1960-05-16

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege on information supplied to me by a highly indignant editor of a daily newspaper that supports the present government. It is a question that should concern all members of this house, namely the improper use of House of Commons stationery.
There is in Ottawa a cartoonist named Mr. Gordon Johnston, who makes his headquarters at 162 Belmont Avenue. Mr. Johnston is the creator of a dubious new comic strip entitled "Jeff Buchanon, parliamentary press gallery reporter". Last week Mr. Johnston and his associates distributed to the newspapers across Canada the details of their comic strip service. The fabulous Buchanon, they say-
-is going to work on comic pages across Canada on May 16. If you want him on staff, exclusive in your area, send me a wire, collect.
Mr. Johnston and his group are apparently a well financed free enterprise organization. It can afford to print and send out to prospective newspaper customers masses of letters and advertising material, and apparently to pay its postage bills and accept collect telegrams. But evidently it cannot afford to pay for its own envelopes.
This advertising propaganda arrived on the desks of newspaper editors across Canada in official House of Commons envelopes bearing the crown and the Canadian royal coat of arms. My point of privilege is that this is a highly improper use of House of Commons stationery.
I wish to bring to the attention of the house the fact that this advertisement, which reads:
The parliament of Canada in the spotlight with Jeff Buchanon of the parliamentary press gallery-
I have never heard of him-
-a man, around "the House'.
-contains an etching of the House of Commons and the figure of the mythical Jeff Buchanon, who somewhat resembles a picture of Mr. Arthur Blakely, taken some ten years ago.
Mr. Speaker, while I cannot raise a question of privilege concerning individual members of the press gallery, I must remind the house that on one occasion Sir Winston Churchill said that the press gallery as an institution is an emanation of a free parliament whose members have somewhat more intimate relations with the members of the House of Commons than other groups. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the house the fact that this advertizing does convey the false impression that the material in question, the reporting and the cartoons to follow, emanate from the parliamentary press gallery.
While I cannot raise this as a direct question of privilege, with our knowledge of the rectitude and propriety of the gentlemen concerned and the extent to which they cherish their privileges and relationships in this house, I know this aspect of the question will concern all members of the house and should therefore receive their consideration.
This being an improper use of House of Commons stationery and, as a consequence, a violation of our statutes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That the subject matter of my question of privilege be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for its investigation and later report to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: It falls to my lot to determine, in the first instance, whether a prime facie question of privilege has been raised. Before accepting this motion, if any hon. member wishes to indicate his view, or the views of the House of Commons, with respect to the proposed motion I should be glad to hear him now or reserve the question and hear him tomorrow.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has made the matter clear, but if I may I would like to emphasize this point. I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West has filed with you what has been sent out apparently from the press gallery of this House of Commons. But, sir, in particular this matter concerns cartooning and reporting allegedly emanating from the press gallery of the House of Commons, which has been sent out in official envelopes of the House of Commons to newspapers across Canada.
3898	HOUSE OF
Report on Commonwealth Conference
I say that, sir, is very definitely a complete abrogation of the rights of this house, and therefore I hope you are going to accept this motion to refer the matter to the committee on privileges and elections.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the matters on which it is difficult to reach a decision without having the documents in front of you. It has perhaps come as a surprise to most hon. members of the house. Your suggestion of reserving judgment until tomorrow I think is a wise one.


Mr. Speaker:: Then with the leave of the house I will let this matter stand for consideration and disposition tomorrow. It raises rather a novel point. Is it really more than an improper use of the stationery of the house and does it involve the privileges of the house? There is a question which I wish to consider and which hon. members might consider.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not rule me out of order if under motions I express the warm welcome of the official opposition to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) on his return to the house after what was, I know, a very arduous as well as a very important mission. We are delighted to see him looking so well; arduous missions seem to have that effect on him. Perhaps while I am on my feet I might venture to suggest to the Prime Minister that he should make a report to the house at this time on his mission abroad.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like a moment in which to associate the C.C.F. group with the words of the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the Prime Minister on his return to Canada after having taken part in this very important commonwealth prime ministers' conference.
Those of us who have known the Prime Minister for many, many years realize that he is an excellent traveller, and that experiences which might fatigue the average man seem to be taken by the Prime Minister in his stride. I think the right hon. gentleman thrives on this kind of arduous work. We are sincerely pleased to see him back in such good health.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I must say such a heartwarming reception is something that
IMr. Winch.]

touches me very deeply. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his words of greeting, and to tell him that I had rather expected an opportunity might be provided to make a statement which may be somewhat more lengthy than is ordinarily made, with the leave of the house, on motions.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Assiniboia for his very generous references with regard to my ability to travel. One of the great difficulties I experience is this, Mr. Speaker. These occasions, for some reason or another, do not entirely coincide with my efforts to maintain my weight at a reasonable level. I think that is one of the difficulties I have; attending meetings such as this has, for me, a rather challenging effect, and one of these times I am going to call in the hon. member for Essex East to give me some ideas in connection with this very difficult problem that I face.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Would the Prime Minister do the member for Essex East the great honour of calling him on other matters as well?


John George Diefenbaker: I would think that calling the hon. member in on so weighty a problem it might be sufficient, but it may be that there will be other occasions in future.
At this time, having expressed my thanks and very deep appreciation for the attitude taken by both hon. gentlemen who have spoken and by the house in general, may I begin by referring to the communiques which were issued. They have been analysed at length, and I propose to ask the leave of the house, in accordance with past experience in this regard, to have the first communique of May 3 and the final communique at the termination of the conference printed as an appendix to Hansard.
However, even in following this course it is necessary for me to elaborate to some extent upon the main trends and, as I see them, the achievements of the meeting. I came back from the London conference feeling that, bearing in mind the difficult circumstances arising from the situation in South Africa, the conference was generally useful and successful.
Many observers have, of course, pointed out that the proceedings of the meetings did not result in any perceptible change in the attitude of the South African government. It was not to be expected, however, that magic improvements could take place in a situation of such tension and complexity. I believe that those who in future will examine and judge this period in commonwealth history will decide that this meeting did not fail to respond to the stern test to which it was put.

I would be the last to say that everything was achieved that I would have desired.
I do not contend that in so far as the communique is concerned it can convey the full nature and substance of the deliberations that took place. On occasions in the past I have heard my predecessors, Right Hon. Mackenzie King and Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, report on conferences they had attended. In every case it was made perfectly clear that while no decisions were made or can be made in these informal circumstances, there is a oneness of mind that comes about through the exchange of ideas.
There was no disposition on the part of any of the representatives to evade this issue, and there was no lack of frankness in private and informal discussions. I underline the fact that, as the Leader of the Opposition knows very well from his own experience, only in unanimity can there be a final communique issued. Everything that is included therein represents the agreement of all. To bring together the representatives of one quarter of the world's population, belonging to many races and being of many colours, I think it is quite an unusual result that several conclusions were arrived at unanimously which cannot but result in the possibility of change along the lines generally desired.
Despite the profound differences which prevailed and persisted throughout, it was possible for a communique to be issued. This was difficult with two inherently conflicting elements to be reconciled. First, it had become essential that a way be found for commonwealth governments to make clear their intentions on this central question of racial relations. Second, it was desirable that this should be done without violation of the traditional practice of these meetings that the internal affairs of member countries are not the subject of formal discussion. I believe now more certainly than I did when I spoke here on April 27 that any departure from this last principle would mean the end of the commonwealth as we know it; because if we ever arrive at the point where we will discuss the internal affairs of other countries and determine the course by a majority, then there will be problems that will arise and it could only mean that several countries in the commonwealth could not accept the decisions of the majority. I need not go into particulars in that regard; I think a number would come to mind immediately, including the question of migration.
Personally, as the house knows, I was of those who thought it worth while to try
Report on Commonwealth Conference to achieve the first objective of enabling the views of prime ministers to be expressed without sacrificing the principle of noninterference, which is one of the elements of the commonwealth association. I took the view that notwithstanding the depth of feeling on this racial issue-my views throughout the years and now are a matter of record -I believed it would be wrong and damaging to the spirit and fabric of the commonwealth partnership if a majority of the commonwealth governments, finding themselves allied in condemnation of one or more of their number, were to constitute themselves as a court of judgment. I saw, as I said a moment ago, in that trend an end of the association as we know it. The seed of mutual recrimination would threaten the partnership whose essence has always been tolerance, restraint and free co-operation.
I wish that hon. members could have been there. Strong feelings were held in the informal meetings. Men like the president of Pakistan, the prime ministers of India, of Malaya and of Ghana accepted this view as essential to the preservation and maintenance of our relationship. There was unanimous acceptance of the principle that internal affairs of free states are not to be the subject of formal discussion, and that any action in that regard would damage the strength and ultimately the preservation of the institution itself.
I cannot reveal, as hon. members know, in the tradition of those meetings, the substance of the talks. They were at times bilateral, at times in small groups, and at other times all the representatives took part in an informal and private exchange of views. For my part, I had two lengthy and private personal conversations with Mr. Louw; I participated in other informal discussions. I left Mr. Louw in no doubt that in Canada there is no sympathy for policies of racial discrimination, on whatever grounds they may be explained, and that such policies are basically incompatible with the multiracial nature of the commonwealth association. I made it clear to him that the policy of South Africa was a denial of the principle that human dignity and the worth of the individual, whatever his race and colour, must be respected, and that there could be no doubt as to our views in that connection. Indeed, those views are being generally expressed now.
A few weeks ago there were those who felt that what we required was condemnation by various parliaments. I think the events during the days of the conference were an answer to that contention. Our views, the views of all of us in other parts of the commonwealth, or most of the people in
3900	HOUSE OF
Report on Commonwealth Conference other parts of the commonwealth, were set out only a few days ago by the Archbishop of Canterbury when he said:
But the tragedy is that so far they (South Africa) have seemed to pay little or no regard to the burdens they are imposing on the hearts and consciences and political principles of those who are their brethren in the commonwealth, in culture, in Christian faith and in common humanity.
Only in the last 24 hours I have received from the Primate of the Anglican church of Canada the declaration of that church, which represents the views expressed at the 1958 Lambeth conference:
The conference affirms its belief in the natural dignity and value of every man of whatever colour or race as created in the image of God. In the light of this belief the conference affirms that neither race nor colour is in itself a barrier to any aspect of that life in family and community for which God created all men. It therefore condemns discrimination of any kind on the grounds of race or colour alone.
I would be less than frank if I did not say that I cannot report that there was any indication in Mr. Louw's attitude, representing his government, that he was moved by the arguments or concerned about the force of international opinion. However, he learned the viewpoint, he recognized that of all those present there no one, in the informal meetings or elsewhere, could give support to racial discrimination in a multiracial commonwealth.
It is clear that the issue of racial conflict will continue to pose a fundamental problem for commonwealth countries and, indeed, for the world community. My hope is that by this meeting we have assisted in the process of change. The matter was not on the agenda but it was discussed with clarity and frankness; and above all, by those from whom you would have expected the expression of violent opinions, with a dignity, a restraint and a recognition of the tremendous issues at stake that must give heart to all of us as to the meaning of the commonwealth as such.
International concern has been demonstrated in the United Nations. In the last few days the secretary general, Mr. Hammar-skjold, has been holding talks in London with Mr. Louw. Whatever the results may be, I am sure they will be aided in their talks by what took place at the conference. I hope the people of South Africa can work their way out of the dreadful impasse to which they have been brought. I hope their isolation on the continent of Africa will give them thought and a realization of the situation. It was a great South African, Field Marshal Smuts as he subsequently was, who as long ago as December, 1918, reminded us of this fact:


There is no doubt that mankind is once more on the move. The very foundations have been shaken and loosened and things are again fluid. The tents have been struck and the great caravan of humanity is once more on the march.
He was pointing to the need of new institutions, new ways of thought, new kinds of international behaviour if the world was to avoid the catastrophe of another war. His words were of prophetic application to his own continent.
It was made very clear in the communique that racial equality was of the essence. The communique had this to say:
Whilst reaffirming the traditional practice that commonwealth conferences do not discuss the internal affairs of member countries, ministers availed themselves of Mr. Louw's presence in London to have informal discussions with him about the racial situation in South Africa. During the informal discussions Mr. Louw gave information and answered questions on the union's policies, and the other ministers conveyed to him their views on the South African problem. The ministers emphasized that the commonwealth itself is a multiracial association and expressed the need to ensure good relations between all member states and peoples of the commonwealth.
We know the results of the assertion of racial superiority only a few years ago and the effects that followed from it. It is my hope that the South African government will heed and heed quickly the appeal that was made to it, not only in the communique but in personal conversations.
The government there has been planning to hold a referendum on the question of changing the present status of South Africa from a monarchy to that of a republic. In that regard it was pointed out that the choice between a monarchy and a republic is entirely the responsibility of the nation concerned. Then there are these significant words. I am not going to interpret them, because they require no interpretation; their significance lies in the fact that they were accepted unanimously by all who were there.
In the event of South Africa deciding to become a republic and if the desire was subsequently expressed to remain a number of the commonwealth, the meeting suggested that the South African government should then ask for the consent of the other commonwealth governments either at a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers or, if this were not practicable, by correspondence.
This established clearly that membership in the commonwealth is not a formality. These words speak for themselves. They make clear that the prime ministers were not prepared to give an advance assurance that South Africa might remain a member of the commonwealth in the event that a decision was made to adopt the status of a republic. Therefore the important point is that if a change of status does take place as

a result of the referendum, the consent of the other commonwealth governments will be required as a pre-condition of continued membership. Again I emphasize the fact that this was accepted by all.
The attention given to the South African problem, however, should not be allowed to obscure the deliberation which took place on many other subjects. The nature of those deliberations is fairly reflected in the communique, but I am going to make a few general references thereto. The multiracial nature of the commonwealth was underlined by the admission of Ghana three years ago at the last meeting, by the participation of the prime minister of Malaya this year and by the fact that the federation of Nigeria, with a population of 35 million, will join the family on the 1st of October and that Sierra Leone and other countries of various colours and races will, it is expected, soon be applying for membership.
What has taken place here is a recognition that there is no automatic membership in the commonwealth, and I believe it is also suggestive of the possibility that the time is not far distant when acceptance by custom rather than by declaration of	certain basic	principles, including
equality of all races, colours and creeds, will be assured. This view is underlined in various editorials to which I could refer. I draw the attention of the house to the fact that Canada's views were known, but the fact that we had not had a resolution placed Canada's representative in a position to speak to Mr. Louw in a way that did not arouse his antagonism. What happened here is well set out in the London Financial Times:
If the South African government carries through its plan for making the country into a republic ...
important constitutional matters will arise. It goes on to say:
More important even than these constitutional considerations is the simple truth expressed by Mr. Diefenbaker last week that a commonwealth in which the majority of the population is coloured must unequivocally accept racial equality.
The seriousness of racial problems varies widely from member country to member country. Not all of them have an untarnished record. Yet the position today is that the truth of Mr. Diefenbaker's proposition is accepted in theory at least everywhere in the western world except in South Africa. Refusal to accept it would mean losing the struggle against communism by default.
And so I might go on in that regard. This was an important step forward, and in that connection it is important internationally. We reviewed the international political situation. As to our views on the summit conference, I shall not now refer to them in view of what has taken place today.
Report on Commonwealth Conference
There was universal agreement on the importance of developing a general detente in international relations, the urgent need of concluding a broad agreement to end the testing of nuclear weapons, and the desirability of finding avenues of progress in the field of general disarmament. There was an awareness of the growing importance of China in world affairs; and in particular, in order to ensure the implementation of any international agreement on disarmament, the participation of China was recognized as being of first importance.
The meeting was notable also for the growing recognition it gave to the development of the economic needs of the newly independent countries of Africa. I have mentioned already the fact that Nigeria will become a member. I have also referred to the second constitutional decision which arose from the intention of Ghana to introduce a republican form of constitution by July 1. In connection with the decision regarding Ghana's relation to the commonwealth, the government of Ghana applied to continue as a member, thus again illustrating the flexible nature of the commonwealth relationship which permits member countries to remain in free association despite the differences in their forms of government.
As to the economic needs of the emerging nations of Africa, there was a unanimous recognition that a substantial expansion of economic assistance was necessary in order to assist these countries to achieve selfsustaining growth. The greatest remaining underdeveloped region of the world is Africa, where no special international economic assistance program has been established and were the flow of investment and aid funds, in comparison with that to other underdeveloped countries, is disproportionately small. The Prime Minister of Ghana is seriously concerned about this situation. It was agreed that unless measures are quickly taken in this crucial formative period in the history of these new African nations there may very well develop in those nations doubts as to the good will of the developed countries of the west, and they may be tempted to look for sympathy and assistance in other directions.
Mention was made of what the Colombo plan had done. There is no such type of international assistance as yet available in Africa. Consideration is therefore being given to the possibility of co-operative action among members of the commonwealth in assisting the economic development of countries in Africa which have recently attained or are approaching independence. This matter will be studied by the various commonwealth
3902	HOUSE OF
Report on Commonwealth Conference governments, and will be examined at the next meeting of the commonwealth economic consultative council in London.
On behalf of the government Canada indicated willingness, subject to parliament, to participate in such a program. I cannot at present, however, indicate the scope of the aid program which may flow from the decisions of the conference, or offer any forecast of what will be required from Canada.
Then in connection with the need for technical assistance for the newly independent countries of both Asia and Africa, the Prime Minister of Malaya drew attention to the fact that his government required the services of persons with specialized skills and experience in the administrative and technical fields. There was general agreement that everything should be done to foster and encourage exchanges of specialized personnel, and that the question should be taken into consideration by the commonwealth economic consultative council.
A further subject-and this was one that will become of increasing importance; it was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in his remarks in April 

was the constitutional development of the commonwealth. Up to the present time it has been possible to preserve the intimate character of the prime ministers' meetings. The essence of these meetings is that they are conducted, as I said, in an informal way. No resolutions are moved; no votes are taken. Progress is made by agreement after discussion. However, as the membership of the commonwealth grows, new problems as to how these meetings will be conducted will arise.
One has only to note that at the present rate of accession to the commonwealth, within a very few years the present membership of 11 will be expanded to 16 or 18. How shall such a wide membership be reconciled with the maintenance of frank, intimate and profitable discussion? What about the size of the gathering? What about the size of the nations? There will be tremendous and fantastic disparities in population, importance and size, India with a population of 450 million and Sierra Leone with 2 million.
The various commonwealth governments will have to give consideration to such questions as membership, weight by population, the rotation of membership as in the security council, regional groupings of nations within the commonwealth, and representation of such groups. These are some of the problems which will have to receive consideration. I am not indicating any view with regard to them. These are some of the problems that will now have to be examined in the light


of the tremendous expansion that is taking place and the number of nations which are joining us.
To those who say there is nothing in the commonwealth relationship, may I say that it is of interest to note that in all the years the commonwealth has been in its present form only one nation which attained independence, namely Burma, did not apply for membership. In other words, these nations representing various colours have of their own volition decided to remain with the institution and become active and effective members.
Mr. Speaker, one other matter I want to refer to is the question of trade. Western Europe represents a very important market for all commonwealth countries. With the exception of the United Kingdom most of them, like Canada, are important suppliers to western Europe of agricultural products. It was therefore recognized that it would be a matter of much concern if our competitive access to these markets was impaired in any way by the agricultural policies which may be followed by the European economic community. This community can have a tremendous influence in the direction of world trade, and this is significant for the primary producing countries of the commonwealth. It was urged that both the Six and the Seven should pursue trade policies that are consistent with their obligations under GATT. In this way western Europe would be contributing to the general economic well-being of the world, and particularly of the underdeveloped countries.
Some concern was expressed about the possibility that the plans to create a successor organization for the O.E.E.C. might lead to exclusive or restrictive arrangements which would not take into account the interests of countries outside Europe. I explained that while Canada expected to be a full member of the revised organization, we attached great importance to ensuring that its efforts should be directed toward improving multilateral trading conditions and that we did not regard this as in any way an exclusive organization which would be harmful to the interests of other commonwealth members. I believe the members of the commonwealth share our concern that the economic division in western Europe should not lead or be permitted to lead to political division. It was also recognized, as I saw it, that the United Kingdom should continue to maintain the closest co-operation with the rest of the commonwealth in developing its own policies with regard to trade with western Europe.
Now, sir, to those who have predicted that the commonwealth was on a slippery slope,

I am convinced that it came out of the conference stronger than ever. It is impossible to convey to the members of this house the spirit that was apparent in the desire to assure the maintenance of unity without the sacrifice of principle on the part of any of the members. Each of the representatives, in a spirit of understanding, was conscious of and concerned with the welfare of all other members. While re-emphasizing the cardinal principle of the commonwealth, non-interference in domestic affairs, the multiracial nature and the need for recognition of equality of all races and peoples were recognized. In the informal meetings this was made clear and definite so that no one could misunderstand it.
I mentioned this earlier in another way, and I repeat it. While the commonwealth has no constitution, the membership and variety in population of the peoples that compose its membership demand the recognition of equality, and I believe the final communique made it clear that the recognition of these principles has been achieved in spirit.
As I return I am convinced of one thing. While there were those who were critical of the stand which was being taken, I think in the light of what has occurred the course followed was one that has assured the maintenance of the basic principles, and also made possible in the future the achievement of equality and the denial of discrimination. The ominous danger of commonwealth fission was prevented without the sacrifice of any vital principles by the prime ministers and representatives of the various countries. The course of reason, restraint and diplomacy was followed rather than that of judicial action. The various prime ministers who felt most strongly against fanatical racialism maintained a self control and a dignity in the presentation of their arguments which had its effect. I think it may be fairly said that an advance was made in the interracial and multiracial relationships of the many peoples of the commonwealth; and while collective action was asked by some before we met, it was asked by none by the time we separated.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the printing in the appendix of Hansard of the two communiques mentioned by the right hon. Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of communiques referred to above, see appendix]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think every member of the house will have listened with the greatest possible interest to the statement we have just heard from the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), who represented
Report on Commonwealth Conference our country at this very important meeting of commonwealth prime ministers which, I think, had an importance which extended beyond the borders of the commonwealth itself.
The Prime Minister in his statement has indicated not only the far-reaching nature of the subjects under discussion but their complicated character as well. The formal results of the meeting are, as is customary in these cases, to be found in the communique issued by the prime ministers at the conclusion of the conference. But as the Prime Minister himself has indicated, a communique of this kind does not of course communicate everything that was done and said at the conference. A communique, especially a communique resulting from a conference of this kind within the commonwealth, has to be of a nature-always in the past it has been of a nature-which requires unanimous approval, and perhaps on this occasion there was some difficulty, as indeed there have been difficulties in the past, in securing that unanimous approval. In the very nature of things the communique represents, as it was bound to, the lowest common denominator of agreement.
I have no doubt, and the Prime Minister's remarks seemed to make it quite clear, that some of the more important discussions took place outside the formal meetings of the commonwealth prime ministers.
That has been the situation in the past. It has its advantages, but of course it could also have its dangers. I recall in the past that over the issue of Kashmir-a very different issue from that which divided the commonwealth conference on this occasion-it was not possible to have a discussion of that controversial matter inside the meeting; any discussion which took place had to be outside the formal agenda.
However, it is clear from the communique, from the report we have had from the Prime Minister, and from the reports we have read in the press, that this conference made clear as perhaps has not been made clear before, at least so dramatically, the nature of the new commonwealth; its great potential value as a bridge between races and peoples and countries and continents; also its new problems and, indeed, certain new dangers which threaten its existence in a more acute form, perhaps, than we have had to face in the commonwealth in the past, dangers and difficulties which every member of this house hopes will be removed. These dangers and these difficulties arise from that very multiracial character which, if it is not accepted by all members of the commonwealth, with
3904	HOUSE OF
Report on Commonwealth Conference all its complications, will constitute a great threat to the future of the commonwealth, just as the complete acceptance of this new character of the commonwealth could constitute its greatest value in the future.
So these matters have to be faced, even though they cannot always appear in the record of the meeting itself. There is a real danger of what may arise if we neglect to do so. The Prime Minister of India who, I am sure, played his customary constructive role in this conference, is reported in the press to have said:
The commonwealth is facing basic problems-and some people begin to doubt whether this commonwealth is not becoming too vague to be identified as anything at all.
I would hope that Mr. Nehru, at the end of the conference, would perhaps be more optimistic than he was in that statement as to the possible results.
There was also a very interesting editorial in the London Times of May 10. I have no doubt the Prime Minister has had it drawn to his attention. Dealing with this matter with all the impressive authority that goes with that historic newspaper, the Times had this to say:
The commonwealth is a voluntary association and sooner or later every voluntary association has to recognize that though every member's private life is his own concern, yet each is judged by the company he keeps, and the honour of all may be involved in the private behaviour of one.
The editorial concluded with these words, which are full of sober significance:
It is a multiracial commonwealth.
That phrase is, of course, used in the communique.
If the deliberations of the prime ministers end in complete disagreement on one of the greatest questions of the day it is far better to announce the fact. There are other great questions; if there is unity on these it can also be declared, and with the greater prospect of being believed. The consequences that flow from both agreements and disagreements can then be worked out.
Mr. Speaker, the disagreement which obviously existed within the membership of the conference-the Prime Minister has frankly indicated it and, of course, we knew there would be such disagreement-was not announced in the communique. I can understand the reason for this, and I am not suggesting it should have been announced in the communique. But it is just as well for us to go behind the words of the communique and face the fact that disagreement exists, because I do not think I am exaggerating when I say the commonwealth on this occasion did face a very real threat to its existence-a veritable storm, as it has been described. Indeed, the Montreal Gazette referring only this morning to this "veritable


storm"-that was the expression the editor used-stated in an editorial on this subject, that it-that is, the commonwealth-has neither surmounted that storm nor succumbed to it. Perhaps that is the fairest analysis that could be made in a few words with regard to the conference and, indeed, to the communique.
The conference certainly postponed a showdown-if I may use that expression-on the issue on which some of its members felt so strongly, the issue of race discrimination and the policy of apartheid in South Africa. I am not complaining about that, as long as the cost which had to be paid for that postponement was not too high, and I do not think in this instance it was. Perhaps the postponement of this issue at this time was the best course to take in London, providing the period which has been given for the reconsideration of this matter by the government of South Africa can be used for improving the situation in regard to this situation in that country.
The Prime Minister indicated today that he made it clear to the South African representatives where Canada and Canadians stand on this matter. I am glad he has done that. Indeed, the Prime Minister's intervention in this matter in this informal way does illustrate, in a sense, the dilemma he mentioned about intervention or non-intervention in commonwealth affairs. The situation we have reached now is that while there cannot be formal intervention in domestic matters at the conference table-that has been the tradition up to the present-there may, nevertheless, be informal intervention of the kind the Prime Minister has mentioned. I am glad the right hon. gentleman took advantage of the opportunity to make the attitude of Canada perfectly clear with regard to this policy.
The right hon. gentleman also said-and I think the record indicates that he was correct, at least the record that was made public -that unfortunately nothing has yet emerged which would indicate that there is any likelihood of the South African government modifying its position on this matter of principle which is so vital to us. Therefore we can only hope that the words which were uttered, the attitudes which were taken and the moderation which was shown at the prime ministers' conference on this occasion will have their effect in those places where change can be brought about.
However, we must be clear that the situation has been postponed only. Indeed, the Prime Minister made clear in reading from the communique that if and when South Africa decides, after an expression of the

opinion of its people, to become a republic, it will be required to apply for continuing membership in the commonwealth as a republic. No assurance has been given in advance in regard to any such request if and when it is made. I express the hope that if and when that time comes the situation in South Africa will be such that all members of the commonwealth will be happy to have South Africa continue its membership in this association.
The Montreal Star writing on this aspect of the matter on May 11 had this to say. I hope this is not too pessimistic, but in view of what the Prime Minister said it would not seem to be. The words of the editorial are:
They-
The members of the commonwealth.
-have sought to elicit some hint that South Africa might, some time and in some way, modify its apartheid policy.
They have got nowhere.
Let us hope that during this period between the meeting in London and the next meeting we will have got somewhere in connection with this matter.
The Prime Minister mentioned some other questions that came up at the commonwealth meeting. He dealt with the question of assistance to the new and emerging nations of Africa. I think all hon. members of the house are anxious as all Canadians are to do what we can to provide the kind of assistance needed, within the measure of our resources; not only material and economic assistance, but assistance through the sympathy and understanding we may show for the problems of these people, and assistance by the supply of technical and administrative personnel which in the early days of their existence is going to be, I am quite sure, their greatest problem.
The Prime Minister also mentioned that trade was discussed, and I am sure that was not the least important subject that came up for discussion at that conference. It is well that it should have come up at this particular time, because the European countries are trying to work out their own arrangements for economic co-operation leading, one might hope, one day to economic unity and who knows but to political unity. It is of the greatest possible importance that that be done not only without dividing Europe but also without dividing Europe from her friends across the Atlantic and inside the commonwealth.
There has been an important step made in that regard in recent weeks, at least in so far as a report is a step. If hon. members have read that report of the four O.E.E.C. representatives, as I have, they will I think
Report on Commonwealth Conference be struck by the fact that the recommendations in that report can be of very far-reaching significance indeed; because they lead inevitably to an association of the 19 European countries and the United States and Canada. They point the way toward that association, which in any event will take a long time to work out. But even 21 countries united on that basis will not be enough if other countries in the commonwealth who wish to come into that kind of lower tariff association are excluded. Therefore, perhaps, these matters as they were discussed in London may have had their own value in bringing about the widening of this kind of freer trade association.
The communique contains one sentence which I should like to read. The Prime Minister for very understandable reasons felt that at this time and in the present circumstances he would not deal with it in any detail. The sentence concerns a summit conference, and reads as follows:
They-
The members of the commonwealth.
-hoped that, on the basis of the preliminary work already done, the summit conference would be able to make some significant progress toward an eventual settlement, under international control, of the problem of disarmament.
Then they also expressed their general hope for success at this summit conference to which all men and women of good will throughout the world have been looking forward with hope not unmixed with anxiety. As reports have come over the wires this morning the anxiety is becoming a more powerful emotion than the hope, because so far as one can gather from the first meeting of the summit conference-and it is unwise to come to any premature conclusion on this matter-those hopes which were expressed by the commonwealth prime ministers may in the course of events be falsified.
I hope the leaders of the three western countries, the United States, the United Kingdom and France-and I am sure all hon. members of the house join me in this hope- will not accept the apparently brutal ultimatum submitted to the conference at its opening session by the leader of the Soviet union. This conference must not be allowed to break up in this way. Therefore if anything could be done, it should be done. If the commonwealth prime ministers were only meeting at this time collectively they might have been able to intervene collectively to prevent a break. Although I know this is perhaps going a little beyond the report of the commonwealth conference, but not very far-[DOT]


Mr. Fulton:: Just far enough to be out of order.
3908	HOUSE OF
Report on Commonwealth Conference


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition, if he pursues that vein, will make it difficult not to have replies, because he is opening up a matter which was deliberately left out of the original statement. The practice is normally to coniine one's remarks to the statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the sense of the house would be that the hon. gentleman should continue. I am sure this is one time when in a matter so important and so momentous to the world, none of us would raise an objection.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will say only a very few words because I do not wish to stray beyond the rules of order or to take advantage of the indulgence which the Prime Minister has indicated the house might show me. There is in this communique of the commonwealth conference a great deal-several paragraphs- devoted to the then forthcoming summit conference. All I would like to say on this occasion is that this conference must surely be kept going. The replies of the three western leaders to the statement of the Soviet leader this morning indicate that they are taking that view, too. I know the Canadian government will support them in that stand in any way it can.
I have one final suggestion to make, a very short one, before I sit down. My suggestion is that if the conference threatens to break up at once, even before it approaches the problems that are before it, then perhaps the secretary general of the United Nations, who is on that side of the world at this time, might ask that these four leaders meet with him to discuss ways and means of keeping the conference going.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we all listened with a great deal of attention to the statement made by the Prime Minister on returning to Canada from the commonwealth conference. Reference has been made by the Leader of the Opposition to the summit conference. I am not going to endeavour to make any detailed statement on the proceedings that are going on at the summit. We very fervently hope for all mankind that ideological differences may be bridged, that good will may assert itself, and that an agreement on disarmament in the interests of peace can be achieved as a result of the conference.
I would say that the leaders of the world should quit spying, quit threatening and quit stalling. Mankind is not interested at this time in threats or in any course that might be considered normal in normal circumstances. These are abnormal circumstances,


and the world is looking for abnormal action that will restore the confidence of mankind in its own survival.
I was encouraged by the general statement of the Prime Minister, and by the emphatic way he made the statement he gave to this house. As was mentioned by the Prime Minister, the second world war was fought to preserve the world from fascism, racial discrimination in its most ugly form. We trust that fascism and the appearance of fascism, no matter where it emerges, can be obliterated and that mankind will grant to one another complete racial equality.
I think the attitude of the Prime Minister confirmed the position taken by the C.C.F., namely that in an issue such as this it is essential for Canada to speak out strongly and with a united voice. I feel that as a result of the conference, and by the strength of the Prime Minister's statement today, he would have been in a better position when he went to the conference had he been armed with a unanimous vote of this House of Commons setting forth the Canadian point of view.
We trust that events as they unfold will see the relaxing of discrimination in South Africa. We are very much in favour of an expanding, of a growing and of a strengthened commonwealth, but we feel that to try to keep together at all costs this loose association of nations is not the best attitude or the objective that we should have. The commonwealth, to survive, must he based on solid principles, and one of those principles is the regard of man for his brother.
I think it should be made perfectly clear -the Prime Minister did not say it but I believe it is inherent in the statement he made-that if the people of South Africa by their vote should decide to become a republic and unless racial equality is restored Canada's attitude will be one of opposition to the admission of South Africa to the commonwealth as a republic. Any other attitude would be a denial of those important human principles.
The Prime Minister went on to refer to a number of other subjects, such as the desire for an end to nuclear testing, a review of the growing importance of China and the necessity of China coming into any general disarmament agreement. We suggest to the Prime Minister once again that now is the time for Canada to consider diplomatic recognition of China as a positive step toward bringing this nation into the councils of the world so that any disarmament agreement may be meaningful.
The Prime Minister dealt with a number of positive suggestions, including the one

that there should be a Colombo plan of assistance for the nations of Africa. This, we think, would be a very important step forward. We have been firm advocates of economic and technical assistance to emerging nations for many years. I now go on record once again as suggesting to the Canadian government that Canada should be prepared to use 1 per cent of its gross national product as the amount that would be suitable for our contribution to economic assistance to underdeveloped nations of the world.
The Prime Minister went on to deal with the importance of trade and the possible threat of the inner six and even the outer seven to commonwealth trade. I make the suggestion that now is the time for Canada to consider associating our nation with those other trading areas, and that we should be giving very close attention to plans directed toward the removal of trade barriers in this larger trading area and finally in other nations of the world.
The Prime Minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, I believe, shows that he has come back from this conference prepared to make a much stronger statement on the need for racial equality. We suggest to him various points that I have covered as ways and means of strengthening the commonwealth, of improving the lot of underdeveloped nations, and of playing our full part in the maintenance of world peace.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. gentlemen for the expression of their points of view. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I think this house as a whole would want to express the hope that the summit conference will be continued and that it may achieve that measure of detente which the world expects; and at the same time those who are our allies and friends must make it most clear that intimidation will not be effective in any way.



INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION


Hon. George C. Nowlan (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the international development association, to approve the articles of agreement thereof and to provide further for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to the association of an amount or amounts not exceeding
Proposed Legislation
in the whole an amount equivalent to the subscription assigned to Canada, that is to say, thirty-seven million, eight hundred and thirty thousand United States dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Howard C. Green (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952 to permit payment of war veterans allowance in certain circumstances to veterans, widows or orphans who absent themselves from Canada after the said measure comes into force; to provide saving and transitional provisions to protect and preserve the right of certain veterans, widows or orphans who are absent from Canada upon the date the said measure comes into force; and to establish a residence qualification for former members of His Majesty's forces or allies who served during world war II similar to that already provided for members of those forces or allies who served during world war I.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may construct and complete certain railway terminal facilities at and in the vicinity of the city of Toronto; that the Minister of Finance may, with the approval of the governor in council, make temporary loans out of the consolidated revenue fund, not exceeding one hundred million dollars to enable the work of construction and completion of the Toronto project to proceed forthwith; that the governor in council may guarantee the principal and interest of the securities that the company may issue under the provisions of the said measure; to provide also that the proceeds of any sale, pledge or disposition of the securities shall be deposited to the credit of the Minister of Finance in trust for the company in one or more banks designated by him, and released from time to time to the company by the said minister to be applied to expenditures made or indebtedness incurred in connection with the said project; and to provide further that the estimate for the amount to be expended be $87,000,000 and the company shall not in performing the work of construction and completion exceed such estimate by more than 15 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 96-Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged from April 1, to date, between the Prime Minister and a committee of the students of the University of British Columbia, regarding current problems in South Africa.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 98-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of any letter addressed to the Prime Minister by the Toronto Telegram or any reporter or editorial writer employed by the newspaper, 9 regarding the administration of the immigration department, together with any replies thereto, since June 21, 1957.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 99-Mr. Peters (for Mr. Howard):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, briefs and other documents exchanged between the united fishermen and allied workers' union and the federal government or any department or agency thereof since January 1, 1953, dealing with the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act to fishermen.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 100-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of the regulations of treasury board governing prevailing rates employees.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether this motion might stand, in the absence of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that this motion may stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



GEORGIAN BAY AIRCRAFT LTD.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 101-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the evidence before the air transport board of an application made by the Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited, denied by the board, for a class 4 charter commercial air service (with group B aircraft) held at Timmins, Ontario, on the 15th of October, 1959.
Motion agreed to.
Motion No. 102-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the decision of the air transport board denying the application of Georgian Bay 
Aircraft Limited for a class 4 charter commercial air service (with group B aircraft) following a public hearing held at Timmins on October 15, 1959.
Motion agreed to.
Motion No. 103-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the decision of the air transport board granting Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited a permit to operate a class 4 charter commercial service (with group B aircraft) following amendment of article 6 (1) of the air regulations removing the necessity of proving public interest.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No.	104-Mr.	Peters (for Mr. Howard):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any department or agency thereof and any person, organization or governmental body in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, since January 1, 1958, dealing with the C.G.S. Simon Fraser.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 105-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of all correspondence between Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited on the one hand and the air transport board, the Minister of Transport or any officer of his department on the other, from June, 1957 to date.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 106-Mr. Chevrier (for Mr. Bourgel):
For a copy of any directive or instructions issued by the Department of National Defence to defence establishments in the province of Quebec, regarding the exercise of the franchise by service personnel in the forthcoming provincial election.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
the minister or associate minister whether it would be possible to table this directive now or perhaps tomorrow?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I think it would be possible to table it tomorrow. I have not got it here.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is he aware of the statement made by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. MAY 16. 1960
Brassard) that the bungling and incompetence of Canadian diplomats is responsible for Montreal not getting the world fair?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I read the statement in the press. I can only say that over the weeks and months preceding the meeting in Paris we had a very high degree of co-operation from our external affairs department representatives in the various cities and countries with which we were concerned. 1 think it is apparent to everyone that it was not any bungling on the part of the external affairs department which was responsible for Canada not being chosen. The other nation which was seeking the world's fair, Russia, at the very last moment, without adequate notice to anyone and following a practice which I do not think we as a country would wish to follow, introduced seven of its satellite countries. If you examine the voting you will find that, without these seven countries introduced at the last moment, at every stage Canada led in the number of votes received. I think this speaks highly for the work of our people both here in Canada and abroad in gaining that degree of support for us.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question. At a later stage the same hon. member made the statement that the "political adversaries of the Diefenbaker government did all they could to ruin the project for fear that Mr. Diefenbaker would get the credit." I wonder whether the Postmaster General would like to comment on that part of the statement.


Mr. McPhillips:: That was the Grit mayor of Montreal.


William McLean Hamilton: have no particular comment to make on that remark. At one or two points during the discussions and during the work over several months that led up to the meeting on May 5, varying opinions were expressed. However, I can say that at the meeting in Paris on May 5 we had the very highest degree of co-operation from all those who formed our delegation to the meeting.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Prime Minister, though the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been answering questions along this line. In view of the desirability of doing nothing that might interfere with the summit conference, I wonder
Inquiries of the Ministry whether Canada would be prepared to state that at least for the present no planes of the U-2 type, whether weather planes or otherwise, will take off from bases within Canada or fly over Canadian territory?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it has been made perfectly clear that none of the U-2 flights has been connected in any way with espionage, and none has originated in Canada. Having regard to the very bellicose and threatening attitude of Mr. Khrushchev today, particularly in the light of President Eisenhower's agreement to discontinue U-2 flights over Soviet territory, I can see no reason why at this time we should give consideration to the suggestion that planes engaged in weather flights over Canada, that do not go beyond Canada, should be denied access to the air.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister taken note of a report in today's issue of the Montreal Gazette to the effect that Ukrainians in Montreal staged a march in protest against a French language television series called "Your Soul and Conscience", dealing with the assassination of Ukrainian leader Simon Petlura, which was distasteful and offensive to Canadians of Ukrainian origin? In view of the reply of the C.B.C. director of information to the president of the Ukrainian committee that he had no power to stop this program, will the minister ask for an inquiry into the matter and suggest to the president of the C.B.C. that this series of television presentations which is causing dissension among our Canadian people be discontinued forthwith?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me notice of his question this morning. I did see the report in the Montreal Gazette. The matter had also been drawn to my attention prior to the report by the hon. member for Marquette, the Minister of Labour and one or two other members, I believe, who had knowledge of the feelings of the Ukrainian association and people of Ukrainian origin about this matter.
Personally I regret very much that any such situation has arisen or that the feelings of a large group of important Canadian

Inquiries of the Ministry citizens, or a group of any size as far as that is concerned, should have been affronted by what they read into this program. I cannot necessarily accept the suggestion that I should direct the C.B.C. to drop the program, but I can tell the house that I have asked for an inquiry to be made. I have asked the C.B.C. for a report on the matter. I understand that the C.B.C. senior executive board met this morning and is meeting again this afternoon, and that a statement will be issued on the matter before the end of the day.



POLICY RESPECTING EMPLOYEES NOMINATED IN PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he is yet in a position to reply to the question I asked him on Friday.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, no; not yet. I hope to be able to do so tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of a statement made by Premier Smallwood in the Newfoundland house of assembly on Tuesday, May 10, to the effect that the government of Newfoundland had turned down the offer made by the minister in a letter to Premier Smallwood in October, 1959 to start a vocational training program for the unemployed miners of Bell island? If so, does the minister have any comment to make on this callous act of political vindictiveness on the part of the premier of Newfoundland toward my constituents?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I have not received any communication from the Newfoundland government along the lines mentioned. Consequently I have no comment to make.



FOREST FIRE FIGHTING-INQUIRY AS TO TRAINING OF TROOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence which is of particular interest to a good number of people in Canada, particularly because of the advent of the

forest fire hazard season. In view of the announcement by Hon. J. Wilfred Spooner, minister of lands and forests for Ontario, in the legislature that as the result of meetings between his department and the Department of National Defence, preliminary plans have been made for special courses in the techniques of forest fire fighting and that a battalion or more of the Canadian army may be trained in forest fire fighting, will the minister inform the house whether such training of Canadian army personnel is now being undertaken? If so, will the services of these troops be available to any provincial government seeking assistance in forest fire fighting?


George Randolph Pearkes: Army personnel in the past have assisted in more than one province in the fighting of forest fires. When applied for by the provincial government, the personnel have carried out these operations as part of an emergency when not declared to be a national disaster. In order to study the most up to date techniques in forest fire fighting a limited number of personnel have been attending the Ontario provincial forestry school, but no special unit of the army has been detailed for this particular duty.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware of changes introduced within the past few weeks by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in relation to its policy on septic tanks where new house construction is being assisted under the National Housing Act? When will these changes become effective? Will they affect subdivisions classified as rural?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. There will be no change until January 1, 1961. So far as rural areas are concerned, the answer is that the changes will have no application to applicants in the rural areas.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: May
I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works re national housing. Would the minister explain further the policy in rural areas with regard to non-sewage lots?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member might I amplify my previous reply by stating that since October, 1958

the corporation has only issued undertakings to insure loans for builders in areas where piped services were installed, unless the municipality provided satisfactory evidence that piped services would be available within a reasonable time. However, where building lots remained in subdivisions previously accepted for septic tanks, loans were also insured. No change is contemplated in this policy. As in the past, septic tanks will be accepted for home owner applicants in strictly rural areas.
In urban areas where loans have generally been available to home owner applicants proposing the use of septic tanks, effective Jan. 1, 1961 such loans will only be approved (1) where the municipality provides evidence that piped services will be available within a reasonable period of time, (2) where lots remain in subdivisions which have been accepted for septic tank use, and (3) in exceptional circumstances where septic tanks are the only means of servicing the land.



C.M.H.C.-STATEMENT ON REPORTED REVERSAL OF LENDING POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nipissing asked a question on May 13 about an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of that date, as to whether the government has changed its position in regard to the lending policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Might I state that the article in the Globe and Mail of Friday last to which the hon. member referred is misleading, in that it suggests a change in lending policy, or a reversal of policy, on the part of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Government policy on mortgage lending is, of course, announced only by the minister responsible. I am therefore pleased to have this opportunity to correct a misunderstanding.
In its role as residual mortgage lender, or lender of last resort, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not considered it proper or desirable to pioneer in large new subdivisions or satellite towns outside the boundaries of major metropolitan areas by becoming the only lender to make loans. This, it is felt, is the function and responsibility of the approved lenders.
However, because a number of prospective home owner applicants who qualified in all other respects were unable to obtain mortgage financing in Bramalea, which is located between metropolitan Toronto and Brampton, the corporation is prepared to treat them on exactly the same basis as any other
Inquiries of the Ministry qualified home owner applicants in Canada. There is no change in policy entailed; it is rather the relaxation of a local rule to assist a group of prospective home owners who are urgently in need of new homes.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the tariff on poultry meat moving between Canada and the United States is equal in both directions at 12J per cent, but the United States imposes a minimum of 5 cents per pound whereas there is no such minimum imposed against poultry meat coming into Canada, and Canadian producers are therefore at some disadvantage in relation to United States producers, will the minister give consideration to taking whatever steps are necessary to bring the protection for Canadian producers into line with the protection enjoyed by United States producers?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: This is a matter which has been brought to the attention of the government on several occasions in the past, including a delegation of poultry association people who were here, I believe, a week ago today. We have assured these people that at the next GATT negotiating conference, which comes on this fall, we will make an effort to have these duties equalized as between United States and Canada.



TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he or his department have any knowledge of a party of Canadians who are supposed to be in the Soviet union at the present time investigating the transmission of electricity over long distances, and whether his department had any consultation with them before they went away.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: There has been consultation with private industry in Canada on this question of the long range transmission of power. I do not know the exact date but I understand that there is a private group going to Russia. I do not know
3912	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry whether or not they have gone. If they have not gone, they will be leaving some time shortly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is any government representative going with them?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Not to my
knowledge.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the government made any decision on the purchase of 1,000 prefabricated homes for R.C.A.F. personnel and their families living on remote stations where building conditions are difficult and costly? If not, will the minister give consideration to the attractive prefabricated movable five room dwelling manufactured at the Canada Car plant at Fort William, which is of sturdy construction capable of withstanding the rigours of the far north?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's enthusiasm for his constituency seems to be taking him beyond the bounds of propriety. I suggest that he put the first part of his question on the order paper and take up the other part on the estimates.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire of the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has had an opportunity to get a legal interpretation of P.C. 4365 dealing with the Canadian forces with reference to the restoration of peace in the Republic of Korea, as to whether the order in council is still in effect or whether it has been spent.


Howard Charles Green: No, that information has not come to hand.



FOLEYET, ONI..-INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether any request for assistance has come from the village of Foleyet with regard to the flood disaster which has overtaken them. If


so, can he say whether the government can do anything to help these people?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no knowledge of that matter. I cannot say that no request has been made but it certainly has not come to me personally. However, I will make inquiry and ascertain the situation.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of National Defence inform the house whether the civil defence organization has been requested to assist in the rescue operations in the town of Foleyet and in minimizing the loss of property in the area?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, requests were received for assistance at Timmins; a helicopter was sent, and the armoury building was made available. I do not think any request has been received through the proper authorities for assistance at Foleyet.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: In connection with the answer I gave the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) on Friday regarding the Kettle Valley railway, I should like to confirm to him that I have received no recent representations from representatives of railroad employees concerning an improvement in the service on this line, but I recall that when I was in that part of the province in 1958 the present hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. McFarlane) spoke to me about this matter and Mr. Peter Dewdney, the Conservative candidate in Kootenay West, arranged an interview with me for representatives of the railway unions in the area. I listened to their representations and passed them on to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
As the hon. member knows, the board oi transport commissioners issued a judgment under date of January 4, 1960, following a hearing of the matter, and which was given to the hon. member in the house on March 9 last.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of National Defence whether,



IB, 1960

[Stage Direction]
in view of the decision to disband the observation corps consisting of some 55,000 individuals, any consideration will be given to the utilization of this body of Canadian citizens to assist in civil defence operations in Canada?
George Randolph Pearkes: Yes; careful consideration was given to that matter, and in some cases personnel will be employed in connection with the fallout warnings.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister mentioned migration in his report to the house today, can he inform the house whether any of the prime ministers at the London conference protested the racial discrimination of Canadian immigration laws and, if so, could the Prime Minister indicate the nature of his reply?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that no one discussed that matter at any time.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Gordon Minto Churchill: (1)	That a select committee be appointed to consider the policy, operations and expenditures of the national research council, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon;
(2)	That nothwithstanding standing order 67, the committee shall consist of twenty members, of which eleven shall be a quorum;
(3)	That the committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house, to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and to send for persons, papers and records.
He said; Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to dwell at great length on the subject of setting up this committee. The committee itself will have a great deal of work to do if it follows the course of the earlier committee of 1956, which assembled well over 400 pages of evidence. That makes it obvious that we cannot deal here, at the setting up of the committee, with all the matters which will come under its survey.
It has become customary for a select committee to look into the operations of nondepartmental government research organizations once during each parliament. The 1950
Atomic Energy Committee committee examined the operations of the national research council. At that time the council had responsibility for atomic energy in addition to its other functions. The 1956 committee examined the role of government in non-military research, including Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the national research council. The proposal now is that the present committee consider the policy, operations and expenditures of the national research council, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. I should add that in 1956 Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited were under one head.
It is generally agreed that it is useful at intervals of four years or so to have a committee of the house examine the operations of the research organizations. The operations of a research organization are complex and require considerably more freedom and flexibility than is customary with other government operations. The technical complexity of the operations also makes it advisable for members in the house who are especially interested to obtain a more detailed knowledge of the operations of such organizations.
The Canadian research complex involves three parts; the universities, industry and government. The universities are the basis of the whole research structure, and there has been a very great development of university research in Canada over the past 40 years. In fact when the national research council was formed in 1917 its major activity was the development of scientific research in universities, and there is no question but that the present status of science in Canada is largely due to the support thus given by the national research council.
At the end of the first war there was little research in Canadian universities except in a few isolated instances. Largely because of national research council support a steady development occurred in the years from 192039, and this ran parallel to financial support provided by the national research council, which increased from roughly $14,000 in 1917-18 to $247,000 in 1938-39. In spite of this very considerable development, at the beginning of the last war we were still far behind university science in European countries and the United States. This was largely due to shortage of staff and lack of facilities.
The war brought about major developments, and by 1946 scientific research was becoming a major operation of all Canadian universities. This development was delayed in the early 1950's by the universities' financial position, but the considerable improvement in this position has resulted in a quite spectacular development in the last five years.

Atomic Energy Committee National research council support has kept pace with this development and has risen in recent years.
Industrial research in Canada, especially related to secondary industry, has suffered from some of the problems inherent in the flow of foreign capital into Canadian industry. Research frequently has been done entirely by the controlling company outside Canada. However, there has developed greater realization in recent years that Canadian companies, whether controlled from outside Canada or not, must perform research for themselves, and there has been a very satisfactory development of research in Canadian companies since the last war. Much remains to be done, but certainly the trend at the moment is an encouraging one.
The national research council has taken a considerable share in carrying on research for Canadian companies prior to the development of their own facilities, in encouraging the growth of research facilities in Canadian companies themselves and in co-operating with industrial research organizations once they come into existence. In general the development of industrial research organizations means greater awareness of problems and consequently results in more effort rather than less being necessary by the national research council in playing its part. Parallel to this development of research in Canadian industries there has, therefore, been a steady expansion of the national research council laboratories.
Government research in Canada in so far as it relates to the development of natural resources or primary products is the function of the appropriate departments concerned-agriculture, mines and technical surveys, northern affairs, and so on. This phase of research lies outside the scope of the proposed committee. In general the activity of the national research council is aimed at secondary industry rather than primary. It has, however, much broader duties than this. Its main functions consist of (1) General advice to the government on the position of science as a whole and on its relations with other activities of government. (2) It is the council's function to promote and encourage research, particularly in universities and it therefore administers a scholarship and grant-in-aid program of considerable magnitude. (3) The council in its laboratories performs research which is either direct toward secondary industry, toward fundamental science or toward fields which fall outside the specific responsibilities of the various government departments and agencies. (4) A further function of the national research council which becomes particularly important as industrial research in industry expands is that of co-ordinating 

research done by various organizations and of making sure that all interested parties are aware of what others are doing.
In order to keep pace with this, the council has developed a continually expanding group of committees for the purpose of coordinating research and various aspects of technology. At the present time the membership of such committees is over 3,300, with people drawn from the national research council, from other federal government organizations, from provincial organizations, from Canadian industry and from the universities. This committee structure has had a most important effect on Canadian scientific co-ordination.
I do not wish to go into these matters in detail since this is the function of the committee. It may, however, be worth while to mention briefly the developments which have taken place since the last committee met in 1956. As far as the national research council is concerned there have been no pronounced changes administratively. There has been, however, a noteworthy expansion in many ways. The university program has expanded greatly in order to keep up with the growth of Canadian university science, and the council's estimates for university support in science have risen from $3.0 million in 1956-57 to $9.2 million in the 1960-61 estimates. The laboratories have had a slow but steady increase. The total estimates of the council have risen from $18.6 million to $33.0 million in this period. This increase consists in part of a $6.2 million increase in university support in science. Correspondingly there has been an increase in laboratory operating estimates of $6.5 million, rising from $15 million to $21.5 million. The remaining change in estimates in the period has been brought about by an increase in capital estimates, by some increases in council revenue, and so on. In other words, during this period there has been an expansion of slightly over 200 per cent in the council's estimates for university support and of 43 per cent in the estimates for the operation of the council's laboratories.
The fundamental feature of the national research council has been its somewhat unusual governmental set-up which has developed over the past 40 years for the purpose of giving the council the flexibility and freedom which it needs to perform its functions. This flexibility is essential to the operations of the national research council, and its operations should be carried out in the future as in the past with sufficient independence to enable it to fulfil the purpose for which it was set up.
I do not intend to make a lengthy statement on Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

at this time. When the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited comes before the special committee he will not doubt wish to do so. There are, however, some general observations which I should like to make on introducing this resolution.
The government continues to support strongly the development of atomic power in this country. The special committee in 1956 in its final report hoped that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited would press forward in its work in the development of atomic power. This is being done. The estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961 for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited are $41,653,255 as against $32,092,300 for the 195960 fiscal year. This is an increase of $9,560,955 or 29.8 per cent.
The construction of the nuclear power demonstration station at Rolphton, Ontario, some 20 miles west of Chalk River on the Ottawa river, is well under way. Construction work should be finished by about the end of this year and the station should be operating a year from now. This nuclear power demonstration station has a rating of 20,000 kilowatts of electricity and will feed power into the Ontario Hydro grid system. It is being built to demonstrate the reliability of operation, the safety and the economics of the heavy water natural uranium type of reactor system. However, because the size of a reactor plant plays such an important role in the economy achieved, the cost per kilowatt-hour of power generated in this small station will be higher than for a conventional plant.
During the past four years and concurrently with the nuclear power demonstration program, the design and development of a full scale nuclear power plant has also been under way. The decision to proceed was based on the confidence of the design staff, the success of the nuclear power demonstration design, the success of the fuel development program at Chalk River, and on the realization that a full scale plant must be built and operated before the real costs of large stations can be known.
While Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is not a government department, parliament does exercise financial control over its operations. Treasury board reviews Atomic Energy of Canada Limited estimates in the same manner as it reviews those of government departments. The approved estimates are printed in the official estimates and in due course are considered and approved here in parliament.
Not many years ago, owing to security restrictions, there was very little information about atomic energy available to parliament or to the general public. Now the situation has 79951-0-247
Atomic Energy Committee changed completely. There is a very large and growing body of information available on atomic energy. Even the technical experts have, to some extent, to rely on abstracting services to keep themselves posted on what is being written. Last year Atomic Energy of Canada Limited alone issued 100 technical reports from Chalk River and had another 100 articles published in technical journals. A further 490 reports were prepared for internal use. I am informed that the Chalk River library now has 68,000 technical reports, and about 17,000 reports and micro cards are being added each year. A large number of these are being received from atomic energy organizations in other countries in exchange for the reports issued by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. For the layman, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited prepares non-technical reports and brochures and puts on exhibitions.
With all the information now available about atomic energy the government considers it useful at this time to set up a special committee as proposed in the resolution. It will give the members of the special commitee an opportunity to learn more about the activities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and about the Canadian nuclear power program. Any questions about the program can be fully discussed and aired. The minutes of proceedings and evidence will be a valuable record. They will be very carefully studied by the atomic energy experts and those responsible for atomic energy programs in other countries; just as the accounts of similar hearings held in other atomic energy countries are read with interest here. Canada is recognized as being one of the five leading atomic energy countries in the world. In the development of nuclear power reactors using natural uranium as fuel and heavy water as the moderator we are recognized as the most advanced country. Other countries are watching our program with keen interest.
The third field of investigation for the committee is Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. In 1956 when the former committee of the house met the operations of Eldorado were under review. The committee may wish to bring up to date the information pertaining to Eldorado in relation to its mines at Port Radium and Beaverlodge, its research and development activities and its program of uranium procurement and sales. In the intervening four years since the special committee of the house met in 1956 very considerable changes have taken place which the present proposed committee may wish to examine in detail.
The committee of 1956 held a series of 12 meetings throughout May and June.
3916	HOUSE OF
Atomic Energy Committee of that year. A similar series may be held by this committee as it considers the three important areas under investigation, the national research council, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. In the three fields Canada has been very progressive and has established a position of prominence that has been recognized by leading countries engaged in similar activities.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion as explained by the minister is that a select committee be appointed to consider the policies, operations and expenditures of the national research council, of the atomic energy corporation and of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. This is, as the minister said, a large undertaking more especially if we take into consideration the fact that we may be on the last leg of this session. It is certainly unfortunate that this motion could not have been brought forward before now.
Of course the order of procedure in committee and more particularly the order in which any one of the three crown companies will be called to appear before the committee, the number of witnesses who will be heard and the number of sittings which the committee will be able to hold are matters being left to the committee itself through the steering committee which will be appointed. However, in view of the great interest across Canada in the future and development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, in view of the recent controversy as regards the different methods of producing nuclear power and in view also of the amount of publicity which appeared in all Canadian newspapers during the last five or six months regarding the policy and operation of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, I express the hope that the activity of these two crown companies will be studied first.
In expressing this hope I do not wish to minimize the importance of the work of the national research council. On the contrary I feel that the work of the council is growing in importance and it is very appropriate that a thorough survey of its accomplishments since 1956 be made so that hon. members of parliament and the public in general know that in this field of general research we are not lagging behind.
On the other hand, time is running short and it would be most unfortunate if before the end of the present session we were not able to have a complete survey made of atomic research and all the activities of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. In


previous parliaments committees of a similar nature were set up. The first was in 1949 and that committee was known as the committee on atomic energy. In 1950 a special committee known as the committee on the national research council was established and sat for some time and thoroughly examined the operations of that crown company. In 1953 there was a second committee on atomic energy and finally in 1956, as the minister said, another special committee was established to examine into the role of government in the field of non-military research in Canada including operations in the field of atomic energy and in the work of the national research council. I understand that at that time, four years ago, a complete review was made of the activities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited.
We are aware that the national research council is well and efficiently operated and administered. The work of the council is of great importance to the country. Its achievements have contributed much in advancing material welfare in Canada. It contributes to the economic development of the country and the welfare of our people. We must also admit that it is an important adjunct in the defence of this country.
In 1956 we were told of the fine co-operation which existed between the council and industry. It was explained then that a free and constant flow of personnel and information is maintained between the council laboratories and industrial laboratories thus providing a most important source of information and assistance to the work of the council. In the early days of its history associated committees were established by the national research council and they have continued since. Hundreds of specialists have graciously and freely brought their knowledge and experience to bear upon the solution of many research problems. They have given their time and energy free of charge, as I have just said, and in doing this they have been a source of great strength to the council. For this they certainly deserve our most sincere thanks.
At this point I wish to extend to the officers and personnel of the national research council our congratulations and thanks for the fine work they are doing. The actual governing body of the national research council is an honorary advisory council consisting of 17 appointed members who are not government employees. They are men eminent in their fields such as university executives, deans, professors, industrialists, engineers and labour leaders. These men also bring freely to the council's deliberations their

talents, experience and achievements, things that cannot be purchased by money. These men speak with authority. They are experienced in their own field and receive no monetary remuneration. Certainly these gentlemen together with those I have mentioned earlier deserve our sincere gratitude and that of the country.
On this side of the house we feel it is appropriate for parliament to review again the activities of the national research council and to get acquainted with proposed future research developments. In fact we are of the opinion that it is highly important that members of parliament and Canadians in general be more familiar with all that is being done by the national research council to improve our technological know-how and the welfare of the nation.
During the past months there has been an increased interest across the country in some of the possibilities as well as in some of the problems for the peaceful application of atomic energy. Certainly, there is no subject which has excited more interest in recent years, and no subject about which there is still more confusion. This is readily understood. First of all, it has momentous implications for the future of mankind. Used for belligerent purposes by ambitious powers it can bring devastation to the whole world. Used for peaceful purposes it can bring untold benefits to mankind.
The most important civilian application of atomic energy is, without any doubt, the generation of nuclear power. There are also many other fields where atomic energy will play an important role in the future. How important those other uses may eventually become no one can tell.
The possibilities of using atomic energy for generating nuclear power have been the subject of a great number of articles and editorials in the newspapers of this country during the last five or six months. We have read long dissertations regarding peaceful applications of this tremendous source of energy. We have read many controversial statements on the kind of reactors that should be built for generating power, of the kind of material that should be used in such reactors, that is, natural uranium or enriched uranium, heavy water or graphite, and so forth.
We have heard of the plight of the uranium extracting industry and of the communities depending on this industry. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, most of what we have read in the newspapers has contributed to the confusion, and a great number of Canadians are also of the opinion that the present government, by its inaction, by its lack of policy, has also contributed to confuse the issue.
79951-0-247i
Atomic Energy Committee
There is no doubt that the Canadian people expect that this committee, with the help of the personnel of both or, I should say, maybe the three crown companies and the co-operation of outside witnesses, will be able to throw some light on the whole subject.
From the beginning Canada has played an important role in the development of atomic energy. Over the years our country has contributed much to the growing store of knowledge in this new and very complicated field. Canada, in many ways, has led the world in the development of atomic energy for peaceful uses. The first bombs for therapy for cancer treatment were produced at the atomic energy plant at Chalk River. I believe I am right when I say that, apart from the United States, Canada had the first reactor which was put into operation at Chalk River in 1945.
Our scientists and engineers are world leaders in natural uranium and heavy water reactors. There is no question that the NRX and NRU reactors at Chalk River are two of the finest research reactors known in the world. It is very appropriate that Canada should be taking a leading part at this time in the peaceful application of atomic energy, because many of the fundamental properties of radioactive elements and isotopes were discovered here by our own people.
It is commonly agreed that Canada must be included with those countries which are in the forefront in the development of nuclear science.
There is considerable difference of opinion as to the most suitable reactor which should be used for producing nuclear power. In the early days of Chalk River the NRX reactor was built and later the NRU. Both reactors were designed to use natural uranium and heavy water, and both were and are still considered fine reactors. First, design and feasibility studies were started early in 1954. From those studies came the outlined specifications for the demonstration power reactor, known as the NPD, nuclear power demonstrator, which is now being built, as the minister said, and I was very glad to hear it would be in operation in 1961, as previously foreseen. The nuclear fuel will be natural uranium and the moderator and primary coolant will be heavy water. This reactor was designed and is being built to produce or generate 20,000 kilowatts.
In 1955 and 1956, concurrently with the NPD program, a design study of a larger nuclear power station, with a capacity 10 times larger than the NPD, was carried out. The project has since been named the CANDU, Canadian deuterium uranium. Final
3918	HOUSE OF
Atomic Energy Committee approval to proceed with the engineering development phase of the CANDU was given in 1958, and we were told then that it would take three or four years to complete these preliminary studies and that by that time a reliable cost estimate of producing power with this reactor would be available. I hope that during the hearings of the committee we shall be able to get some definite figures, or close figures, on the probable cost of producing power in the NPD, and maybe the experts can deduce the cost of producing power in the CANDU. We were also informed that once a final decision is taken to go ahead with the construction of the CANDU it would take four of five years to have it in operation. As much as we are able to appreciate the quality of the experimental work which has been completed to date, we can say that we are well on our way and we will soon be producing nuclear power with a reactor using natural uranium and heavy water.
During the past year a certain amount of criticism has been directed toward this program and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has been blamed for having concentrated its work on one kind of reactor only, namely that of using heavy water and natural uranium. As it is-and I do not pose as an expert-I am not convinced that these criticisms are well founded. First of all, scientists and engineers who in the past have made a high reputation for themselves have started on a program which they believed was the right one. They have stuck with it, and it is undeniable that they have attained a certain amount of success. Second, we must not forget that our resources place some limit on our ability to undertake a highly diversified program. This is clearly understood, and I for one think that it is much better to do one job well than to do several jobs poorly. However, I believe I am on solid ground when I say that the majority of us here are not experts in this field of atomic energy and that only when we have heard the pros and cons will we be able to judge what is being done at the present time.
There are a great number of questions to be answered by those who will appear before this proposed committee. I am sure the committee will have full co-operation from the witnesses and in this way its work will be much easier and more satisfactory.
The present state of the uranium industry, Mr. Speaker, is not too encouraging. During the last world war, with the Belgian Congo we were the only producers of this metal. In the post-war years military demand continued to be the driving force in the worldwide search for uranium and the opening


of new mines. During the past five years our country became a major producer and in 1959 some 15,000 tons of uranium oxide, having a total value of more than $300 million, were processed in the 25 Canadian operating mines. During that same period large deposits of uranium were discovered in the United States, and during the course of the last two years it became apparent that the United States atomic energy commission, which was our most important client, might reduce its purchases of uranium from Canada.
Under contracts with Canada which were to expire March 31, 1962, and March 31, 1963, the United States atomic energy commission had the option of extending its purchases through December 31, 1966. In August, 1959 the Canadian government was informed by letter that the government of the United States would not exercise any portion of the options to purchase Canadian uranium in the post-1962 period. This was disclosed only on November 6, 1959 when the arrangements made by Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited and the Uinted States atomic energy commission and the United Kingdom atomic energy authority to allow a stretch-out of deliveries of uranium to December 31, 1966 were announced. This drastic action of our friends and clients took the floor from under the industry and from now until the end of 1966 the production of uranium in this country will gradually decline from 15,000 tons, as it was last year, to a mere few hundred tons in 1966 or 1967.
Canada unfortunately is the first country to feel the impact of the growing surplus of uranium. I must repeat that it is hard to understand the do-nothing policy of the present government during the latter part of 1958 and all of 1959 regarding our sales of uranium to the United States. The Canadian industry was developed at the urging of the United States government to satisfy the needs of that country for vital sources of uranium oxide. Even after the discovery of large reserves, fears of shortage persisted in the minds of our friends to the south, so much so that they continued to take options on the Canadian production after 1962.
It is very difficult to understand why the present government did not press further the case of the Canadian uranium industry when there was still time to negotiate some satisfactory arrangement. The United States atomic energy commission should have at least consented to exercise part of its options in the post-1962 period. No, Mr. Speaker, the government paid absolutely no attention to our requests for action. The government paid no attention to a reasonable request presented to it by Canadian Metal Mining Association

in January, 1959. One of the recommendations of the Canadian Metal Mining Association was to this effect, and I should like to quote it again:
The government of Canada do everything in its power-
That was in January, 1959.
-to have the government of the United States exercise its options on Canadian uranium production up to December 31, 1966, and give, at the earliest possible date, notification of its intention to do so.
Nothing was done officially by the Canadian government previous to August 7, 1959 when the Canadian charge d'affaires ad interim wrote to the secretary of state of the United States. At this point I wish to put the contents of these letters on the record. The letter from our charge d'affaires is dated August 7, 1959 and is addressed to the Hon. Christian A. Herter, secretary of state of the United States, Washington, D.C. It reads as follows:
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to the options for the purchase of Canadian uranium between 1962 and 1966 held by the United States atomic energy commission.
As the United States government is fully aware, the Canadian uranium industry was expanded to its present level of output primarily to supply the nuclear source material required for defence needs. The Canadian government considers it essential that the industry now be enabled to maintain itself on a sound and economic basis so that it may continue to serve those and other requirements and assumes that the United States government shares the view that this is a desirable objective. In these circumstances	and	in order	that	theCanadian uranium industry may be in a position to consider what steps	can	be taken	to bring
production and probable demand more nearly into balance my government wishes to ask whether the United States atomic energy commission will be authorized to exercise some or all of its options on Canadian production between 1962 and 1966.
In asking for an advance	clarification of	thispoint, I feel that I may	rely	upon the	close	and
mutually beneficial co-operation in this field which has long existed between our two countries.
Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
That is signed by Mr. R. A. Farquharson, charge d'affaires ad interim. The answer to the letter of the charge d'affaires is dated August 28, 1959 and is addressed to His Excellency A. D. P. Heeney, ambassador of Canada, and reads as follows:
Excellency:
I have the honour to refer to your note No. 476 of August 7, 1959 regarding the exercise of options by the United States atomic energy commission for the purchase of Canadian uranium between 1962 and 1966.
Discussions have taken place between the department of state and the atomic energy commission, and the department has been informed that the commission will not be in a position to exercise any of these options by March 31, 1961.
The government of the United States is not unmindful of the contribution made by the government of Canada in supplying uranium for the
Atomic Energy Committee
defence of the free world both during and after world war II and also for the development of peaceful uses of atomic energy.
However, the atomic energy commission is presently committed to purchase more uranium during the next three years than it requires. Considering the surplus that will be acquired during these years, the commission probably is fully committed for its uranium requirements for the next four or five years. Beyond that there are still heavy commitments, principally with domestic producers, which extend to the end of 1966.
The present position of over-commitment is due to larger increases in domestic production than anticipated. The United States atomic energy commission has already taken steps to stretch out domestic deliveries and to limit its obligations under a domestic procurement program publicly announced in 1956.
Therefore, it is with the greatest regret that the government of the United States must inform the government of Canada that it will not be in a position to exercise its options.
In view of the importance of this matter the substance of this note has been discussed with the President.
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
These two letters, reveal, first of all, that it was the charge d'affaires who communicated with the secretary of state of the United States.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Was that not because our ambassador, Mr. Heeney, was ill at that time?


Armand Dumas: He may have been ill at that time. I appreciate that, but there must have been a higher ranking officer at the embassy when Mr. Heeney was away. I will go further than that. I have already mentioned that this statement should have been presented through the highest channels. I feel that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself should have got in touch with the President of the United States. I have said that previously. A much more effective procedure should have been followed. This problem deserved at that time the personal attention of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should have discussed this matter personally with the President of the United States.
Now it is too late and from 1960 on we are left with an industry which will produce less and less uranium. This is an extraordinary thing. This will be the first industry which will be called on to cut down. We have a tremendous amount of uranium. Of course I understand that there are also large amounts of uranium in some other countries. In the United States there is a tremendous amount of uranium. As was mentioned in the answer to His Excellency Mr. Heeney, the United States said they are committed to buy uranium from their own producers until 1966; I refer to the production of uranium after 1962. Of

Atomic Energy Committee course, charity begins at home; there is no question about that. However, I feel that the United States government should have taken up or exercised part of the options in the post-1962 period.
Whatever the long term prospects for the uranium industry may be, it is clear that the communities depending on this industry, namely Elliot Lake, Bancroft and Uranium City, are experiencing serious trouble.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not have the opportunity to hear the minister speak and I am not sure how much he opened up in his address in moving this motion. However, I think it is appropriate to remind the hon. member who has the floor and others who may speak that the motion is to appoint a committee to consider matters such as those which the hon. member is now discussing. He really should direct his remarks to the desirability of appointing the committee illustrating them as he may properly do by the matters which should be brought before the committee or which the committee could usefully consider. But it is going beyond the scope of the motion to present to the house now matters which should be presented to the committee or in other words to debate matters with which the committee ought to deal. I feel obliged to say that cautionary word and to express the hope that this debate, which could range all over the place, will be directed fairly closely to the precise subject before the house, namely the desirability of setting up this committee to review these three particular operations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance? On a resolution of this kind that proposes to set up a committee dealing with two crown corporations which are directly concerned with the uranium industry is it in order to discuss the present situation and the operations of that industry in respect of this motion?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is probably what the hon. member is doing so I am not really answering a hypothetical question. In my view it would be relevant to discuss or to mention the state of the uranium industry in communities as illustrative of the desirability of having the committee review these problems. However, I suggest that is not relevant to debate at length the matters which the proposed committee is to consider.


Armand Dumas: I will abide by what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but I hope you will permit me to finish the remarks I started when I was interrupted. I was saying that whatever the long term prospects for the uranium industry may be, it is clear that the communities


depending on this industry, namely Elliot Lake, Bancroft and Uranium City, are experiencing serious trouble and their problem is not one to which it is easy to find a solution. I admit that it is a difficult problem. However, Elliot Lake, for instance, with a population of close to 25,000 at the end of 1959 has seen its population come down to maybe about 20,,000 or 21,000, and the prospects are that it will stabilize at about 15,000.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member because he has made a very constructive speech indeed; but if we now enter into the field of discussing the communities that will be suffering from unemployment, that is a much broader field than is indicated in the setting up of a committee. I did not touch on those subjects in the course of my opening remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no doubt that what the minister says is so. After cautioning the hon. member, I perhaps gave him the nod to finish what he was saying. However, I hope he will bring those remarks to a close and will relate his discussion of these problems to the necessity of having this committee.


Armand Dumas: I have only a few more remarks to make. Of course the minister is right in saying that he did not touch on the problem. He could not very well touch on it because it is a thorn in the government's side. However, I will abide by what you have said, Mr. Speaker.
Energy is one of the keys to our national growth. On a per head basis we are one of the largest users of electricity. It is clear that in the near future the need for more extensive power resources will continue to be increasingly felt in the more populous and highly industrialized areas and provinces of this country. Ten to fifteen years from now we may have to produce twice as much energy as we are producing now.
For this reason careful consideration should be given to the possibility of developing electrical power by nuclear reactors. If we succeed, some portion-however small it is-of our domestic uranium production will be put to work in this country, thereby avoiding the large importations of coal, with the necessary adverse effect on Canada's balance of trade with the United States.
Canada has had an early start in the science of atomic energy and has been one of the pioneer countries in research for peaceful uses of this tremendous source of energy. Are we now lagging behind? I do not think

so. However, this is one of the questions which will have to be answered before this proposed committee.
Another question which will have to be answered is the following one: are we experimenting with the right kind of reactors? Again, I believe we are, but there are many people who are not of this opinion. This controversy will also have to be resolved.
Are we following up on prospective markets for uranium? This is one question which will have to be answered by the minister himself. I hope the minister will be present at this committee and I hope that we shall have for once a clear outline of the policy of the present government on uranium and on atomic energy. I can tell the minister that we will try to give him all the co-operation possible.


William Arnold Peters: We welcome the setting up of this committee, Mr. Speaker, but I think we view it with some anticipation and some regrets. If we took 20 members, which is the size of this committee, out of the house this afternoon it would appear that there would be no sitting at all. We would either not be sitting in the committee or not sitting in the house, because there are only approximately 20 of us here at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is out of order in pursuing that line.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to part three of the resolution which gives the committee power to sit while the house is sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has the right to refer to the numbers of the committee but not to the numbers in the house.


William Arnold Peters: I was trying to indicate how difficult it will be to sit on all these committees and at the same time maintain attendance in the house, particularly for a small group.
We are very pleased that this committee is to be formed. It would appear that the three organizations which will be brought before us are the national research council, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, all connected in a very immediate sense with the production of uranium and atomic energy and power. If there is any place where we have been ridiculous in our natural resources it has been in this field of uranium and atomic energy. The previous speaker pointed out how it was his opinion that we should have signed options to take effect in 1962 and that other things which should have been done could have been done. But the
Atomic Energy Committee fact is that we neglected to set up this type of committee when we went into the production of uranium in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are putting the cart ahead of the horse even yet because of the situation in the towns which are affected by the production of uranium and the results which have taken place in those towns. When we originally went into the production of uranium Canada should obviously have had a more firm guarantee from the United States that they would participate in that program beyond the five-year limit. It would seem to me that the previous government showed very little regard for the people who would be working in those areas of Elliot Lake, Bancroft and Uranium City when they signed contracts of only five years' duration.
It would seem to me also that they were remiss in their duty in allowing the companies to set up such gigantic operations as they did. I do not believe it was ever the intention of the government to extend to mining companies the rights which they now have on such a large scale. In the Elliot Lake area the total cost of going into production will be paid for in a period of five years, and the complete operation as far as the money invested is concerned it is based on the proposition that you will get your money back at the end of five years' time. These are factors which the government should have concerned itself with in years gone by. These are some of the things the previous government did nothing about and which the present government is doing very little about.
Mr. Speaker, while it is not mentioned in the resolution, I would hope that we are now going to hear a report from the committee which has been set up by the government to investigate the methods of assisting the communities which have been concerned with the production of uranium. Recently, in fact today, I received a phone call from Elliot Lake and they are very concerned in that area not only with unemployment but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will refer to the resolution he will see it relates to the establishment of a committee to consider the policy, operations and expenditures of the national research council, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. I see nothing in the resolution authorizing the committee to deal with the specific problems which have been discussed by the house concerning Elliot Lake, and even if it is within the purview of the committee, it is something for the committee to decide when it sits. Discussion of the policy or the effect

Atomic Energy Committee or result of the policy followed by these three bodies should be deferred until the committee meets and the problems are brought before the committee; they should not be discussed in the house.


William Arnold Peters: One of the reasons I assume the committee is being set up is that the resolution mentions it is setting up a select committee to consider the policy, operations and expenditures of the national research council, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. This call I received referred to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and its policy in buying uranium and as related to the stretching out of contracts now taking place. It also referred to the sale which is taking place through Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited in relationship to the contracts of some of the companies which have not been able to continue operations. As I understand it, not only have they been unable to make arrangements when the company itself says it can continue to operate, but arguments have been put forward to Mr. Gilchrist of Eldorado in which they pointed out that the company is capable of making a contribution in the area. I should like to refer to one case, the case of Stanrock. Their case will be before Eldorado before very long and Mr. Gilchrist has already heard representations from them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hesitate to interrupt again but I think we are wandering rather far afield in discussing individual contracts or proposed changes, and things of that nature. I think we should really restrict our remarks to the advantages or disadvantages of setting up this committee.


Mr. Speaker:: What the hon. member is saying now, without of course prejudging the issue, would appear to me to be a relevant matter to bring before the committee. But at this time the house is not concerned with the rights and wrongs of the policies of these crown corporations; it is only concerned with whether it should set up the committee in order to delegate to that committee the responsibility of hearing about those policies. If we permit a debate on those policies here, we only duplicate rather than save the time of hon. members of the house.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the matter, what is before the house for decision is the wisdom of whether or not a committee should be set up to examine into these matters. How can the house pass judgment on that question if it does not know what is the type of problem that requires examination by the committee, and the type of problem which requires examination surely

is the question of contracts made by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited as the government's buying agency for all uranium in Canada. Surely the house must know something about whether there are questions outstanding pertaining to those contracts and other related matters before it can decide whether a committee should be set up. While it is true that these matters can all be discussed by the select committee, surely they can also be discussed here in order that the house can reach a decision as to the wisdom, or lack of it, in setting up the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree to this extent, as I have already said, that to illustrate the problems which call for the attention of this committee it is in order to outline what the problems are, but not to debate them. Surely the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mc-Ilraith) does not contend that on a motion to set up a committee to hear these matters the house would be justified in spending its time in hearing matters which could be presented to the committee. I do not want to draw too fine a line but, really, the discussion of the results and effects of the policies of these three corporations should only be brought into this debate as illustrations of the need to set up a committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might add a word on this point of order? I wish merely to say that the minister, introducing this resolution, dealt at some length with the question of research. We have heard a long speech con-taing detailed discussion of research questions, and in line with your ruling that there can be some reference to the policies being followed, though not a detailed discussion, I merely wish to point out that there has been a fairly wide discussion of research as it is carried on by these various organizations.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was perhaps not here when I said I did not have the privilege of hearing the minister, and that 1 did not know how widely he had opened the discussion of this subject. I certainly would not wish to prevent a discussion of anything which was contained in the minister's discussion of the matter, within reasonable limits.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On this point, may I offer a correction to the hon. member for Assini-boia. I did say more about research than about some of the other matters to come before the committee, but it was a factual report on the things which the national research council has been doing. I did not deal with questions of policy concerning any of the three organizations under consideration.


William Arnold Peters: All I wanted to say was that we are not satisfied with the operation of the committee that is being set up by the government, the committee that could probably be called the Elliot Lake committee, because we are not getting any reports on it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is now discussing an entirely different matter. He is discussing some other committee. I thought our purpose now was to discuss the setting up of this committee to investigate Eldorado Mining and Refining, and so on.


William Arnold Peters: If the minister would just wait a moment, I intend to relate my remarks to that subject. What we are interested in is a much better method of handling this problem as it affects atomic energy, the Eldorado organization and the production of uranium. We are not satisfied with the situation as it has developed up to now. There is, I believe, a very dangerous tendency to combine all the problems of the uranium industry in one field. In my opinion, they are diversified.
The problem of uranium contracts has, I think, been discussed this afternoon-the contracts with the United States, and the circumstances in which this problem developed. I suggest that this proposed committee would have an obligation to call representatives of the industry before it, representatives of the companies which are now producing uranium for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and for exports to the United States, in addition to representatives of the unions concerned in order that they may put their views forward.
As I began to say, Mr. Gilchrist from the Eldorado organization hears the presentations by the various companies following which he or, if you like, the cabinet make decisions as to which companies shall continue to operate and which shall not. It seems to me that this is the same problem which faces us, though on a bigger scale, in relation even to the type of uranium to be developed in Canada at the present time. I shall not discuss the question of enriched uranium as against natural uranium or whether we should use a graphite coolant or a heavy water coolant, although these are problems which are in fact being discussed widely throughout the country. There is no agreement on this question. Neither is there agreement among the top people in the industry that the contracts are being allocated on a proper basis. We believe that Eldorado itself should be able to bid for contracts when made available by mines which themselves indicate that they are not going to make a success of their operations during the limited time they have to run.


Gordon Minto Churchill: 1 was waiting for the hon. member to finish his paragraph, but I feel 79951-0-248
Atomic Energy Committee obliged on a question of privilege to correct his statement that Mr. Gilchrist, president of Eldorado Mining and Refining Company Limited, determines whether contracts are awarded or not. That is an incorrect statement.


William Arnold Peters: As I understand it, he does the hearing. If you, Mr. Speaker, would allow me to state the case, I understand that at the present time he is hearing representations from Stanrock, an independent mine in the Elliot Lake area. The unions and the company have made their presentations. The company has stated it would be able to make $40 million gross on its contract. They have six million pounds of uranium on their contract yet to produce. They have stated they should be able to pay their shareholders $2,500,000 in dividends before that contract expires.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I really must rise again on a point of order because I think we are getting far afield from the purpose of this motion by discussing special contracts, offers, and things of that nature that are happening in the uranium industry. The questions that the hon. member has in mind may be raised during the sittings of the committee, but surely not at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I fully agree that the details of these matters which could be brought before the committee itself should not take up the time of the house now. Otherwise there would be no point in setting up the committee. The hon. member has indicated the questions which concern him and certain people and which he feels could properly be brought before the committee. To that extent he is in order, but it is not in order to discuss the details.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see this resolution before us, and trust the committee will be set up as soon as possible. I am gratified to see the wide terms of reference, particularly with regard to policy, which have been provided and which will enable the committee to engage upon the broadest possible survey of the substantive matters mentioned in the resolution.
I hope that the committee will, in fact, direct its attention to a considerable and serious discussion of the direction which our present research and development in atomic energy power is now taking. Frankly, this is a technical and complex subject, somewhat beyond me, but when I hear the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas), who is a competent professional engineer, vouchsafing his misgivings I certainly have no reason to be ashamed to say what I have said. While I
3924	HOUSE OF
Atomic Energy Committee realize that this is a subject of great technical breadth and depth yet, I think it is safe to say that I share the concern in the minds of many people as to whether we in Canada- and this is one problem which, I trust, the committee will investigate-by restricting our development and research to the heavy water type of atomic reactor are not putting all our atomic eggs into one basket, particularly in view of the fact that in the United States they have established several diffusion plants which are engaged in the production of enriched uranium.
That is an area which I trust this committee will carefully study. I say that because not only as a member of this house but as a Canadian I have a personal interest in this subject also in the sense that I come from the near north which is the source of much of our uranium production and the potential source of more and which contains the most logical place for the large quantities of hydro power required for the production of enriched uranium, namely at the proposed Peace river dam. I hope therefore the committee will give some serious thought to our policy in connection with the grave, vexatious and complex problem of atomic power production in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this motion. I wish to point out first that it is now May 16 and on February 16, two months ago today, as reported at page 1108 of Hansard I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) a question in these words:
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider discussing with the house leader the possibility of making arrangements to move at the earliest possible moment the motion setting up a select committee to consider the policy, operations and expenditures of the national research council, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, so the question of the future of the uranium industry, which is of such national importance, as well as one involving grave local emergencies, can be fully discussed at an early date.
In reply the Prime Minister said:
I think the committee in question, if the house agrees, should be convened at the earliest possible date.
That was two months ago and we are only now considering this motion. I thought at that time it would be a motion to permit us to discuss the whole future of the Canadian uranium industry, and at an early date.
There have been similar motions moved in the past setting up a committee for this purpose, as the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) has said. In the light of what is and what is not permissible in a discussion of this kind it is interesting to recall that
IMr. Baldwin.]

when the motion was made on February 24, 1956 by a predecessor of my hon. friend who has moved this motion, the discussion on that motion ranged far and wide over the whole question of government atomic energy policy and indeed the discussion covered 63 pages of Hansard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, it lasted two and a half days.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, and to this discussion my hon. friend made his own contribution.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, I did not take part in it. I did not agree at the time that the discussion should take so long.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) certainly had a long contribution to make beginning on page 1700 of Hansard of that date. In any event the discussion took two and a half days and covered 63 pages of the record.
We have substantially the same motion before us today to set up a committee to consider the policy and operations of these governmental agencies and whether in our view it is wise to set up this committee for that purpose. Two of these agencies, I need hardly point out to the house, deal with the uranium industry and atomic energy generally up to the point where one of them, I believe I am right in saying, is the sole marketing agency for this commodity.
My friend the hon. member for Villeneuve speaking on this motion has already indicated the importance which has been attached in the past and which perhaps will be attached to an even greater extent in the future to research. I should like to join the hon. gentleman in the tribute he paid to the agencies in question which are referred to in this motion and to the work they have done and are doing to the skill and devotion of the officials, the officers and the workers of these three government corporations, although I think the national research council hardly qualifies as a government corporation.
Nothing could be more important than research in the development of our country and nothing could be more important than the work done in that field by these agencies of the government. Perhaps in the future a great deal more will have to be done in this field because it is becoming increasingly obvious that no country can keep up in development unless it keeps up in research. It is sad to think that at this time hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on defence with results which to say the least are inadequate to meet the emergencies of the time when, yet compared to that amount

so little is being appropriated for the kind of research which would be of inestimable benefit to the development of our country.
I want to say a few words about the uranium industry because it is one of the matters which will undoubtedly be discussed by the committee. I think it is appropriate to consider the state of that industry at the present time before the committee is set up. No doubt the committee will go into the matter in detail and will call witnesses and experts, but this is an opportunity to give our views in the house on the subject which is covered by the words "policy and operations" of these agencies as those words appear in the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member goes on, in view of his indication of what he intends to say, may I say there have been some unfortunate precedents in the past of allowing extended debates on motions to set up committees. I am not sure whether those were accounted for by the common consent of the house that a debate take place in general terms on all the matters which would come before the committee, but I would hope that the house would follow what in my mind is a more correct precedent of debating the desirability of setting up the committee, illustrating that point as the hon. gentleman is entitled to do by reference to the present state of the industry in so far as it is involved in the matters referred to the committee. What I want to guard against -and I ask for the co-operation of the house in this-is covering here what will have to come before the committee and will be the subject of debate when the committee reports so that we do not triplicate our efforts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Without regard to what may have been done on earlier occasions and which is perhaps irrelevant to your ruling I will do my best to keep within the limits Your Honour has set down.
One of the matters which undoubtedly will have to be discussed by the committee and indeed it is one of the most important subjects will be civil uses of atomic energy. Already there has been some indication in this debate as to the importance of that matter and the progress which is being made in that regard. As has already been pointed out, we in this country have taken our stand on one type of heavy water reactor. I am in no position to support or criticize that decision because it is a highly technical decision and naturally one can only be guided by the technical advice one receives on a matter of such complicated scientific importance.
In any event the decision has been made and when the committee meets no doubt 79951-0-248i
Atomic Energy Committee there will be experts brought before the committee to explain and justify that decision. One effect of the decision which has already created its own controversies in Canada among those who are on both sides qualified to have views on this matter has been to put us in a different situation in regard to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes in the future from that which faces the United States in its development program today because they have apparently decided to proceed with the development of a different kind of reactor.
In due course we shall find out who is right, or who is wrong, or, indeed, perhaps both will be right, or conceivably even both may be wrong; but the fact remains that at the present time the divergence in policy and decision in this matter between the two countries does constitute a problem for the development of Canada in this field in so far as the use of uranium and the export of uranium are concerned because the United States will be competing with us in this field and it is a competition which is going to be, as it has already been, very difficult for us to meet. I say that because the United States has great resources at its disposal; it can offer reactors to other countries, make agreements covering the use of uranium by other countries, build reactors for them free, or on credit arrangements we cannot meet. That condition, because of the nature of the reactor in which only enriched uranium can be used-and we do not produce enriched uranium-poses a problem which we shall have to face.
It may be that one day in this country we shall have to go into the field of enriched uranium. I hope it will be one of the matters which will come before this committee, where we can get expert opinion because, as the minister knows, there are even contrary views on that subject. Perhaps we shall be able to come to some conclusion in the committee as to the cost and the desirability, or the undesirability, of proceeding at this time or in the near future with a plant for the production of enriched uranium in Canada, how much it will cost if we were to proceed with it, and all that kind of thing. Because we are going to have very great difficulties indeed in developing markets in the world for our uranium if we have to compete with the United States under contracts, the kind of which I have indicated and which would require the users of the reactors constructed by the United States to purchase a certain type of uranium which cannot be secured from Canada.
There are other limitations in our expansion in this field that we shall have to face. There is the limitation brought about in the existing individual agreements, the bilateral

Atomic Energy Committee agreements we make with other countries by international agreement. I know that these limitations are pretty strong but I think they are such, because of the nature of this commodity and the use to which it is being put in other fields than for peaceful purposes, as are valid at this time. It may, however, cause us difficulty if other exporters of uranium do not accept the same limitations in the same way as we do.
There is, of course, another difficulty facing the uranium industries immediately, a far more serious difficulty than the potential one which I have mentioned, and that is the state of the industry arising out of the refusal of the United States to take up the options in the contracts that were made between agencies of the two governments some years ago. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that this would be one of the most important matters that could be brought before this committee. It is one that should be discussed before the committee in all of its aspects, its scientific, commercial aspect, it employment aspect and, if you like, also its diplomatic aspects.
The circumstances of the original contract, the circumstances under which it was signed, I think are pretty well known to the house and, in view of the importance of this matter as a subject for discussion in the committee, I hope I may be permitted to trace the circumstances but not at any great length. It is well to remember that it is only a few years ago when we negotiated this contract with the United States in circumstances which, of course, were very different from those which existed last autumn when the question of taking up the options came up. I recall, as other hon. members will recall, that the Canadian government of that day was begged to explore with every possible rapidity to discover and to develop every ounce of uranium that could be found in this country as a product which was of vital importance for not only American but for collective defence generally. We were begged at that time to proceed with all possible speed and it was in those circumstances that a contract was signed for a five-year period, with an option to renew, at a time when there was such a shortage of uranium in the world that it was stated by our friends to the south that if they could not count on the supplies that were available in Canada collective defence would be jeopardized. So the development took place of which we are aware, and which no doubt will be considered in all of its ramifications by the committee which is being set up.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, there was no question in anybody's mind about an oversupply of uranium; there was a great fear in

a lot of people's mind about an undersupply of uranium. At that time, when this question came before a committee of this house of the type we are proposing to set up now, the preoccupation in the minds of the members of that committee was whether-and I mentioned this in the house before-we should tie up our available production of uranium for such a long period as five years. The government of that day was criticized by the opposition of the time because we had committed ourselves for five years to the shipment of all the uranium we could produce under those contracts to one source of consumption, the United States of America. If it was impossible at that time to foresee the future, did the same situation prevail a couple of years ago when the circumstances had very greatly changed?
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was discussing, not in detail but in general, the circumstances surrounding the signing of the contract between the United States and Canada with regard to the purchase of uranium. This is obviously one of the matters which the committee will wish to go into in detail because it has had an important bearing on the development and the recent slowing down of this important industry in Canada.
As I pointed out, at the time the contract was signed there was a condition of shortage in this vital defence material but it became quite clear subsequent to the signing of the contract that it was the policy of the United States government to encourage and subsidize exploration and development within its own boundaries. It was successful in doing this in terms of domestic production to the point where by 1959 United States production had risen to a total of 16,300 tons of uranium oxide per year contrasted with 15,497 tons of Canadian production. There is an interesting review of this development in the monthly review of the Bank of Nova Scotia for March, 1960, entitled "Uranium and Atomic Energy", which gives some information it would be interesting for the committee to have and which confirms what I have just said, that beginning in 1955 the United States made a big effort to increase its own production of this commodity, with the results I have just mentioned.

It was quite obvious after 1956, when this development was in full swing, that if the United States were to continue to give contracts to its domestic producers this constituted a threat to the developing Canadian industry which development was taking place at the urgent request of the United States authorities. It seemed quite obvious to me, and I have expressed this view in the House of Commons more than once in the last two years, that if the Canadian industry was to be protected, if the options were to be taken up in whole or, more likely, in part, then this would require diplomatic intervention at the highest level in both governments.
This afternoon the hon. member for Ville-neuve put on the record the report which was tabled in the house which showed that that kind of intervention did not take place, that there was merely one note sent to the United States government from the Canadian embassy calling the attention of the United States authorities to this development and its effect on the Canadian industry; a note which was sent by the charge d'affaires ad interim who was the information counsellor in the embassy and, incidentally, one of the best information officers any embassy of any government could have.
As a result the United States informed us last August that they were not going to take up any of these options. That information was not made public until late October of 1959 and as a result of that decision on the part of the United States government, a decision which I claim does not reflect the kind of industrial defence co-operation between the two countries which is so often claimed to be in effect, the industry in Canada today is in its present deteriorating position. This is one of the matters which the committee will wish to go into in great detail.
Since the United States has taken this decision-we have an even greater grievance against the United States on this point-with the disastrous effect it has had on the Canadian industry, the government of the United States, if my information is correct, has given new contracts to its own producers at a time when our production is being cut off. I, as has perhaps the minister, have read a magazine called Mining World for February, 1960 in which there is a great deal of detailed information about new contracts that has been given by the United States authorities to United States producers in this year and extending through 1966.
I claim that if we had some cause to complain about the decision last summer to ignore the options we have even greater cause to complain at subsequent activities of the United States atomic energy authorities
Atomic Energy Committee in increasing production in their own country since that time when ours is suffering from the decision taken by the United States, which has ignored a situation in which they were so interested four or five years ago when we were asked to sign this contract. That is one of the things that this committee will want to go into in great detail. We will certainly wish to get all the information we can as to what the government did or did not do to protect the Canadian industry.
I was going to go on, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the effect of this decision on some Canadian localities in terms of employment and in other respects but I bow to your ruling on this matter. No doubt that is something the committee will be able to discuss. Perhaps also we will have another opportunity to discuss it in the house later in the session. Meanwhile I should like to say in conclusion that, as the hon. member for Villeneuve has pointed out, we welcome the establishment of this committee. We asked for it three months ago and we were told then that it would be set up shortly. It is now May 16 and the committee will be set up shortly after May 16. We will co-operate in the work of that committee as best we can and we hope there will be some constructive results from it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a very few words at this stage of the discussion of the resolution which is to set up a committee to study the policy, operations and expenditures of the national research council, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. I think it is very much in order that crown corporations or other emanations of the crown should appear before parliamentary committees from time to time to discuss with members of the House of Commons their operations. We support every effort that is being made by these organizations in the field of research and research for peaceful uses for atomic energy as we feel this is a particular matter to which Canada should give emphasis.
My main purpose in rising is to bring tc the minister's attention once again requests that he has received, I believe, from various organizations in Saskatchewan having to do with Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited and the situation at Uranium City, Saskatchewan. I believe that the Stanleigh uranium contract came up the other day for a bid and that Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited did not place a bid for that contract. The Uranium City chamber of commerce for some months now has been pressing the government with regard to the policy of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited with regard to
3928	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act bids for the purchase of unfilled uranium contracts. I have in mind a report which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post of November 16, 1959 and headed "Let Saskatchewan Mine buy Uranium Contracts". The first paragraph of it reads as follows:
The Uranium City chamber of commerce and the municipal council Sunday expressed concern at reports that uranium producers in eastern Canada are exerting pressure on the federal government to withhold from Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited the right given other producers to purchase unfilled uranium contracts.
I would hope that the committee would give consideration to this request in discussing this matter with Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. I would appreciate from the minister any information he can give the house as to the policy of this company. As far as my information is concerned, I feel that this is a reasonable request that has been made. The people of Uranium City in Saskatchewan are just as much concerned over the position of the uranium industry as are the people at Elliot Lake, Bancroft and other areas that are affected.
I believe that a further communication went to the minister early this month, that it reiterates the position taken in November and asks once again that Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited should exercise the right to place bids on these unfilled uranium contracts.
The minister will appreciate the situation at Uranium City. In answering a question of mine the other day and a question of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) he informed the house that two people from his department were making a survey of the situation at Uranium City. We hope that a report is received at an early date on which action can be taken to assist this community. But I would ask the minister, on behalf of the people of Uranium City and those who are affected, to give consideration, as the minister reporting for Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, to the suggestion that this company along with others should have the opportunity to exercise the right to bid on unfilled uranium contracts so that the effect of the depression now prevalent in the uranium industry will not fall unduly on the community of Uranium City.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-57, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act-Mr. Walker-Mr. Rea in the chair.
[Stage Direction]

On clause 1-Termination of contributions.
Mr. Bourget:: I should like again to ask the minister if he would like to tell the house whether, according to this bill, the province of Quebec will be able to take advantage of this program and also will be entitled to recover 50 per cent of the cost of previous construction, that is to say construction done between 1928 and 1949. I asked a question of the minister, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether the minister heard the question.


David James Walker: I thought my friend must be indulging in the humour for which he is famous, Mr. Chairman. This question has been ruled out of order seven times in the debate thus far and it has nothing to do with the matter before the committee. We are considering clause 1 of the bill. The question of Quebec has nothing to do with it. This is a Trans-Canada Highway Act amendment. Nine provinces are participating in it. The province of Quebec is not a participant. In clause 1 we are considering extending the time for the completion of the highway until 1963. That is the only matter before the committee at this time. The matter was discussed ad nauseam on the principle at the resolution stage and on second reading and my hon. friend has asked the same question. Hansard is studded with it. I thought he was joking tonight when he asked that question. Under all the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to appear to be out of order in trying to answer a question which has been declared by the Chair so many times to be out of order. I therefore refuse even to attempt to answer any such questions directed to me further by my hon. friend. I say this in all good faith and in upholding the ruling of the Chair.


Maurice Bourget: As a member of the House of Commons and a representative of the province of Quebec and when we are voting under this bill $50 million for the next three years, am I not entitled to receive an answer from the minister? Am I out of order, Mr. Chairman? I would like to know from you whether I am out of order when I ask if the province of Quebec is entitled to take part in this program and also to recoup 50 per cent of the cost of construction of prior work done on the roads in the province today. I think I am in order and that the minister was wrong to tell me that I was out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the minister I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the minister is a very recent arrival in this house, not too familiar yet with the rules of the house and even less so with the practice of the house. The minister does not seem

to realize that this bill is an amendment to a measure which provides for agreements not with nine provinces of Canada but with all ten, and the mere fact that one of the provincial governments up to now has not seen fit to enter that agreement does not alter the fact that the legislation which was put on the statute books in 1949 and has been amended several times since applies to all ten provinces and all parts of Canada. Before we are asked, as we are being asked in this bill, to vote a considerably larger sum of money, surely the representatives in this parliament from a province representing one third of the population are entitled to know what this measure really means in relation to that province. That is all the hon. member for Levis is asking and that is what the minister in his arrogant fashion is refusing to tell this house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, as I read the provisions of this bill they apply to the trans-Canada highway program under the Trans-Canada Highway Act, which is available to all ten provinces. That was my understanding of the act when it was first passed. I do not believe that this government has done anything, at least to my knowledge, to bar the province of Quebec from coming into the agreement. My hon. friend from Levis is certainly entitled to ask whether or not this legislation provides for payments for the province of Quebec and whether that province could receive part of the cost of highway construction already completed along this particular route. For the life of me I do not understand the attitude of the minister in saying "I refuse to answer". I do not know of any other minister at any previous time, certainly in my experience in the house, who has refused to answer a question which is obviously in order.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member for Assiniboia, the legal spokesman for the C.C.F. group, not admit that the question I have been asked tonight has been ruled out of order six or seven times by the chairman in the last debate?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not aware of that fact at all.


David James Walker: You were away campaigning.


Hazen Robert Argue: If it had been ruled out of order then I would hope the chairman tonight would rectify the wrong that has been done. I cannot understand the Minister of Public Works holding parliament in contempt to the extent of refusing to answer a question that is in order, since this act applies to all provinces. Campaigning seems to be in the mind and on the tongue of the Minister of
Trans-Canada Highway Act Public Works. I do not think he should take it upon himself to judge whether or not his answers will have a favourable or an adverse effect on any election campaign now going on in Canada.
The point is that this act provides for payments from the federal treasury to any province in this country undertaking to build a trans-Canada highway under the terms of this act, and I believe the hon. member for Levis is perfectly in order in asking the question. I presume the Minister of Public Works takes it as his own responsibility to refuse to give information to the house.
I have a question that I would like to ask the minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia would wish the Chair to rule on this matter before any other matter is brought up.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was just making my speech.
The Depuiy Chairman: I am inclined to think that this is perhaps an argument on this matter between two hon. members. I feel that the first part of the question is relevant to the bill. The second part of the question as to whether or not they could recoup moneys paid out in the past I am not convinced is relevant to the bill. That is my feeling.


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, would you hear me on this point. Clause 1 of the bill says:
No contributions or payments shall be made under this act
(a) after the 31st day of May, 1964-
There is no question under the act as to whether it is contributions for work now done or for work which was done before. I think there is a great difference and that the question of the hon. member for Levis should be in order.


The Deputy Chairman:: I think that is strictly a legal interpretation of the wording in clause 1.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, in discussing a similar amendment on a former occasion the minister of public works of that day informed parliament that certain studies, I believe they were, were being undertaken with regard to the whole question of highways in this country and highway policy. I am wondering if the minister would care to inform the committee whether consideration is now being given to the development and future implementation of a highway policy in this country, something that I believe is very badly needed and about which I feel the government has received representations from time to time.
3930	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
I think that this bill before the committee is an integral part of any such policy but I would appreciate it if the minister would answer this question. He did not appear to be in the best frame of mind when he first spoke this evening, but I had the pleasure of hearing him a few nights ago when he spoke at a banquet sponsored by the Rotary Club at which a number of guests, young students from across Canada, were being entertained following their stay in Ottawa and were participating in a very worth while endeavour called "Adventures in Citizenship". I would hope the Minister of Public Works might get into the same jovial frame of mind he was in that evening; he was exceedingly entertaining. I am not looking to be entertained tonight particularly, but I think the Canadian public would be very much interested in any remarks the minister might make as to studies that are being undertaken toward the development of a highway policy in this country.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I discussed the question put to me by the hon. member many, many times at the resolution stage and on second reading, and at the moment we are in committee on the first clause of this bill. However, if it will please the hon. member and if I have your permission, Mr. Chairman, may I repeat what I said on that occasion: until this trans-Canada highway is complete or close to completion, this government does not intend even to consider any further trans-Canada highway or any national plan. However, we in the department are contemplating at all times many matters including possibilities for the future, and the hon. member will probably see the wisdom of this. Nevertheless, we have no intention of considering any secondary scheme until the first is within range of completion. In saying this I am only reiterating the words of the Prime Minister which I read into the record on the resolution stage of this bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may make a very brief reply, I should like to say that I feel the government is in error in restricting its highway activity to the limited area covered by this legislation. I believe that on the basis of resources and on the basis of employment needs it is time the government should develop a broader policy and embark on a national highway program which would include a second trans-Canada highway.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think it was decided some time ago in committee that no reference could be made to a second trans-Canada highway. I was not in the chair at the time.


Mr. Robichaud:: I wonder if the minister could tell the committee if he has received any representations from the premier of Nova Scotia or the premier of New Brunswick to the effect that the federal contribution to this trans-Canada highway plan was too low and, if so, what consideration was given to any such requests.


David James Walker: That is a very broad question but according to all my knowledge I have no recollection of having received any such intimations from either one of the premiers of the two provinces mentioned, either of whom can probably appreciate that at this time it is hardly possible to change the contributory percentage under the act, this having gone on now for nearly ten years. However, we have had a request from both provinces, that the time should be extended, and that is one of the reasons we are considering clause 1 tonight, to extend it until 1963.


Maurice Bourget: I should like to come back to my question and read it again. Would the minister tell the house if according to this bill the province of Quebec would be able to take part in this program. That is the first part of my question.


David James Walker: That is a matter for the province of Quebec.


Gabriel Roberge: I appreciate the minister's answer when he says it is a matter for the province of Quebec to decide, but I should like to know if and when the province of Quebec chooses to put itself into the plan, is the province going to be able to recuperate what is has lost so far?


Charles Edward Rea: That was the second part of the question of the hon. member for Levis, and the Chair rules it out of order.


Maurice Bourget: Looking at the bill, one sees that clause 1 reads as follows:
(4) No contributions or payments shall be made under this act
(a)	after the 31st day of May, 1964 or
(b)	in respect of any construction costs that were incurred after the 31st day of December, 1963.
Now I am asking the minister a simple question: can Quebec recuperate in respect of the work done by the province between 1928 and 1949. I do remember that in 1949, when the bill was first introduced in this house, there was no time limit in respect of which the federal government could pay a province for construction work done on the trans-Canada highway, so I think my question is in order.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry, but I have been looking over this bill carefully and I cannot see where recuperation of expenses retroactively is relevant to the measure. I

think that is a question which could be asked, perhaps, on the estimates of the Department of Public Works.


Gabriel Roberge: On that point, the bill says:
No contributions or payments shall be made under this act. ..
(b) in respect of any construction costs that were incurred after the 31st day of December, 1963.
If no contribution can be made after that date, it surely means that contributions can be made before that date in respect of construction work that was carried out before. I would therefore think that the question asked by the hon. member for Levis is relevant.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair cannot give legal interpretations. I can only give procedural interpretations and the one I give is the one I think is right in the circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
minister if under the section which is now being amended in order to extend the time any payments have been made during the currency of the parent act to the government of any province in respect of any work done before 1949.


David James Walker: The answer is, yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I should like to ask the minister a second question. I should like to ask him if the legislation we are now being asked to pass involves any discrimination against any one of the ten provinces of Canada.


David James Walker: The hon. gentleman should go back to law school. The answer to that question is, obviously, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does that mean that the province of Quebec, if it chose to make an agreement, would be treated in exactly the same manner as the other provinces which already have agreements?


David James Walker: The hon. and learned member for Bonavista-Twillingate with his tremendous self-confessed ability at asking questions and making propositions and interpreting the law must realize that this is the eleventh time now that a question has been asked tonight which has been declared on previous occasions-and by yourself, Mr. Chairman-to be out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I submit that my question did not relate to any other question whatsoever that was asked. My question was very simple. It was: would the government of the province of Quebec be treated, if it chose to make an agreement under this legislation now being extended, and which it is open to the government of Quebec to enter, in the
Trans-Canada Highway Act same way as the other provinces, or in a different way? That has no relation to any other question which has been asked and I feel that before we are asked to vote this money the minister should assure us that all the provinces will be treated equally and that the province of Quebec will be given exactly the same treatment as the other provinces.


David James Walker: The Trans-Canada Highway Act was brought in under the administration of the hon. gentleman when he was the acting prime minister or the prime minister behind the scenes. I mean, the hon. member is going to write about it in a book on the life of Mackenzie King which will be coming out in published form shortly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This was when Mr. St. Laurent was prime minister.


David James Walker: In short, Mr. Chairman, this is entirely out of order. We are discussing the Trans-Canada Highway Act. We speak about contributions being made under this act not after December 31, 1963. There are only nine signatories to this act at the present time. Nine of the ten provinces are signatories. We cannot conjecture in this regard. We cannot answer hypothetical questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Rubbish.


David James Walker: My hon. friend might just as easily have asked some questions about the summit. They would have been just about as relevant. With the greatest respect, if my hon. friend would stop wiggling and confine himself to sitting still for a few minutes undisturbed and unperturbed with complete equanimity and imperturbability, I will finish my answer. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is, as usual, completely and absolutely out of order and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, not to be intimidated by the loud talk of the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to waste my time or yours by replying in kind to that sort of cheap performance. It is unworthy of the committee and does not need any reply. I am going to say, however, that if the minister refuses to answer the question there will be only one conclusion we can draw. The question is not hypothetical at all. I would remind the minister that when this legislation was first enacted by the house in 1949 there were agreements with no provinces and when the minister of that day introduced that legislation he did not refuse to tell the members of the committee of that day what would be in the agreements with the provinces because he had a respect for parliament and for the rights of parliament.
3932	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act
This legislation provides for agreements with ten provinces. It is not a hypothetical question at all to ask whether the agreement with the tenth province, if it were made, would be on the same basis as the agreements with the other nine. If the minister wants to leave the impression by refusing to answer the question that it is the intention of this government to discriminate against the province of Quebec he can go ahead and leave that impression. That is certainly the impression he is going to leave unless the hon. gentleman gives a plain and unequivocal answer to that perfectly reasonable question.


Mr. Graffiey:: Mr. Lesage can fight his own battles.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have one question to ask the minister. Could the hon. gentleman tell the committee whether or not the nine provinces that have agreements with the federal government under this act are treated equally?


David James Walker: Yes. As I explained to hon. members at the resolution stage and again on second reading, all provinces are treated in exactly the same manner so far as the Trans-Canada Highway Act is concerned. The participation of the dominion government in the act was to complete a trans-Canada highway just the same as we have a trans-Canada railway. Each province entered into exactly the same agreement except for the schedule which gave to each province the task of completing that part of the highway within its own borders. That is the purpose of it all. The province of Saskatchewan has very ably completed its task. The task is done and the province has been paid. When the other provinces will have completed their tasks in accordance with the terms of the agreements they too will be paid. For that reason all parties have been treated fairly according to the contract each and everyone of the nine signed.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate the minister's answer. I did not think it could be otherwise. I therefore fail to understand why the hon. gentleman refuses to answer the simple question as to whether, if the tenth province came into the agreement, it would be treated equitably with the other nine.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. gentleman knows the answer already.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I do not. Since the minister will not answer that fair, simple and pertinent question we can draw only one conclusion, that this government would at least consider discriminating against the province of Quebec under this act. I think that is an absolute shame.


Some hon. Members:: 
David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, in reply to my frienzied hon. friend who is the great authority on wheat from Assiniboia-


Mr. Brunsden:: The hon. gentleman is not even that.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat denies him that, too. However, the hon. member for Assiniboia must surely be an authority on something. He is certainly not an authority on this act.
In reply may I simply say that the province of Quebec is able at all times to make whatever requests it wishes of us and will do so as and when it wishes. The fairness of this government in its treatment of the provinces is best illustrated by the manner in which the university grants were disposed of recently by this house. There is no province with which the Diefenbaker government has better or more amicable relations than with the distinguished government of the province of Quebec.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if it were within my purview to answer these hypothetical questions which you have declared to be out of order as did the chairman, I would be most delighted to do so but it would be quite improper for me even to attempt to do so. I therefore am going to maintain the determination I made at the beginning of this debate and my hon. friends may go on to make all the imputations and insults they like but nevertheless I reiterate that I am being fair with the committee in refusing to try to give accurate answers to completely hypothetical questions regarding a situation that does not exist except in the imagination of some of the hon. members.
I have been told that one should stick to the bill and I am doing my best in this respect. I will strive to stick to section 1 of this bill which asks for an extension of the time till 1963. That is all that is before the committee at the present time.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to say that the matter before the committee is the extension of the act to 1963. We are now in 1960.


Mr. Bigg:: No.


Gabriel Roberge: Do we understand that if Quebec comes into the plan between now and 1963 they will have a full share of the federal contribution that all the provinces heretofore had?


Charles Edward Rea: In my humble opinion there is no retroactive provision in this bill. Accordingly, I think questions in this regard are not relevant to clause 1. I hope I will not have to remind hon. members about this again.


William Heward Grafftey: We are witnessing Mr. Lesage's puppet show.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put another question to the minister. Up till now was there any request by the provincial government of Quebec to participate in the plan?


David James Walker: No, Mr. Chairman, there has been no request. I of course resent very much the suggestion which only the hon. member for Assiniboia would have the effrontery to make, that there has been any discrimination. This government is guilty of no discrimination at any time to any province including the province of Quebec and not even the hon. member for Levis would suggest that.


Hazen Robert Argue: To keep the record straight, I did not suggest there was discrimination. I assume the minister would agree that if Quebec wanted to come in under the act that province would receive equitable treatment. The minister would not say. Why he would not, I cannot imagine unless perhaps he wishes to discriminate against Quebec-


William Heward Grafftey: A false innuendo.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -if and when that province should be desirous of coming in under the act.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: We want Fisher; we want Fisher.


Hazen Robert Argue: I feel strongly that the people of Quebec should be getting the same benefits under this act that are accruing to the citizens of other provinces.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Stick to wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: The reason they are not getting these benefits has been a decision of their provincial government.


Mr. Ricard:: The government of Quebec does not need the hon. member's help to make a decision either.


Hazen Robert Argue: I trust that if and when Quebec comes under the provisions of this act this government will not even consider discriminating against that province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would draw Your Honour's attention to the explanatory note in section 1 of this act, which says:
This amendment would extend for three years the period during which contributions or payments may be made to the provinces-
It does not say the nine provinces, it says "to the provinces" and clearly implies all of them. I continue:
Trans-Canada Highway Act -under the act and would prolong for three years the period in respect of which constructor costs may be incurred under this act.
I have been a member of this house somewhat longer than the Minister of Public Works and I have been observing it for 20 years, and I have never before known any minister of the crown, in dealing with legislation on a matter having to do with agreements that are to be made with another government, refusing to tell us what authority he was asking for and what authority he was getting from parliament to do these things.
The minister seems to have forgotten that he is responsible to parliament; that he is the servant of this house, not its master, and that he is asking this parliament to continue for three more years the authority which was given to the government to make agreements, or to continue agreements, with the provinces of Canada, including the province of Quebec. Surely before we are asked to extend the period of time and to vote a very large sum of money the parliament of Canada, the representatives of the taxpayers, are entitled to know precisely the terms and conditions under which this money can be spent. That is all we are asking for, Mr. Chairman.
I would draw your attention to the fact that the explanatory note to this clause says precisely that. There can be no question that the government is asking for three more years in which it may be possible to reach agreement with the government of Quebec in a co-operative effort to build a trans-Canada highway through that province. That is not hypothetical; it is an actual question, what kind of agreement the government would make. Parliament never intended that the government should make one kind of agreement with one province and another kind of agreement with another province. All we are seeking to find out is whether the government does in fact intend to treat the government of Quebec in the same way as it has treated the governments of the other nine provinces, and we cannot get any answer. The only conclusion we can draw is the conclusion drawn by the hon. member for Assiniboia that the government intends, if Quebec does try to come in, to shortchange it.


William Heward Grafftey: A foul innuendo.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I was not in this house in 1949. Right now I do not have time to check in the library, but I should like to ask the minister a few questions. I think he should know the answers to these questions because he knows everything, or professes to know everything. I think the province of Newfoundland came into the scheme the same time as it came into confederation, namely in 1949. I should like to
3934	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway Act know from the minister exactly what time the other provinces-of course we know that Quebec did not come into the plan-came into the plan.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gabriel Roberge: No. I would think the minister is waiting for his official to tell him.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, the other nine provinces came into the scheme sometime between 1949 and 1952.
With regard to the charge of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, some day he is going to be a lawyer, three, four or five years from now, and I should like to reply to him by saying that his statement is reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps he will look it up and find out what it means.


Gabriel Roberge: The minister gave the answer that the eight provinces at the time came into the scheme between 1949 and 1952. Will the minister tell the committee what provinces came in in 1959 and which ones came in in 1950, 1951 and 1952?


David James Walker: You are in the wrong decade.


Gabriel Roberge: What is that, I am in the wrong decade. I understood the minister to say-


David James Walker: You are in the wrong decade; you are talking about 1959.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1949.


David James Walker: Hansard will show that he said 1959. I am reading now from the report, which my friend has no doubt seen, of the proceedings for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, at which time he was in the house. At a meeting held in Ottawa on April 24, 1950, which was attended by representatives of all provinces, agreements were executed with the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta. The province of New Brunswick signed an agreement on May 27, 1950, and the province of Newfoundland signed on June 13, 1950. On May 15, 1952 Nova Scotia became the ninth province to conclude an agreement with the federal government for the construction of the trans-Canada highway.


Gabriel Roberge: May I know from the
minister whether the province of Nova Scotia, which signed an agreement in 1952, was able to secure reimbursement from the government for the actual cost of the construction that was undertaken before and which was made part of the trans-Canada highway?


David James Walker: I have no idea, Mr. Chairman. We are considering clause 1 of this bill.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. Surely when we are being asked to extend this legislation we are entitled to know what has already happened under the legislation we are being asked to extend. It seems to me that it is a contempt of parliament for the minister to say it is none of our business to know whether the government of Nova Scotia was allowed to benefit by the provision in the original legislation which made it possible for the provinces to recover a part of the cost of the work that was recognized as of trans-Canada standard but which had been built before 1949.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1
carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. Is the minister not going to answer that?


David James Walker: No.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask the minister another simple question? Is this bill constitutional in all respects?


David James Walker: Obviously, the Mutt and Jeff team over there, sent down by the-


Maurice Bourget: The new plumber of the House of Commons should withdraw that.


David James Walker: I am very proud of being that, the Minister of Public Works, and enjoy it thoroughly. I think that the two speakeasies over there should confine themselves to clause 1 of this bill.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I hope the minister will address himself to clause 1.


David James Walker: I thought clause 1 had passed, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it is not passed.


David James Walker: Again, Mr. Chairman, I will amend my remarks and say, let these two worthy members address themselves to clause 1 of the bill.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, am I out of order in asking the minister the simple question whether the bill is constitutional in all respects? Such a question was asked just two days ago, was answered by the Minister of Finance, and I have the answer here. As members of parliament I think we are entitled not to be brushed aside by a plumber.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member can ask his question but the Chair cannot get an answer for him if the minister does not wish to answer.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, according to what rule of the house does the minister not answer my question? It is a very simple and at the same time very important one, and the minister knows it. He can ask his parliamentary assistant who is from the province of Quebec. Can the minister tell us whether the bill is constitutional in all respects? That is my question. It is very simple.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1 carry?


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I know why the minister does not want to answer that question. I refer to Hansard of April 28 when he said, "Does the hon. member know that a provincial election has been called in Quebec on the twenty second of June?" That is the second time we have received-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: -that kind of answer. Does it mean that when we are going to have a provincial election in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: -we are not entitled to receive answers to our questions?


William Heward Grafftey: You are getting funnier by the minute.


Maurice Bourget: You know the reputation you have.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Shall clause 1 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the question asked by the hon. member for Levis is precisely the same question as was asked in committee on another bill only two days ago of the Minister of Finance, who perhaps is not overly courteous in his answers but who did not hesitate for one second and did not object in the least to this question. We know that certain hon. members supporting the government have declared in the house that this legislation is of doubtful constitutionality. No less a member than the hon. member for Bellechasse has questioned the whole constitutional basis of this legislation, and we know the respect in which the hon. member for Bellechasse as a lawyer is held by hon. gentlemen opposite. In view of the question the hon. member for Bellechasse has raised with respect to the constitutionality of the bill it seems to me it is perfectly proper that my hon. friend should ask the minister if he has consulted the law officers of the crown and
Trans-Canada Highway Act satisfied himself that the legislation he is asking parliament to enact is within the power of parliament to enact.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, it is out of order for my hon. friend to ask that question at this time, but for his information may I say that this bill, like any bill introduced by this administration, is constitutional.


Maurice Bourget: Thank you very much.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Aggregate limited to $400 million.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: This clause provides that the aggregate of all expenditures under certain sections of the act shall not exceed $400 million. I should like to ask the minister whether in reaching this estimate of $400 million provision has been made to cover the share of the province of Quebec should it decide to sign an agreement or is this amount of $400 million limited to the nine provinces that now have agreements?


David James Walker: I did not get the end of the hon. member's question. I should have been paying more attention. Did he ask whether the $50 million of the total of $400 million to be expended, $350 million having already been voted, is to be expended on all nine provinces?


Gabriel Roberge: Ten.


David James Walker: The answer to that is that the $400 million will be expended on those provinces which are signatories to the Trans-Canada Highway Act.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In order to arrive at the amount of $400 million an estimate must have been made by the minister's department. In reaching the estimate of $400 million was consideration given only to the nine provinces now under this scheme or was provision made for the province of Quebec should it decide to enter into an agreement?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, all we can deal with are the facts. At the present time we have nine signatories to the Trans-Canada Highway Act, and the approximation of $400 million as the total amount to be paid out to these nine provinces is the approximation we have at the present time. We have nothing else to deal with. We have no other signatory except the nine provinces. So far only nine provinces have made any expenditures.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to put the
question in a somewhat different way. Is it anticipated that the whole or practically the

Trans-Canada Highway Act whole of this $400 million will be required for the nine provinces that now have agreements?


Michael Starr: That is what he said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, that is not what he said.


David James Walker: I think I have answered that question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like the minister to answer that question yes or no. After all, whatever Your Honour may say about clause 1, clause 2 is asking parliament to vote money and surely there should be no equivocation about what we are voting the money for. We are now dealing with $400 million which is a lot of the taxpayers' money.


David James Walker: Fifty million dollars.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is true, as the minister interjects, that only $50 million is now being voted but even $50 million in my book is a lot of money. We are entitled to know whether the estimate of $400 million is in respect of the nine agreements in existence and no money is being provided in case Quebec should sign.


An hon. Member:: He has answered that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let the minister himself answer it.


An hon. Member:: He has.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think he has.


An hon. Member:: You should listen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member might listen since he has no other contribution to make to the committee.


Charles Edward Rea: I must ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say that if we are to be
treated with anything but contempt we are entitled to know whether this $400 million is the estimate for a complete road in the nine provinces or whether it is an estimate for a complete trans-Canada highway across the whole of Canada.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I hate to be offending my hon. friend when he seems to be getting angry and charges me with contempt. I do not know whether it is contempt of him or contempt of the house. There is a great difference. I want to assure my hon. friend that I do not have contempt but the greatest respect and admiration for him and also, it goes without saying, for the other members of the house. But much as I should like to please my hon. friend, who has great
[Mr. Pickersgill.!

experience in the art of cross-examination and who demands a yes or no answer just like that, with my limited powers of expression I cannot amplify in any more concise manner than I have already done, even at the risk of further hurting the feelings of my hon. and distinguished friend.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask the minister how the amount of $50 million is arrived at by provinces? An estimate must have been made in each of the participating provinces and I should like to know how this amount is arrived at by provinces.


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member for Levis, may I say that the engineers have taken the amounts that each of the nine provinces has spent to date, added to them the estimates of the amounts which the provinces anticipate they will spend in the next three years and have come to an approximate figure of $400 million as the amount which the dominion government is providing to contribute to the trans-Canada highway to ensure its completion.


Maurice Bourget: Has the minister any assurance that the $50 million we are now voting will be sufficient to cover the completion of the trans-Canada highway in these nine provinces?


David James Walker: Seeing that we are not building the highway but that each of the nine provinces is building its respective share and having regard to the unfortunate experience of the former minister of public works, Mr. Winters, whose able parliamentary assistant was the hon. member for Levis, and his false calculations as to when the highway would be completed and as to the cost of the highway, I should not like to put myself on record as being definite on the result. Mr. Winters was so far off the mark that I would not want, three years from now, to be in the same position.
As to the figures we have and as to the knowledge we have at the present time, we anticipate that this sum of $400 million will approximately complete the contribution of the federal government to the trans-Canada highway, with the possible exception of the adopted province of my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, namely Newfoundland.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not think the minister has answered the question put to him by the hon. member for Levis. The hon. member has asked what amount was being estimated to be spent out of this $400 million or out of this $50 million additional we are being asked to pass today, or what amount is being allocated to each of the provinces under the scheme. We definitely know that all of that

money is not going to go to one or two provinces. We should like to know approximately what the estimate is for each of the provinces.


David James Walker: It has not been allocated yet. It is impossible to allocate these things until the time comes. It is a pool from which money will be spent if it is needed and as proof is given by each of the provinces that the expense has been incurred.


Maurice Bourget: The minister was making a comparison with Mr. Winters. We have here an item of $50 million. We do not know, according to the minister's answer, where it comes from or how it is made up. I hope the minister will recall the day when he was in another committee. I should like to ask this question and I think it is a fair one. Surely the calculation must have been made in order to arrive at the amount of $50 million. That is not $5; it is $50 million. Surely the engineers in the department must have the figures from each province and the minister should be able to tell us how much is going to be spent by provinces in the next three years.


David James Walker: I want to thank my hon. friend and tell him that if I came as close as he did I would be $150 million out. His minister, seconded by himself, was of the opinion that the trans-Canada highway would cost $250 million. It is going to cost $400 million.


Maurice Bourget: Your previous minister did not say anything last year.


David James Walker: Let my hon. friend keep his temper and I will read him the answer he wants. This is all going to be very nice and very friendly. It is now estimated that Canada will be called upon to contribute the following amounts to the provinces: Newfoundland, $30 million; Prince Edward Island, $7.5 million; Nova Scotia, $25.5 million; New Brunswick, $46 million; Ontario, $120 million; Manitoba, $21 million; Saskatchewan, $15.5 million; Alberta, $23.5 million; British Columbia, $111 million. In the schedules which were filed the other day when this matter last came before the committee, the amounts which have been committed for each of the provinces have been set out. I trust that answers my hon. friend's question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should just like to draw the committee's attention to the fact, since the strictly non-partisan references were made by the minister, that we have had amending legislation brought into the House of Commons by the minister's predecessor only a short time ago and that these mistakes in time and mistakes in date at which the road would be completed and so on were all
Trans-Canada Highway Act made by the minister's illustrious predecessor. It seems to me that the reference was quite uncalled for. But since it has been made it seems to me that the whole record should be put straight.


The Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


William Arnold Peters: No. Before this clause carries may I ask the minister whether this $120 million allotted to Ontario is sufficient to complete the northern route of the trans-Canada highway or that which we now use as the trans-Canada highway and at the same time will it be enough to complete the southern route which is not completed as yet?


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member for Timiskaming may I say that this sum of money would involve the participation by Ontario from border to border in the present trans-Canada highway.


William Arnold Peters: My question is in relationship to the fact that we have in Ontario a northern trans-Canada route and also what is considered to be just a trans-Canada route. The northern route is now the route that is in use and it is not completed or at least not up to standard. At the same time it is expected that there will be a permanent southern route from Agawa up through Sault Ste. Marie. What I am asking is whether there is in this $120 million enough money for the federal contribution to complete the section we now use and to complete the new section.


David James Walker: This sum pertains to the only designated trans-Canada highway which is in the process of being built at the present time and which is set out in particular in schedule A in the contract between the dominion and the Ontario government. I appreciate the fact that my friend the hon. member for Timiskaming would like to have built a second trans-Canada northern route; but as he can appreciate, at the present time we cannot contemplate anything else except the completion of the first trans-Canada highway, and that is what this is for.


William Arnold Peters: The minister may be aware of the fact that we are already using the northern route. It is a complete highway across Canada. But we should like the assurance that it is going to be brought up to regular standards along with the proposed route.


David James Walker: The province which fairly well had the fixing of this route did not designate the route to which my hon. friend is referring as part of the trans-Canada highway.

Trans-Canada Highway Act


William Arnold Peters: A sign was put up by the department saying it was the northern route of the trans-Canada highway.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have been most restrained, Mr. Chairman, but seeing that hon. members from other provinces are making certain that the interests of their provinces are protected in this legislation-


David James Walker: I think we need some of that particular brew which my hon. friend is going to use for the completion of this trans-Canada highway. We might use it to complete this debate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I apologize for my fit of
coughing, for the relief of which I have been handed a glass of water. Can the minister inform the house whether sufficient provision is made in this bill to meet the needs for the completion of the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia?


David James Walker: We would certainly hope so. But you have a very volatile minister of highways out there called Mr. Gaglardi. If he spent more time in completing this highway than he spends in talking we would get along with it a great deal faster. We have allocated for British Columbia $111 million as an estimate of the contribution of the dominion which is more than one quarter of all the money being spent on this trans-Canada highway. It is sadly behind in its allocation.


Gabriel Roberge: I would like to pursue the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West when speaking about British Columbia. Is there enough money to meet the needs of the province of Quebec if and when the government of that province decides to come into the plan?


Maurice Bourget: I have no more questions to ask; I just want to express one regret, and that is that the province of Quebec has been forgotten.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 2 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before clause 2 carries, I also would like to express regret that the minister and the Prime Minister have completely repudiated the undertakings given to the people of Newfoundland by the provincial leader of their party in the name of the Prime Minister in the provincial election last year, and to say that considering the sacrifices that gentleman made, the unavailing sacrifices for their party, it is pretty shabby treatment.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, just in reply to that, the Prime Minister of Canada and myself as Minister of Public Works are doing

everything in our power to fulfil just as rapidly as the premier of Newfoundland makes it possible for us to do so our obligations in regard to the trans-Canada highway. I do not think it is amiss to say that the contribution of the dominion to that trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland constitutes a tremendously larger sum than the contribution of the province of Newfoundland. I have nothing but sympathy for the desire of the Newfoundlanders that this part of the highway should be completed; but if their premier in his wisdom chooses to squander the money given his province by the dominion, properly designated to his province by the dominion, on so many odds and ends-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


David James Walker: -and not complete the highway, then the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should not come to this house and complain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that I was not complaining about anything. I was just drawing attention to the fact that the provincial leader of the Conservative party, who offered himself as a sacrifice last year, was repudiated by his own party.


Mr. Nixon:: Mr. Chairman, before the clause carries, did I understand the minister to say that this $120 million for Ontario is enough to complete the highway, that is the designated trans-Canada highway, through Sault Ste. Marie and on up along the north shore of lake Superior?


David James Walker: That is the information we received from the Ontario engineers, which seems to be corroborated by our supervising engineers.
(Translation):


Mr. Raielle:: Mr. Chairman, there is a point that interests me and I should like to direct a question to the minister. If I am not mistaken, the amount of $400 million that was mentioned would apply to nine provinces only. If tomorrow the province of Quebec should recognize that our sharing in the road building program is in no way unconstitutional, would there be enough money in the fund for that province? That is the point of particular interest to me.
(Text):


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, that question has been pursued by this house all evening.
Clause 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
David James Walker: the third reading of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the bill passes I should like to make one or two observations. This bill is half a loaf and we recognize that half a loaf is better than no bread. But I want to express the regret which all of us on this side of the house feel about two aspects of the legislation which is now before us and the legislation which is being amended by this bill.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, for whom is
the hon. member speaking?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking on behalf of the Liberal opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Where are they?


David James Walker: Did you have a caucus?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I happen also to be a
member of the house, though it seems difficult for the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) to appreciate that fact.
As I was saying, sir, when we had one of the characteristic interruptions of the minister, we regret two features in this bill, one which we only smoked out with the greatest possible difficulty after a lot of quite unnecessary refusals by the minister to answer plain and obvious questions asking for information that any government with any regard for parliament would have given without being asked. We found that this legislation no longer applies to the province of Quebec at all, that if Quebec now wishes to make an agreement there is no money provided to carry out that agreement, no money voted by parliament, and it would therefore not be possible for Quebec to proceed with such a project until another bill had been brought before parliament for that purpose. We regret that very much. We think the government has made a very great mistake in ignoring Quebec in this way and we think that they themselves will regret it before many weeks have passed.
The second thing I wish to say is that I want to draw attention to the citations made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) on second reading of this bill, citations of distinguished members of this house now occupying the treasury benches when they were sitting over here. I do not intend to take the time of the house in repeating them now, but you will recall what the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) said and what the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) said. He said that the whole road should be paid for by Canada. You will also recall what the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) said, that we can afford a lot more. We are sorry that the
Yukon Act
government, after all these expectations raised in 1957, is simply following on the scheme which they told the people they would change when they came into office. We regret this; we are very sorry for this.
We are sorry also that they did not see fit to accept any of the admirable suggestions made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) in the fine analytical speech he made on this subject. We are also sorry that the government did not see fit to accept the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that in the four Atlantic provinces as a compensation for their disabilities in other aspects of transportation the government should pay a much larger share of the cost of this road, and that the figure that we would suggest, and that we will suggest to parliament when we are in a position to do so, in order to finish this road would be 90 per cent.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



YUKON ACT


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Yukon Act to increase the number of members of the council of the Yukon Territory from five to seven; to provide for the creation of an advisory committee on finance and for the payment of allowances for living expenses and travelling expenses of the members thereof; to establish a court of appeal for the Yukon Territory; to authorize the territorial court of the Yukon Territory to sit in the Northwest Territories in civil matters; to provide for the appointment, remuneration and allowances of deputy judges of the territorial court; and to provide further for the general application of game legislation in the Yukon Territory.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the resolution is largely self-explanatory, and I need not take up the time of the house with extended comments at this stage.
This legislation deals with three broad subjects. The first is the constitution of the territorial council. It is proposed to increase the membership of the council to reflect the increasing population of the territory, to remove an existing requirement that the commissioner must sit apart from the council, and to provide for the establishment of an advisory committee on finance. This committee, composed of council members, will advise on the

Yukon Act
preparation of the territorial budget, and may be consulted on other matters of policy arising between council sessions.
As I told the house a year ago, consideration has been given to ways in which it might be possible to work toward fully separate judicial systems suited to territorial requirements. The object is ultimately to reach the pattern already established in the provinces. This bill constitutes a court of appeal for the Yukon which can ultimately and easily develop toward the provincial pattern as circumstances permit.
Certain changes in the constitution of the territorial court are also proposed. These will make the judge of the Northwest Territories court ex officio also a judge of the court of the Yukon Territory, authorize the appointment and remuneration of deputy judges as required, and provide for other minor or consequential changes in judicial arrangements.
I may say that parallel changes in judicial arrangements for the Northwest Territories will be proposed in separate legislation. Taken together, the new provisions for territorial courts and courts of appeal should enable a better service to be provided to litigants and others in both territories.
The other matter with which the bill deals is the application of territorial ordinances to all residents of the Yukon Territory. Some question has been raised about this, particularly with regard to game, and the bill is designed to clarify the power of the territorial council in this respect.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that when hon. members have had an opportunity to examine the bill they will find the proposed changes fully consistent with the orderly development of the territory as a separate Canadian entity, in accordance with the wishes of the territorial council, and with the best interests of the residents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister's suggestion that we should see the bill before having any prolonged debate is a very sensible one, and that is the view we intend to take over here. I must say I am intrigued by the term "deputy judges" which I do not think I have heard before. Perhaps after other hon. members have spoken, should they wish to do so, the minister would elaborate a little on that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On behalf of this group, may I say that I agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I think we would be well advised to have our debate on this legislation when the bill comes before the house, although judging from the resolution itself and from the brief explanation given by the minister it would appear that we, generally, are in support of the measures that are to be taken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister just say a word about this question of the deputy judges?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: At the present time the legislation provides for the appointment of deputy judges when the circumstances warrant. As the hon. member knows, there is now one judge in the Northwest Territories and one in the Yukon, and in cases of absence it is necessary to appoint a deputy judge. The amendment would make it unnecessary to adopt the method used now of appointing this deputy judge by order in council, and will make it possible to do this without the cumbersome technique so involved.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the minister if plans are under way for developing provincial autonomy in the two territories and, if so, how long a period is expected to elapse before these territories will be able to form provinces of their own?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is, I think the hope of all Canadians that as soon as economic conditions warrant, new provinces will be formed in the present territory of Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
I think it is also reasonable to assume that before they become provinces they will have to have sufficient economic resources of their own to run their own administration. That is not presently possible. There have been many speculations as to when this eventuality may come about; I think that is all it can be at this time: speculation. We are hopeful that new mining developments, new oil and gas developments will make it possible to have new communities in certain parts of the north. When these communities are sufficiently established and give evidence that they can support a provincial government we would, I think, be happy to consider such a proposal from them.
Another aspect of the question is that the people in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have already developed a considerable spirit of autonomy. They want the right to run their own affairs; they resent very strongly the suggestion that provinces should take them over. I think it follows from all this that they themselves should make the decision.
I do not know whether that answers in full what the hon. member had in mind, but I think it represents the thinking on this matter at the present time.


Mr. Regier:: Have any of the provinces made representations asking for their boundaries to be enlarged to include either the Yukon or part of the Northwest Territories?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have seen a newspaper story to the effect that British Columbia would like to push northward. I have also seen another story partially repudiating this suggestion. Further, another government has more or less officially indicated a desire to push northward into the territories; that is, the government of Manitoba. However, I understand that there has been no formal request to the federal government to do so although there have been discussions on this subject.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hamillon (Qu'Appelle) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-59, to amend the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Northwest Territories Act to establish a court of appeal for the Northwest Territories; to authorize the territorial court of the Northwest Territories to sit in the Yukon Territory in civil matters; to provide for the appointment, remuneration and allowances of deputy judges of the territorial court; and to provide further for the general application of game legislation in the Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this resolution corresponds almost exactly to those parts of the Yukon resolution dealing with changes in the judicial set-up. At this time I should like to remind the committee of the speeches made in February, 1959 by the hon. member for Mackenzie River and the hon. member for Nickel Belt on the bill under discussion at that time to amend the Northwest Territories Act. Both hon. gentlemen spoke in favour of some radical amendments in the judicial system of the Northwest Territories. At that time I told the house that the Minister of Justice, his deputy minister and the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were on a tour of the north covering 14 different places to examine into the administration of justice in the area as well as the day to day problems that arise in the administration of justice and were prepared to bring back recommendations which would bring up to date the judicial system in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Northwest Territories Act
That was done in the spring of 1959. Now, approximately a year later, this resolution and the bill it foreshadows are the result of their work. The recommendations that were in their report are included in the bill that will follow, and also in the bill with respect to the Yukon which just passed the resolution stage.
I do not think I need say more at the present stage because the explanation is exactly the same as I gave for the previous resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I say again that we are in general agreement with this resolution and would like to see the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, we assume this resolution is similar in purpose and content to the previous measure. The legislation in both cases clearly indicates the growing development in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and the need for improvements in administration of the same. We will leave our more extended remarks until we have seen the bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, is it contemplated by the government that divorce procedure will be under territorial jurisdiction or under federal jurisdiction?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: Does the minister mean the territories will handle their own domestic problems?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I will have to look up the details with respect to what happens in matters of divorce. The changes contemplated under this resolution do not consider that subject.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the area known as the Northwest Territories is closely defined. There are a number of islands over which Canada assumes jurisdiction yet they are outside the area known as the Northwest Territories defined as such. I have in mind especially areas such as Frobisher Bay which is growing in population. These areas have no voice at election time. Is there any intention of extending the boundaries of the Northwest Territories to include all the other areas claimed by Canada that are not included in either the Yukon or Northwest Territories?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: At the present time the difficulties of moving around in the north in order to vote are well known. There is nothing in theory to prevent any person be he white, Indian or Eskimo from voting.

Northwest Territories Act In practice, of course, this is very difficult and in the remote areas it cannot be done. As the communities grow in size transportation facilities will doubtless improve but in all existing areas there is at this time the opportunity to vote.


Erhart Regier: I do not think the minister understood my question. The boundaries of the Northwest Territories as they now exist are carefully defined. They exclude a large number of islands over which Canada claims authority, yet their inhabitants have no voice in Canadian affairs. I think the minister would agree that an area as large as Frobisher Bay should have a polling division at election time. The inhabitants are denied the right to cast a vote. Is the government giving any consideration to an extension of the boundaries of the Northwest Territories in order to include those areas under the government's jurisdiction that are not now included in either the Yukon or Northwest Territories?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has probably confused two things. There is an act called the Territorial Lands Act which clearly defines and limits the boundaries for administering land. This does stop at the mainland coast of North America and follows around the shores of Hudson bay and into Ungava bay. It takes in all the islands up to the low water mark. As far as government, justice, and game are concerned, the Northwest Territories Act defines the boundaries of that area for political and administrative purposes. I happen to have the act here and will read the relevant section:
2.	(k) "Territories" means the Northwest Territories, which comprise
(i)	all that part of Canada north of the 60th parallel of north latitude, except the portions thereof within the Yukon Territory and the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, and
(ii)	the islands in Hudson Bay, James bay and Ungava bay, except those islands within the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
For political administration purposes the Northwest Territories under this act is all the area north of the sixtieth parallel except the Yukon and except any areas of Quebec or Newfoundland which are above the sixtieth parallel but does include all the islands in Ungava and in James and Hudson bays. Therefore, they are two separate matters.


Erhart Regier: What is the position of the islands to the north of Ungava bay and Hudson bay? I am thinking particularly of Franklin island and others.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These islands are under the Northwest Territories Act that include Franklin island, Baffin island, Ellesmere island and so on.


William Arnold Peters: Are Franklin and Keewatin separate designations within the Northwest Territories?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hamilion (Qu'Appelle) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-60, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 8, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Hees-Mr. Rea in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend an act to amend the Railway Act, chapter 40 of the statutes of 1958, to permit certain grants to be made from the railway grade crossing fund for a further period of three years beyond January 31, 1961.
Maurice Bourget: Just one word; I understand that the views of our party have been expressed by members who have spoken on the resolution, and now we should like to see the bill.


William Arnold Peters: Would the government give consideration to the fact that in areas where new railway construction or new highway construction is taking place an opportunity is given for a stipulation to be made that the highway should cross over the railroad by means of an overpass or an underpass rather than a level crossing?
We have many instances, and one recently in northern Ontario, where there have been opportunities, when the highway was being changed, for the government to give consideration, and particularly the board of transport commissioners, when issuing the permits or the permission necessary to start new construction, to restricting the crossing to an underpass or an overpass. We have many cases, and I am sure the minister is aware of a number of them, where new highway construction is taking place, where the highways are crossing the railroads where it would be possible, if this money were being used for this purpose, to put in an overpass or an underpass to prevent the accidents which are now taking place. It seems to me that when permission is granted by the government for construction of this type they

could use some discretionary power and prevent many of the highways crossing well travelled railroads at grade, and in that way prevent the needless loss of life which is taking place.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, during the discussion of this resolution some time previously I made a suggestion that the signs at the railroad crossings could be made much more attractive or striking, and since that time a number of the members of the government party have asked me whether I would agree to having the minister's picture enlarged and placed at railroad crossings. In reply to them I just wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that:
George's picture, by the rails,
Would cause us all to cross like snails; Women would stop to admire,
Men indulge in smug satire,
But better that, than one expire!


Erhart Regier: I should like to ask whoever is the sponsor of this resolution at this time whether any consideration is being given to imposing a fixed contribution on the railway company concerned toward the cost of either an overpass or an underpass?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I will draw these questions to the attention of the Minister of Transport and if the resolution carries tonight I think we might proceed with second reading tomorrow. During the course of the committee stage, following second reading, these questions could be answered.


Erhart Regier: In that case, I want to thank the minister. However, I want to add additional information. We have cases where one municipality has six major roads or highways crossing railroads within the municipality. If the government is prepared to pay only 80 per cent, and if the railroad company involved is allowed to pay as much as it pleases by way of a contribution, I feel it is hardly fair when it imposes an exceptionally heavy burden on the municipality. Either the government ought to consider raising its contribution or it ought to consider amending the legislation in a way which will make it obligatory on the railroad company to pay at least 5 per cent, 10 per cent, or 15 per cent, or make a fixed contribution, because if that were done many of our municipalities would be able to undertake a little bit of planning in this respect. They would be able to take advantage of the legislation because they would know when they were planning how much of a burden they themselves would have to bear, and they would not have to appear hat in hand at the doors of the railroad corporations.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-61, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house leader could give us a preview of two or three days ahead?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the house for carrying on so expeditiously and taking us by surprise; it is very welcome indeed.
Tomorrow we shall start off with the second reading of the bill to amend the Railway Act, the resolution of which we have just been discussing. The second item would be the bill following the resolution to amend the Northwest Territories Act, which was completed tonight; the third item would be the bill following the resolution with regard to the Yukon Act, which also was dealt with tonight.
Then on page six of today's order paper hon. members will find under government orders 2 to 7, a number of small bills which are non-controversial in nature, and perhaps the house would like to clear these off the order paper. We would take them in this order. Item No. 4 would be second reading of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act; item 5 would be second reading of Bill No. S-4, to amend the Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act; item 6 would be second reading of Bill No. S-5, to incorporate the Oshawa harbour commissioners.


Erhart Regier: No, you are wrong.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Item 7 would be second reading of Bill No. S-10, to incorporate the Nanaimo harbour commissioners.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is giving his own numbers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I am giving my own numbers. Item No. 8 would be the second reading of Bill No. S-2, to amend the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Agreement Act. No. 9 would be the second reading of Bill No. S-3, to repeal certain fisheries laws of Newfoundland. If those are passed quickly I will then call the resolution in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare respecting the Old Age Security Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the business for tomorrow. Could the minister-


Gordon Minto Churchill: All right. I certainly will meet the wishes of the house. That would

Business of the House
then be followed by the second reading of Bill No. S-27, to control and regulate the sale of feeds, in the name of the Minister of Agriculture. I am then in the hands of the house. If the house would like to take the second reading of Bill No. S-28, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and
Australia, that would suit me very much. Those items being completed, I would suggest tentatively that we might then deal with interim supply.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has the Department of Transport a long term contract with Canada steamship line for the use of the M/V Eskimo during the summer months for the servicing of Canada's Arctic outposts?
2.	If so, when was the contract entered into and what is the date of termination?
3.	Does the contract specify a minimum number of days service each year? If so, what is the minimum number of days?
4.	What is the daily, or other rate, paid by the department?
5.	What does the rate include?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	The contract is dated April 12, 1957. It is provided that the department will enter into a time charter party in each year with the company for not less than 90 days for a five-year period. The first voyage was in 1959 and the period will end with the voyage in 1963.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	$2,600 Canadian currency per day subject to any increase in the wages as set out in the schedule attached to the contract.
5.	Rate includes all operating costs of the vessel exclusive of bunkers and extra insurance.
All species Halibut ..
Cod	
Herring . Haddock . . Lobster .. .
Questions


C.N.R. LAY-OFFS, ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any employees of the Canadian National Railways been laid off in the Atlantic region since February 15, 1960?
2.	If so, (a) in what departments; (b) in what classifications; (c) in what places?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:-
1.	Canadian National Railways maintains a record of its employment level each month on the basis of a mid-month tabulation. The Atlantic region figures are: February, 20,509; March, 21,097. The figures for April are not yet available.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


FISH LANDINGS, EAST SHIP HARBOUR, N.S.
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What was the total tonnage and dollar value of fish landed at east Ship Harbour, Halifax county, Nova Scotia, for each of the years, 1958 and 1959?
2.	What was the tonnage and dollar value of (a) halibut; (b) cod; (c) herring; (d) haddock; (e) lobster, landed at the east Ship Harbour, Halifax county, Nova Scotia, for each of the years, 1958 and 1959?
Answer by: Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):
1 and 2.
1958	1959
Quantity	Value to	Quantity	Value tolanded	fishermen	landed	fishermen(lb)	($)	(lb)	($)225,351	11,231	185,311	10,134150	36	315	9039,363	1,451	38,223	1,23943,125	520	19,390	266899	40	1,068	4715,914	6,006	15,322	6,049



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
First Communique
The first plenary sessions of the meeting of commonwealth prime ministers were held at 10, Downing street, today.
In opening the meeting, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom expressed, on behalf of his commonwealth colleagues, their deep sorrow at the circumstances which had prevented Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister of South Africa, from carrying out his intention of attending this meeting. He also expressed his regret that the Prime Minister of Ceylon was prevented, owing to the impending election, from coming to London at this time.
Mr. Macmillan welcomed the Prime Minister of Malaya, Tuanku Abdul Rahman, as the first representative of Malaya to attend a commonwealth prime ministers' meeting since Malaya attained full membership of the commonwealth.
The reply to Mr. Macmillan's opening statement was made by Tuanku Abdul Rahman. In the course of his reply he raised the problem of racial discrimination in South Africa, and its effects on relations between South Africa and other commonwealth countries, and he expressed the hope that opportunity would be found for the commonwealth prime ministers to discuss this while they were in London.
The representative of the South African government, Mr. Eric Louw, emphasized that sole responsibility for domestic policies within South Africa rested with the union government.
The meeting reaffirmed the traditional practice that commonwealth conferences do not discuss the internal affairs of member countries. Mr. Louw expressed his readiness to meet other heads of delegations informally for discussion of this problem. Arrangements are being made accordingly.
After these procedural questions had been settled Mr. Macmillan opened a general discussion on the world political situation. The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan continued this discussion at the afternoon session. It will be resumed at a further plenary session tomorrow morning.
3rd May, 1960.
Final Communique
The meeting of commonwealth prime ministers ended today. Pakistan was represented
by its President. The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Ghana, the Federation of Malaya and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland were represented by their Prime Ministers. South Africa was represented by the Minister of External Affairs, and Ceylon by the Minister of Justice.
2.	This was the tenth of these meetings to have been held since the war. It has taken place at a time of great significance to the commonwealth and to the world.
3.	The continuing growth of the membership of the commonwealth was marked by the attendance at this meeting of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, which achieved independence in August, 1957. The representatives of the other commonwealth countries welcomed the presence of the federation at the conference.
4.	The commonwealth is an association of independent sovereign states, each responsible for its own policies; but the primary objective of all is world peace and security. It is their declared purpose to do everything in their power to achieve that objective, and to continue to co-operate to that end with all the peace-loving nations of the world.
5.	In this spirit the commonwealth ministers have reviewed the major international problems of the day, on the eve of the impending summit conference which is to be attended by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. They expressed their sincere hopes for a successful outcome of that conference as a further step in the relaxation of international tension. They discussed, in particular, the problem of disarmament; and they welcomed the progress made at the Geneva conference on the discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests. They hoped that, on the basis of the preliminary work already done, the summit conference would be able to make some significant progress toward an eventual settlement, under international control, of the problem of disarmament. An advance toward a solution of that problem, linked with a progressive lessening of political tensions, would afford a firm basis for strengthening confidence between nations and promoting world security.
6.	The commonwealth ministers also discussed the problems of Africa, the Middle East, the Far East and southeast Asia. They

recognized that economic and social progress are essential for political stability. They welcomed the continuing contribution which mutual assistance under the Colombo plan affords throughout southeast Asia to these aims; and they agreed that there and elsewhere throughout the less developed areas of the world the best hope of peace, stability and political freedom lies in practical international co-operation of this kind.
7.	The ministers reviewed the world economic situation. They noted that, while in general the outlook was favourable, the economic expansion which had taken place since their last meeting had been greater in the industrialized countries of the commonwealth than in the primary producing countries. They agreed that an important condition of the prosperity of these countries was their ability to develop their export trade. They also recognized the urgent need to maintain and, where possible, increase the flow of economic assistance to the less developed countries. They welcomed the decision to establish an international development association.
8.	The ministers discussed European trade problems. They expressed concern at the prospect of any economic division in Europe and its possible political implications. The countries of Europe form an important market for commonwealth exports. The ministers expressed their hope that these countries would follow trade policies in accordance with the principles of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and thus avoid damage to the economies of the primary producing countries and those that are also developing exports of manufactured goods. In addition, European countries have an important contribution to make in assisting the economic development of the less advanced countries. The ministers hoped that these problems could be speedily and satisfactorily resolved, with due regard to the interests of countries outside Europe.
9.	The commonwealth ministers reviewed the economic development of commonwealth countries in Africa which have recently attained or are approaching independence. They agreed that consideration should be given to the possibility of co-operative action among members of the commonwealth in assisting the economic development of these countries. This possibility will be studied in the first instance by officials of commonwealth governments, and the commonwealth economic consultative council will examine it at its next meeting.
10.	The ministers also reaffirmed their belief in the value of exchanges between commonwealth countries of persons with specialized skills and experience. They agreed that
79951-0-249
further efforts should be made to foster and encourage these exchanges, whether on a regional or other basis, and that the commonwealth economic consultative council should take this question into urgent consideration. They trusted that employers in commonwealth countries-whether governments, statutory bodies or private companies-would be ready, wherever possible, to encourage members of their staffs to undertake a period of public service abroad and would do their best to ensure that their prospects in their home countries would not thereby be prejudiced.
11.	The ministers considered various questions of constitutional development within the commonwealth. They noted that the Federation of Nigeria would attain independence on 1st October, 1960. They extended to the federation their good wishes for its future and looked forward to welcoming an independent Nigeria as a member of the commonwealth on the completion of the necessary constitutional processes.
12.	The meeting was informed that, in pursuance of the recent plebiscite, the constituent assembly in Ghana had resolved that the necessary constitutional steps should be taken to introduce a republican form of constitution in Ghana by 1st July, 1960. In notifying this forthcoming constitutional change, the Prime Minister of Ghana assured the meeting of his country's desire to continue her membership of the commonwealth and her acceptance of the Queen as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the head of the commonwealth. The heads of delegations of the other member countries of the commonwealth assured the Prime Minister of Ghana that the present relations between their countries and Ghana would remain unaffected by this constitutional change and they declared that their governments would accept and recognize Ghana's continued membership of the commonwealth.
13.	The meeting noted a statement by the South African Minister of External Affairs that the union government intended to hold a referendum on the subject of South Africa becoming a republic. The meeting affirmed the view that the choice between a monarchy and a republic was entirely the responsibility of the country concerned. In the event of South Africa deciding to become a republic and if the desire was subsequently expressed to remain a member of the commonwealth, the meeting suggested that the South African government should then ask for the consent
[Stage Direction]
of the other commonwealth governments either at a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers or, if this were not practicable, by correspondence.
14.	The ministers reviewed the constitutional development of the commonwealth, with particular reference to the future of the smaller dependent territories. They agreed that a detailed study of this subject should be made for consideration by commonwealth governments.
15.	Whilst reaffirming the traditional practice that commonwealth conferences do not discuss the internal affairs of member
countries ministers availed themselves of Mr. Louw's presence in London to have informal discussions with him about the racial situation in South Africa. During these informal discussions Mr. Louw gave information and answered questions on the union's policies, and the other ministers conveyed to him their views on the South African problem. The ministers emphasized that the commonwealth itself is a multiracial association and expressed the need to ensure good relations between all member states and peoples of the commonwealth.
13th May, 1960.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 17, 1960