in 1952 when this practice was first indulged in, it would not have been necessary today to have spoken in such clear and definite language.

Now that the position of Canada has been made clear, I think the incident will serve once more to underline that our relationships with the United States are of paramount importance to the preservation of freedom, and that the common dedication to freedom on the part of our two countries shall not be diminished as a result of this unfortunate occurrence.

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, may I say immediately that I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition has said in regard to this matter. I want to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I appreciate the very direct language which he used in that note, and I hope we shall never again have a recurrence of the persecution of any individual Canadian, highly placed or lowly placed, as was the case in connection with our late ambassador to Egypt.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian people will be thoroughly in accord with the sentiments expressed in the note sent to the United States, and I hope it will have a salutary effect upon the administration of that great country with which we wish to maintain the closest of friendships.

Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):

Mr. Speaker, this group joins with the leaders of the opposition parties in expressing their views with respect to the minister's statement. In fact I think we could go a little further. I think we should say that the minister's statement is most commendable, because if there is one thing we do desire it is the protection of our own citizens. I do believe there should be a free exchange of information for security purposes between the appropriate agencies

External Affairs

of the United States and Canada, which I fancy would be the federal bureau of investigation and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I also want to commend the statement of the minister to the effect that the government in Canada is taking full responsibility for security measures in this country, and I think he also said the government is willing to exchange the various findings between the two agencies. In doing so they are demanding the protection of our Canadian citizens, and will likewise give protection to United States citizens if they come into the picture in respect of investigations here.

I think, Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to make this further comment. I thought the other day, immediately after the tragic death of Mr. Norman, that perhaps the less said about these things the better.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Hansell:

This was an event which we, of course, all regretted particularly in view of the extremely unfortunate circumstances involved. The minister made a statement, I believe on March 15 last, that our government had complete confidence in our own security agency which had cleared Mr. Norman of such charges as had been levelled against him. I am sure we all accepted that statement at its face value, and in my opinion this matter might reasonably have been left there. The R.C.M.P. are doing a terrific job. Therefore, since the government has accepted this responsibility and in view of the effectiveness of our security agency, it would be well to say as little as possible with regard to this matter.

On the orders of the day:

Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):

May

I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement he made. Will he convey to the United States state department the belief of a number of members of parliament that if the United States administration had answered the protest of the Canadian government promptly and generously the life of Mr. Norman would have been saved?

Mr. Pearson:

Mr. Speaker, I think the views of this parliament on this matter are very well known in the state department and in other parts of the United States.

Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):

May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the work of clearing the Suez canal has been completed by the United Nations, can the minister tell the house whether or not the canal is being operated in accordance with conditions laid down by Nasser on March 18, or what the situation is at the moment?

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

Discussions are continuing, particularly between the United States government and the government of Egypt, as to the regulation of the canal now it is open. Pending conclusion of those discussions, ships are going through the canal and, so far as I know, they are paying their tolls to the Egyptian canal authorities.

Mr. Green:

Dispatches this morning indicated that negotiations between the United States and Egypt have broken down. Is that not the case?

Mr. Pearson:

Our information is that discussions have not broken down.

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposiiion):

I should like to direct a question arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. Is Canada going to be represented, by a watching brief, at the conference of Suez canal users which I understand is to be convened at Geneva? I ask the minister that because the contribution made by Canadian troops towards the preservation of peace in the Middle East is as great as it is.

Mr. Pearson:

The report that a conference is about to be convened in Geneva of users of the canal is not accurate. I saw it in the newspapers myself and I made inquiries and was informed no such conference had been called. The discussion is still proceeding on behalf of the users, principally through the United States government which is keeping in touch with other interested governments, including the Canadian government, on this matter.