1960-02-10

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In yesterday's issue of the Ottawa Citizen, in an editorial captioned "Champions of Parliament," the following passage appeared:
Some observers have been inclined to the view that Mr. Diefenbaker's reverence for parliament has been displayed in a rather peculiar fashion. There was the time he told the Speaker of the commons to sit down.
There are other passages in the editorial on which I could make comment, but I am confining myself at this time to the passage I have quoted, namely:
There was the time he told the Speaker of the commons to sit down.
That statement is untrue and a breach of the privileges of this house in its reflection both on the Speaker and on myself. At no time did I ever tell or invite you, Mr. Speaker, to sit down. I simply want to say that I have too great a respect for the traditions and dignity of parliament and for Your Honour to permit myself intentionally to affront either.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Could I ask the Prime Minister whether he interprets the statement he has read as referring to himself since he has been Prime Minister, or to certain stands he took when he was in opposition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister has drawn attention to the statement in question, and I understand he does not intend to found any motion on it. That seems to end the matter.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): If the house will allow me, I have a somewhat lengthy statement to make in reference to the question asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the proposal that a universal and international exhibition be held in Canada in 1967 to mark this nation's centenary.
As early as November, 1958 the federal government received inquiries from several municipalities concerning the possibility that their city might be chosen as the site for such an exhibition. Lengthy consultations were held with various cities which originally showed an interest in being selected, but most of them indicated either directly or indirectly that they did not wish to proceed.
The government has had discussions with the city of Montreal in this matter. Only last week a firm proposal was received from the province of Quebec on the question of the division of government financing for the fair.
Canada is a party to an international agreement under which general approval to hold a world fair must be obtained. If we did not get such approval there would be no assurance that the necessary participation of other nations could be secured.
I am now able to advise the house that the government is prepared, subject to parliamentary authorization, to agree to a proposal made jointly by the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal. Canada will therefore seek international agreement for the holding of this exhibition in Montreal in 1967. I should emphasize, however, that other nations have also advanced proposals for the holding of a world fair. The final decision as to the country which will be authorized to hold such a fair in 1967 will be made at a meeting of the bureau of international exhibitions in Paris on March 8.
If Canada's offer is accepted by the international body the government will be prepared to ask parliament to approve the establishment of a suitable authority to undertake this major project, and also, subject to parliamentary authorization, to contribute up to and not beyond the sum of $20 million. With $15 million being provided by the province and $5 million by the city of Montreal, the total amount will be $40 million.
Such financing is required in the preliminary stages during the seven years leading up to the time of the fair itself. While, as I said a moment ago, it represents the maximum contribution proposed for that purpose, it should also be noted that the event will produce sizeable revenues both direct and indirect. Indeed, in the case of the last such fair, in Belgium, the receipts were in excess of a similar initial investment made by that country.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Centennial
The cabinet has approved the appointment of the Postmaster General as the minister to represent the government in relation to the plans for this project.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the idea that the centenary of our confederation should be commemorated by a world fair, among other things, is I think a very attractive one and will make an appeal to all Canadians as the kind of thing that will probably be worthy of this occasion. I understand from the Prime Minister that the decision has been reached by the municipality of Montreal and the province of Quebec to take the responsibility for organizing this fair on certain conditions which involve federal help up to an amount, as the Prime Minister mentioned, of $20 million.
I quite agree that if a fair of this kind is to be held the responsibility in that sense should be shared among the respective levels of government because, while it will be held in Montreal, it will be a great national occasion.
The Prime Minister mentioned that in due course parliamentary approval would be necessary for the expenditure of this money. At that time no doubt a detailed scheme for the federal share of the responsibility in this matter will be submitted to this house. At that time we will have an opportunity to discuss the question in full. At the present time I merely wish to express the hearty agreement in principle of our party to federal participation, along with the province of Quebec and the municipality of Montreal, in a world fair which will be a fitting commemoration of a momentous year in Canadian history.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. are pleased with the statement the Prime Minister has made, and hope that in the international negotiations Canada's proposal will meet with acceptance. We think that in international affairs as well as in national affairs the celebration of Canada's one hundredth birthday is a very important occasion. We think it is exceedingly fitting that this celebration should take place with the co-operation of governments at various levels. We hope that in all the plans the very widest participation may be obtained from Canadians in all works of life and from all important Canadian organizations. We would point out that for a number of years the C.C.F. group have been proposing that Canada celebrate this occasion in a fitting manner. We think the Prime Minister's announcement is in keeping with the proposals which we have made from time to time. 

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the house whether the national committee on Canada's centennial received any firm suggestions from the province of Ontario or the city of Toronto with respect to having the world fair held there?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any firm suggestions were received at any time in that regard. There were informal discussions, but further than that nothing was done. As a matter of fact I think the hon. gentleman, representing one of the constituencies in the city of Toronto, would realize that with a great national exhibition there each year the people of Toronto as a whole would not be too anxious to have another exhibition in competition with it.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
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 notwithstanding standing order No. 67, the committee shall consist of 20 members, of which 11 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.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government received briefs and letters on the Canadian National Railways Thornhill by-pass from any groups or associations or from members of parliament?
2.	If so, what groups, at what time?
3.	Which of these representations were favourable to the projected by-pass route now determined as most suitable by the Canadian National Railways?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to parts 1 and 2 of this question is that communications were received by the Minister of Transport from organizations and municipal authorities

as listed below, and that all members of parliament in the area have shown a continuing interest in the matter:
United Markham and Vaughan ratepayers association, August 20, 1959;
Township of Vaughan, resolution undated;
Township of Pickering, August 12, 1959;
Township of Markham, April 9, 1959;
Committee representing East Vaughan central ratepayers, August 6, 1959;
Southwest Pickering ratepayers association, April 21, April 29 and July 3, 1959.
The answer to part 3 is: the township of Vaughan and the committee representing East Vaughan central ratepayers.



BOMARC SITES


Mr. Broome: 1.	How much money has been expended to date on the two Bomarc sites being constructed in Canada?
2.	What is the estimated total cost ol the above program to the Canadian government?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: This question is in two parts. The answer to the first part is $393,000. The answer to the second part is: Last July 2, when the estimates of my department were before the house, I stated, as reported on page 5354 of Hansard, that the estimated cost of the Bomarc program would be approximately $20 million. Since that date it has been necessary to revise this estimate owing to new designs for the storage facilities of the solid fuel propellant and of the missile itself. It is now estimated that the total cost will not exceed $15 million.



DOUBLE TAXATION ON ESTATES, CANADA-U.S.

Mr. Macnaughlon: 1.	Is the tax convention between Canada and the United States for the avoidance of double taxation on estates, which was in effect before the dominion succession duty act was repealed, still in effect?
2.	If not, have steps been taken to negotiate a new convention for the same purposes in relation to the Estate Tax Act?
3.	If such steps have been taken, when is it expected that the convention will be completed?
4.	Has consideration been given to making such convention retroactive to January 1, 1959?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: The answer to part 1 is that the convention is in full effect for the estates of persons dying before January 1, 1959.
The answer to parts 2 and 3 is that negotiations with a view to reaching an additional agreement which would apply to estates of persons dying on or after January 1, 1959 are still proceeding.
The answer to part 4 is yes.
Starred Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT, BELL ISLAND, NFLD.

Mr. Tucker: 1.	Is the government taking any action to meet the emergency unemployment situation in Bell island, Newfoundland, resulting from the mass lay-offs of miners last year?
2.	If so, what steps have been taken?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The answer to parts 1 and 2 is as follows. The Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission have been active in helping to meet the situation in Bell island, Newfoundland. Through the unemployment insurance commission arrangements have been made to transfer interested workers to other mining areas.
Officials of the training branch of the department have visited Newfoundland and discussed with provincial officials the possibility of establishing training classes for unemployed miners under the federal-provincial agreement. I have also written to the premier of the province pointing out that we are prepared to assist in establishing either a continuing or an emergency training program. The provincial authorities have not as yet indicated the action they propose to take in this respect.



FEDERAL BUILDING WATER BILL, CARBONEAR, NFLD.

Mr. Tucker: Has the government paid its water bill to the town council of Carbonear, Newfoundland, for the supply of water at the federal post office and customs building?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The answer to this question is yes.



SOLICITOR GENERAL


Mr. Howard: What specific duties are assigned to the Solicitor General by the governor-in-council and what are the Solicitor General's current responsibilities?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of Solicitor General is provided for, as the house knows, under the provisions of the Solicitor General Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, chapter 53. The only order in council under which the Solicitor General at present excercises any statutory functions is order in council P.C. 1959-1113 of August 27, 1959, under which he acts as minister of justice in the absence of the Minister of Justice. However, as one of the legal members of the cabinet he advises the Governor General on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in all cases except capital cases, and in all capital cases he reports to cabinet. In addition, as is customary in the case of a legal member of cabinet not having heavy

Motions for Papers
departmental responsibilities, he is assigned responsibilities from time to time for which he would not have time if he were engaged in the management of a department.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON PRICE SPREADS-COST

Mr. Fisher: 1.	How much money was allotted to meet the costs of the investigations and work of the royal commission on price spreads of food products?
2.	How much of this money has been spent?
3.	Are there any outstanding claims?
4.	If so, what are they, and how much do they amount to?
5.	What is the expected total cost?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): The answers are as follows:
1.	Estimates, $450,000.
2.	Expenditures, $272,043.10.
3.	and 4. Estimated further expenditures to March 31, 1960:
Staff salaries and allowances . $ 8,080
Printing	 15,000
Other	 120
5. $295,243.10.



$23,200 MOTIONS FOR PAPERS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT ON PAY INCREASES, 1959

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Mcllraith:
For a copy of the report made to the Minister of Finance in the year 1959 by the civil service commission concerning pay increases for civil servants.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wonder whether, because of the unavoidable absence of the member this motion could be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



&quot;CANADIAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR 1959&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1959."
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, perhaps it might meet with the convenience of the house for this motion to stand.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I do not see any reason why it should stand, but I have no objection.
Motion stands.



SHIP REGISTRATION, QUEBEC GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister

of Transport or any official of the Department of Transport with any person or persons, since July 1, 1957, concerning the registration in Canada of a ship built outside of Canada for use by the government of the province of Quebec or the marine institute at Rimouski, Quebec.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to the passing of this motion, with the usual reservation about the necessity of obtaining the consent of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
F-1Q4g AIRCRAFT-MANUFACTURE IN CANADA
Motion No. 23-Mr. Hellyer:
For a copy of any invitations or papers in the possession of the Department of Defence Production requesting submissions from aircraft companies in respect to the manufacture in Canada of the F-104G aircraft, and copies of each of the submissions received.
Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: On account of the complexity of this request I would ask that the motion stand.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I guess we will give the minister another day or two to think about it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How generous of you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It came up last week.
Motion stands.



ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM, SASK.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the government of the province of Saskatchewan, since April 1, 1959, regarding the roads to resources program.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could accept this motion on the same basis as that on which it was accepted last year, namely that the documents will be produced after the agreement is signed and subject, of course, to the usual reservation about getting the permission of the provinces.


Hazen Robert Argue: That statement is not acceptable, because the only result of the position taken last year was to delay for many, many months the production of these documents. I believe the motion should be passed subject to the usual reservation, namely the consent of the government of Saskatchewan, and with no additional reservation.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If that is the attitude of the hon. member for Assiniboia I have no alternative but to refuse to accept the motion.



ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the provinces of: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, since April 1, 1959, in connection with the roads to resources program.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Since these agreements have been signed there is no objection to the acceptance of this motion subject, of course, to the usual reservation.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government, western farm organizations, provincial and municipal governments, and public bodies, since February 27, 1959, referring to the question of deficiency payments on wheat, oats and barley produced in the prairie provinces.
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Subject to the usual limitation.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 28-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government, any provincial government, and farm organization, since July 1, 1959, regarding deficiency payments on eggs.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Subject to the usual limitations.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government, any provincial government, and farm organization, since May 30, 1959, regarding deficiency payments for hogs.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Subject to the usual limitation.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents exchanged between the agricultural stabilization board, officers of farm organizations and provincial governments, since February 27, 1959, referring to the question of deficiency payments and support prices on agricultural products.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the hon. member would mind allowing this to stand until I know exactly what he wants. Otherwise the amount of correspondence here involved would be extraordinarily large and its compilation would involve a great deal of work and expense. If the hon. member could let

me know just what he wants, a great deal of that work and expense might be avoided.


Hazen Robert Argue: Stand.
Motion stands.



PRINCE ALBERT, SASK. BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, contracts, agreements, and other documents exchanged between the federal government, and the government of Saskatchewan, any Saskatchewan municipal government, and any other Saskatchewan organization, since June 1, 1957, concerning the construction of a bridge over the Saskatchewan river in the city of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This motion calls for the presentation of papers in respect of part of the roads to resources agreement for which a request was previously made in motion No. 25. But since this part of the agreement has been signed I have no objection, subject to the usual limitations, to accepting this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation
expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Canadian federal government, and the government of the United States, since July 1, 1959, regarding the Canadian government's policy of making deficiency payments on eggs.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This is agreeable, subject to the usual limitation.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Canadian federal government, and the government of the United States, since May 30, 1959, regarding the Canadian government's policy of making deficiency payments on hogs.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this is agreeable subject to the usual limitation.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitations expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house that the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all telegrams, letters and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada, and any other government or person, dealing with the entry to Canada by, and care of, tubercular refugees under Canada's participation in world refugee year.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member whether he is willing to have discussions with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and myself concerning this motion. As it is presently drawn it covers a vast amount of correspondence. I think it would be in the interests of everybody if we could have those discussions.


Mr. Howard:: That is quite agreeable, Mr. Speaker.
Motion stands.



BILL OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question which he may care to take as notice. Has the Prime Minister or any member of the government received any communications from the government of Quebec since January 1 of this year regarding the proposed bill of rights? If so, could those communications be made available to the members of the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, speaking from memory I have no recollection of any such correspondence, but if there is such it will certainly be made available to the house as requested.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister care to comment on the report in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday last that the opening of the Ogdensburg-Prescott bridge will be postponed for a period of three months because of delay in the approval of plans and the letting of contracts for buildings on the Canadian side? Will the minister say whether the delay has been brought about because plans for the bridge were lost in the mail?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the
hon. member for having given me notice of
Inquiries of the Ministry his intention to ask me this question. This bridge is being built by a private company, and we have no knowledge of or responsibility for any delays in construction that might take place.



JACQUES CARTIER-VICTORIA BRIDGES, MONTREAL   REPORTED BLACK MARKET SALE OF TOKENS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of a report to the effect that bridge tokens on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges legitimately selling at 50 for $4 are now being sold on the black market at a rate of 100 for $2.50 in some cases, and 1,000 for $2 in other cases?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I raise for the hon. member's consideration the fact that the conduct of the operation of tolls on these bridges has been referred to a committee. I would suggest to him it would be more appropriate to pursue the matter before the committee if the committee is proceeding with it.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention the fact that these are matters arising out of a new installation, approved by the former administration but put in by the present administration-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think this comes
within the purview of the committee, and I submit that the question is in order.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It seems to me that this
whole question may take considerable time before a decision is reached in the committee. I would think some steps should be taken to remedy the situation now.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think, subject to
what the house feels about this, that if the house refers a matter to a committee for the purpose of saving its time, any information that is required with respect to the subject matter before the committee should be pursued there.


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: May I ask a question supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. Can the Minister of Transport tell us how many books of black market tickets the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres and the Liberals have bought?


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the question being asked, providing the hon. member for

Inquiries of the Ministry Richelieu-Vercheres is given the same opportunity. The hon. member should not have asked the question, in view of the fact that the question of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The question of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was taken as notice?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: No.


Mr. Benidickson:: You ruled it out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, the same ruling certainly applies to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, there is a question of privilege involved in the matter. The hon. member, in his usual sanctimonious way, has accused me of carrying out transactions on the black market. I can tell him and anybody else in the house that it is not my habit to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has said he is raising a question of privilege. I did not understand the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot to refer to any member of this house.


Some hon. Members:: He did.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will state his question of privilege I will be glad to consider it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I do not know whether you feel it is a question of privilege, but I am accused of carrying out transactions on the black market. That is a question of privilege.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I do not think I ever accused the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres.


William Moore Benidickson: It is all out of order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I just asked the Minister of Transport how many he had in his possession and I should like the Minister of Transport or the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres to tell us that.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members must take the responsibility for the questions and the implications in the questions they ask. I ask the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot to consider a modification or a withdrawal of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Denis:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One at a time is
plenty.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have not said that he had any; I just asked how many he had. I did not say he had any.


Azellus Denis: You refuse to withdraw?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that the question "have you stopped beating your wife" is of the same order. I think if he reconsiders the matter he will not wish to be offensive to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, and will withdraw his statement.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Since he is so thin skinned, Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw.
ILater: 1


Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received any complaints from any member of the opposition to the effect that bridge tokens were being sold on the black market before this date?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member did not hear the earlier discussion about this type of question, and I refer him to it.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a telegram from Mayor Turpin of the city of Hull asking that the projected agriculture building be located there, where there is ample space? If so, what consideration is being given to this proposal?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have received a telegram, but no consideration has yet been given to it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: A supplementary question. Is it the intention of the minister to consider it in the future? Is there to be no answer?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which in my opinion does not come solely within my purview or that of the Department of Agriculture. It is a matter for the government as a whole to consider with regard to the general plans to be followed as far as government buildings are concerned.


Alexis Pierre Caron: A further supplementary question. Is it not the practice that the site and name of these buildings are decided by the department concerned?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of a press report in the Vancouver Province of February 3, which states that the west coast section of the marine engineers has asked the federal Department of Justice to investigate S.I.U. activities. Scores of cases of intimidation by S.I.U. elements were reported to union offices, the article suggests. Has the minister received such a communication and could he comment upon it?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, no such communication has come to my attention. It may be in my office, but I have not received it yet. I shall make inquiries and find out.
Without having seen it I could not answer in detail, but on the basis of the press report it does occur to me that if what is suggested are threats or intimidation, this might be a matter under the Criminal Code and possibly the primary responsibility would be with the local law enforcement agencies.
(Translation):



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaleleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). Could the minister explain to the house why the search warrants authorized by the court on December 31, 1959, with regard to the Jacques Cartier bridge collectors were not acted upon by the R.C.M.P. before February 6, 1960?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to take this question as notice, I shall answer it tomorrow.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister also take this further question as notice and give me the information tomorrow? Is the Minister of Justice aware that his colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), was going to launch a parliamentary inquiry into this matter? If so, why did he not keep him informed of the action taken by the R.C.M.P.?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I already answered this question, or a similar one, yesterday.
(Text):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean inquired regarding the language qualifications of telephone operators at the offices of the Department of Transport at the Montreal airport.
My answer, of course, can relate only to the limited telephone lines to the Department of Transport offices, since all the airlines and private businesses on the airport, as well as other government departments, have their own direct telephone service either through their own switchboards or by direct lines.
In the Department of Transport offices at the airport there are four positions of telephone operator, which are filled by the civil service commission. Three of these have been filled by the commission by persons who are certified to be bilingual; the fourth speaks both French and English but does not fully meet normal bilingual standards, and was assigned to this position by the commission since better qualified candidates were unwilling to accept the position due to the distance of the airport from their homes.
Occasionally as well, due to illness, an emergency relief employee has to be used to replace an employee on short notice, and it is possible that the difficulty referred to by the hon. member may have been experienced upon such an occasion.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Yesterday the hon. member for
Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) inquired regarding the competition for the position of superintendent of the new terminal building at Montreal airport, on the ground that under the qualifications we had stated it was not essential to know French.
This position is one which is filled by the civil service commission. Originally the commission advertised extensively in the Montreal area, stating that it was essential for any applicant to have a knowledge of French for appointment, but the commission was unsuccessful in obtaining any applicant who possessed all the qualifications necessary including a knowledge of French. In view
926	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of its failure to obtain a suitable applicant from this advertising I am informed that the commission has now readvertised the position and that the statement with regard to language qualification now says that although knowledge of the French language is not essential, preference will be given to otherwise qualified candidates who have sufficient knowledge of both French and English to perform the duties required.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Can the minister tell us what was the salary offered for such qualifications?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would humbly suggest this is obviously a question to be put on the order paper.
(Translation):


Mr. Louis Fortin (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. My question arises out of the reply he made earlier to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger).
If I have not misunderstood the minister, he said that a bilingual person could not be found in Montreal to fill the position in question. It seems that the services of a unilingual person were sought. Since the great majority of the people of Montreal are French-speaking, may I ask the minister whether he would consider an application from someone speaking only French?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, when members talk that fast, I find it difficult to grasp all that is said. May I take this question as notice and answer it tomorrow?
(Text):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked the following question:
Is the Department of Transport giving consideration to the control of civil air traffic over Canada by the air force through the SAGE network, as mentioned in the Financial Post of February 6, which would in effect mean giving control of air traffic over Canada to the direction centres in the United States?
No decision along the lines indicated by the hon. member has been taken. The whole question of the future of air traffic control is a complicated one because of the growth


in the volume of flying as well as the great increases in the speed of aircraft.
Intensive research is under way both in this country and in the United States, and close consultation is maintained between the working officials of the two countries in regard to these problems. The relationship between military and civil flying is, of course, involved as well as the extent to which common use can be made by both civil and military of the extremely expensive radar and electronic equipment that is needed for military purposes and may be needed also for air traffic control purposes.
However, in neither country is there any suggestion that the military are to take over the duties of air traffic control from the present civilian agencies.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question arising out of his reply to me a moment ago. Does the minister agree that if SAGE were used for civil air control over Canada, in the manner which was indicated, that would mean such control would be transferred to the United States directional points?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to give the supplementary question consideration before answering.


Lionel Chevrier: I have another question. When the minister does answer, will he indicate what is the purpose of the visit of the two experts of the Department of Transport to those two SAGE directional centres in the United States, as outlined in the Financial Post, namely Boston and Atlantic city?



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance, which I rarely do. In view of the interest in a statement made in Windsor on February 8 by a University of Toronto professor, to the effect the federal government is hindering the progress of the survey in connection with pollution on the great lakes by its refusal to grant funds for research, will the minister inform the house why the government has refused to grant funds for this most important research?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is aware that on the estimates in

committee of supply there will be ample opportunity to ask all relevant questions of the minister whose department is concerned.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister inform the house whether he has yet established a date as a deadline for the receipt by him of briefs and other presentations relating to the forthcoming budget? Further, may I ask whether the minister has set a target date for the delivery of the budget address?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second question is no. The answer to the first question is February 29. It is necessary each year to set some deadline for hearing deputations and receiving briefs on questions pertaining to the budget, and February 29 is the date that has been set this year.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. On January 29 I asked the minister whether she had received a petition from the residents of Macdiarmid protesting the establishment of an Indian reservation in the locality, and whether any consideration was being given to their request. The minister replied:
I do not believe the petition has actually come to my desk yet. I was informed that one was being prepared, and the whole matter is being carefully considered by the department.
Has any decision been reached by the department with regard to the request of the petitioners?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no; the matter is still under consideration. Representations have also been made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who, I understand, has personally inspected the premises. The matter is being considered. My information is that most of the objection to the occupancy of the site appears to come from a United States citizen who is operating a resort in the area.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hubert Badanai: May I ask a supplementary question? I received a petition signed by 136 people on that reservation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but due to the
noise in the house I was not able to hear the question. I take it that the hon. member is not pursuing it seriously.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Creslohl (Cariier):: I have a
question I should like to put to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house when he plans to introduce the bill of rights, and does he plan to set up a parliamentary committee to which he will refer the bill for study?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when the house
leader is here and it becomes convenient to indicate the date of introduction, the entire process to be followed will then be made clear to members of the house, well in advance of the beginning of discussion.



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENTS TO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform the house whether he intends during the present session to introduce amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is a very important act, and' a decision to introduce any amendments to the act must necessarily receive very serious consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. The minister told the house today that the cost to Canada of the Bomarc sites would be reduced to about $15 million as the result of a change in design. Can the minister tell the house what the total cost will be of the whole program, the gap fillers, the SAGE electronic control system, and the Bomarc stations?
928	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Randolph Pearkes: On July 2 in the same connection I mentioned that the total estimated cost was $125 million, covering two Bomarc stations, SAGE and the gap fillers and so forth. That is a realistic estimate and, of course, it may be reduced a little now that the estimated cost of the Bomarc installations has been reduced.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. It is a C.B.C. question, and stems from an announcement made jointly on February 8 by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue and the hon. member for Renfrew North about a new C.B.C. television relay installation for the Ottawa valley. Was this proposal part of the C.B.C. capital program for 1960 and, if so, when is the house to be advised of the rest of the program, particularly as it relates to the extension of radio and television services?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will agree that a question of that kind obviously requires a request from the minister to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the information, and would much better be put on the order paper.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, your suggestion that I should place my question on the order paper misses the urgency of the matter. The announcement was carried in my area, where there has been a great deal of interest in this program, and I have had requests wanting to know why an announcement has been made in one place and not in others. Under the normal processing of questions placed on the order paper it will take at least ten days and perhaps two weeks to get an answer to my question, and that is the reason I asked the question now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Use of the telephone might be helpful.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister wish to answer?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to refer that question to the C.B.C. for an answer.
I will obtain one within the next day or two, and give it to the hon. member and to the house.



REQUEST FOR FILING OF AUDIENCE RESEARCH REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister advise me when I will receive a reply to the question I asked last week about the alleged audience research report, concerning which he said he expected to be able to reply on Monday?


George Clyde Nowlan: It will be impossible for me to reply definitely for some little time. I communicated with the C.B.C. and I misunderstood the information I received from them and thereby misled the hon. member. I said that the information would be available on Monday, but the report I received indirectly was that information concerning the question would be received on Monday, and on Monday I was advised that the data would be compiled and that the report would not be available for some weeks.


Harold Edward Winch: Did the minister say it would not be available for some weeks?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is what I said; and when I say "available", never let it be suggested that this is a report that will be tabled in the House of Commons. It is not a parliamentary document. It will be available to the C.B.C.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand from the minister that a report can be made, commented on in the press, be available to the C.B.C. and yet not be available to the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: A discussion on the production of documents is hardly appropriate at this time. The hon. member knows the usual procedure in securing the production of documents.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recent remarks in the house by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister with respect to the dredging of the Ottawa river as the first phase in the development of a seaway from the island of Montreal to Georgian bay, can the Prime Minister say whether any recent engineering or economic studies have been made by the government to establish the feasibility of this over-all project?

External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: Nothing was done
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I will take that about it for 22 years, question as notice.



INSPECTION OF IMPORTS BY FOOD AND DRUG DIRECTORATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a news dispatch indicating that Mr. Stanley Condor, general manager of the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers' association, is of the opinion that the food and drug directorate cannot and does not check and inspect every drug that is imported into Canada? If so, would the minister care to comment?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have not seen the article referred to, but my department has never claimed that it did analyse every batch of every drug imported into this country, and the staff and laboratory facilities for this would have to be tremendous. Reputable manufacturers have their own control facilities, but we also seek to protect the consumer by making frequent spot checks on drug shipments and by investigating particular imports when this is felt desirable.
The directorate keeps aware of developments in drug production in other countries and, through arrangement with customs officials, is informed of all shipments of drugs.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether consideration is being given at the present time to assuring more appropriate representation in the cabinet to the province of Newfoundland by appointing the hon. member for St. John's West to the vacant portfolio.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the hon. member considers the question to be one of urgency, and I doubt that it is one for the orders of the day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order you have raised, I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that similar questions were asked from this side of the house about representation for the city of Toronto when we were in office and the government was in opposition, as Your Honour may remember, and they were answered.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the orders of the day are called, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet received permission from the minister of agriculture of Manitoba, or whatever appropriate minister it is, for the tabling of the correspondence with Manitoba regarding the 50-50 emergency assistance to farmers, and if so, will he table it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Howard Charles Green: That items numbered 75 to 106 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1960-1961, relating to the Department of External Affairs, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first may I thank the members of all parties for the very encouraging reception they have given me as I rise to lead off in my first full-dress debate on external affairs. It reminded me of the very fine start they gave me just eight months ago. These acts of kindness mean a great deal and reflect so clearly how much good will there is in this house, even though sometimes one wonders if it has not vanished out through all the doors at once.
The time during which I have been minister of this department has been very interesting. There has been a great deal to learn, and I am afraid I have only begun to scratch the surface as yet. In this connection I should like to commence by expressing appreciation to the officers and staff of the Department of External Affairs. They have been extremely patient with a new minister. I think they must have prepared at least 1,000 memoranda so that he might be up to date on the various questions. The only sad part about it is that there are still several thousand more that will be needed in the months that lie ahead.
I was particularly pleased, as I am sure any member of parliament holding this portfolio would have been, by the conference I attended last October in Paris. There we had 28 ambassadors and high commissioners

External Affairs
representing Canada in various European capitals and in the Middle East. It made one very proud of Canada's representation abroad to sit and listen to the discussions of that group for four days. I believe the men and women who have gone into the Department of External Affairs have entered that work in order to make a career of service to Canada rather than for the monetary rewards they might get. It is very important, I think, for those of us who are here in Canada, particularly those who are in the House of Commons, to realize just what a fine contribution these men and women are making.
Today I have escaped from the bonds of the department, in that I am not reading a speech. I am rather speaking from notes, so if a third world war should start tomorrow as a result the department will not be to blame. I am doing this for several reasons, and one is that I am hoping the debate on external affairs this year will come down out of the clouds; that we will get as many speeches by members from as many different parts of the country as possible, rather than having a series of written speeches, which are all very good but inevitably put the listeners to sleep. I believe they do not mean as much to parliament or to the country as would be the case if we had a wide open, free-swinging debate with members speaking more or less off the cuff.
By the way, this is one reason we have allocated two days instead of one for the debate. There should be an opportunity tomorrow for 25 or 30 speeches, provided they are not too long. However, no one is supposed to follow my example in this regard, because my speech may be for an hour or even more, so I am not practising what I am preaching.
I find that the Canadian people are very much interested in external affairs. Fortunately, or unfortunately, they are much more interested in what the Secretary of State for External Affairs says than they were in what he said as minister of public works. Probably we underestimate the intense interest of the Canadian people in world affairs at the present time. After all, is it any wonder that such should be the case; because it just may be that the whole of our civilization is at stake, depending upon what is done by the various nations.
In my remarks today I intend to deal with nine different subjects. They are disarmament, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the commonwealth, Canadian-United States relations, Latin America, Canada and the Pacific, the Middle East, the United Nations, and the law of the sea. If I find that time is going I may possibly delay my remarks on the law of the sea until we get into the committee on external affairs.

Before going on with these nine different subjects I have two general comments to make.
The first is that in the world today Canada has only friends and no enemies. She is a comparatively young nation with an excellent record, for which credit is due to those Canadians who have been in positions of responsibility down through the years. Canada is a nation with no designs on anyone, a nation whose people approach world affairs with an unselfish attitude, and also a nation whose people have great capacity for friendship. I repeat that Canada today has only friends and no enemies.
For this situation, too, we owe a great deal to those distinguished representatives from abroad who have come here to man the embassies and the high commissioner's offices. They keep us informed of the views of their respective countries, and they go home at the end of their term, or to another post, friends of Canada. They have played through the years a very important part in spreading good will for Canada throughout the world. I should like to pay that tribute to them today, and to thank the members of the present diplomatic corps who have been of great help to me in these last eight months.
The second thought I should like to place before the house is that the time has come to drop the idea that Canada's role in world affairs is to be an "honest broker" between the nations. We must decide instead that our role is to be to determine the right stand to take on problems, keeping in mind the Canadian background and, above all, using Canadian common sense. In effect, the time has come to take an independent approach.
I do not want to leave the impression for one minute that former governments have not taken an independent approach, but across the country one has heard time and time again, "Oh, Canada can do a great deal by being honest broker between the nations, particularly between the big nations, by running from one to the other and suggesting that one should modify its attitude because the other one does not like it", and so on. This has been so particularly as it concerned dealings between the United Kingdom and the United States. Every member of the house will have heard comments to the effect that Canada should be interpreting the British to the Americans and the Americans to the British.
That idea used to appeal to me, and it may have been a wise plan to adopt at one time. But today the British and the Americans are just as close together as any two nations could be. They do not need any interpreters from Canada, or from any other place. Sometimes I think, when we do not agree with

their policies, that they "gang up" on Canada. I am not using the phrase "gang up" in any offensive way; if they think we are in the wrong, then it is natural that they should get together and try to do what they can to persuade us to change. It is all done in a very friendly way with the attitude that "this hurts me more than it hurts you". So we are all good friends. It is not as if there is any lack of friendship and understanding. But I do ask the hon. members of this house to consider whether Canada would not gain more respect in the years that lie ahead and exercise more influence if she forgot about this role of being a middle man or an honest broker.
Then, Mr. Speaker, to come to my first subject, the subject of disarmament. In my judgment the field of disarmament is the most important field for Canada in world affairs in 1960, because our nation is a member of the 10-nation disarmament committee, which literally carries with it the hopes of mankind.
May I just outline something of the background. For many years there have been attempts to work out some system of disarmament both in the United Nations and outside. Canada, I think, has participated in every committee or commission on disarmament since these efforts began and has made a splendid contribution. But this work has been discouraging, and to a degree disillusioning. During the summer of 1959 the position was that in the United Nations there was a disarmament commission whose function was supposed to be to work out some method of disarmament. As I understand it, the attempt had been made earlier to have a fairly small committee deal with the subject but it had been unsuccessful, so this United Nations disarmament commission was set up, consisting of every one of the 82 member states. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, how difficult it would be for a commission of that size to get results, and of course there were no results obtained.
Then last summer the foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russia spent many long weeks negotiating at Geneva. One result of their deliberations was that at the conclusion of their conference they announced their intention of inviting Canada, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Poland and Rumania to join them on a new 10-member disarmament committee. They announced at the time that this committee was expected to be, and I am now quoting from their announcement:
-a useful means of exploring, through mutual consultations, every avenue of possible progress toward such agreements and recommendations on 79951-0-m
External Affairs
the limitation and reduction of all types of armaments and armed forces under effective international control as may, in the first instance, be of particular relevance to the countries participating in these deliberations.
It should be pointed out that five of those countries are western countries and five are eastern. All of the five western countries belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and all of the five eastern to the Warsaw pact. Canada, of course, was perfectly willing to fall in with this idea and to serve on such a committee.
The four big nations which had decided to set up the committee so reported to the United Nations in September because, after all, here was the disarmament commission of the United Nations supposedly dealing with this question of disarmament, and it was essential that there should be some arrangement worked out between the 10-member committee and the large United Nations disarmament commission. The four big powers asked that the United Nations disarmament commission be convened to hear formally of the creation of the new committee of ten. These four powers, moreover, made it clear that the United Nations would be kept informed of progress in the deliberations of the committee, because it was essential to keep the United Nations in the picture. After all, the only way in which a world-wide disarmament plan will be worked out will be under the aegis of the United Nations.
Canada was particularly concerned that the United Nations should be kept fully informed, and when I spoke in New York on September 24 I pointed out that the middle-sized and smaller powers must have an opportunity of being heard, since disarmament is of the deepest concern to all mankind. I said, further, that in Canada's work on the 10-nation committee we would at all times keep these considerations very much in mind.
At the United Nations last fall it was very clear that the delegates from every nation were far more interested in the question of disarmament than in any other question. They had witnessed a lessening of tension across the world. There had been a visit by Prime Minister Macmillan and Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd to the Soviet union, and while we were in New York Premier Khrushchev came to the United States. The two leading speeches in the opening debate at the United Nations were made by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd and by Premier Khrushchev, and both dealt with disarmament; each speaker put forward a plan for disarmament. Thus, I repeat that at the United Nations there was tremendous interest in this question of disarmament, and I suggest that right around the world today

External Affairs
there is a realization in the minds of millions of people that a nuclear war would be a catastrophe and that it would probably end civilization as we know it.
In these circumstances it was to be expected that the United Nations would fall in with the proposal of the four big powers that this disarmament committee should carry on the work on the question of disarmament. Something happened which had never happened at the United Nations before, I believe, when all 82 nations co-sponsored the resolution which provided United Nations facilities for the meetings of the 10-power committee. That resolution contained these words:
The question of general and complete disarmament is the most important one facing the world today.
The Canadian government realized from the start the vital role Canada could play in these disarmament deliberations, hence the appointment of Lieutenant-General E. L. M. Burns as Canada's representative at these discussions. I do not need to tell anyone in this house of the wonderful record of General Burns in two wars, as deputy minister of veterans affairs, then as chairman of the truce supervision body in Palestine and, finally, as commander of the United Nations emergency force. He is a man respected not only from coast to coast in Canada but by delegates from every member state in the United Nations. We were able to persuade Mr. Hammarskjold, the secretary-general of the United Nations, to release General Burns from his important command in the Middle East because the secretary-general felt-and so did General Burns-that he could make an even greater contribution as a member of this disarmament committee.
In addition, Canada has opposed from the beginning any delay in the actual commencement of the work of the disarmament committee. We did this for several reasons, but principally because we were afraid that if there were not an early start there might be an increase in tension, and around the world people might become discouraged again and decide they would have to pay more attention to arming, with the result that the impetus gained by the friendly actions taken in 1959 might be lost. There was some inclination in some other countries to postpone the calling together of the disarmament committee until after the east-west summit meeting had been held. This is not to be held until the middle of May-


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Was it in April or
May?


Howard Charles Green: May, I think. That would have meant that the disarmament committee would not have begun to function until June, or

later. The next session of the United Nations would commence about the middle of September, and the 10 nations would then be in the position of having nothing to report to the other 72 member nations who are depending on us to get some results on this question of disarmament.
As I said, Canada insisted from the start that there should be no delay in getting busy on this disarmament question. In Paris last December when we were attending the NATO meetings, the foreign ministers of the five western members on the disarmament committee were called together at the Quai d'Orsay and there we decided to invite the five eastern members to commence the sittings of the disarmament committee on March 15. As hon. members know, that invitation was accepted and the 10-member committee is to start its work on or about March 15, I believe, in Geneva. In addition we set January 18 as the date for the first meeting of representatives of the five western members of this 10-nation committee. These meetings commenced in Washington on January 13 and have been continuing ever since.
At the same time in Paris the North Atlantic treaty council, which of course contains representatives from the 15 nations belonging to NATO, decided that the five western nations on the disarmament committee would do all the preparatory work on disarmament for the east-west summit meeting and further that NATO would give all the help it could to the disarmament committee. You see, NATO is very much involved in the question of disarmament because NATO has most of the forces which, of course, would be involved in disarmament and would have to work out many of the problems.
Thus the five-nation group of which Canada is a member has a double function. It is, first of all, to participate in the discussions with the five eastern nations and, second, to do the preparatory work on disarmament for the United States, the United Kingdom and France for use by them at the east-west summit meeting. Arrangements were made to keep the NATO council in the picture and that there should be regular reports to the council. That plan is being carried out. The five-member disarmament committee is reporting to the council from time to time.
To date, while the five nations have been meeting only since January 18 there has been considerable progress made. General Burns has been in Washington and he comes back here from time to time. I had an interview with him last Friday. Canada is putting forward her proposals which I am not at liberty

to disclose as yet. Also we are getting great help from our own Department of National Defence.
There is a series of studies being made under the direction of the five-nation group and the whole situation is really hopeful. We believe that the general objective on this question of disarmament must be to achieve a maximum of disarmament and reduction of military forces which could be verified and controlled and which is compatible with the maintenance of adequate security against aggression. However, no one should underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead nor look for universal panaceas in the near future.
There is no intention on the part of the Canadian government to let down the guard so far as Canada is concerned but we do believe that a genuine effort should be made to work out some scheme of disarmament. If every nation on that 10-member committee feels the same way about it then there will be results which will benefit mankind. This should not be taken as meaning that if the five eastern countries will only approach it sincerely there will be worthwhile results. I mean all ten nations both on the eastern side and the western side. If they all genuinely want disarmament in the world today then there will be disarmament.
The second subject is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO is essentially a defensive alliance and it has fulfilled this function. After all it was set up to prevent aggression by the eastern nations. Whether or not they would have committed aggression no one can say but there has been no aggression during these ten years. NATO continues fulfilling that same function today and must continue doing so until there is actual controlled disarmament.
Canada is doing her full share in the alliance. We have a magnificent brigade of troops in Europe and we have a thoroughly efficient air division which next to the air forces of the United States is the most powerful and effective air force in the NATO organization today.
Sometimes when I hear of the criticism of the Department of National Defence I think it would be worth while for Canadians to recognize the fact that in peacetime that Canada has abroad a permanent force army. How difficult it is for any old soldier from the first world war to realize that. I think back to those days when my one ambition was to fulfil the terms of the song, "When I get my civvy clothes on, Oh how happy I will be". I remember how everybody wanted to get out of Europe by the first boat and what a job it was to get them sorted out
External Affairs
because everybody thought he should be on the first boat. The same thing was true of the second war. We now have a permanent force army and a permanent air force stationed in Europe. I repeat that Canada can hold her head high because of the contribution that is being made by her young men to the strength of NATO.
The NATO alliance is a great deal stronger than one would believe from the criticism one hears in parts of Canada and even sometimes in this house. I remember that a few days ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) accused me of being a hopeless optimist, as if that were a crime now in Canada. Of course, I can understand why people in opposition like to say these things and indeed I used to say them myself just a few short years ago. In my judgment, however, NATO is an exceedingly strong alliance.
There is in that organization a spirit of comradeship built up over the last ten years which is very strong. These fifteen nations understand each other's viewpoint. There have been friendships made which will last for a lifetime. The leaders of all these countries are on the very best of terms and fundamentally the foundations of NATO go very deep. I do not believe there is any chance of the NATO alliance breaking up. Most of the European members of that alliance have made an outstanding economic recovery. They are in a very strong position; for example, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. Some, of course, are not in such a good position. Naturally there are problems. We have problems, in getting 15 Progressive Conservatives around the table to agree, and the 15 Liberals would present just as many problems while the eight members of the C.C.F. might present a whole lot more.
Here you have these 15 nations and, as I say, there are problems. One which has worried Canada considerably has been to ensure adequate consultation. Last fall the big powers were talking about a summit meeting and other subjects and they were not agreeing. One thought this should be done and another thought that should be done, and instead of going to the NATO council and airing their troubles there they said nothing about them. All the press in all the NATO countries started to speculate, as the press will do quite naturally. The press made quite a lot of good guesses, and the whole story was on the front page of all the papers in Canada, in the United States, in France and in England. The whole story was there, and yet there were no adequate consultations in NATO.

External Affairs
When I went to Paris in October I had an opportunity to speak to the NATO council and emphasized on behalf of Canada that we thought there would have to be a far better system of consultation. I made the same submissions to President de Gaulle, to Prime Minister Debre and to Mr. Couve de Murville the foreign minister of France, also to Prime Minister Macmillan and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, and they all agreed. The Americans agreed at Camp David a few weeks later. Everybody was perfectly willing to consult, but they still were not consulting.
The smaller nations, of course, agreed with us that there was great need to get a somewhat better system.
One direct result was that when the western summit meeting was held in Paris in December there were consultations in the NATO council before that was held and there were also consultations after. The foreign ministers of the four came together and reported to the NATO council. The report was not treated in a perfunctory way. It had quite a going over at that meeting of the council which followed the meeting of the four.
The same plan is to be followed this year. There is to be a meeting of the foreign ministers of the four western powers, I think in April-I am not sure of the date- any event there are to be consultations with the NATO council at each stage.
France, of course, has a special problem in Algeria. Hon. members have read criticisms of that great nation. After the events of the last 10 days or two weeks I am sure the Canadian people will have a far clearer realization of the very difficult problems France has been facing and still faces in Algeria. She has an outstanding foreign minister in Mr. Couve de Murville. He speaks with great logic and great friendliness. He is very well liked in the NATO council. I suggest that Canada must at all times have the deepest understanding for France and for her problems. She, of course, is one of our mother countries, and one feels that when he goes to her shores. I am of Anglo-Saxon descent, and yet when I went to Paris, in fact the minute I stepped off the plane, I felt that I was at home with members of the family. We were treated in just that way on both occasions that I had the privilege of visiting France. I repeat, so far as NATO is concerned, that in my judgment there certainly is no sign of any impending break-up. I hope there will be no more talk in Canada about possible break-up.
I should like to explain in a word or two the position of NATO in relation to European trade problems. This is not my field, of course; it comes under the Minister of Trade

and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I had thought that NATO would be a forum for settling the difficulties about European trade, but when you remember that six of the NATO countries are in the common market -they are the inner six-and that only four of the European free trade areas known as the outer seven are in NATO, and that there are two from North America, Canada and the United States, and three, Greece, Turkey and Iceland, which are not in the six or the seven; and when you think that Sweden, Switzerland and Austria are not in NATO; when you look at this picture, you realize that NATO is not the place to work out the problems of trade in Europe. Hence the solution of these problems has been left to other organizations and including the possibility of a new organization being set up. Hon. members know that negotiations are under way at the present time, but the will to help is certainly in NATO. Every one of the NATO countries is very anxious to do whatever it can to solve those difficult trading problems.
I should like to sum up what I have to say about NATO in these words. I believe it is remarkable that NATO has developed the way it has into a closely knit and effective organization for collective defence and cooperation in many important non-military fields. Its strength derives in large measure from the freedom and independence which its members exercise and from the strong ties of history, culture and friendship, which the nations of western Europe share with Canada and the United States. With this background I believe we can be confident that any differences which arise out of the alliance will be resolved, as they have in the past, in a spirit of friendship and mutual regard for each other's interests.
I go on to the commonwealth. Canada's relations with each one of the other nine members of the commonwealth are excellent. All 10 members value this membership very highly. Why should they not? As members of the commonwealth, they have far more influence than any one of them could possibly have alone.
Another reason why they place great value on this membership is that today the commonwealth is obviously the best bridge between the continents, playing a significant part in world affairs and of necessity working for peace. This commonwealth of ours is so spread out around the world that it must work for peace. If there should be war the commonwealth would be in far more trouble than the United States or the Soviet union because, as I say, it is so scattered across

the globe, and certainly everyone in the commonwealth at the present time is working for peace.
Another reason why great value is placed on membership is that the commonwealth is steadily growing and growing in a way that sets an example to all the rest of the world. On October 1 of this year Nigeria is to become a free nation and of its own free will a member of the commonwealth of nations. Nigeria is one of the leading countries in Africa with over 30 million people, the most populous country on that continent, and I believe it has the stability and the organization to make a splendid contribution, not only in the commonwealth but also in the United Nations and in world affairs generally. This nation is one more that is being launched as an independent nation under the leadership of the United Kingdom and the other members of the commonwealth.
We think of the launching of India, that great country which has been such a friend of Canada from the time it first got its independence, of Pakistan and Ceylon, both similarly great friends of Canada, of Ghana, Malaya and now Nigeria; and, shortly to come, the West Indies Federation, Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya, and soon or later the problems of the central African federation will be worked out. When we think of these developments going on in the commonwealth at this time we have every reason to be proud of our membership in that organization.
I know from my own discussions in London with Lord Home, secretary for commonwealth relations, and Selwyn Lloyd that these British statesmen are deeply concerned about launching these new nations. They are putting much thought into working out the best plan to help these nations gain their independence. Here is statesmanship of the highest order.
In three short months the prime ministers of the commonwealth will be meeting and there further great steps forward will be taken. I think of the contribution our own Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made in 1957 when, within a few days of taking over his present position, he got on a plane and went to London to participate in a commonwealth conference and there gave splendid leadership which had a great deal to do with making the conference the success that it was. He will be leaving us again for the meetings which commence early in May. Because of the contacts and friendships he made with leaders of all the other commonwealth nations at the conference in 1957 and during his tour in 1958 I believe that Canada can do a great deal at the conference in
External Affairs
May of 1960 to strengthen further the commonwealth and to help to implement the plans for launching new members on the world scene.
There is one other aspect of commonwealth relations which is very important to us at the present time and that is the plan for commonwealth scholarships. It was in 1958 at a conference in Montreal that arrangements were made to set up a commonwealth scholarship plan and that plan is now about to function. Last summer a commonwealth conference on education was held in England which took further steps toward implementing the scholarship plan. It approved a Canadian proposal for an exchange of high level academic scholarships between different parts of the commonwealth. It was agreed that a total of 1,000 scholarships should be exchanged between the nations of the commonwealth, and Canada undertook to place 250 students from other parts of the commonwealth in Canadian universities and other educational institutions at a cost of about $1 million per year.
To guide Canada's participation in the scholarship plan the government has appointed a Canadian scholarship committee. The committee is working smoothly in receiving applications from students in other commonwealth countries who wish to study in Canada and in processing the applications of Canadians who wish to study abroad under the plan. I am hoping that this fall 100 to 125 students from other parts of the commonwealth will come to Canada under the plan. They will be here for a two year term and at the start there will be about 125.
Also at the conference in the United Kingdom the more advanced countries agreed to provide assistance in the general field of education to their less developed partners. Canada undertook to provide assistance by sending teams of teachers abroad to assist in training teachers in other countries, and to receive trainees for the same purpose in this country. Work is under way to implement that portion of the policy.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a
question? Under the plan how many Canadian students are entitled to scholarships in other commonwealth countries?


Howard Charles Green: I cannot give the hon. member that information at the moment. I will get it before the end of the debate. Eventually there will be 250 coming here.


Lionel Chevrier: I want to know how many
Canadians are going to other commonwealth countries.

External Affairs


Howard Charles Green: Yes. Lists have been made
up and recommendations have already gone forward as to eligible Canadians but I do not remember the actual number.
The fourth subject is Canada-United States relations. One might make a very long speech on this subject but today I merely wish to say that relations with the United States also are excellent. They are on a personal basis between our own Prime Minister and the President of the United States, between the secretary of state and myself and between various other ministers of the two governments. This is true also at the ambassadorial level. Canada is extremely well served in Washington by our ambassador there, Arnold Heeney. He is very well liked in Washington and I think he is doing a splendid job. Similarly, the United States ambassador in Ottawa, the Hon. Mr. Wigglesworth, is giving splendid representation here. The relationship between the two countries at every level could not be better.
There has been, as you know Mr. Speaker, a very significant step taken within the last year or two in the setting up of a joint legislative committee composed of members of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the United States Senate and House of Representatives. This committee will be meeting again, in Washington this time, within the next few weeks. This informal group has done a great deal to help create understanding in the respective legislative chambers. Of course, there are also the relationships between private citizens of the two countries, which are probably on a more intimate and friendly basis than those between private citizens of any two other countries in the world.
We had a very successful visit at Camp David early in November when the joint ministerial committee on defence met. We were able to sit around in the lounge of the main building and discuss 'views frankly on a man to man basis, with both sides feeling free to make any complaints or any suggestions. I feel the results were very beneficial. I am sure this means a lot to Canadians and, of course, it does also to the people of the United States.
In the world today this is a very important relationship. One good example of the result is that tomorrow there will be negotiations taking place in Ottawa between the representatives of the United States and Canada concerning the development of the Columbia river. Here we have another great scheme which can be developed only if there is co-operation between the two nations. If this development does take place it will mean a great deal to the citizens of both

countries. The representatives of the two nations have been able to get together in a way which I am sure will bring about a solution of this problem.
We are having a similar experience with regard to the Passamaquoddy project in the mari times. The international joint commission has been making studies of that project, and I hope eventually it will be possible for some workable scheme to be devised which will be of benefit to the citizens of both the New England states and our own maritime provinces.
We have the same type of relationship with regard to another body of water in which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is very much interested. I refer to the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river. This is a joint asset which probably no other two countries in the world can equal. Its use for the purposes of power production, recreation, navigation and the protection of commerce really startles the imagination. It has been necessary, in order to maintain this great resource, for Canada to deny requests, which otherwise we might have been able to entertain, from some United States interests who have wished to remove some of the water from this basin for other uses. It has been possible to sit down and talk the whole matter over with United States representatives. I believe there is a thorough understanding between the two nations as to just what is involved.
Sometimes I wonder whether it is realized in all parts of the United States, or even for that matter in all parts of Canada, just how vital the St. Lawrence and great lakes have been from the dawn of Canadian history. They have been the main geographic features in the development of Canada. Two thirds of the people of our nation live in this area, and for us it is possibly of a great deal more significance than it is in the over-all United States picture. If that fact alone is realized, I believe that our difficulties with the United States on this question will eventually be solved.
Then, I come to the fifth subject, and will deal with only four more. I refer to Latin America. In what is known as Latin America there are 20 republics all imbued with the love of freedom and all very responsible members of the United Nations. Many of them took part in the old league of nations. At the United Nations today, these 20 Latin American nations are making a great contribution. The current president, Dr. Be-launde of Peru, has been outstanding in fulfilling the functions of that office. Latin America has given five presidents to the

United Nations since that organization was set up, a far larger number than from any other area in the world.
They have a deep friendship for Canada. They feel that we are all American nations together, that we are all in the western hemisphere and that we have very much in common. They are anxious to increase their trade with us, and we are anxious to increase ours with them. I think there is also a great deal more that could be done to extend our relations in the cultural field with these Latin American countries.
It is our intention to pay special attention to Latin America. I am hoping it will be possible to get away for a visit to the Argentine in May when they are celebrating 150 years of independence, and also that it will be possible to visit some other Latin American countries, as well as to hold consultations with our eleven ambassadors in Latin America. This is an area in which I believe a good deal more can be done than has been done by Canada in the past.
The next subject is Canada and the Pacific. I realize that many Canadians are not clearly aware of the fact there is such a place as the Pacific ocean. However, for those of us who happen to represent British Columbia ridings the Pacific is a very important area. Today I plan to say a few words about Canada's relationships with the different countries around the rim of the Pacific.
First of all, there is Japan. We had a visit a few days ago from Prime Minister Kishi and Foreign Minister Fujiyama. It was possible to discuss all the problems between the two countries in a most amicable way.
Canada's relationship with Japan is excellent. At the United Nations Japan has been one of our firmest friends. She was the first to offer to co-sponsor our resolution on radiation, and we have had excellent cooperation from her representative. In the field of trade they have also been co-operative. There have been difficulties about Japanese goods coming into Canada and affecting the sale of Canadian products. The Japanese have throughout been very fair in the attitude they have taken in these discussions and, as I have said, the relationship between our two nations is excellent.
Then going a little further down on the far side of the Pacific we come to the old Indochina, South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos. There Canada has been a member of the three international commissions set up under the Geneva agreements, and we have as a result had reason to follow very closely what goes on in that particular part of the 79951-0-60
External Affairs
world. We were worried last fall about the situation in Laos. It appeared as though there might be the beginning there of a full scale war in the Far East. Canada took the position on the security council, and later in the general assembly, that there should be a United Nations presence sent to and kept in Laos. This policy was followed; I believe there are still representatives of the United Nations in Laos. There has been no war and it looks as though the difficulties are gradually being settled.
We were also involved in this area because with several other countries we are participating in an aerial survey of the Mekong river. This is the key river through that part of Asia just as the St. Lawrence is the key river in this part of Canada. We have people out there now taking part in this survey which will be very beneficial to all of the nations in that particular area.
Then in Malaya, where an outstanding job is being done in carrying on the government of this new member of the commonwealth of nations, we have close contacts and there is the best of good will between our two countries.
In Indonesia a similar situation obtains. We have many Indonesian students studying in Canada. We have a mission in Jakarta, and the relationship is excellent.
With regard to Australia and New Zealand, here we have, of course, two of our oldest and best friends, the ties are so strong, and they go back over so many years. We work closely together in the United Nations, and under all conditions the relationships between Australia, New Zealand and Canada are excellent. I hope it will not be very long before we can announce the conclusion of trade negotiations with Australia, and from time to time the various problems which arise between these fellow members of the commonwealth and ourselves will be ironed out.
This is a picture of our friends across the Pacific, and I know that everyone will be wondering just what our attitude is about the recognition of red China. Most of the countries to which I have referred look on this question in exactly or practically the same light as Canada; for example, Japan, and I believe Malaya, Australia and New Zealand. The Canadian government does not believe that red China should be recognized under present conditions. I have made that clear in answer to questions in different parts of the country, and there is no need to repeat here our reasons at length.
Fundamentally, our reasons are that we believe it would be letting down our friends in that part of the world, particularly in

External Affairs
Southeast Asia, were Canada to take the step of recognizing red China at the present time. Also, she is in default under various resolutions passed by the United Nations. Certainly, her actions in Tibet and in India during the last few months have not made it easier for any of the countries which have not already done so to recognize her.
There is another very good reason which I think should be emphasized in this house. One of the main difficulties in any approach to the problem is the fact that, given the attitude of Peking, recognition on the part of Canada, unless accompanied by explicit acceptance of Peking's claims to the exclusive right to represent China in the United Nations and to occupy Taiwan-Formosa- would, in all probability, serve to bring about only a worsening of our relations with communist China. Evidence of this is a matter of record. The communist prime minister Mr. Chou En-Lai, at the last session of the national people's congress held in Peking last April, said unequivocally-and here I am quoting the Chinese prime minister:
Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory. We are determined to liberate Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy and Matsu. All U.S. armed forces in the Taiwan area must be withdrawn. The Chinese people absolutely will not tolerate any plot to carve up Chinese territory and create two Chinas. In accordance with this principle, any country that desires to establish diplomatic relations with our country must sever so-called diplomatic relations with the Chiang Kai-shek clique, and respect our country's legitimate rights in international affairs.
It is clear, that the Peking government's quarrel is not solely with the nationalist government installed on the island of Formosa. The Peking government is opposed to any arrangement that will give a separate status to Formosa, whether under the nationalist government or any other. In fact, the official new China news agency spoke a few weeks ago of the-I am quoting-"plot engineered by the United States to put Taiwan under United Nations trusteeship".
Now a word about the Middle East.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister, before he leaves Asia, whether he can give us an indication of his views with regard to the collective security organizations in that part of the world? I am thinking of SEATO and ANZUS.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, Canada is not a member of SEATO and is not directly concerned with what is done in the SEATO organization. We are, of course, in close contact with most of the nations which belong to SEATO. Our dealings with them are as nations rather than
with SEATO as an organization. The same thing might be said concerning the ANZUS treaty.
The Middle East continues to be a very sensitive area. Canada has embassies in the United Arab Republic, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran and I hope before long will have some representation in Iraq. Our relations with all of these countries are good, even though they do not all agree among themselves. We are, of course, at all times doing what we can to help bring about a settlement of these very difficult problems in that area. We are also involved directly because of Canada's participation in the United Nations emergency force. We had there in that force 945 men as of December 31. That was the second largest of the seven national units in the emergency force.
We believe that this force is rendering a very efficient and worth while service. Hon. members will have noticed that whereas there was some trouble on the Israeli-Syrian border a few days ago, no such trouble has flared up in the area where the United Nations emergency force is situated. Of course, it is not equipped for major fighting; it has only small arms and it is only, really, a police force. But we think it is rendering a great contribution, and regard it as a vital stabilizing force in the Middle East besides being a demonstration of the ability of the United Nations in similar conditions to place in the field a paramilitary force of substantial size as a means of separating combatant forces and preventing the renewal of hostilities between sovereign states.
We are also very much interested in the problem of the refugees in the Middle East. This subject was debated at some length in the United Nations, and Canada is continuing her contribution of $500,000, subject to parliamentary approval, to UNRWA for work in this field.
Finally, there is the United Nations itself. I do not take the United Nations last because of any considerations as to relative importance, for it certainly is as important in Canadian external policy as any other organization. I think all those hon. members who have attended meetings of the United Nations will agree that it is playing a wonderful part in bringing about stabilized conditions across the world. It is a huge organization with several thousand employees and I believe most of them have a United Nations mentality; rather than feeling they are working for their own countries they feel that they are working for the United Nations. They are being given wonderful leadership by the secretary-general, Mr. Hammarskjold, who is bringing order out of chaos in an amazing way. When I think of having 82 parties in

the House of Commons here and trying to reach any result, and then see the representatives of 82 nations working together down in New York, I am forced to conclude that somebody, somewhere, has done a great deal of careful planning, and it is really a seven-day wonder the way results are obtained at that organization.
From the point of view of a foreign minister, the meetings of the general assembly are extremely valuable. I had the opportunity to meet and talk with at least 35 foreign ministers, and I know no other way in which it would have been possible to get their views or to pass on Canadian views to them. These contacts alone have more than justified any time spent in New York during the session of the assembly.
Canada was represented at the last assembly by a splendid delegation. I am very proud of the part they played and I include everybody-those who came from outside the service, the delegates, the alternates who came from the department and the parliamentarians from all parties. We were there as a team. Each and every one of the group made a great contribution and I think we were able to give Canada good representation throughout the assembly.
One is also struck by the work done by the permanent mission to the United Nations. In effect, this is Canada's embassy at the United Nations, and so much is done there under pressure-resolutions and amendments and difficult problems come up so fast and so frequently-that decisions have to be made in a hurry, various people have to be consulted in a hurry, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me when I say there is very little spare time during a meeting of the general assembly. Throughout the whole period the Canadians had a very busy time and made a worth-while contribution.
We had as our main initiative this year a resolution to provide for more effective collection of information on radiation and fallout, and also a more effective method of distributing such information. We had a great deal of difficulty in getting that resolution through. The vice chairman of the delegation, my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), did a wonderful job in carrying out these negotiations. He has become one of the outstanding representatives at the United Nations. With any luck at all he will play a very significant part for Canada in foreign affairs.
These negotiations on this resolution took a long time, in fact they took many weeks. We had to convince the big powers that the resolution should go through, and we had to 79951-0-60J
External Affairs
convince the eastern powers that we were not trying to deceive them. Finally we got ten co-sponsors-Argentina, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Ghana, Norway New Zealand and Mexico. None of these were big powers; we got the middle powers and received unanimous support from the general assembly. I hope that resolution will be of considerable help in meeting the problems of radiation.
We also had some complications in connection with the election to one of the non-permanent seats on the security council. Canada was supporting Poland because we thought that under the gentleman's agreement reached in 1946 the seat should go to eastern Europe. We also thought this election should not be made a cold war issue. Poland had been in the field for some time, before the United Nations sat, whereas Turkey was not put forward until after we had met in New York; taking all these things into consideration we reached the conclusion that we should support Poland. Many of our friends thought the same thing; many of the Latin American nations, for example, reached the same conclusion. As hon. members know, there was a series of votes, about 50 votes altogether, but nobody would give in. Both contenders were evenly balanced. Finally, our delegation was able to play a considerable part in bringing about a compromise under which Poland took the seat for the first year, and Turkey will take it for the second.
We also had difficult questions to face in connection with atomic tests. As hon. members will recall there was a resolution condemning the proposed tests in the Sahara and Canada, having made her decision clear from the start that she was against atomic tests, voted for that resolution. It was very difficult for some of our friends to understand why we would not be voting on their side but we believed that our policy was the right one and' we voted for the resolution throughout.
We were able to support France later on in the resolution about Algeria. President de Gaulle, we thought, had offered very good terms for the settlement of that problem and we felt free to support France throughout on that question.
We have been criticized in some places in Canada for our vote on the resolution on apartheid. Here again was another very difficult question. The previous government, just as the present government, had been against the policy of apartheid. No one in Canada believes in an apartheid policy. Yet the previous government had seen fit throughout to abstain in so far as paragraphs in resolutions directly condemning South Africa

External Affairs
were concerned and' in certain cases saw fit to abstain on the whole question. I think in no case did they vote against South Africa.
Last year the present government did vote against South Africa on a resolution which was a good deal milder than the one which was brought forward in this last session of the United Nations; after careful consideration we voted for those paragraphs in that resolution condemning apartheid in general but abstained on the paragraphs which named South Africa; we abstained on the vote on the whole resolution.
Last fall South Africa was elected one of the vice presidents of the United Nations and her foreign minister Mr. Louw, made an excellent contribution to the work of the assembly. In addition to this South Africa has had a long record of worth while accomplishments which it would not do any harm for the Canadian people to recall.
Just about 60 years ago the Boers in South Africa were fighting a valiant battle against the British empire with Canadian troops participating against them. After that war they were offered self-government and the great Boer leaders General Botha and General Smuts took the lead in accepting that offer and in setting up an independent govern^ ment in that country. Within a few short years world war I broke out and they actually put down rebellion in their own country by one of their fellow generals in the Boer war of a decade earlier and their troops fought beside us throughout the world war.
In the intervening years General Smuts as Field Marshal Smuts became one of the outstanding world statesmen of my time. Other than Sir Winston Churchill there were probably no more outstanding world statesmen contemporary with Field Marshal Smuts. He made a great contribution toward world peace.
In world war II South Africa was with us again. Before we talk of voting against South Africa and of taking the course advocated by a delegation here not so long ago, a course that would lead to South Africa being thrown out of the commonwealth, I suggest that all Canadians should just stop and think for a few minutes. If we adopt the sort of policy that would lead to throwing countries out of the commonwealth there would be no commonwealth left before very long.
Canada believes that the commonwealth is of such great value in world affairs that a course of the type I have mentioned would be doing a disservice to the Canadian people and to the world at large. We have been able to use our influence for the modification of policies we do not like, but to come

out and condemn a fellow member of the commonwealth as has been suggested would be very unwise in our opinion.
So much, Mr. Speaker, for the nine subjects which have now been reduced to eight.
In conclusion may I say this. Canada is a strong young nation, steadily growing stronger. It is a nation, as I have pointed out, with a good record in world affairs, with many friends and one that is actively participating in various associations such as the commonwealth, NATO and so on. Above all it is a nation with an idealistic, unselfish approach. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all hon. members of the house that Canada can play a vital part in world affairs today, perhaps just as vital a part as any other nation in the world. These next ten years could be Canada's years in world affairs. This is the great challenge to Canadians, the challenge I should like to place before them this afternoon, and I offer this challenge particularly to those Canadians who from time to time represent the Canadian people in this parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) who has just given, as he said, his first formal statement in this kind of debate in that capacity, would not expect me to comment on all the topics that he has selected for his dissertation of today. He spoke of disarmament, NATO, the commonwealth, Canadian-United States relations, Latin America, Canada and the Pacific. Of course, when he was talking about Canada and the Pacific he neglected in his reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) to explain why in his present capacity he took a different view regarding Canadian participation in SEATO and particularly in ANZUS. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will remember that when he sat on this side of the house he strongly advocated that Canada should participate in these two international bodies operating in the Pacific.


Howard Charles Green: I have learned a lot since then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend said, he has learned a lot since then. I may say that if I do not agree with everything my hon. friend said he has expressed his views with a charm of manner which I must not allow to confuse me as I examine the substance of what he said.
He also spoke of the Middle East and then he mentioned, of course, the important work of the United Nations. I want to say at once to my hon. friend, with whom I have sat in this house since 1935, that notwithstanding our political differences I recognize, as all of

us in this house do-and I think this applies to the regard that each of us would have for one another-that the hon. gentleman is a sincere and honourable servant of the Canadian people. But in a matter of this kind and particularly, as the hon. gentleman has said, in view of the serious situations that confront the nations of the world, this is a time when we should devote ourselves thoughtfully and responsibly to the great issues that divide the two great divisions of the nations at this time.
I welcomed what the hon. gentleman had to say about disarmament. In view of the current discussion in Washington, in view of the fact that the disarmament commission is going to meet very shortly, in view of the difficulties attending the three power talks in Geneva at the moment, I should have thought, in the light of the minister's pronouncements outside this house regarding disarmament, that he would have taken the house into his confidence as to the Canadian proposals on disarmament, and given us some indication of the firm position of leadership and independence which the hon. gentleman thought Canada should pursue, not only on disarmament but in foreign affairs generally.
I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the evolution of this nation from colony to nation, from a country playing a limited part in foreign affairs to one where its position is recognized as important, is not now to be characterized merely as that of honest broker. I agree with what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said in that regard, as indeed we were often reminded in this house by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) when, as secretary of state for external affairs he said repeatedly that not only should we seek to interpret the position of our friends to other countries, but that we should put forward positive positions reflecting our own national independence.
I am sure the minister did not wish to imply that in the immediate past, during the past 10 years, Canada had acted merely as an honest broker; for if there is anything that characterized the policies and the achievements of the Leader of the Opposition as secretary of state for external affairs it is that in association with the prime minister of that day the initiatives that he took did give Canada the reputation of exercising a responsible measure of independent judgment in some of the most vital matters affecting our generation.
It will not be forgotten that we played an independent role at Suez. It is very interesting to recall that Sir Anthony Eden referred,
External Affairs
in his book, to the balanced position which Canada took at that time and in that crisis. It will not be forgotten, I am sure, that the role that Canada played in respect of the troubles of old French Indo-China, following the Geneva accord of 1954, reflected the attitude not of a country that was merely an honest broker but of a country that recognized it had a role to play and a role she was determined to play in her relations with all countries, including her friendliest neighbours and associates, the United States and the United Kingdom.
It will not be forgotten that the role Canada played in the partition of Palestine was that of a country exercising an independent point of view and, likewise, our role in the Korean armistice discussions; our role in urging, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, that there should be collective economic action as well as collective political action in the interests of maintaining the defence of the western nations. Therefore, I think if the hon. gentleman refers now with pride, as he must and as he does and should, to the role Canada now pursues he will recognize that the foundations for that were laid in a brilliant manner by the hon. gentleman who sits immediately to my left.
The hon. gentleman spoke of South Africa and I am sure that any responsible member of this house will agree with him that any effort to exclude one commonwealth country from the commonwealth is a course that is not to be encouraged or supported. But that issue did not arise, and I do not say that the hon. gentleman said it did arise, in this house. That was a suggestion made outside this house; but I think, having in mind the well-known views that my hon. friend has and that his Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has about the rights of man, one may properly urge in a debate of this sort that there would be nothing in violation of Article II, subsection 7, of the United Nations charter, if a responsible Canadian spokesman were to have declared a view that would be along the lines of those uttered by the prime minister of the United Kingdom when he spoke in South Africa the other day.
Speaking for myself, I say the courage and the statesmanship of those declarations made by the queen's first minister in the United Kingdom indicate that what Britain was able to do in respect of so delicate a matter, and on South African soil, is the kind of thing that one of the queen's first ministers in one of the commonwealth countries should not hesitate likewise to do in the interests of all that is involved. This does not in any way suggest that there is any desire on the part of anyone proposing such a declaration that he wants to see any dismemberment, or any

External Affairs
withdrawal from the commonwealth of any one of its constituents. I believe that if there is one thing that friends can do it is to talk frankly, and that is exactly what the prime minister of the United Kingdom did the other day in South Africa.
At first the hon. gentleman spoke of disarmament, and because I regard this as the current important question, as the question in respect of which Canada can make some contribution, I should like to give my views on this great problem. May I say that in opening what I have to say on disarmament I regret that the minister today, in talking about disarmament, did little more than acknowledge what I am sure we all recognize, namely the great importance to the world at this time of finding a solution to this problem, and particularly to the problem of nuclear disarmament.
As the hon. gentleman said, there is nothing that is more dangerous in our time than the competitive position of great instruments of war capable of destroying not only the armies and the civilian populations of the world but even, as he said, possibly civilization itself. If that is the case, as it is, then certainly a country that has been designated as one of the members of the 10-power committee on disarmament owes to this parliament a greater demonstration of interest than merely to affirm the importance of disarmament in relation to the peace of the world.
There is a meeting of the western countries on the disarmament committee under way now in Washington. The minister pointed out that Canada is a member of the 10-power committee designated by the foreign ministers last September, note of which was taken by the United Nations at the general assembly, and that our representative on that body is a former distinguished public servant and soldier of Canada. I should have thought that if the minister and the government thought that disarmament was so important we would have had outlined today the proposals that Canada has in mind. It cannot be argued that the proposals for disarmament which Canada may have are necessarily fully secret. After all, Great Britain put forward a proposal in the United Nations through her foreign minister last September and chairman Khrushchev of the Soviet union, speaking from the rostrum of the United Nations, outlined the soviet's proposal. The other day we were given a precis of the French position which we are told Mr. Jules Moch of France is taking in the current meetings in Washington.
In any event, it would seem to me that Canada's parliament should have an opportunity of knowing not only the principles- admittedly these are important-that Canada
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
has in mind in approaching this problem, but that likewise, we should have some idea of the position that Canada is going to take on disarmament. Whether or not Canada has a proposal I do not know but if Canada has a proposal it seems to me that the house might well ask the minister to indicate that proposal so that we can debate this matter properly and see whether or not the independent position in international affairs of which the hon. gentleman spoke is going to be maintained.
For instance, I asked the minister a question yesterday and the minister did not reply. As I explained to him privately today I would have given him notice of that question but it was a supplementary question. I thought that possibly he would have simply suggested in reply that he would like to take the question as notice. The gist of my question had to do with the reply that he made yesterday when he said that Canada took the position that there should be a ban on nuclear tests. I am not now quarrelling with that position. But the minister having taken that position I would ask him if he does not think that the Canadian position in that particular should be made known to Canada's colleagues, particularly the western colleagues, three countries on the 10-power committee.


Howard Charles Green: They already know that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that they already know that. Perhaps in order to give precision to my question I might read it so that we will be clear about what we are seeking to establish. I asked the minister the following question which will be found at page 866 of Hansard:
I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question arising out of his statement just a moment ago that the position of the government was that it was against nuclear tests without any reservation. I should like to ask him if this decision has been made known to the western powers with which Canada is now conferring in Washington prior to meetings of the disarmament commission-
The minister now says that the Canadian position is known to our western colleagues on the committee. Then I went on to ask if Canada had been informed by the United States and Great Britain or by each of them separately of positions which it is widely reported they are going to take before the end of the week at the conference now under way between the three nuclear powers in Geneva. I think the answer to that question has very great significance because while there has been agreement on 20 articles of the proposed treaty in the discussions now current in Geneva they have reached a critical position with regard to the question of controls beyond the threshold in respect of the detonation of nuclear weapons underground. The situation that could flow from

the position which my hon. friend took yesterday is that we might And ourselves in relation to the Soviet union, assuming that they were not insistent on controls at that particular point, taking the same position which that country takes and finding ourselves opposed to the position which the United Kingdom and the United States might be taking in a matter where apparently they may continue to insist on controls even at what is called the threshold level.
My hon. friend will see that the independent position about which he spoke a while ago is one which I readily admit should unhesitatingly be asserted but it is one that, if taken, should be explained in relation to specific issues such as the one to which I have just referred. This great emphasis on disarmament at the present time has been focussed largely at this period, I think, as a result of the proposal made by chairman Khrushchev on September 14 last at the United Nations-


Howard Charles Green: And Mr. Lloyd.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: And as a result of the statement later made by the secretary of state for foreign affairs in the United Kingdom, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, to whom I referred a moment ago and whose proposal is in the detailed form which I have argued in the house during the past few minutes, should characterize the attitude of the government in this. If Great Britain can put forward a detailed proposal on disarmament, so can Canada whose responsibilities in this matter as a member of the 10-power committee are no less important.
The Leader of the Opposition expressed the viewpoint, I think, of those of us on this side of the house and the people of Canada generally when, in referring to the Khrushchev proposal, he said on September 22, 1959, speaking to the Women's Canadian Club of Vancouver:
Perhaps the proposal has already served its purpose, it it is mere propaganda, because the west reaction to it has been uncertain and delayed. Would it not have been wise for the western governments, especially that ot the United States, to have responded at once, very simply but very definitely and effectively? Could our leaders not have said right after the proposal was made: "Total disarmament, admirable, that is our policy. We accept your proposal on the assumption, of course, that at the end of the four year period"-
That was the prescribed period put forward by the head of the government of the Soviet union.
-we will have not only a treaty for disarmament but one for international inspection and control without which a disarmament treaty would be a mockery.
I think we all recognize that that statement is one that contains a great deal of
External Affairs
wise direction and I agree at once with what the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself said at the assembly last January, that this proposal ought to be taken as a serious proposal put forward by one of the five great powers and that every effort ought to be made to test its sincerity, its validity and its acceptability. We may have our reservations, we may have our views as to why the proposal was made. We will want to test it in the light of the kind of controls the west properly now insists must exist. But in our desire to try to bring about the achievement of full or partial disarmament, I agree that our approach to this matter must be objective and as free from sinister or needlessly provocative language as possible.
Something obviously must be done about this problem of the race in armaments. 1 came across some very interesting observations of Mr. Winston Churchill on the matter of the hideous race for armaments. One statement was made in the British parliament before the first world war in 1912 and the other, in the same vein, was pronounced in the house of commons of the United Kingdom prior to the second world war. Mr. Churchill said in 1912:
I cannot believe that after armaments of all countries have reached a towering height, they will settle down and continue at a hideous level far above the present level-already crushing- and that that will be for many years a normal feature of the world routine.
Then, in 1936, referring to these same words which I have just quoted, he said:
Whatever happens I do not believe that. Europe is approaching a climax. I believe that climax will be reached during the lifetime of the present parliament. Either there will be a melting of hearts, and a joining of hands between great nations -which will set out to realize the glorious age of prosperity now within the reach of millions of toiling people-or there will be an explosion and a catastrophe, the course of which no imagination can measure and no human eye can see.
The second world war allowed and now we are faced with the implications of these two statements, only in regard to a situation that is certainly more cataclysmic in its potential than the situation which prevailed before the two world wars. In this matter, Canada, just as much as the United States and Great Britain or any of the great powers, has a responsibility to give leadership-even if that involves taking responsible issue with those friends with whom we are ever dedicated in the prosecution of a common purpose-in pursuit of the desire to maintain peace in the world. This is undoubtedly what the hon. gentleman himself had in mind when, speaking in the general assembly on September 24, 1959, he said:
The middle-sized and smaller powers must have an opportunity of being heard, for disarmament is

External Affairs
of the deepest concern to all mankind. In Canada's work on the committee, we shall at all times keep these considerations very much in mind.
I applaud those words of the minister. Every member of this house will applaud those words of the minister, as will the people of Canada. However, they will expect those words to be translated into courageous, responsible and honourable action as a member of the 10-power committee. My hon. friend will perhaps permit me to say, and I must say frankly, that I admire the sincerity of the hon. gentleman in this matter of disarmament. I admire the general declarations he has made. We all support them. However, the test of the hon. gentleman's contribution will come within the course of the next few months when we shall see to what extent Canada, as a member of the 10-power committee, is prepared to take a strong position, not only against the Soviet union if necessary, but against any other power no matter how friendly, who seems at the moment to be pursuing a course not calculated to further the advancement of disarmament.
I know that the hon. gentleman, his government and that distinguished soldier General Burns will approach this matter on the basis of the fact that since the end of the second world war we have all recognized that disarmament can only be achieved on a multilateral basis; that the concepts which existed before the two wars can no longer prevail. Unilateral disarmament is not desirable, indeed it is dangerous. We must insist upon adequate safeguards and controls, as I hope to show later in more detail when I discuss what I believe our specific attitude should be at this time. I would simply say we have always, in the west, maintained it was necessary to have a system of controls. We had to take mutually those measures which would guarantee to each state the implementation by the others of a solemn undertaking made with regard to partial or full disarmament.
We have had trouble with the Soviet union in this particular. They have not been forthcoming with our requests for the kind of controls which we envisage as necessary. It is perhaps interesting historically to recall that in 1816 Alexander I of Russia proposed to Castlereagh that there should be a reduction in the armed forces of Europe. The interesting fact is that at that time the only European country that was on a real war footing was Russia. Then, Metternich, when he replied to Castlereagh, commented upon this proposal of Alexander's and said that his reaction was that because of the difficulties always in obtaining any true data from Russia, to take the initiative here, uncertain of a reciprocity of confidence, would be impossible. I do not say that history is always germane but I do say, as one who had some modest participation in some of the disarmament discussions, that one of the main reasons for the failure of the 12 frustrating years was the reluctance of the Soviet union to satisfy the west in the matter of controls. I do not say the whole blame rests on the shoulders of the Soviet union.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to adjourn the debate and deal with this question when I resume tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I presume we will go on with the business announced last night, but may I get some indication from the government as to what we will be doing on Monday?


John George Diefenbaker: I believe the house leader mentioned that on Friday that would be made clear. I hope it can be done tomorrow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I suggest that if, for instance, there is to be a supply motion on Monday we should know about that tomorrow rather than Friday.


[Stage Direction]
At six 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:

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 53[DOT]-Mr. Argue:
1.	On what date was the highway tunnel underneath the Beauharnois section of the St. Lawrence seaway canal completed?
2.	Who was the contractor, and what was the cost of the tunnel?
3.	Were remedial measures taken in connection with this tunnel?
4.	If so, (a) why were they necessary; (b) what was the cost; (c) the date of commencement; (d) who was the contractor carrying them out; (e) what were they?
5.	Did the contractor carrying out the remedial measures make any suggestions as to how they should be carried out?
6.	If so, what were they?
7.	Were the remedial measures suggested by the contractor carried out?
8.	If not, (a) for what reason; (b) what officials of the St. Lawrence seaway authority rejected them?
9.	What are the results of the remedial measures carried out on the tunnel, and have they been accepted as satisfactory? If so, who accepted them?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	November 3, 1959. (Open to traffic June 6, 1957).
2.	Atlas-Winston Limited, general excavation; Canit Construction Limited, tunnel construction; $3,300,000.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) to eliminate the leakage of water into the tunnel; (b) $100,000 (approximately); (c) August 1959; (d) the work was done mainly by authority forces. Chemical grouting was done by Airtha Associates Limited; (e) enlargement of the drainage system at portals, modification of drains in the three ventilating ducts, and the construction of curbs and gutters; repairs and regrading of paving and chemical grouting of the floors and walls of the tunnel.
5.	Yes.
6.	Types of chemicals to use and methods of application.
7.	The suggestions by the contractor relative to chemicals and applications were carried out.
8.	See answer to 7.
9.	The additions and modifications to the tunnel drainage and the grouting have substantially improved the drainage of the tunnel and its approaches, and the roadway
Questions
ice hazard has been largely eliminated. Work done under supervision of and accepted by the division engineer.

Mr. Argue: 1.	Were field notes kept by all resident and field engineers in connection with all construction contracts of the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
2.	If so, (a) to whom were these notes submitted; (b) who submitted them; (c) at what intervals of construction work; (d) where are they filed?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Specific instructions required that this be done.
2.	(a) (b) and (c) field engineers to resident engineers, daily; resident engineers to division engineers, weekly; division engineers reported to engineer of construction, monthly; (d) division offices or headquarters.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  WIRE ROPE FENDER PURCHASES
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the St. Lawrence seaway authority purchased wire rope fenders for use in the locks?
2.	If so, what is the name of the company which contracted for it, the date of the contract, and what was the accepted price?
3.	What company manufactured the long screws for the wire rope fenders, what material were they made of, and what specifications were called for as to material and size?
4.	What company made the nuts for the screws, what size were they, and for what size did the specifications call?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Maritime Steel and Foundries Limited, August 17, 1956, $2,289,460.
3.	1 pair by Dominion Bridge Company
Limited, and 16 pairs by Robb Engineering Company; material:	fully annealed SAE
3140 rolled steel; specified material: ASTM A274-54, SAE 3140 forged steel; specified size: 5" O.D., having single acme 1-inch threads, as dimensioned on contract drawing 4184.
4.	Blanks: 17 pairs by Canada Metal Company Ltd.; machining: 1 pair by Dominion Bridge Company Limited; 16 pairs by Canada Metal Company Ltd.; size, specified and supplied: 4" I-D., having single acme 1-inch pitch threads, and as dimensioned on contract drawing 4184, finished to suit the 5" O.D. drive screws above referred to.

Questions


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  ANGUS-ROBERTSON CONTRACT
[Stage Direction]
Question No. Ill
Hazen Robert Argue: 1.	Was a contract entered into by the St. Lawrence seaway authority with Angus-Robertson Construction Limited, as such, or as a joint venture with other companies, for excavating at Iroquois or Cornwall, since the beginning of work on the seaway?
2.	If so, (a) what was the name or names of the contractor; (b) the date of the contract; (c) date of completion; (d) price per yard accepted in tender; (e) date of payments and amounts?
3.	Was a claim or request made for extras or increases in price?
4.	If so, (a) what was the date of submission of the claim; (b) the nature of claim; (c) what officials and of what company requested same?
5.	Was a settlement of these extras recommended or agreed upon?
6.	If so, (a) what was the increase in price per yard, and the total amount; (b) what officials of the St. Lawrence seaway and/or cabinet minister agreed or recommended settlement of extra payment?
7.	Has payment been made by the seaway authority on these claims for extras?
8.	If so, on what date or dates were they paid, to what company, and to whom were cheques issued?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Pentagon Construction Company Limited and Iroquois Constructors Limited in joint venture, (b) February 11, 1955. (c) November 30, 1957. (d) $0.40 per cubic yard -common excavation, (e) See tabulation hereunder for common excavation.
April 12, 1955	$	4,240
June 1, 1955	 11,600
June 30, 1955	 64,000
August 31, 1955	 81,600
September 2, 1955	 102,080
September 30, 1955	 112,160
October 31, 1955	 95,120
November 30, 1955	 114,800
December 31, 1955	 66,920
January 31, 1958	 44,000
February 29, 1956	 54,280
March 31, 1956	 70,760
April 30, 1956	 67,440
May 31, 1956	 58,400
June 30, 1956	 71,320
July 23, 1956	 83,960
August 31, 1956	 131,480
September 30,	1956	
94,960September 30,	1956	
1,329,120October 31, 1956	
181,360November 30,	1956	
156,320December 31,	1956	
63,600January 31, 1957	
91,600February 28, 1957	
72,880March 30, 1957	
63,200April 30, 1957	
86,560May 31, 1957	
79,680June 30, 1957	
113,120July 31, 1957	
97,440August 31, 1957	
64,720September 30, 1957	
21,440October 31, 1957	
23,200November 30, 1957	
7,840January 31, 1959	
55,928.403.	Yes.4.	(a) July 3, 1956. (b) Reclassification of excavation (common), (c) The president of Iroquois Constructors Ltd., on behalf of the directors.5.	Yes.6.	(a) $0.40; $1,918,564.20. (b) The Minister of Transport on the advice of The St. Lawrence seaway authority. (Authorized by T.B. 506968, September 27, 1956).7.	Yes.8.	Dates were as shown in 2(e) commencing with the second payment on September30,	1956; to Pentagon Construction Company Limited and Iroquois Constructors Limited; cheques issued to same.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government completed its study of the segregation of seasonal workers under the Unemployment Insurance Act?
2.	Has the government completed the study undertaken in 1959, regarding the inclusion of farm help, under the Unemployment Insurance Act?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1.	No.
2.	No.



AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION BOARD


Mr. Boulanger: How much was paid by the agricultural stabilization board in 1959 to producers of milk delivered for manufacturing purposes in conformity with the policy announced by the Minister of Agriculture on April 23, 1959?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):



$8,094,821.55. QUEBEC  FREIGHT SHIPMENTS TO NORTH SHORE

Mr. Bourget: 1.	How many tons of freight have been shipped from Quebec harbour between December 1, 1958, and April 1, 1959, to ports on the north shore?
2.	How many tons of freight have been shipped from Pointe au Pic harbour between December 1, 1958, and April 1, 1959, to ports on the north shore?
3.	What are the figures for the same two harbours for the period from December 1, 1959, to January
31,	1960?

Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisler of Trade and Commerce):
1, 2 and 3. Cargo loaded for north shore ports:
Between December 1, 1958 and March 31,
1959,	(in short tons)-Quebec, 9,551; Pointe au Pic, 4,507.
Between December 1, 1959 and January 31,
1960,	(in short tons)-Quebec, 2,445*; Pointe au Pic, 446*.
* Preliminary data subject to revision.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE CORPORATION GUARANTEED INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Mcllraiih: 1. Has the export credits insurance corporation,
Questions
since the coming into force of the act, 1959 statutes, chapter 24, (a) guaranteed the payment of any promissory note, bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument; (b) purchased a guaranteed instrument; (c) lent money upon the security of a guaranteed instrument; (d) sold any guaranteed instrument?
2.	If so, what was the aggregate amount of the guaranteed instruments in each of the four cases (a), (b), (c) and (d)?
3.	What was the liability of the said corporation at 31 December, 1959, under all outstanding guaranteed instruments?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisler of Trade and Commerce):
1.	(a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No.
2.	(a), (b), (c) and (d), not applicable.
3.	None.

Thursday, February 11, 1960