1961 Couchiching conference; Canada's role in international relations

Final session of the 1961 could teaching conference a summer symposium on Canadian and world affairs arranged by the Canadian Institute on public affairs in cooperation with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For the past six days the conference has been considering the wide ranging subject of diplomacy in evolution. And this evening the discussions will focus on Canada's role in the swiftly moving drama of international relations for the next hour and a half. We'll be bringing you these discussions live from the conference hall on the show like a chain. And here to introduce the speakers is the chairman of the See evening session James Ayres of the Department of Political Economy at the University of Toronto Professor Ayres. I mean speaker this evening ladies and gentlemen is the honorable Duff Roblin premier of the province of Manitoba since 1958. Mr. Robin is not only keenly interested in international affairs.

He's taken the unusual step in his capacity as head of his government doing something above our provincial Prime Ministers don't usually go in for this kind of thing and in searching the record for one who did I have to go back to 1914 or 15 when Sir Richard McBride then Premier of British Columbia thought the Dominion's defense policy was not adequate for his own government's needs and he probably bought a submarine from South America. I don't think that Mr Rubb feels his administration needs a navy or not yet anyway. But at any rate his own contribution has been much more constructive. I hope that in the course of his remarks tonight he might tell us what his government is doing to further the purposes of the Colombo Plan. It is a great privilege to welcome to the coaching conference. Thank you. Thank you

Mr. Chairman. At the beginning I think I should affirm what I'm sure a good many people suspect and that is that there is little indeed in the ordinary experience of a premier of one of the problems of Canada that would qualify him as an expert on account of his role in the great arena of world politics that we call foreign affairs. Of course I might refer to the fact that after this conference is over following a very proper exchange of notes and aide memoire between us I'm going to proceed to a summit conference of the Premier's of Canada which is being held at Charlottetown on Monday. And no doubt the question of the de facto recognition of the government at Ottawa may be on the agenda. Though it's quite likely to be vetoed by at least one of my colleagues at that convention. But I do not rely Mr Chairman

on my office for my credentials in being here tonight but rather on the fact which I think is obvious to close observers at least of this conference that every individual Canadian feels himself eligible to be heard on the subject of Canada's foreign policy. So a not by virtue of my office but as such an individual Canadian citizen. I speak here tonight when we contemplate the nature of Canada's role in the structure of world politics today with its disordered hopes and suicidal rivalries and the possibilities of global destruction. I think we may be forced to ask ourselves a fundamental question about Canada's role in the face of things as they are does it really matter what Canada's role is. Do we need to care whether we have a role our not. Or is it time to take refuge in that celebrated paraphrase include us. And I

know that there are some who pin their hopes to some version of a policy of non-alignment or of neutralising and perhaps in this connection their argument might go something like this. It is now clear that Russia and the United States between them can destroy our civilization if we get involved in a nuclear war and that if a nuclear war breaks out it is quite unlikely that Canada will have had any say about it. No doubt we'll be informed. It's possible that we may be consulted if there is time but unlikely that we should have any say. And the argument would run. Can we do better in a posture of neutral ism or of non-alignment. Well maybe so. Looking back at the past I think we can perhaps take some comfort in the thought that is we never seem to have had any say in that sense in past conflicts in which we have been engaged. But how alignment how non-alignment or neutral ism by itself

changes these harsh probabilities is difficult to see and perhaps those who support the present grand alliance of the Western world might oppose both non-alignment a neutral ism on at least three points. The world is too small a place and we are in the wrong place in it for these policies to be sound for us. And history and geography alike prevent us from contracting out of the North American continent or of western society. But it does matter to us that the Western view should prevail when hostilities moderate because in spite of the defects and failures which we must admit in our efforts to elaborate our fundamental values. I suggest the West still offers us a prospect of a real measure of freedom to continue in a relatively independent evolution as the Canadian nation with the essential measures of respect for individual human personality. And while

admitting that Canada's influence and power is indeed gravely limited there is a place for us as an active partner in the western alliance and that there is a worthwhile job for us to do non-alignment or neutral ism in the Cold War with its implied moral judgement of a plague on both your houses. Simply does not represent in my opinion the feeling or the will or indeed the self-interest of the Canadian people however firmly they may dissent from certain aspects of Western policy because we are members incorporating the mystical body of western civilization and we exist only under the shield of the Western alliance. So I would suggest that we might decline the temptations the strong temptations of non-alignment to neutralize them and to choose for a Canada role as a participant in the Western group of nations in the struggle for the future. In thinking about Canada's role in this great enterprise perhaps I should try and sketch some idea of what I

think the nature of the struggle to be and there might not be too much disagreement that it is basically a a political and social and economic competition and up from the Western point of view the aspect of force and the threat of force is a secondary aspect in our considerations because we look to force not as a weapon to invoke but as a means to hold the ring to hold the Rings so that the struggle for men's minds may be contested without calling on the final arbitrement of war even though we realize that it involves a terrible risk and that our civilization may be balanced on a razor's age Nolen perhaps in the next future. And but if it cannot be avoided there may be possibilities of mitigating it. And I suppose at this juncture our relations of the United States come to your mind because when we speak of force to hold the ring I think we refer to the force of the United States epitomized in the nuclear deterrent. I would suggest

that so far nuclear war has been avoided and perhaps we should act on the assumption that we can continue to avoid it as the other assumption is certainly stultifying to occur. Constructive Canadian policy. But while recognizing the interdependence of the Western community and accepting the United States as the wielder of the nuclear deterrent these things of themselves do not necessarily turn Canada into an American satellite. We can and we should exercise a worthwhile degree of freedom of thought and action being committed to the Western world and counting ourselves a loyal ally of the United States and of our partners in NATO need not prevent us from expressing our own views within that system nor following our own best judgment in wide areas of policy. Indeed the whole tradition of the West repudiates the monolithic notion of thought and action and that there is room and need for the widest degree of independent action within the Western society

and Canada may be well placed to exercise such an independence. Perhaps for example it might be proposed that NORAD's may not be essential to the nuclear deterrent and weapons system and it might be possible to abandon that system without hindering the defense of the Western heartland and if so we can refuse the possibility of nuclear weapons in our own country not in any holier than doll attitude but because they may just be not essential to Western defense. And I think that we may seek to cultivate special relations with the other medium and smaller powers particularly through the United States through the United Nations. I think comic Canada and Canadians can and should aspire to a position of leadership. This would be well worth our best efforts in connection with our relations with the smaller nations within the United Nations system. Although it must be frankly admitted that we have a long way

to go to earn such a position of leadership. And I think that because to the surprise of some no doubt the United Nations does seem to be developing an executive arm through the office of the secretary general and we can do some good if we can help in rallying other nations like ours to reinforce that executive arm if we can bring a true appreciation of the potential of the office of secretary general. Particularly if it's rescued from Soviet meddling in its effect for good and in the interest of the smaller nations of that United Nations system. And of course we must continue to make available by Canada a substantial and fully mobile soldiery to give effect to United Nations decisions in the keeping of the peace. And we can seek to mobilize the development of independent opinion within the framework of the Western idea to give expression to the views of smaller nations in dealing with the United Nations problems and we can work to

develop new international instruments for peace within the United Nations. And I think particularly of the food bank in which we have in recent times taken such a keen interest. In this view it seems to me that there are many roles which we can follow which take into account the real limitations of Canadian power and yet open up not on where the lines of action to us and such of course what I believe fit us for what may be one of our primary tasks in foreign policy and that is to offer ourselves as the guide philosopher and friend to the new and to the underdeveloped and to the UN on committed nations in the world. Because although we have yet to deserve such a role I believe there is an opportunity which perhaps is only half realized. To do your work for peace and for international goodwill because without as I say deserving it in all respects. We are accepted at least

partially in that capacity today. And I think we could enlarge our welcome if we would seek to exercise a more independent role within the Western community. This idea of a Canadian role of guide philosopher and friend came home to me in a very dramatic fashion not long ago when I attended a meeting of the Commonwealth parliamentary Association in Australia the Commonwealth parliamentary Association is a gathering of delegates from the parliaments and from the legislatures throughout our Commonwealth of Nations. And on this occasion there were some 51 such representatives from the various parliaments and legislatures of the Commonwealth. I had the privilege of representing the problems of Manitoba and to my pleasure for the first time and maybe for the last time. The province of Saskatchewan as well. At that meeting there were representatives of the British House of Commons of course the older self-governing nations like our own Australia New Zealand but mostly they came from

the newly independent nations. Nations who are about to assume their independence nations mostly situated in Africa and in Asia and we met in the House of Representatives of Canberra and of course we discussed the great issues of war and peace as we've been discussing them here at this conference. But it is obvious that they were very keen indeed. These newer nations from the other continents to come to grips with what we have come to call the revolution of rising expectations in their own homelands. To find solutions to those problems of economic cooperation and of those difficulties of underdeveloped territories which would bring them along in the community of nations and men there from the five continents of the globe with many different languages and religions and customs and all the colors of mankind mostly African and Asian well represented there. We're engaged in this cooperative study of what are not only their problems but I believe our problems too.

And for a Canadian one thing stood out that our country was universally liked and trusted we were regarded as disinterest in the fine sense of having no axe to grind although sometimes when I speak to some of my fellow Canadians I think probably disinterested in the sense of not caring but to by some a miraculous manner considering our selfish attitude toward the Commonwealth in times gone by. We had a warm welcome there. And there was a deep response from these men and women to the Colombo Plan and to technical help as a great contribution to world peace and the progress of their own nations. But they made it very very clear to me that much much more was essential. They were especially concerned to build their a stratum of the technique could qualify and and a mechanically expert because they knew that Western progress had been built on such a foundation of technical skills. They wanted to share with us what we know about how to

keep a tractor going and make a jeep operate some idea of modern farming how to operate something like a local government system. And of course the problems of primary and secondary education but technical education at the secondary level in the lines that I sketched here were for many of them the missing link in their plans for progress. But they did not only know what they wanted they knew where they wanted it and they wanted this training at home in the field of education they said to us. Take the teacher to the student take the teacher from this land to there to learn the skills where they will have to be practiced to learn the skills in the place where they will have to make do with the human and the material resources at hand and where our skills can be transplanted and adapted to meet the needs of their situation. Now of course we can be proud I think in the extent to which we have responded to this need in our

present efforts under the Colombo Plan and associated projects. But I suggest to you that we need an effort to expand this many times in volume and indeed beyond the Colombo Plan nations to any others who are willing to accept it. It may be that the relatively small additions of military strength that Canada can bring to the grand alliance of the West may not be decisive but some of our defense money spent in this way would reinforce the Western idea and world peace. Out of all proportion to the cost involved. Indeed. Let us go much further. Let us make a contribution in this direction that demands a real measure of sacrifice from Canadians. And if I may say so let us sustain the governments that ventured to impose this kind of sacrifice upon our people. Because when I developed this theme as I often do I am reproached by some with the saying that charity begins at home. And of course that

is a profoundly true remark and I know that no one is satisfied with the standard of technical education in Canada or that we wish to wish to. If we do not acknowledge the unmet obligations we have to our own underdeveloped communities particularly among the Indian and mages of Canada and that we need to do ten times and in some cases perhaps one hundred and ten times more at home before we can be satisfied. But although charity begins at home I think it is very important to understand that it does not end there and that today while whole may be when a peg or Manitoba Canada. It goes beyond that because in these days we know for whom the bell tolls. When we hear it ringing in Africa and Asia we are in this happy position in this respect where virtue and self-interest coincide but in sharing our technical know how.

I think we can join in one of the great adventures of the human spirit where those who give learn to give humbly and those who receive learn to receive with dignity. And thus it may be that we can make our contribution to the building of the foundations of peace. In my own province in Manitoba as our chairman said we have taken a small step of our own accord in cooperation with the federal authorities in Ottawa in sending teachers in technical education to the country of Ceylon. The present time. It's only a very small gesture but I think it is one that is well worth making if only we can buy this way. Challenge the imagination of our people and involve them in this great concern because surely here there should be a minimum of argument and a maximum of agreement among

Canadians as to one aspect of our role in world affairs one which may appear to be simple and quiet and really rather one spectacular but which I believe will enable us to strike at telling and effective bill. In the battle for men's minds and for men's hearts today I think in Canada this challenge is only partly understood and certainly imperfectly realized but it does place before us an opportunity to which I feel we cannot fail but to respond. I suppose Mr. Chairman that it would be unreasonable for me to think that I have been able to say anything new tonight in this rather sketchy reference to the various farms that Canada's role in international politics may take. It may be that

there has been a shade of emphasis that may attract the interest of those who are concerned in this matter. But I do feel that there is a worthwhile role in this respect and in others which will occur to you here by which Canada may play a worthy part in the turmoil of world politics today. We need to realize our limitations. We have to acknowledge our dependence on the nuclear deterrent to hold the ring while we engage in this struggle. But within that view of Canada's place in the world I believe there is much we can do which we maybe probably. The applause of the audience indicates our

appreciation and good fortune that you have found the time in your busy life to devote yourself to these extra provincial activities and to share the results of your reflection with us. Our next speaker is going to comment on Mr. Robin speech as Mr. John Holmes president of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. John Holmes is well known to all of you here tonight but for the audience listening on the radio I might say again that he wasn't Tell 960 not only one of Canada's most senior diplomatists holding the position of assistant undersecretary of state for external affairs but also one of our most experienced representatives at home and abroad. And as I know from some of his colleagues one of the most respected Mr. Holmes. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen I find myself in something of a

dilemma. It is the duty of a commentator not only to commentate but also to provoke discussion. I find it very difficult to provoke discussion if that means differing with what our speaker has said. I should begin by saying that I think I have rarely heard a sounder or more attractive statement of Canadian foreign policy. I can find very little to differ with Mr. Robin has said perhaps therefore I will try to provoke by differing with some other people. What I particularly liked about Mr Robin's approach I must say was that he sees our foreign policy modestly but confidently. I think that Canadians tend perhaps to oscillate between extravagant claims about our Pacific mission in the world and deny that there is anything which we as poor satellites can do at all. Like all middle. Our role in the world is limited as Mr Robin has said but it is important. It's a unique role and I think it can be effective even if it is not

decisive. We can help out in the great many ways in Congo in Indochina in the Middle East in ways which great powers can't do NOT because we are more virtuous than they are but because our history and our geography and our traditions provide us with certain kinds of opportunities. But this is a role which is complementary to that of the great powers. It's not hostile. I think that the great powers should recognize this is such and therefore not try to align us too tightly. If we had not differed with them to some extent over such issues as Indochina Middle Eastern questions or even the Congo we would probably not have been in a position to play the useful roles which we have done there. But on the other hand it's very important for us to recognize that it is the great powers who hold the ring and we must not undermine their strength. And I very much like Mr. Robin's conception of the ring being held by the nuclear deterrent and the need for us Canadians to

realize that it's only within that ring that we can jump in and act as referees. Many people who want us to develop still further this peculiar role of ours argue as Mr. Robin has mentioned that we could do so more effectively if we would withdraw from our association and become neutralised. And I think Mr. Robin has pointed out the objections to such a course. A very logical case can be made in Syria for a neutral position. But I think it's one of these cases where the logic is excessive. It ignores for one thing the fact that we have had a reasonable degree of success in our kind of diplomacy during a decade in which we were enthusiastic founding members of NATO. That's the chief of action to neutralise them I think for Canada and perhaps here I'm thinking again it still is something of a diplomat who must deal in the art of the possible that even if this may be right in Syria I

think this is just not the way it's going to be. I don't think Canadians as citizens are neutral and therefore I think it would be very difficult for a government to pursue a very effective neutralised policy. What is really required of us is an objective approach. And the quality of judiciousness. And I think perhaps this quality of judiciousness is a little easier for lesser powers to achieve for the simple reason that they're not being constantly belabored by the Russians. I think perhaps it's possible for Canadians to be a little more objective about these Cold War issues because the Russians ignore us to a very large extent their propaganda they don't take it very seriously. If we were constantly treated to the sort of extravagant abuse which they heap on our neighbors. And when I say it that we have this element in favor of our being more objective I don't necessarily say that it follows that we always are.

And one of leading up here too is really to say that I think this is also a factor in our attitude to the United Nations. I'm very sorry to disagree on anything but I can't agree with his view in the United Nations and a lot I agree with Mr. Marshall and a good deal and I don't think his view of the institution is wrong I do think perhaps is a bit loaded. But here again I think it's it's much easier for Canadians to take a benign view of the United Nations because we have never like the french been hauled before to justify our policies nor have we suffered the kind of outrageous slings and arrows which the Americans have to absorb regularly. And what is more the United Nations for Canada. Is not an organization which limits our diplomacy or policy or which hinders and humiliates us. On the contrary it's an institution in which we have found ourselves and a useful identity in world diplomacy. It's a stage on which we can play

a very important supporting role and occasionally a leading role. But having said that I think nevertheless it still is possible that the United Nations may be more objective than that of some other countries. I think perhaps because of this particular Canadian devotion to the United Nations many people here where the United Nations had perhaps been given a little less than its last evening in our discussions. I think we were very happy therefore when Mr. Ritchie called this morning rushed to its defense. However if I may say so with great respect to a man who has made a tremendous personal contribution to the United Nations. I think that sometimes the United Nations can suffer from the justifications of its defenders as well as the attacks of its adversaries. Let's just call or as I recall when I warned him I was going to say this so he can be he can

return to the attack this evening. I think that when diplomacy failed we turn to the United Nations and in particular the secretary general. I was very glad that he recognized the importance of Mr. Hemmer shuls role. But I think he has perpetuated the unfortunate dichotomy which confuses people about the role of the United Nations. I was wondering who was involved in activities at both the assembly and the Security Council over a dozen years or more. Well Mr. color I might say was serving the United Nations in less air conditioned areas. I simply don't know what he means by this statement. The United Nations isn't a super national government. It's an instrument of diplomacy. It is in fact the most significant of all factors in the contemporary evolution of diplomacy and diplomacy isn't the bad things done by selfish people as distinct from the good things done by unselfish people on the 48 floor of the United Nations. This is all

diplomacy and God bless him as the world's best and purest diplomat. I agree very strongly with Mr. Marshall. That policies don't become to Cam decontaminated because they emanate from an international organisation. United Nations must reflect the real world and the Cold War and all sorts of other things are therefore part of the United Nations. Mr. Hamshaw success is largely due to the fact that he works with real live diplomats and foreign ministers and is up to his ears in diplomacy. The United Nations would indeed be a very dead organization if this weren't so. I trust that those people who prefer to think of the United Nations as a kind of an immaculate expression of divine will want to use me of cynicism or of denigrating the United Nations. I take the United Nations seriously. Now having sounded like a cynic Perhaps I can now go on to say something that's often dismissed as extremely pious. In fact it was dismissed by some of our speakers yesterday morning not only as pious but unproven piety dispute.

I believe very strongly in the reality of what Mr. Robin has said about his relationship with representatives of nations and the United Nations. I agree with him very much that one does find among these countries and one does find among members of the commonwealth this attitude of trust and confidence. I must say that I think perhaps we Canadian citizens sometimes rather overdo the attitude that they love us because they realize that we don't covet their land and chat. Having never been able to make use of our own land it seems this is hardly a virtue on our part. Matter of fact most of them of course never heard of us. It isn't true. Think that they instinctively recognize a Canadian as a superior moral being to a British or an American or Ukrainian. But in spite of all this there is this phenomenon which Mr Robin experienced and which I think is quite true. Smaller cars have a community of interest

and certain things in common. Even if that thing is not superior virtue. And I believe the skeptics to the contrary. But there is a reality in the personal relationships and diplomacy among Commonwealth countries. At the risk of sounding theological I might add that I believe it because I've experienced it. At least there is a reality for believers. Those diplomats and politicians who believe in the fraternity find it. Those who don't don't. I must say I particularly approve of the comments of the Australian High Commissioner. If I can quote him in his absence during the session when we were discussing whether or not Commonwealth was obsolete he challenged the view that the course was set one way or the other and pointed out that the decision was a matter of will. I believe very firmly that it is in the interest of Canada and to the world in general and even of ex-members like United States that this unique Commonwealth should survive and grow stronger. But there's a conscious act of will involved on the part of all of us which involves a

consistent effort and understanding. The Commonwealth of course will never be for any of its members and exclusive Association. It will be a unique association cutting across others influencing our national policies but not finally determining them spreading wider the area of understanding but never assuming the features of a block. There's room for all of us to have other associations of a regional and functional kind. It would not be inconsistent for Canada to join the organization of American States or for Britain to join the European economic community provided of course that we recognise that we have a loyalty to our Commonwealth associates just as much as to other regional associations. The Commonwealth association can't survive unless we realise in formulating our policies that we have obligations to Nigeria our salon as well as to France or Portugal. And this is not impossible. And this

if I may be provocative is why I think some of us Canadians are worried about the European community. The arguments for Britain joining the common market are very hard to dispute. The arguments for her defense collaboration in Neda I think are indisputable. But I have yet to hear enough positive reasons in favor of the unification of Western European foreign policy which are concrete and do not retreat into disarray about the self evident virtues of unity unity as a means to an end not an end in itself. As Mr. Ayres pointed out to us this morning a splendid example of unity was given to us by the Gadarene swine. I'm prepared to be convinced about this mystical European unity in its value but I can't help shuddering when I think what would have happened to all of us if NATO countries had been united during the past decade because behind some of the more perilous adventures of the larger members of NATO and some of the smaller ones too.

I think we should pause to consider what gain there would be from a community in which the brilliant contributions of the Irish and the Scandinavians to international order are submerged. It seems to me that on the whole it's the countries of the outer seven including of course the United Kingdom whose policies have been internationalist whereas those of the intersex have been introspective nostalgic not anti nationalist at all but tending towards the creation of a narrow little European nationalism. Now we must of course assume and trust that in the US the emergence of a new European policy we will find reflected the great research of economic and social resurgence that is taking place in Western Europe. And let us hope that Europe will then see its place in the world and become a great progressive force for a broad internationalism. But for the time bein I must say one can only view with a certain amount of concern for the prospects of the great sovereign nations of Europe. Being

united in a rather uninspired support of a foreign policy which represents the lowest common denominator between the wishes of Portugal and Norway. Perhaps we Canadians can play some part in advocating a pluralistic world. I hope that the British will bring to the European community those healthy ideas of association for better understanding which we developed in the Commonwealth. By all means let the Europeans and let us nations in the Western Hemisphere get together try to make our policies as similar as possible. But let's not think we have danced the peace of the world by isolating our little Atlantic community in a tightly knit bloc against the rest of the world. We do need international associations but we need them of a kind which allow nations to breed the ones in which they can use their elbows a bit so that they don't start using their fists. There's no use putting people in a federal straitjacket. If this is only going to cramp them in and forced an unnatural Association which exacerbates rather than ameliorate their differences

as Mr. Ayres said this morning after what I thought was a very perceptive analysis of the inherent weakness of the position arrived at after negotiations among 15 states. We don't need unity in the GO SEE ation. We need diversity. We need more not less experimentation in the laboratory of coexistence. I've exceeded my time I'm afraid without noting a good many other things which Mr. Robin said with which I very heartily agreed. For one thing I think he's been unduly modest about his contribution to the Canadian economic assistance program. I think that his endeavors to mobilize action on the provincial level was a very precise and important response to a problem of Canadian policy. I was at the Commonwealth education conference at Oxford in the summer of 1989 and there I heard exactly the views which Mr Robin was attending to meet the views that we should attempt to take our help to the

Africans. We were concerned of course because of the difficulties of mobilizing a Canadian educational problem programme with the assistance of the problems those who have control of education. And that is why Mr Robins leaping into the breach was particularly significant. Now I should add that although I have associated myself with all Mr Robins I certainly don't want to embarrass him by suggesting that therefore some of the provocative views which I have expressed arose out of his own comments. Thank you. Right. Thank you very much Mr. Holmes. Ladies and gentlemen we have reached that point in our program where we go to the audience here and for questions and for comments.

We've got three of them here to start things rolling. Mrs. Swinton Mr. Michael Mackenzie And Mr. Douglas. And I'm going to the three of them if they would like to put questions or to make comments arising out of what Mr. problem Mr. Holmes Mr. Chairman. The opinion of this. I understand he's going to a conference of provincial premiers very shortly and I wondered if to perhaps promote the same kind of interest in other provinces that he's trying to do in Manitoba. It might be feasible or politically possible to have them agree to some kind of a scheme where a school could be established for the training of the personnel to go abroad. This could involve both adults and student but I think from all the discussions we've

been hearing here this last week it seems more practical for us to send people abroad than to bring them here in large numbers. Now could this be done under our federal provincial setup to think such an agreement could be made by provincial Premier's. I think that's a very interesting idea Mrs. Swinton. We'll have a good deal of pleasure in trying it on for size when we get down to this conference. Of course each province is supremum the educational field. Under the Constitution and one can't tell what kind of reaction one would get from all 10 of us but it seems likely that this should certainly be explored. I think that there is plenty of room for cooperation between the provinces in this respect and also with the federal government because I think it would be unfortunate if all 10 of us US provincial man went off in 10 different directions with 10 different foreign policies our ideas of this sort. I think it's important that while we can take some initiatives in the matter

that they should be coordinated in the usual way through the offices of the federal government. And I must say that our ideas were very co-operative received there and I think that is a constructive way to go about the problem. You've got a good idea we'll see what we can do with it. Would you like to follow that up. You know I was. There in camera. Mr. McKENZIE Mr. Chairman. Given the opportunity for us here certainly this week of as a Canadian citizen to confront such a wise and statesman like politician as Mr. Rob I'm challenging and I propose to respond to the challenge by throwing in what I suppose would be considered a hot one. Earlier this week Mr. Kissinger laid out very carefully for us the fact that if I

understood him correctly we cannot rely on the nuclear deterrent alone. You know our defensive policy he posed the challenge to the Western defense policy which will give the West a clear set of alternatives which will give us the opportunity to avoid making the alternative between what he called abject surrender on the one side or annihilation on the other. If I heard his remarks correctly this implies that we must build up in the West very substantial. Conventional forces land sea and air. Mr. Robin himself suggested use the words that our defense policy should encompass the building up of substantial and fully mobile soldiery. And the question I wish to ask him Is this do you think sir that it is a possible to build up and make a substantial contribution to the defense of the West

in the terms that Mr. Kissinger outlined without resorting to some kind of draft selective service or conscription. I think under present circumstances it is possible. I would agree with his analysis of the situation that we don't want to be relying entirely on the nuclear deterrent. There is no black and white in this situation it's shades into a variety of grays. But I think that under the present circumstances Canada can without invoking the measure that you mention and maintain not only a mobile force for use by NATO by the United Nations but also maintain our proper contribution to the NATO system as well. We can hear from Mr Douglas. Mr Chairman I was most interested in the remarks. The Manitoba government with respect to giving education in

underdeveloped countries sending teachers to them. I didn't have this in mind but I would hope. That he wouldn't want to go with the idea the government is not already doing quite a substantial amount in that they are sending teachers with a special emphasis on teacher trainers quite a number under developed countries to talk to Dr. director of the educational activities and external aid office a few weeks ago and he outlined all the plans of the government are making some of them

already in operation and many of them will be coming into operation within the next few months. They're taking teachers and especially teacher trainers from every province in Canada especially from Quebec and you need teachers in the Congo sending them to these countries for periods of one or two years. Paying all the expenses in such a way that teachers will not lose anything financially by reason of having temporarily given up their jobs here in Canada. And I just wanted to ask Mr. Robin whether he was aware of this and confirm in my own mind that he didn't actually intend to reflect on the activities

of the Canadian government in this field. I think it's well to recognize what the Canadian government is doing in this field because it's not only with respect to education but many other aspects of technical assistance are being pursued aggressively. There has been a very decided increase in the amount of funds made available by the Canadian Parliament for this purpose and I am not going to dispute the Palm with them. My view is that it is helpful for the provinces to take an interest in such matters principally for the reason that it is a way of bringing you home in an immediate sense to our own people. The situation which we are trying to deal with and to secure their support and approval of the measures taken because all governments depend upon the support of public opinion for the measures that they pursue. And it's necessary to demonstrate to our own folk the policies that we think our song.

I must say that I've received a very warm cooperation with the federal authorities in the department you mention in the elaboration of our little plan in Manitoba just before we go to the floor for questions I wonder if any member of the panel would like to pop an equally hot question to Mr. Holmes who is also sitting here. Ask Mr. Holmes he mentioned African countries and other countries as well as to France and Portugal. This makes me wonder to what extent our friendship and alliance with various countries affect our decisions and within nations and how can we ever consider that we have an independent policy. If we have to consider this to a very large extent. Well I think they certainly do. No country is of course completely independent in this interdependent world. And one of the factors which must be

taken into consideration by a country before deciding on its policy is the interests and the views of its friends. I think the quickest way for Canada or any other country to become a completely ineffective international organizations would be to formulate its policy. First of all trying to understand what its interests were and what their wishes were. It's clearly very difficult on many current issues to reconcile our obligations to many of our commonwealth countries and also to our European associates and in many cases one just has to come down on one side or the other. But these no policy is ever. It's very difficult ever to find a policy which issues are clear cut. One has to judge under the circumstances is the most suitable policy. What is most likely to

produce good results for the international community and to one's friends. But the point I was particularly interested in is that I think we sometimes have a tendency to consider our obligations to one association as necessarily having priority always over another association. Well I think perhaps we have our questions from the floor. It might be helpful gentlemen if you could make your questions or comments reasonably brief and only put one question at a time to the speaker of your choice. Not a type of question just a call. Well I'm very grateful for this opportunity to Mr. Holmes a gift establishing once again the position of the United Nations.

I don't want it to seem as though the sort of bad for the United Nations have not been and I've been with a lot of what's in the best. But I do want to make. Were discussing in the novice session what I was trying to say was that in many instances where the situations of the young. It was a normal deployment we can all think that plan to sue is in the Southeast Asia and so on. The business the row of the director general has in fact been the constant row of an investor that he has been called in situations where the other diplomats have produced results for the position which has been made and that is a very important new thing all the sector

the sector is one of the things which is the most hopeful especially united nation that we are not getting to the United Nations of people international civil and row which I think intuition should be there for them to grow which the director John has been the very last person must and will gather from the response of those states. I think it is a very encouraging. In fact if a situation does the we have at least a distance. I'm back in the job. Those of us with more. This is most of the problems of the public.

We have a special law that watches us thank you very much. Would you like to comment on that Mr. Holmes or do you want to take the question of one commenters that I think of the differences between Mr. Coder. Yes I would like to put a question concerning the decision also or play it back up in the last prime minister conference comrade's prime minister which led to not expulsion but I think NATION from the Commonwealth's of sauce Union of South Africa. My question is was the cause of government claims made as a concern by the nations with the

uncommitted nations of which she spoke tonight. And will it have the effect of making those relations easier. I don't know whether it will have you effect of making those relations easier. I think that as I was able to observe it that the Canadian government was trying to give expression at that conference to the feeling of the Canadian people. And it seems to me that by and large they did and that probably is the the only comment that I could make on that particular event being rather distantly related to it. Yes Mr. Chairman one year ago this conference was discussing our relations with Latin America. Since that time President Kennedy has visited Ottawa and in a rather old

ways suggested that he would welcome close association with the Organization of American States. Also we've heard the minister for external affairs suggested he would like this question discussed publicly to see whether there was public support for one rather got the impression that he was in favor of it. But. Some editorial writers have suggested that perhaps rather than just general public support he wanted more cabinet support. Under the Although circumstances I won't attempt to review the pros and cons. I would be particularly interested in the views of the two speakers and choose one. As a person who I'm sure has done a good deal thinking about it. I'd be interested in the views of Mr John Holmes because John Holmes story about this was a sure winner. The only concern which I would suggest about our joining the organization of American

States I think that perhaps some of the older arguments which we were not meaningless but because accepted members of the Commonwealth. The aspect that worries me and I should like make it clear I don't consider this is necessarily a final argument against our taking such a step but rather a consideration of considerable importance that is somewhat overburdened country in many ways. I don't mean that we're necessarily overburdened in our economic

commitments but we are overburdened diplomatically. We belong to a great many associations and these very considerably the resources which we have I think if we are to enter the Organization of American States it's very important that we do so with the intention of playing a constructive and responsible role an active and constructive and responsible role requires a good many resources of personnel not only official personnel not only in the form of diplomats but it really requires a pretty considerable expertise of Latin America within this country which very much exists. Now these are the various things that I think we do have to consider and I'm sure these are the things which are very much on the mind of the secretary of state for external affairs in considering this

really very important step. Above all we must also realize of course that there will be very considerable economic commitments involved and we mustn't take on new economic commitments in terms of assistance programs if they are going to interfere with the important ones which are obligations we've already accepted. That was if I may say so Mr. Holmes are rather cautious approach which betrays your recent past I have a feeling that in the hall there must be some other opinion on this rather contentious subject and for going over to Mr. Benjamin I would like to ask if there is any question in the minds of anybody about the OAS. We might raise it this time. The experiment. Mr. Chairman this is a question which might be expected from one of Scots ancestry. We've heard a good deal during this week of the necessity of building up an

addition to the nuclear deterrent of building up conventional forces of increasing the the power to require our expenditure naturally and I'm wondering whether there is a limit to what the Western world may be forced to or can be forced to before it gets in the position of having to hawk everything gets got. I wonder if it's if there if a thought has to be given to trying to do this in such a systematic way that we won't be forced into a position perhaps through a certain amount of luck and other things that will make it very difficult for us to carry out the other which I think should be increased vast expenditures in assisting our common man in the newly newly developed nations. Home. I would like to have Mr. Robins. Well I understand why you refer to me Mr. Holmes because I happen to be the provincial Treasurer and not a told us well as my

other duties so this is a question which I understand it does pose a very difficult problem. But it is really no difficult from the regular run of problems that one faces in trying to decide how to dispose of the national income in so far as governments do undertake those decisions. You are continually confronted with a series of different alternatives and it's necessary to arrive at some idea of the values that you attach to them and give them a priority with the firm knowledge that you're never able to do all the things that people would like you to do or perhaps that you would like to do yourself. And this is one of the most difficult aspects of the politicians are I think and in this case the statesman of course are their statesmen at Auto I'm not quite sure that we're statesmen at the provincial level we don't have these kind of problems assault of war and peace. But I don't think there is a straightforward answer to your question. It

really is one of dealing with the facts as they emerge in the judgment and the and the values that you place upon them. I think that we could make a general statement that. We're still here for some elbow room to expand our activities in these lines before it becomes a critical thing in our economy. But it's certainly something that one can't enter into a light heartedly it has to be carefully judged. There is a gentleman four rows back and then the gent from the front row and then I'm going to turn to Michael Mackenzie. Mr. Chairman All this week we have been confronted with seemingly insuperable problems. On great magnitude on the world scale ranging from super national governments down to the training of leaders. Now some time ago I had the distinct pleasure of reading premier Robin's address to the Manitoba legislature on the introduction of a unique measure in Canadian politics and I would venture to

say that history of this country. Now I think it might be of use to the audience to premier Robin wouldn't you. Summarize very quickly the essential oils of this particular measure and I personally would be very interested in hearing and comment on the present size and scope and purpose of this particular measure the degree of support and opposition if any which it has received. The after effects of this part of the introduction of this particular bill has determined that's what I call a good question. I could just speak for some time in answer to it but I'm grateful that it has been asked because it certainly touches matters which are of great interest to me. I think I would like to say that the plan in essence is really very simple and that is as I have stated to make it possible to

increase the number of teachers that Canada would send abroad in the field on at the secondary technical educational level. And the resolution which you referred to in which I introduced him to the house merely asked for the approval of my legislature to such a plan in so far as it is was consistent with the constitutional framework of our nation and and the interests of our problems and it did receive the approval of the house. And it called for a cooperative arrangement with the federal government in working this out as I've already mentioned and we Nala. We have a small sum of money. I'm not going to tell you how much because I think that I would be criticized because it is so small but it really is only a gesture. And yet on the other hand it did provoke considerable opposition and I think it would be wrong to minimize that. Opposition parties did oppose this plan that was put

forward mainly on the grounds that as I said before charity begins at home and one has to admit the force of certain aspects of that point of view although I don't think that there's sufficiently strong to deter us from doing the things that we ought to do elsewhere in the world. As I think though that it must frankly face the fact that the people of Canada still have to reflect on this type of policy. I feel that there is a great deal of work that has to be done in presenting it to them and pointing out the pros and cons of the idea and the desirability of their developing a concern for this kind of activity on the part of their governments both at the provincial and federal level. There is you know a great deal of perhaps on thinking opposition to an idea of this kind because when you can look out the window and see cases of need of poverty.

The failures of our present educational system and matters of that sort so close at hand and so obviously needing to be done that it takes a considerable degree of moral resolution to say yes we're going to tackle them. And I think I can say that in my problems we have made strenuous efforts in these last few years to tackle these problems that are here at home. We're going to tackle them. But we're not going to wait for Utopia and for Paradise and perfection. Until we start assuming our responsibilities in other parts of the world as well because we did that we just never started eating at all and it seems to me that these two notions really have to go hand in hand. We have to have a clear idea of the correct balance between them. And believe me the balance as a whole in favor of the Canadians at the present time. But having decided that our approach to it in that way I think we can present it successfully and challenge. There are people who respond to it. A

majority responded in my legislature I'm happy to say. But I must admit that there is a divided state of public opinion on the subject. If I may just a sneak a question in here Mr. Robin do you think that there is an opportunity for leaders of governments and members of governments other than at the federal level to influence a public which is closer to them. Well I think that the answer to that would be yes but I would prefer to restrict my observations to my own problems and leave it to the men to exercise responsibility elsewhere to develop their own policies in that respect. This question in the front. Chairman I was most interested in the two excellent questions which Mrs. And with respect to her second question which was directed to Mr. Holmes I have no quarrel that with Mr. Holmes will recall with

reference to kind of his position as regards her friends and allies in population of politics. I have no quarrel with the validity of Mr. Holmes's answer but I would like him to examine that. And consider this question. Are we sufficiently discriminating in our choice of friends. Well. Looks around at the associations which we have. I think one sees certain people or certain countries involved. Governments we have some considerable common wealth is perhaps a little less. This way since the decision of last spring because whether or not the

decision to withdraw was it was an offer or not. I think it certainly has a very considerable embarrassment obligation to Africa was an embarrassment to nations in particular of course. Certainly countries could hardly be called democracies and this I think is quite unfortunate. It seems to me that one of the troubles is that we have less trouble if we would the facts of life. I happen to quote our chairman. I have to because I want to. Write that I'll pretend I invented this phrase.

The description of the overloaded afterwards but rather in trying to think that we should consider a very very important. I don't think it necessarily follows therefore that we should have to pretend that we are all free countries with the same attitudes towards freedom in the world. Mr. Chairman I want to go back just for a moment to Mr. Bannerman's question because it seems to me that he's beginning to put his finger on something that Mr. Felipe told us earlier this week and that is that he said quite dogmatically that the West struggle is a long term struggle with the kind of this world unless the rate of economic growth in the West is substantially increased. This is

particularly true of this country that at the moment with a large number of unemployed with very serious and or. Person economic problems in particular the unemployment problem it seems to me that unless we can come to grips with that not only will we not be able to afford to do all the things that Mr. Robin and Mr. Holmes are talking about but we will be so obsessed with these internal problems that we won't have the will to do these things either. Now this question or this forecast was posed by Mr. Felipe junction with his statements that Europe is the European common market and we are now facing the situation where the UK is about to join it or seems to be about to join it and I'd like to ask either Mr. Robin or Mr.

Holmes this question. Our economy is so closely tied up with our foreign trade are so heavily dependent upon our foreign trade and since obviously the entrance of the U.K. into the common market is going to affect us. Can we sit here and do what we say rather piteously wringing our hands and pleading with them not to leave. Can we stand along with the United States in the one European Common Market and the other without examining our whole trading position our whole economic relationships here. I wonder if Mr. Robin would answer that question with special reference to wheat. Well I would do my best with it. I think that we cannot stand alone. We are one of the great trading nations of the world and it's essential to our interests that we remain

that way. And if the Common Market includes Great Britain as it seems highly likely that it will we are going to have to make the most strenuous efforts to accommodate ourselves to that fact because when you meet facts in the world you simply have to decide how you're going to deal with them. And it seems to me that we're going to be confronted with several very harsh situations in coping with that problem. It's quite easy and emotionally very understandable that one should say it's a good thing. The Common Market and Britain's entry into it is a good thing and it may very well turn out that's true. But I don't think we will do ourselves any service by underestimating the challenge that it will pose to us in accommodating ourselves to that fact whether we join an Atlantic common market or make some special. Arrangements to adapt ourselves to the European Common Market are of course all wide

open for exploring exploration and I'm sure that in the next little while a great deal of our attention is got to be focused on that because that from the agricultural point of view. It is true that we will have difficulty in getting our products under the tent so to speak in the common market as it is organized to present in the West we comfort ourselves with the thought that the quality of our wheat provided gives it a marketing advantage that others haven't got even if that's true. It isn't going to mean that we will not be faced with special difficulties. And in the field of manufactured goods I think there probably is the point for the greatest degree of concern. Because if the preferences are done away with in Great Britain our Canadian branch plants of American firms will be competing with their parent and American parents in the same market on the same tariff and customs base. And one can easily see without elaborating on that point the problems that that is going

to pose for industrialization in this country. And I think that that is one that does concern me the problem of secondary industry because it is in secondary industry that we have to look for those increased number of jobs who are after a tertiary industry the service industries Yes they've been the great bonanza. Plus construction in providing jobs in the recent past and I hope that they will continue to to assist. But we can't look for increased employment in our primary industries our extractive industries like the forests in the mines and the wheat fields because it dancing technology requires less and less labor there. And it is in these other areas that we must work. We are concerned in our own problems and we've taken some steps to deal with this because at the last session I announced that we would establish a committee with the rather imposing name Committee on Manitoba's economic future and we have been looking over some forecasts of the number of people we will have in our province how many jobs we expect to find there for them at the

normal rate of increase that we experienced over the last 20 years or so and weve come up to the conclusion that weve got to do a lot better and we are calling in the. The government undertaking entirely We hope to provide some of the impetus for it but we're seeking to involve labor and industry and agriculture and university and the citizenry generally in sitting down with us at the government level to look the situation over and to get to grips with it. I'm not interested in another Gordon commission valuable as that is in establishing facts. But I'm interested in a study which will be eventually concentrated on specific projects that have possibilities for employment and developing those to the point where they become a reality. And in that way we hope to deal with our problem the problems and gave me a lovely opportunity to tell you all about it. I think Mr. Smith and then Mr. Drury.

This is a Mr. Smith I'm sorry but may I raise the question I'd like to pick up the challenge thrown to us by the chairman related to the question which Frank Piers asked and which was fielded so very nicely by Mr. Holmes. I wonder and I would like to ask the chairman this question since he's indicated that perhaps he had some reservations about Mr. Holmes reply. Is there any validity to the concern about joining us in the thought that. Canada's emerging role on the world stage makes our membership in oil yes somewhat difficult. Because of the source of pressures to have us join seem to be primarily from the United States. Many of the Latin American members last year indicated that Canada's role and

relationships to South America certainly should be strengthened but they seriously questioned whether or yes was the channel through which this should happen. Now this question could go on. Mr. Chairman what I would like to ask you if there is any any validity to this kind of a concern about membership in oil yes. Well I would think that perhaps there is that if the prime minister or president of Uruguay were to give it some imposing international conferences impassioned plea for Canada to enter as Mr. Kennedy did in Ottawa that we might paradoxically listen to him. Small though it is more attentive. And we did or at least with more result than we did to Mr. Kennedy. I'm sorry did I agree with Mr. Holmes I was just trying to elicit some opposition from the floor. But I would like to put what he said in a little different way I think that people think that because the answer is there we ought to join it just because Everest is there you want the climate and this is a poor way of conducting foreign policy it seems to me.

Would you like to add something to that. Just. Mr Gori. Which the chairman Mr Robin made reference to a proposition which I think has tremendous appeal for all people of goodwill and Canadians generally rightly or wrongly claimed to be people of goodwill and that was that there might be some diversity present efforts devoted to defense purposes and their allocation to aid to undeveloped underdeveloped countries. This involves the concept of a sacrifice on our part. Some measure of protection in order to revive greater elements of assistance to those who clearly need it. I wasn't too

clear. There's the rub of the remarks whether this was a suggestion which given consideration or this was something about which we might think. In particular I wondered whether he had been able to give. Because that aeration to the psychological consequences of an apparent reduction in our. In our resolution to support the NATO concept and NATO efforts. Amongst the other members of NATO other than kind of. Mr. Chairman I hesitate to enter into a discussion of this to a jury on such a topic because of his special knowledge of the situation but undoubtedly he raises a valid point and I do not think that an amateur such as myself is entitled to say that we're not that we're spending too much on defense or we're spending

too little. Because the fact is I can't possibly know. This is something that experts in the field will have to give consideration to. I think the point that I'm trying to make is this that we are interested in maximizing the results of our expenditure in national defense. Or to broaden the term foreign policy generally and it seems to me that those who are determining the priorities which we talk about a little while ago could very well give consideration as to whether they are satisfied that the priorities and amounts are most effectively distributed for us. Under present circumstances I don't think I could fairly say that I don't take it beyond that and still be fair to those who are in charge of this task at the present time. There is a question at the very back. Of. The term a question if you cut a question

but I mean could he cut off that part of the benefit doc Nate told me that I'm sick. I would like to but I just I was just into this I just met up whether it would not be more news would if we could be peaceful. That's a LOT of course coated with the United Nations. And I would like to home. But up the commandant. The question as I understand it was that it would be more useful if we diverted our forces to the United Nations. Well I think that really these are not necessarily alternatives. I think that the kind of activity that kind of has been asked to do by the United Nations and outside of the United Nations for the Indochina commission which I consider very important and I think

should have a very high priority and has a high priority certainly in the government's policy. But the kind of forces that are required for that are not really the kind of forces that you take away from. If they were very considerably multiplied it might be that it would be difficult to maintain the required number of officers attached. But I don't very much. I think there's another point too. So I say I consider that this kind of peacekeeping activity is extremely important but it rarely requires very large numbers of it to require specialized people. Indochina for instance the operation is largely conducted by officers. I think that in order any armed services any army in particular which is going to produce these

trained people on call and particularly the equipment that's necessary to go with the services of communications which is what has been the important contribution the Congo really has to be a pretty healthy and rounded army or healthy and balanced armed services. You're more likely really to be able to produce these people suddenly if you have an Army Navy and Air Force which are doing other things as well so that I don't think really it's necessary for us to one may want to sacrifice or withdraw from there. I recognise that argument. I don't agree with it but I don't think it necessarily follows that it's necessary to do that in order to strengthen or emphasize or even increase our role in these United Nations troops force just

for the better question. If I didn't get the last part of your question what is the what is the. Food Bank what back. Yes. Well there have been a number of ideas floating around that that are based on the proposition that we should take some of the surplus foods that we have available in this country for example and make them available either as reserves or for immediate use in other parts of the world. In some instances it does suggested that they should be put to a buy in some other place where they may be stored against famine and matters of that sort. And in other instances you can get the ideas used to as a means of distributing food to these other nations. And the proposition is as it's been put put forward to by the Canadian government if I understand it

correctly is that nations those who have surplus food or who have resources in the United Nations should join together to make this food available for either these purposes and have a distributed under the auspices of the United Nations so that it would be acceptable to the people for whom it is intended. That may be a very poor and inadequate description of the idea but I hope it conveys the general sense. The gentleman at the back on the right heart such adamant in this meeting of the army grunts and we do economic and diplomatic future after all of them deferred to fact that these are our last meeting and that is they're listening to part of the final session of the 1961 coaching conference live from Geneva park on Lake witching Nira Radia Ontario and concluding this weeklong series of broadcasts we invite you to hear now a few remarks by way of summing up from the conference chairman Rev. Shon Herron minister of Saint Palumbi United Church Toronto Mr. Heron.

One cannot I think expect at the conference will always produce controversy and this year's conference did not but I think in the circumstances and given the subject this year it did produce something of more importance. It produced evidence of a profound concern not only in our speakers but in our conference audience in the Assembly Hall here in Geneva park. Perhaps I may quote to your comment on this year's conference by Professor as the chairman of this evening session. He said a controversial conference will always produce good entertainment but if we want to know what was quiet responsible and had found discussion of a kind of documents the subject this year we got it. I said it was as you already know diplomacy and evolution by which we meant to changes military technological political and economic that have changed the means and methods of dealing with international affairs. It may be I think that the quietness and

responsible thoughtfulness of speakers and audience here in the park reflected the possibility that intense controversy on matters of grit was our survival and if we survive we shall create community and the world is simply the temper of the day. We know it is more important for us to be informed than to be entertained. And now we must bring to a close the 30th coaching conference. The river and Sean Heron ministers and Columbia United Church to wrangle the chairman of this year's Christian conference. Transcript of the papers presented here in the discussions which took place will be published in book form about two months from now and may be obtained by reading to the University of Toronto press Toronto five Ontario. This is CBC Radio the Trans Canada network.