1962-04-16

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend the most heartfelt welcome to the hon. member for Quebec East, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tassd).
Last fall, the hon. member for Quebec East was the victim of a street accident, which kept him away from his office for several months. I know I am expressing the feeling of all in extending to him the most heartfelt welcome and wishing him full recovery at the earliest possible date.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot in extending the most heartfelt welcome to the hon. member for Quebec East on his return among us. With my colleagues, I wish him excellent health. With regard to impending events, I wish him good luck, but not too much, however.


Mr. Pigeon:: He is dangerously well.


Mr. Y. R. Tasse (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: May I be
allowed, Mr. Speaker, to express my thanks to those members who have been the spokesmen of their colleagues of both sides of the house and to tell them how I am touched by their gesture.
(Text):



APPROVAL OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
April 13-The Minister of Agriculture-That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the international wheat agreement to be opened for signature at Washington, D.C., on April 19, 1962, and that this house do approve the same.
26207-1-190
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Since March 1957, how many signal systems have been installed at railway crossings within the boundaries of the town of St. Jean, Quebec; and, what was the cost of each of these installations?
2.	Are further installations contemplated; and, if so, at which crossings, when will they be in operation, and at what cost?
Answer by: Mr. Martini:
The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
1.	Automatic protection has been installed at the following seven crossings in the city of St. Jean, P.Q. since March 1957 at a total cost as indicated opposite each listed street:
Frontenac street	 $14,852.94
Laurier street	 14,959.55
Cousins street	 9,011.91
Mercier street	 11,988.70
St. Jacques street	 4,570.62
Bouthillier street	   8,493.06
Boveri street	 9,971.05
2.	Applications for the installation of automatic protection at Collin, Champlain, and Mercier streets in the town of St. Jean, P.Q. are presently being processed by the board of transport commissioners. The estimated costs of these installations are-for Champlain street $14,500 and for Mercier street $12,275. An estimate of the cost of installing protection at Collin street has not yet been developed. It is not possible to precisely estimate when approval of these applications will be granted.


RAILWAY CROSSING SIGNAL, ST. JEAN D'IBERVILLE
Mr. Dupuis: Have requests been made to the board of transport commissioners for the installation of an adequate signal system at the crossing of Champlain street and the Canadian Pacific Railway line at St. Jean d'Iberville; and, if so (a) by whom, and on what date were such requests made (b) what decision was arrived at with respect thereto?

Questions
Answer by: Mr. Martini:
The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
1. Please see answer to part 2 of question No. 410 with respect to the installation of automatic protection at Champlain street in the city of St. Jean, P.Q. This application was submitted to the board by the city of St. Jean under date of February 1, 1961 and has been under study in conjunction with possible changes at this crossing, and adjacent crossings, including a change in the railway from a double track main line to a single track main line which, it is considered, will result in less expensive installation of protection.


AMENDMENT, INTERCOLONIAL AND P.E.I. PROVIDENT FUND ACT
Mr. Michaud: 1.	Has an order in council been passed amending section 2 of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act. chapter 5, 19-20 George V, and: if so, on what date, and what is the extent of the amendment?
2.	Under, or by virtue of, the said act or any amendment made thereto, is an employee entitled to receive the difference between his present amount of retirement and the amount he would have received had he remained until the age of 70?
Answer by: Mr. Martini:
1. Pursuant to the provisions of section 2 of chapter 5 of the statutes of Canada, 1929, being an act to further amend the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act, the following orders in council were passed:
(a)	Order in council P.C. 1447 dated August 7, 1929, closed the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways employees' fund to new entrants and also provided that employees of the Canadian government railways in the service upon or after such closing of the fund who are not members of the fund be subject to the rules and regulations for pension allowances as are or may be in effect from time to time and applicable to Canadian National Railways employees under the Canadian National Railways' pension act.
(b)	Order in council P.C. 1956-29/353 dated March 8, 1956 authorized any employee who on January 1, 1956 is a contributing member of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways employees' provident fund to elect to withdraw from the provident fund and transfer to either part 1 or part 2 of the Canadian National Railways' pension plan under terms and conditions as set out in the said order. The privilege of making such an election expired on December 31, 1956.
(c)	Order in council P.C. 1958-47/1680 dated December 12, 1958, authorized any employee who on January 1, 1959 is a contributing member of the Intercolonial and Prince

Edward Island Railways employees' provident fund to elect to withdraw from the provident fund and transfer to the revised part 2, Canadian National Railways' pension plan under terms and conditions as set out in the said order. This order in council passed to enable contributing members of the provident fund to transfer to the revised Canadian National Railways' pension plan if they desired. The privilege of making such an election expired on December 31, 1959.
2. No-pensions are calculated on service to date of retirement.


* COUNTY COURT JUDGES' ASSOCIATION REPORT, 1961-62 TERM
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Minister of Justice receive a copy of the report of the president (Judge J. M. Cooper) of the county and district court judges' association for the 1961-62 term; and, if so, (a) has the minister made any comments to the issue of salaries raised in this report, or (b) has he been in touch with the Canadian Bar Association on the matter?
2.	What is the gist, if any, to the minister's replies or comments in either of these two situations?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: The answer is as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	Yes.
(b)	No.
2.	The matter is being seriously considered.


&quot;HANSARD&quot; DISTRIBUTION
Mr. Drysdale: 1.	What are the total number of Hansards mailed out by the Queen's printer?
2.	What is the total revenue received by the Queen's printer from Hansard subscribers?
3.	How many Hansards are mailed out to members of legislative assemblies, members of parliament, and provincial governments?
4.	What would the additional cost be to airmail Hansard to the M.L.A.'s, M.P.'s, and provincial government libraries?
Answer by: Mr. Dorion:
1.	English-8,196; French-1,811;	10,007
daily issues.
2.	$11,826 for current session, to date.
3.	Fifty-seven (57) daily, on a free basis, to provincial ministers, provincial and legislative libraries. M.L.A.'s who are not in the ministry do not receive free service.
4.	The average additional cost per issue, per day, would be 17 cents. Daily air mail charge for one copy to each member of each legislative assembly (583 copies) would be $99.11. The daily air mail charge to the ten (10) legislative libraries would total $1.70.


COMMODITY EXPORTS AND IMPORTS, ETC.
Mr. Broome: By years, from 1955 to 1961 inclusive, what have been the total commodity exports, total commodity imports, and total deficit or surplus?
Answer by: Mr. Morris:
Total commodity exports, total commodity imports, and total deficit or surplus, years 1955 to 1961, were as follows:
Total	Total
Com-	Com- Surplus (+)
modity modity or Year	Exports Imports Deficit (-)
(millions of dollars)
1955	
4,327.8	4,567.8	-240.01956	
4,833.8	5,547.0	-713.21957	
4,884.1	5,473.3	-589.21958	
4,894.3	5,050.5	-156.11959	
5,140.3	5,508.9	-368.61960	
5,386.8	5,492.3	-105.61961	
5,895.7	5,784.0*	+111.7*
* revised preliminary total
Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.


* UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE RECIPIENTS
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total number of recipients of unemployment insurance benefits as of February 28, 1962?


Mr. Starr:: The total number of recipients of unemployment insurance benefits as of February 28, 1962, is not available.


* UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMANTS
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total number of active claimants for unemployment insurance benefits as of February 28. 1962?


Michael Starr: The total number of active claimants for unemployment insurance benefits as of February 28, 1962 was 718,668.
CANADA-U.S. TRADE AGREEMENT DISCUSSIONS Question No. 45 7-Mr. Matheson:
1.	Is this government currently in consultation with the United States government with respect to the proposed major changes in the Trade Agreements Act which expires June 30, 1962?
2.	Is this government currently in consultation with Dr. Walter Hallstein or members of the administration commission of the common market bloc with respect to partnership discussions?
Answer by: Mr. Green:
1. Mr. Speaker, our embassy in Washington has been keeping the government closely informed of developments relating to the trade expansion bill, which the United States administration has proposed should replace the existing United States trade agreements act when this legislation expires on June 30. Also, Canadian ministers had a full discussion 26207-1-190i
Orders for Returns
of the proposed legislation at the time of the meeting last January of the joint Canada-United States committee on trade and economic affairs. Hon. members of the house will no doubt recall the communique which was issued following that meeting.
2. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian embassy in Brussels is accredited to the European economic communities and through our embassy we are kept constantly informed of the activities of the commission. However, no proposals have been made for any new type of formal partnership between Canada and the European economic community and no discussions to this particular end are taking place.


REQUESTS TO JOIN ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
Mr. Matheson: 1.	Has Canada received any communications from any Latin American states since March 31, 1958, urging this country to join the organization of American states; and, if so, from which countries, and when?
2,	Is Canada currently consulting with any Latin American authorities respecting the formation of a new Latin American trading bloc?
Answer by: Mr. Green:
The answers are as follows:
1.	No official communications have been received from any Latin American states since March 31, 1958, urging Canada to join the organization of American states.
2.	The Canadian government is following closely the negotiations concerned with the formation of the Latin American free trade area through the economic commission for Latin America, of which Canada is a member. ECLA played an important role in the formation of LAFTA and continues to provide guidance for the LAFTA members in the negotiations. Our mission in Montevideo, where the LAFTA headquarters are located, is maintaining close contact with the secretariat there. Moreover, our Latin American missions report regularly on these developments. Finally, we have a chance to examine these questions in GATT where the LAFTA negotiations are subject to review.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	How is the compensation for prevailing rates employees in (a) the national parks (b) the national historic parks, established?
2.	What are the present hourly rates for each classification of these employees in (a) each of the national parks of Canada (b) each of the national historic parks of Canada?


Mr. Dinsdale:: Tabled herewith.

Orders for Returns


REVELSTOKE NATIONAL PARK PERSONNEL
Mr. Herridge: 1.	What are the names, annual salaries, and expenses of the superintendent and administrative staff of Revelstoke national park for the fiscal year 1960-61?
2.	Were houses built for the superintendent and administrative staff; and, if so, (a) what is their number (b) what is the average size in floor space (c) what was their average cost per square foot of floor space (d) what was the cost of landscaping per house (e) what was the cost in the fiscal year 1960-61 of providing for each house; (i) oil (ii) coal (iii) wood (iv) gas (v) light and water? (Answers for (b) to (e) are required broken down into (1) superintendent (2) other administrative staff.)
3.	What is the size of the paving blocks from the superintendent's house to the street, and what was the cost per block?
4.	How many passenger cars and other vehicles were used by the superintendent and staff in Revelstoke park in the fiscal year 1960-61?
5.	What was the cost of operation per vehicle in the fiscal year 1960-61?
6.	What were the regulations for use of vehicles by the staff in off-duty hours in the fiscal year 1960-61?
7.	What was the inventory of the road and other machinery located and used in Revelstoke park in the fiscal year 1960-61?
8.	What was the cost of repairs and fuel for these vehicles for operation of the machinery during the fiscal year 1960-61?
9.	Have any of the park employees been employed on projects undertaken by contracts in the fiscal year 1960-61?


PAYMENT FOR USE OF GOVERNMENT PLANES
Mr. Caron: Since the Minister of Transport has assumed office, has any person or organization paid or agreed to pay for the use of government planes for any purpose whatsoever; and, if so, what are the names of such persons or organizations?


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MANAGEMENT SURVEYS
Mr. McGee: Were there any requests made by departments of .government or other emanations of the crown to the management analysis division of the civil service commission in the year 1961; and, if so, (a) which departments were involved (b) in each [DOT]case, how many surveys were requested (c) in each case, how many surveys were completed (d) how many are still in progress (e) what were the dates that the results were forwarded to the departments concerned (f) what, if any, were the estimated annual savings in each case?


USE OF PRIVATE MANAGEMENT CONSULTATION FIRMS
Mr. McGee: Is any department in the government of Canada or any crown corporation employing private management consultation firms, in the interest of greater efficiency; and, if so, which government departments are involved, and what are the names of the organizations which have been hired?



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can comment on a statement reported to have been made by the Minister of Justice in Kamloops over the week end, wherein he revealed that British Columbia has made new Columbia river proposals which seem to represent a significant modification of the government's previous position.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. I dealt with this question on Friday, and there is nothing further I can add today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister comment on the statement of the premier of British Columbia to the effect that the treaty should now be ratified; and will this desire on the part of the premier of British Columbia, coupled with the statement made by the Minister of Justice, modify the government's position in any way regarding parliamentary discussion and approval before ratification?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of a report in the Globe and Mail today that Brazil intends to submit today a new compromise plan backed by Burma, India, Sweden, Ethiopia, the United Arab Republic, Nigeria and Mexico to break the nuclear test ban deadlock at the 17-country disarmament conference, would the minister assure the house that Canada will join with its commonwealth partners, India and Nigeria, in backing this plan?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the eight non-aligned countries tabled a suggestion in the disarmament conference this morning. I have not yet had a report giving the details, although we know just about what was in the proposal. I understand that the three nuclear powers are now taking this suggestion into consideration but as yet no one of the three of them has made any comment on
APRIL ie, 1962
the particular proposal. The head of the Canadian delegation, General Bums, dealt with the question on April 12 and, if hon. members wish, it might be helpful to have a copy of his statement printed in Hansard. I have a copy here, and I would be very pleased to have it printed in Hansard should members so desire.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Excellent.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to say whether the representations made by Canada last week to the United States government were in any way inconsistent with the proposals made by the eight power neutral bloc at Geneva?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to try to answer a question of that type. We had general discussions in Washington and London and there have been various other discussions in addition, of course, but it is almost impossible to compare those discussions now with the proposal made by the eight unaligned nations, particularly as I do not have in detail the suggestions made by those nations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed that the statement of General Burns referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs be printed as an appendix to Hansard today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
1Editor's note: For text of statement referred to above, see appendix.]


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who reports to the house on matters pertaining to atomic energy. In view of the enormous quantities of cheap, metallurgical strip coal available in the Crowsnest pass and the almost unlimited quantities of hydrogen sulphide and other natural gases available in southwestern Alberta, has the minister anything to report to the house and to the country on the progress being made in establishing a heavy water industry at Pincher Creek in southwestern Alberta?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is in the field of commercial enterprise. I understand that several companies are investigating the possibility of getting a site to establish a plant to produce heavy water. No definite information has reached me yet as to what site might
Inquiries of the Ministry be chosen or when work might start. We hope there will be a good demand for heavy water in the near future if the success of the atomic energy program in Canada proves to be as great as is expected at the moment, now that the N.P.D. station has become established at Rolphton, Ontario and will be assuring a supply of electric power for the grid within a few months' time, and when the development of the great Candu station near Kincardine, Ontario is completed within two years' time. The means for making it are well known, and commercial enterprises are interesting themselves in the possibility of doing something along that line in Canada.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingale):: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether, to his knowledge, any consideration is being given to the establishment of such a plant in Nova Scotia, particularly in Cape Breton?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I understand that more than one area in Canada has been making representations to the various commercial firms to consider their area for this purpose. I think similar suggestions have come from the coal fields in Saskatchewan and also in British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a further supplementary question. Can he say whether the capital grants commission, which the government promised in 1957 to set up, would consider assisting a project of this kind in Cape Breton?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have no knowledge of that particular problem at the moment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact a former government sold a heavy water plant in Canada for a song because there was no future in heavy water manufacture in Canada, and in view of the interest now in the establishment of a new one, would the minister say this was another indication of lack of planning by a capitalist society?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member appears to be anxious for a debate. The quickest way of achieving that would be to ask no questions.


CANADIAN WESTINGHOUSE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I have a question to address to the Prime Minister. In his absence perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could take it as notice.
Has the government received a petition from local 504 of the united electrical, radio

Inquiries of the Ministry and machine workers of America demanding pressure with regard to the decision of Canadian Westinghouse to close its air brake division, and could the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether any action is contemplated?


Howard Charles Green: I will have to take that question as notice.


MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether he has had an opportunity yet of obtaining a reply to a question I asked him on April 12 regarding a statement made by Dr. John Convey of his department on the non-military uses of uranium?


Hon. Jacques Flynn (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I hope to be able to give an answer to the Leader of the Opposition tomorrow.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: have a question for the Minister of National Revenue, who answers to parliament for the C.B.C. Since the French television services have been extended now as far as Moncton on the east coast, when can the people of the Magdalen islands hope to have this service extended to them?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minisier of National Revenue):: The hon. member and many others have been urging that television facilities be extended. I have asked for a report from the C.B.C. in respect of plans which I know they have under study at the moment for the extension of this service. I am not in a position to give him a definitive answer this afternoon, but I will attempt to do so tomorrow.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[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 Finance relating to the urgent requests by wire received from superannuated civil

servants' organizations requesting consideration of an increase in their pensions. I have sent the minister notice of this question, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the question put by the hon. member, the hon. member for Fraser Valley also indicated to me that he was interested in this problem and proposed to ask me about it. There has been and there is currently, I think, a great deal of misapprehension on this subject. The fact is that there is no surplus available in the superannuation account for the payment of any enlarged superannuation pensions to persons who have been retired.
There was an increase provided in 1958 under an item in the estimates, and again by statute in 1959, for persons who had previously retired. Legislation is to be found on the subject in the pensions adjustment act of 1959, and the provisions made by parliament for those additional or supplementary pensions under that legislation are entirely from unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and none comes out of the superannuation account.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Minister of Transport, arising out of a press release that an exchange of instruments of ratification took place on Friday between Italy and Canada with reference to a bilateral air agreement signed in November, 1959. My question is, why did it take two years to exchange the ratification notes of an agreement signed in 1959, and why is it that Alitalia is given non-stop or onward rights from Montreal to Chicago and from Montreal to Los Angeles, yet no Canadian air carrier has similar rights in the United States?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minisier of Transport):: I am not in a position to say why it took that much time. I understood that it was the practice that the actual signing of documents in such treaties takes a certain amount of time. This air agreement was signed at the time to provide a certain advantage for Canadian carriers in exchange for certain advantages granted to Italian carriers. Rome is an extremely important air centre and Canada had to offer important advantages in order to get rights there. As my hon. friend knows, the discussions that take place at the time of signing such agreements are of

a give and take nature. In exchange for the advantages Alitalia got, our carriers also secured a very good advantage.


Lionel Chevrier: As a supplementary question, could the onward rights from Montreal to Chicago and Los Angeles not have been held up in the same way that the rights to London were held up on behalf of C.P.A.?


Léon Balcer: At the time Canadian carriers were pressing to get this advantage for themselves. We were interested in getting into Rome and we also secured some fifth freedom rights between Paris and Rome, even though those rights have not been exercised yet. With regard to the service between Montreal, Chicago and Los Angeles, my department has already made strong representations to the United States government on the matter. Canada's stand was expressed in very clear fashion at the meeting which took place last June, and we hope to have more discussions with the Americans on the subject.


Lionel Chevrier: You have been at it for a
year, now.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister report on the prospects and possibilities of gaining entry to the British market for Prince Edward Island potatoes?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I anticipated that this question might possibly be asked today. For the past several years the British government has prohibited the importation of table stock potatoes from North America for plant protection reasons. Throughout the present potato shortage in northwest Europe, including Britain, the officers of my department in both London and Ottawa have impressed on British authorities the high quality of Canadian table stock potatoes, and have sought the most sympathetic consideration.
We have been advised that the British ministry of food and agriculture is giving the closest consideration to these representations, running back over several weeks. While we are hopeful that the strong representations we have made will be favourably received, it must be borne in mind that the decision is one for the determination of the United Kingdom government.
Inquiries of the Ministry



COTTON TEXTILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I have sent a notice of my intention to ask it. My question arises from an announcement made by President Kennedy on March 19, 1962 that large shipments of cotton textiles en route to the United States from Hong Kong, if landed in the United States would be placed in bond for transshipment to other countries.
Would the minister advise the house what steps are being taken to prevent large shipments of Hong Kong textiles, landed in bond in the United States, being transshipped into Canada, circumventing the Canada-Hong Kong quotas and flooding the Canadian market?


George Clyde Nowlan: As my hon. friend has said, he sent me notice of this question a short time ago. I can only answer briefly that having been advised that the government of the United States contemplated this action, my officials notified all collectors of customs throughout Canada that any entries from Hong Kong should be taken subject to amendment. I think that was on March 21. Then on March 25 they were advised that with regard to any entries which were accepted the rates of duty would be imposed as if they came from the intermediate country, which in this case would be the United States, and that the fair market value would be that of the intermediate country instead of the country of origin. Then a little later on, I think it was around April 1, we notified the collectors with regard to certain specific items on which fixed values for duty would be imposed in addition to any other steps which might be taken.
I think the department has therefore taken such action as is necessary or feasible or permissible to protect the industry in this country.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I may ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether an agreement has yet been signed with the government of Manitoba for the construction of the Winnipeg floodway, which the premier of Manitoba assured the legislature would be signed before the dissolution of this parliament.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There are so many activities going on in my department that we have to consider them one at a time. I can assure the hon. member that this has high priority and will be settled quite soon.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: In reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on April 13, may I say that no effort has been made to move the town of Churchill. The federal government has, however, made known its willingness to contribute two thirds of the cost of servicing a new town site. Negotiations are being carried on with the province of Manitoba on this basis.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question. Is the minister aware that as long as this question remains unsettled there is a great deal of uncertainty among the population; and would the minister endeavour, therefore, to expedite a decision?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the hon. gentleman completed the survey to which he referred on January 26, and is he now in a position to announce an adjustment in pay and allowances for members of the armed forces serving overseas which will restore their purchasing power to the level enjoyed before the devaluation of the Canadian dollar?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Action has been taken in that regard. Troops serving in Germany will receive an increased allowance to compensate for the change in the value of the Canadian dollar as compared with the deutschmark. In addition, allowances will be provided to all troops serving overseas in lieu of family allowances and at the same rate as family allowances are paid in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I
address a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has a similar arrangement been made with regard to civilians employed in the government service of Canada abroad?
[Mr. Pickersgill.)


Howard Charles Green: I think provision had previously been made for the officials of the Department of External Affairs.
(Translation):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Lahaye (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell the house whether he has advised the hon. member for Laurier that the pilots' strike is over?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Laurier has not asked me any question about that.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. This might also facilitate the transportation of potatoes from Prince Edward Island to the Magdalen islands.
Could the minister inform the house whether we may expect that the air service to the Magdalen islands will be improved?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, being aware of my hon. friend's concern in an improved air service between Magdalen islands and the mainland, I am pleased to tell him that I have just been informed that starting at midsummer, Maritime Central Airways will make available to travellers an aircraft which will be able to carry 52 passengers and fly at 316 miles an hour. That will be a marked improvement; my hon. friend who has worked so hard to get that improvement for his constituents will no doubt be glad to hear the good news.


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (Si. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us whether that air service will be inaugurated before, during or after the electoral campaign?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, we never bother about such things.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It will not take 22 years.

(Text):



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: May I
address a question to the Minister of Labour, of which he has notice. Is the government giving consideration to the request of the Gananoque board of education for the construction of vocational training facilities?


Michael Starr: Yes, we are, Mr. Speaker.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister of northern affairs whether in between his many other preoccupations he has been able to And an answer to the question I put to him on April 6, as to whether a government or government chartered aircraft was carrying welfare officials around the northwest territories and, if so, what the purpose of this voyage was?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The question was answered the other day. The answer was no.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to ask the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Public Works a question. It is parochial, but it is creating deep interest at the lake-head. I should like to know when the official opening of the new $8 million seaway terminal at Port Arthur is to take place.


David James Walker: I shall be happy to look into that matter and arrange a time suitable to the Prime Minister and to the hon. gentleman.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the fact that parking charges at Malton airport have been increased from $1 to $1.50 a day? If so, would he advise the house how the 50 per cent increase is justified in view of the fact that there has been no improvement in the service?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léon Balcer: I was not aware of this increase. I imagine there must be some excellent reason behind it, but I will inquire.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister take the same forthright action in this respect as President Kennedy took with respect to United States Steel?



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ST. LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister to which I have not supplied him with an answer. I would draw to his attention and the attention of the house the presence in the rear gallery of members of the political science classes of St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, with their distinguished professor, Professor Willoughby, who are making their annual visit to Canada.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the announcement in the press that the Minister of Justice intends to visit Trail to discuss the question of a long term approach to the terrorism and rehabilitation of the Sons of Freedom with the Kootenay boundary committee on Doukhobor and Canadian affairs, has the Canadian government decided to accept some responsibility in respect to the long term rehabilitation of these people?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to agree that either this government or the one before it had not accepted any responsibility for the Doukhobor problem. I think this has been a great worry for governments of Canada for quite a long time. The hon. member's question is posed in such general terms that I can make no definite statement on it today. When there is an announcement to be made it will be made in the usual manner.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact
2990	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs that the small boat season is almost upon us, and in view of the fact that in the upper Niagara river last year there were several fatalities in the use of small boats, can the minister advise the house whether the consultations among municipal councils, international bodies and his own department have resulted in any steps being taken by his department to ensure safety in the upper Niagara river?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the three groups mentioned by my hon. friend have succeeded in agreeing on some recommendations which have been sent to Washington by the United States corps of army engineers. A copy of the recommendations has also been sent to Ottawa. We expect both governments to approve these recommendations, so that we should be in a position to put them into force very early in the spring season.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. Perhaps my question could be taken as notice. Could the house be informed of the position of the litigation with respect to the proposed restrictive trade practices commission hearing into the production, distribution and sale of raw fish in British Columbia? At the same time could an indication be given as to when we may expect a report from the commission on its inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I will see that a report is given with respect to the first part of the hon. member's question.
I will also check into the latter portion of his query.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS A-Department-
696. Canadian representation at international conferences-further amount required, $115,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, last Friday afternoon I sought certain clarifications with respect to Canada's policy on the cessation of nuclear tests. The minister seemed to indicate that he wished to make a statement. I do not wish to proceed if he now wishes to make a statement. At that time we [Miss LaMarsh.)

were called to order because it was five o'clock. Does the minister wish to comment?


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the hon. member would repeat his question.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The minister will remember that at nearly five o'clock, for purposes of clarification, I had asked certain questions more in the form of a commentary than interrogation, to ascertain the position of the government in the matter of nuclear tests. The minister was about to rise, but then the presiding officer reminded us that it was five o'clock. I have some other observations to make, but I now wish to give the minister an opportunity to speak if he wishes to comment on what I said.


Howard Charles Green: Please proceed.


Murdo William Martin: On Friday I had indicated that the government of the United States had announced its intention to resume nuclear tests notwithstanding the fact that certain governments attending the disarmament conference, including Canada, have publicly indicated their opposition to such tests. I had inquired of the government whether in the representations it had made it had taken into consideration facts about which there has been public comment, namely that the Soviet union has acquired, if not additional power to its deterrent strength, additional information with regard to antimissile missile operations. I indicated that important personalities in the United Kingdom had felt that notwithstanding their earlier views, the United States was now in a stronger position to resume tests because of this declared fact.
I also went on to indicate that I had understood that the government's position as stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs from time to time was that the government was of the view that there should be no resumption of tests whether or not a system of control was agreed on between the two main powers, the Soviet union and the United States. I suggested if that was still the case, as I understood it was, that position was different from some positions now being taken by political groups in the United Kingdom other than those now in office.
Since Friday a further development has taken place. While there were some questions asked on orders of the day, all we are given the opportunity to do under that procedure is to ask the minister certain questions to which he may give a reply, but there is no opportunity of commenting on the reply. It seems to us in this party that in view of the importance of this matter, and in view of the fact that we are about to dissolve, we should have a more definitive statement of the government's position with regard to these tests.

The minister is now reinforced in his view by the assertion made by the Prime Minister a few days ago in Montreal that the government's policy was that there should not be a resumption of tests whether or not an agreement was reached with the Soviet union. The positions of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs on that point are identical. Is that the position of the government? If it is we are entitled to have it affirmed, particularly in the light of the different view taken by the eight countries whose representatives are attending the Geneva conference, together with Canada and the great powers.
In today's press and in yesterday's United States press we are told that the eight nation neutral bloc is putting forward proposals in order to try to bring about a compromise between the positions taken by the Soviet union and the United States. We are told that the plan of these neutralist nations provides a form of inspection and control somewhat less than the more comprehensive plan originally put forward. Nevertheless, they have put forward a plan for some type of control. The position of Canada with regard to the eight nation bloc is that she has not formally associated herself with those eight nations which propose a system of controls.
What I think the country would like to know from the minister-and I ask this question not for political purposes but for purposes of information-is whether Canada takes the position that there should be no resumption of nuclear tests whether or not an agreement is reached with the Soviet union, or whether or not we have a system of control. Can we not say first of all that we support the position taken by these neutral nations? Surely the government would not be taking an inconsistent position if that stand were taken, and if we assert that there should not be a resumption of tests whether or not controls are agreed on. The minister undoubtedly must have had good reasons for wishing to make representations to the United States alone, as it is reported the government did through the head of our mission in Washington last week or the week previous. I think, however, that the House of Commons and the country are entitled to have from the minister a more detailed statement than we have had from him thus far on this extremely important matter.
Then when the minister is replying I think he ought to give us some indication as to what are the prospects of the disarmament conference. How long is this conference likely to go on? What will be the consequences if the resumption of tests by the government of the United States takes place as indicated by the
Supply-External Affairs President? On the order for motions we had a report from the minister when he returned from Geneva two weeks ago last Friday. However, we have not had the opportunity of an across the floor discussion with regard to what has gone on at the disarmament conference since that time, or indeed since the conference began.
I understand the Prime Minister spoke in Montreal today. While I have not before me the full text of what he said, I understand that the Prime Minister did say that the developments in Geneva were such as not to offer any cause for optimism. The minister has certainly taken issue with that view. I am not quarrelling with the minister. However, before the conference began the minister said that he was optimistic as to the results; and during the conference from time to time, in answer to interrogations put to him by newspaper men, he continued to sound an optimistic note. I always felt that the realities of the situation, however, warranted a tempering of the minister's optimism. While it is desirable that we should pursue relentlessly our objective of comprehensive disarmament or of arms control, we should not be blind to the difficulties involved. It seems to me that the optimism of the minister in this regard is not shared in the appraisal made of the conference to date by the secretary of state for foreign affairs, Mr. Rusk, and the statement of Lord Home following the return of these two gentlemen from the conference in Geneva. I think the minister would serve a useful purpose today if he indicated exactly what his appraisal is of the situation.
Having said that I thought the minister ought to temper his optimism with an appreciation that was realistic, I should not wish to give him the opportunity, which his ingenuity sometimes affords of saying that he is for disarmament, thus giving the impression that only he is for it. Everybody in this house is for disarmament provided we have present the conditions of control that will not prejudice the security of this country or of other countries. However, I believe the minister cannot satisfy the feeling that many people have on this matter if he simply says that he is optimistic and that we must keep negotiating and trying to bring about an agreement on disarmament. Of course we must do that. We applaud the minister fully in his efforts to see to it that there is the fullest discussion and that this present conference exhausts every opportunity of trying to bring about an accord with the Soviet union on disarmament. We applaud that course fully. However, having said that, we are entitled to have
2992	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs from the government a mature statement as to what is really involved and what are the
prospects.
The United States certainly has not given any indication that would warrant the assurance the minister has given, nor has the United Kingdom. The minister has not indicated what is the position of France. A few days ago he said that he hoped that France would return to the conference table. The fact is that France has not returned to the conference table. France is carrying on nuclear testing. The Soviet union has not denied that, in the absence of certain settlements of a political character, it sees no opportunity of reaching an agreement in the field of disarmament.
Is that the situation? If that is the situation, do we now take the position that the best we can get is some form of arms control? It we take that position, what are the possibilities of an agreement on the limited aspect of arms control? On one occasion the minister said that he was not interested in arms control but that what he was interested in was disarmament. I applauded him at the time.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think I ever said that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend looks back at the records he will find that last session he did say that. I asked him whether it was the policy of the government not to pursue disarmament comprehensively but to recognize that the most we could get was a form of arms control. I refer to arms control based upon the concepts that we have had outlined for us by authorities in the United States such as Kissinger, Otto Kahn and the like. These are matters that I think are of great concern to the minister and to all who are interested in these matters. We would like to feel that we are not simply engaging in an emotional outburst whose objective is not going to be realized. I say again, we believe that we should have disarmament; we believe that we should pursue that course relentlessly.
Some will wonder whether or not Canada is pursuing that course when we refuse to become formally associated-there may be good reasons for not doing so, which the minister will indicate-with those countries in the eight nation neutral bloc which in their effort to break the deadlock between east and west are proposing a modified form of control. It seems to us that Canada, taking the position that there should be no resumption of tests with or without controls, should not have found it difficult to associate itself at the conference with those countries which are trying to bring about some agreement along these lines. These are some of the questions that are in our minds and as to which 

I think we should ask the minister to give further clarification at this time.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I have often been reprimanded for endorsing the attitudes taken by our Secretary of State for External Affairs on international matters. However, I have no apologies to make in this regard. If the New Democratic party must lose the riding of Vancouver Quadra in the interests of world peace, we will do so happily. I endorse the attitude and the approach taken over the years by our Secretary of State for External Affairs, and place them above and beyond all political considerations, and I believe that the bulk of the membership of the party to which I belong will agree with the basic approach I am taking.
I believe that the interests of world peace are paramount at this time, and that in the main the Canadian people, regardless of politics, are very proud of the positions that have been taken publicly not only here but abroad by our Secretary of State for External Affairs on the really important issues that are facing mankind. I fail to understand the continued questioning and the aspersions of doubt cast upon our Secretary of State for External Affairs by the Liberal party. I fail to appreciate what their attitude is on world affairs. It still seems like the old Pearson attitude, one step forward and two steps back.
I have had the very great privilege, one that has been accorded to very few members of parliament, of being attached to the Canadian delegation to the United Nations for the past five years. I believe only the leader of the official opposition has an equal record in this regard. I have noted the growing prestige of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs in the councils of the world. Whether other nations agree or disagree with the opinions he expresses, they welcome this breath of fresh air founded on that basic honesty which is so much needed in the world today.
I listened for some time to the hon. member for Essex East. I failed to note in his remarks any expression of opinion, but I believe that over the years those responsible for the welfare of the world have heard honest expressions of opinion from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This is most refreshing, both to them and to the Canadian people.
At this time I should like to express only one opinion. I am not too sure that the minister is in the proper place at the present time. I think he should be in Geneva, because I feel he could make a useful contribution. When he was last there I was on the point of sending him a telegram to plead with him to remain at the task and not to return to

Canada, because he would serve the interests of Canada and of all mankind more by remaining in Geneva than by returning to the, relatively speaking, rather doubtful political debates in the Canadian House of Commons.
At this time I should like to make a submission to the minister. I do so in all humility, and I also plead a good deal of ignorance. I am not too sure but that the bulk of the leadership in the Canadian civil service are more interested in the return of the Liberal party to office than they are devoted to serving the interests of the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: That is a slur on the civil service. Shame.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Shame.


Erhart Regier: It may be a slam against the civil service, but I should like to inquire from the minister whether he is convinced that those who represent us in the international field really represent the attitudes and approaches of the minister or whether they represent the former regime. I have had cries of "shame" thrown at me. I accept them realizing the source from which they came. I am making this appeal to the government of the day because the issues are so crucial. I believe that at least 90 per cent of the Canadian people are deeply appreciative of the attitudes taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs both at the United Nations and at other international conferences, and I would hate to think he was receiving anything less than the wholehearted support of all those who represent him in his absence and who advise him when he is present at these international gatherings.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, first may I thank the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam for his very kind words in reference to my work as Secretary of State for External Affairs. They are probably a little biased because we both come from the west coast and have been friends for a long time. In any event they are very encouraging. I have had encouraging messages also from hundreds of people in all parts of Canada with regard to my efforts to further the cause of disarmament and to ensure peace. I could not agree more heartily with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam than when he says this question of world peace is all important. It is the one vital issue today, because if we get into a nuclear war there is not going to be any world left. I think it is just that important that the representatives of every country should do their utmost to see that this utter folly of nuclear war does not come to pass.
Supply-External Affairs
The hon. member has made some reference to the officials of my department. May I say that it would have been impossible for a minister to have had finer co-operation than I have had from the foreign service officers and from those in the department who do not come within the foreign service officer grade. These men and women, I have found, are devoted servants of the country. I think they do an excellent job. One of the outstanding diplomats from abroad told me a year or two ago that man for man there was no foreign service in the world to equal that of the Canadian foreign service. In my experience I have found the representatives of no other country to be any better, and I think none of them were as good. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, therefore, should not worry about that particular aspect of our foreign affairs situation.
In so far as the hon. member for Essex East is concerned, he should know, and I am sure he will know eventually, that anyone who was 22 years in opposition and who managed to survive, is not easily discouraged. By the time I have had the privilege of sitting over here watching the hon. member for Essex East across the way for 22 years he will be a lot less ready to give in than he seems to be today on the question of disarmament or on any other question.
The disarmament conference in Geneva is working on three fronts. One is negotiation on a disarmament treaty. The United States do not like to have it called a treaty because they have a problem with congress in connection with treaties. They call it a basic understanding, or some such thing. In any event, the plenary session is working on the terms of the disarmament agreement and some progress is being made. My dispatches this morning indicate a statement from one of the Soviet negotiators that he thought there was real progress being made in the plenary session on this question of a disarmament agreement. The United States and Russia, with quite a lot of prompting from everybody else, have almost reached agreement on the terms of the preamble. Now the main work on the first part of that disarmament treaty is being undertaken.
On the second front an attempt is being made to reach agreement on collateral measures, namely the prohibition of war propaganda. Hon. members will recall that I pointed out that while the disarmament agreement was being considered in the plenary session the group, sitting as a committee of the whole, was going to consider parallel measures which would not necessarily be written into a disarmament agreement. The United States and Russia agreed that the first subject would be war propaganda. Canada

Supply-External Affairs asked that the first subject be outer space, but we did not get our point and we have not got it yet. However, we are still pressing to have outer space considered in that committee. I hope one of these days it will be, because I think it is extremely important to agree on a declaration that outer space will not be used for the launching of weapons of mass destruction. On the question of war propaganda this committee of the whole has had several meetings and has reached agreement on part of a declaration about war propaganda. They have not yet, however, reached complete agreement.
Then on the third front there has been a subcommittee of the three nuclear powers dealing with the question of a nuclear test ban treaty. As yet there has been no agreement. I suggested that some of the eight unaligned nations should be added to that subcommittee of three, but the three nuclear powers would not agree to it. They are carrying on in that subcommittee and reporting regularly to the conference as a whole. The difficulty, as I pointed out, has to do with verification. The United States have said that it will not have any more nuclear tests if agreement can be reached on the question of verification. Russia has said she does not want verification if it involves sending anybody on Russian territory, and all of us have been trying to bridge that gap. Not only the eight unaligned countries but Canada as well have been doing their best. We are one of the four western powers represented at the conference, so we are in a position to talk to the representatives of Britain and the United States. There have been various suggestions made.
The suggestion made today by the eight unaligned countries is one which we hope will be very carefully considered by the three nuclear powers. As yet it has not been rejected, and I think it would have been a great mistake to reject that proposal out of hand. I am very glad that was not done in the conference at Geneva, because if by any chance it brings about a meeting of minds among the three nuclear powers, then certainly the conference will be over a very big hurdle and this may make all the difference between the success and failure of the conference. If a series of nuclear tests is started now no one knows where it will end, and no one knows what the effect will be on the conference itself.
From the start Canada has tried to keep attention focused on the issues that matter. We stipulated seven different fields in which we thought is would be fairly easy to reach agreement between the Russians and the Americans.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister advise us what is the latest proposal that he hopes will not be dismissed out of hand?


Howard Charles Green: I have not got the final details of the proposal, but it involves the use of the national detection facilities of all the nuclear powers and of any other countries which wish to participate, under the control of scientists rather than the military. The idea is to set up a scientific group which would be able to check on blasts. If necessary it would be under centralized control so that scientific teams could be dispatched to find out whether a seismic disturbance had been an atomic blast or an earthquake or had been caused by some other phenomenon. Generally speaking, it is proposed to use the scientists rather than other regular national bodies, and the thinking behind this is that the scientists in the east and the west have co-operated much more fully than other groups in those respective areas.
No one can say whether this proposal will meet the wishes of the Russians, Americans and British but, as I said, it is a proposal that deserves the most careful consideration.
In addition to these three fronts there is another front right outside the disarmament conference, and that is the question of Berlin. While I was in Geneva there were extensive consultations among the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet union on the problem of Berlin. Many hours were taken up in these discussions, and today in Washington the United States secretary of state begins talks on Berlin with the Soviet ambassador to the United States, these being a continuation of the talks which took place in Geneva. It may be that the first break will come on the question of Berlin, and it may be that there will be an agreement which would involve Berlin and nuclear tests. I do not know, but I think it is hopeful that these talks are proceeding both in Washington and at the disarmament conference in Geneva. Looking back to last September one must realize that at that time nobody was talking and everybody was threatening. It is very clear that the situation today is much more promising than it was at that time.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has suggested that I should have stayed in Geneva, but there is a practical difficulty involved in following such a course. There is not much sense in one foreign minister staying in Geneva. If the others stayed then it would be a different matter, but for one foreign minister to stay would not mean any progress. He would quickly use up any effectiveness he had were he to follow that course. I would have preferred to see all

the foreign ministers stay there until they would reach agreement on something. In fact I think they would have reached it much more quickly than the delegates now remaining there. That is another good argument in favour of having a heads of state meeting in Geneva, but the danger in that is that they might disagree. That would be much worse than if they did not go there because, should they disagree, then that is the optimum in disagreement. However, I am prepared to go back to Geneva the first minute I think it will do any good.
I am afraid I can never cheer up the hon. member for Essex East about the disarmament situation, but I have not been blindly optimistic nor do I ignore the difficulties. I do not suppose any Canadian secretary of state for external affairs ever faced more difficulties on one issue but, though I am not certain what results we will achieve, there is one thing I am sure of and that is that we are going to keep on trying. Nobody will be able to say that the present government did not realize the seriousness of the world situation in 1962, and that it did not do everything it could to bring sanity back into this crazy world.
When one thinks of great nations threatening each other, and that were the threats carried out it would mean practical extinction with the survivors going back to live in trees or like muskrats in mud banks, then one wonders how much sense there is in human beings. However, I do not believe the people of the world want any of this nonsense. They want to be able to live in peace, to bring up their families in peace and let their children make a worth-while contribution in the world. Certainly that is the desire of every Canadian and of those who carry the burden in all nations of the world. For our part we shall do our best to see that they get a chance.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I want to make just one or two brief comments on the speech made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I greatly admired the first part of his speech, in which he expressed a wholehearted and unselfish desire for the success of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, even to the political injury of himself, but I greatly deprecate what he said about the civil service. I shall not say any more about that, as the minister has answered that part of his speech better than anybody else could.
As regards the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East, he seems to fear that perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs is inclined to be unduly optimistic and perhaps even a bit of a visionary. The hon. member is old enough to remember the first world war, and I am sure he remembers what was
Supply-External Affairs said about Lloyd George by one of his colleagues; that he was "the only man among us who never lost heart". Certainly Lloyd George had many faults but his courage made up for them, and of course Sir James Barrie has reminded us that courage is the lovely virtue. Therefore we must be thankful that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is a courageous and hopeful man, and we trust he will go on displaying his courage and optimism. When fighting was the order of the day he was in the front rank, and now when peacemaking is the order of the day he is in the front rank for that too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I regret, Mr. Chairman, to have contrasted the minister's optimism with what I think is the realistic position. I do hope the hon. member for Greenwood, who has devoted a long life to the study of international problems, appreciates that I was not in any way criticizing the minister's optimism or his fortitude or his patience. What I was trying to do was to get for this parliament an assessment by the minister of the facts involved in the current situation.
We all applaud the minister's patience. We all want disarmament, and I think I can say there is no one in this chamber at this moment who has worked toward that objective as persistently as I have myself. I was a member of the United Nations disarmament commission for three years. I think I know something of the frustration involved in this matter. Let the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and all the rest of us acknowledge the good intentions of the minister as well as the good intentions of the government in the field of disarmament, but let us not for a moment conclude that the realities of the situation are such as to warrant the view that there is any immediate prospect of agreement at Geneva.
This is not borne out by the statements of the foreign ministers of the United States, of the Soviet union or of the United Kingdom. It certainly is not borne out by the head of the disarmament operation in the United States, Mr. John McCloy. Hon. members who wish to indulge in an emotional sort of tribute to the minister might read what Mr. McCloy has to say about this situation. He does not offer the sanguine conclusion that is contained in these panegyrics to my worthy and esteemed friend whose objectives in the field of disarmament we all applaud. We are a parliament representing the nation. We are engaged in the discussion of a very serious problem. We should bring to this matter the maturity of expression which I think it warrants.
Mr. McCloy-and his position in this matter cannot be underestimated-has stated

Supply-External Affairs in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs that there are very strong blocks standing in the way of immediate agreement not only with regard to disarmament but with regard to arms control, which is far removed from disarmament. He points out as contributing factors the failure of the test ban negotiations to which the shifting position of the Soviet union has contributed much. He mentions the disappointing attitude of the non-aligned nations at Belgrade and at the United Nations last fall. Some of these nations are represented in the 17-power discussions in Geneva. He also pointed out that another obstacle is the stated intention of his own government to resume atmosphere testing in the wake of the Soviet tests last fall. Another factor mentioned was the continued Berlin crisis. He might well have added the other unresolved major political problems which at this time divide east and west.
I believe Canada can make a contribution to this discussion, but I do not think we shall make that contribution if we simply go on saying that we are optimistic, that we believe we shall get disarmament at some date and if we unwarrantedly affirm to the people of Canada after these conferences take place and, indeed, concurrently with them, that progress is being made. Of real progress at this moment there is no evidence before us, and I do not think we serve the cause of disarmament by indulging in panegyrics which suggest the contrary to be the case.
I hope no one who follows me will suggest that I am in any way unappreciative of the good intentions of the minister. I am taking what I believe to be a realistic position. I recognize that when the hon. gentleman went to Geneva he had a difficult assignment. I have already indicated that I think he served a useful purpose at that conference by indicating the points of agreement between the Soviet union and the United States in particular. That was a constructive act on the part of the minister. I applaud him for it, as I did on another occasion. But this in itself does not indicate that we have made any progress in the matter.
What is the situation? The minister talks now about the possibility of an agreement on a preamble to what might become a document, a convention perhaps, to distinguish it from a treaty so as to bring it outside the compass of the Senate foreign relations committee or the congress of the United States. Surely, however, this will not mark real progress. Surely we are not going to believe that because we can agree on a form of words which does not have any operational effect, we have succeeded-


Howard Charles Green: There is also the first part of a treaty, the key to it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would say that is worth while, but it would be nothing more than what the United States and the Soviet union agreed on September 20 last.


Howard Charles Green: Oh yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They agreed then on a statement of principles, the kind of principles on which agreement is essential if there is to be comprehensive disarmament. The United States and the Soviet union agreed on those principles, and to the extent that an agreement of this kind is helpful, that may be regarded as an achievement. I know, too, that these principles have formed the basis of a United Nations resolution at the general assembly, and I applaud that, too. But all this is far away from anything which could be characterized as an advance in the field of disarmament. When we talk about advances in this field we should think in terms of an agreement on the limitation of forces, or an agreement to destroy nuclear weapons, or an agreement not to use nuclear power for anything but peaceful purposes. That is what we mean by substantial agreement.
I hope the hon. member for Kootenay West, for whom I have the highest regard and who is taking copious notes and whose interest in this matter is well known, is not going to rise again and say that the hon. member for Essex East is expressing a pessimistic note while indulging, on his own part, in a eulogy of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as if the latter had just died.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You are certainly being pessimistic.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not a pessimist. I am a realist. I am saying that much as we all wish to achieve disarmament it is wrong to convey the impression that a great deal has been done when in fact little has been achieved, notwithstanding the good intentions of civilized men such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We are not making any contribution to disarmament if we convey the wrong impression. I compliment the secretary of state for having taken the initiative he did in striving to indicate the areas of agreement. What the hon. gentleman might well have done is what Mr. McCloy did in this article to which I referred a few moments ago. He might have indicated not only the areas where there was agreement but as well areas where there were common interests, as well as areas where there are divergent interests. I am not going to mention them, but I think those assessments by Mr. McCloy are worth while and deserve careful consideration by all of us who at this time are considering this problem.

There is one point in Mr. McCloy's assessment of what are common interests that I have not heard the minister comment on at any time and which I feel deserves mention at this time. Mr. McCloy says that one of the common interests is the recognition by all parties of the necessity for the prevention of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation or failure of communication in another area of mutual interest. He pointed out that the Soviet union has indicated a growing awareness of the dangers of constantly increasing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and systems for their delivery. This, he indicates, represents a real problem of concern to both the Soviet union and the United States; not only the danger of war by miscalculation but the danger of destruction by the very existence of these constantly increasing stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
If we wanted any inducement for the minister's efforts and the efforts of other people in the field of disarmament we have it more strongly in this fact, as Mr. McCloy pointed out, than in any other. This, of course, is reason for the minister's concern, but it does not alter the fact that despite our concern, aroused and heightened by this circumstance and other facts, there is little evidence that progress is being made in this field at this time. We must work toward this end relentlessly.
I think the minister was right in the view he took about his own attendance at the disarmament conference. One has to judge the effectiveness of a personality at a given moment. I do not know what the circumstances were but I can readily appreciate what the minister said. We now have to have from the minister a statement about the government's policy concerning nuclear testing. Thus far today the minister has not given us a statement in this respect. I would not have pressed for this but for the fact that I have in my hand a Canadian Press story of today's date reporting a statement made by the Prime Minister on Saturday which is a contradiction of what the Prime Minister said a few days ago in Montreal. I believe it is also a contradiction of declared government policy.
I stated my own interpretation of the policy of this government on Friday last when I said, as reported at page 2971 of Hansard:
I am assuming that notwithstanding this situation. the view of the government of Canada is that the United States should not resume tests, whether or not it is able to reach an agreement at Geneva with regard to the resumption of such tests. I understand further that the position of the Canadian government is as stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a number of occasions. namely that the Canadian government believes that it is not in the interests of the present generation that these tests be resumed, whether or not there is a system of control agreed on.
Supply-External Affairs
That, I believe, is the government's policy. I take it that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because he did not contradict my comment and because he has answered affirmatively on this point before, would agree that what I said is an accurate statement of government policy. I went on to say:
On other occasions I thought the view stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was unequivocal, but that the position taken by the government through the Prime Minister was equivocal. The statement made by the Prime Minister to a gathering last week in Montreal was to the effect that Canada favoured no resumption of tests, whether or not there was an agreement with the Soviet union. Notwithstanding what may have been achieved by the Soviet union as a result of the explosions of last fall, the view of the government of Canada is that there should not be any resumption of tests by the United States.
I hope the hon. member for Kootenay West is listening to this, because he will follow me in this debate and I know of his interest in this vital matter. In other words the Prime Minister has said, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, there should not be a resumption of tests whether or not there is a system of control. That is the position as we understood it on Friday last.
Today's Ottawa Journal carries under the heading "Policed A-Test Ban Must-P.M." the following Canadian Press dispatch:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker has endorsed the western view that Russia's word cannot be trusted in a nuclear test ban without international control and inspection.
"Any unpoliced test ban treaty would be dangerous to the survival of the western world", he said.
"It would be a reliance upon the word of the U.S.S.R. without there being means to assure that their undertakings were being carried out."
That is the reported statement of the Prime Minister made on Saturday last. If true, it is in contradiction to the statement made by the Prime Minister a few days ago in Montreal. It is also contradictory to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has continually said is the policy of the government of Canada, namely that this government believes there should be no resumption of tests whether or not there is a system of control agreed on. The Prime Minister stands today, in the face of this statement, in contradiction to the position stated on behalf of the government by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and which was characterized in the words I used in expressing my view of what the government's policy was.
This is a fundamental and important matter. It is the kind of matter about which the various delegations that have been calling on the government and opposition parties have been concerned. This is involved in the great debate in the British Labour party

Supply-External Affairs in England. This is an expression of disagreement with the position taken by Mr. Hugh Gaitskell. The position taken by the Prime Minister as reported today is like the amended statement of Mr. Gaitskell the leader of Labour party in England. The decision to resume tests by the United States now may be based on a military claim arising out of the knowledge the Soviet union may have acquired following detonations of last fall.
I think the minister owes to the house at once a statement explaining this reported statement by the Prime Minister. We are entitled to know from the government if its policy is that there should be no resumption of tests by the United States or by any country whether or not there is an agreed system of control. Is that the policy of the government? We were told it was the policy of the government and it was not denied on Friday last. I am sure it represents the policy of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but it is not the reported policy of the Prime Minister, who has reverted to the position he took in Washington two years ago when he met with General Eisenhower, then president of the United States. They joined in a communique in which both affirmed that there should be a cessation of tests within a system of controls.
Following that communique I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs if there was any change in government policy, and I was told that government policy continued to be that the Canadian government was opposed to the resumption of tests with or without controls. While the minister ingeniously sought to explain away the difference between the announced policy and the policy contained in the joint communique, it nevertheless remained for many people to feel that there was a difference of opinion not only between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence but also between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said we expressed no opinion. We have expressed our opinion. Our opinion is that there should not be a resumption of tests. We did not, however, lay down absolutely the view that we could have an understanding of that kind endlessly without some form of agreement with the Soviet union. The Leader of the Opposition had proposed a moratorium notwithstanding whatever agreement might later have been made with regard to explosions in the atmosphere, in the laboratory or underground.
This is a vital matter, and as I have indicated a conflict of opinion appears to exist.

We are entitled to have now from the Secretary of State for External Affairs a clear and unmistakable statement as to what is the position of the government. Is this later statement as reported in tonight's paper the position of the government of Canada, namely that we cannot accept Russia's word in a nuclear test ban without international control or inspection? I am not saying that is a wrong position. However, I am saying that is not the position which this government has been affirming through its Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very sorry I was called out of the chamber for five or ten minutes while the hon. member for Essex East was speaking. However, since my return I have listened with interest to his remarks.
We cannot agree with his suggestion that there has been no progress to date. From our point of view we simply compare the international atmosphere now with the tension that existed some months ago. We believe that even to keep talking is progress in this very dangerous world situation.
There is one thing that can be said, Mr. Chairman, even though the hon. member for Essex East may not agree. We have enjoyed peace during this period. To us that is a measure of progress. Because we believe that time is on our side, as Churchill said to keep talking is the main thing. The situation may be very frustrating and very discouraging on occasion. However, if the Secretary of State for External Affairs and others associated with him at Geneva and other places can keep talking and keep the peace in the meantime, we think time is on our side and that common sense will prevail because of the growing awareness of people in all countries on both sides of the curtain, as you might put it, and the people in Canada particularly that, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said on numerous occasions, war is international suicide.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We all agree on that matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We give the secretary of state full credit in this respect for his efforts. I suppose he will reply to the criticisms made by the hon. member for Essex East with respect to the recent statement of the Prime Minister. Actually, however, we are more concerned with the differences of opinion between the policies expressed by the secretary of state and the Minister of National Defence. They appear to represent two points of view.
We are not the only ones who recognize this fact. There are a great many groups in Canada who do so. I can tell you that we are doing all we can to assist the Secretary

of State for External Affairs to prevail and for his view to win the day in the long run. He knows there are large groups of good women in Canada who belong to various parties; I am speaking of the Voice of Women, and we have two or three quite active groups in my own constituency. I have no hesitation in saying that the members of the Voice of Women movement and the members of nuclear disarmament groups, those people have done more than any other organized groups in Canada in the last year to present their views to the Canadian people and to promote concern about world conditions and indicate the willingness of certain people to do something about them.
I think it is quite fair to say that the Liberal party has been a bit shifty with respect to its policies concerning international affairs. We all know that the leader of the official opposition not long ago made statements that indicated a policy of not necessarily nuclear weapons but nuclear weapons if necessary. Then he gave an interview, and he was very clear cut with regard to his policy of no nuclear weapons on Canadian soil.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit a question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes; I wish to be quite fair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that in these matters the Liberal party had perhaps shifted its position, and he thereby implied that its general contribution with regard to this problem had been negligible. I am sure my hon. friend has not forgotten that the Leader of the Opposition, who was an exponent of Liberal policy in this field for such a long time, is the only Canadian ever to have been awarded the Nobel peace prize.


Mr. McGee:: Will the hon. member permit me to ask a question for clarification? Would he not think it a fair assumption that the Liberal party themselves announced they had no policy, but that they might have one if an election was called?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am certainly not going to enter into politics on this matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have every respect for what the Leader of the Opposition has done in this respect. However, my criticism would be that the Liberal party's policy is inclined to be too much on a day to day basis. They have an ear to the ground, and as they comprehend this swelling tide of opposition in Canada to nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, of support for disarmament and so on, they become bolder and they respond to it. As the days go by-and this is not a partisan matter
Supply-External Affairs -I trust their policies will be as clear cut as are the policies of the party for which I am speaking at the present time.


Frank Charles McGee: Which party is that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not wish to speak at great length. However, I think this is a proper opportunity to be quite clearcut about this matter in view of certain events which must be faced in the future. I therefore wish to place on record our policies, and to make a few comments as I go along. This policy was designed months ago. We have not shifted our ground. This is what we have to say with respect to international affairs, disarmament and defence:
The New Democratic party believes that the extension of nuclear weapons to any further states and alliances threatens disaster to the world.
I am sure we can all agree on that statement.
It therefore opposes Canada's troops being supplied with such weapons at home or abroad. At present, except for those nations which have independently developed atomic capacity, neither NATO itself nor its members individually possess or control nuclear warheads. Should they do so, Canada must make it clear that it cannot remain in the alliance.
That is in the NATO alliance, if NATO is supplied with nuclear warheads.
To relieve tensions, Canada should press for a demilitarized zone in central Europe and for the simultaneous disbandment of the Warsaw and NATO pacts.
On that policy we stand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What would be the position of his party if NATO acquired or if there was an agreement to give NATO the nuclear deterrent? What would be the position of my hon. friend's party with regard to Canadian participation in that alliance?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The resolution passed at our founding convention was to this effect. If Canadian troops in the NATO alliance were supplied with nuclear weapons, we would oppose the continued presence of Canadian troops in that alliance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In other words you would leave NATO?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We would leave NATO on those grounds.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You would disband the defence of the free world.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: To continue:
The rising importance of Latin America and the mutual economic and cultural benefits which

Supply-External Affairs would accrue to all from closer association require that Canada increase and broaden its relationships with the nations of Latin America.
In that respect I think the minister is trying to do his very best. While there are some at this time who are suggesting that we should hasten to join the organization of American states, may I say it is my personal opinion that at this time we are in a position to do the most to promote the development of a state of affairs to the greatest advantage of the greatest number by being in a position to deal with the United States, with the South American countries and with Cuba from possibly a more objective viewpoint than would be the case if we were in the organization of American states at the present time. However, that does not mean to say there will not come a time when it will be possible for Canada to join. I give credit to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and those associated with him. We have taken a very constructive view with respect to Cuba under very difficult circumstances in the last year.
We now come to our disarmament policy:
The revolution in weapons technology makes two facts obvious to reasonable men. First, annihilation is now a physical possibility. Second, there is no known direct defence against nuclear missiles. Policy must be based on these realities.
The more we know of the potentially destructive power of nuclear weapons and the lack of a genuine defence against them, the more that paragraph in our program is emphasized. You have only to read technological and scientific magazines or a recent issue of Maclean's magazine to realize that there are increasingly solid grounds for that point of view.
The New Democratic government will make a general and searching reappraisal of Canada's defence role. Much of the money which Canada now allocates to defence could better be spent on providing such conventional troops and civilian personnel as the United Nations may require, and on aiding underdeveloped countries.
I can say quite frankly that we look forward to the time when we will cease spending between $550 and $600 million on maintaining troops in Europe and will use that money to extend long term credits to the underdeveloped nations of the world so that they may purchase our industrial products, our agricultural products and so on.
It is questionable whether NORAD ever made any significant contribution to the defence of Canada and in any case it has outlived its usefulness.
We are opposed to Canadian participation in NORAD as we have stated on a number of occasions.
Furthermore, there is every danger that the Bomarcs will be equipped with nuclear warheads. The NORAD agreements should therefore be terminated.

That is the point of view of the party-I represent.
The New Democratic party demands an immediate ban on nuclear tests, both to avoid the dangerous effects of fallout and as a first step toward nuclear disarmament. The New Democratic government will propose a treaty to establish a. non-nuclear club of nations pledged not to manufacture, store or permit nuclear weapons on their soil nor to use such weapons at any time.
We quite willingly give credit with regard to the work being done in this direction by the Secretary of State for External Affairs along the lines of the principles outlined in that paragraph. This is the concluding, paragraph on this very important question:
In the nuclear age effective disarmament has become a condition of survival. Canada must play a much more dynamic role in the promotion of universal disarmament.
In that respect I say on behalf of our party that that dynamic role will only be exercised when the government of Canada is willing to get 100 per cent behind the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the advancement of the policies he has advocated in respect of nuclear testing, disarmament, disengagement and so on.
Any agreement on disarmament will require-adequate inspection and control. An independent peace research institute will be established by the-New Democratic government and staffed by nuclear scientists and other experts to give continuous study to the problems involved in disarmament and the underlying tensions which threaten the peace-of the world.
Just before concluding my few brief remarks, I want to say I am conscious of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any single group of persons cannot build up the climate and atmosphere in Canada that are necessary if we are going to have the cessation of all tests, nuclear disarmament and the developments toward peace we are all seeking. Trade union leaders in this country have a responsibility to inform their members of the situation that exists in the world today and they should do so not only at the convention level but at the union local level. Women's organizations have a responsibility, and I say once again that we owe a debt of gratitude to certain women's groups in Canada for the very effective work they have done in directing public attention to these very important questions.
All of us must accept some responsibility. It is very easy to get up and criticize the government but the people of Canada who are working in various organizations across the country must accept their responsibility so that the members of these organizations will understand the seriousness of the world situation and will be willing to study the question and to support constructive and sound proposals to meet the situation that faces mankind at the present time. I am sure

that if responsible leaders in all fields in Canada would accept that responsibility it would not be long before the great majority of Canadians would be willing to accept their personal responsibility for speaking with one voice so that the policies of the government that will represent Canada after the election, whether that government be Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic, will be dynamic and even more fruitful in the councils of the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs is going to deal in particular with the reported statement of the Prime Minister, who now says that there cannot be any agreement to the cessation of tests unless there is an adequate system of controls. The statement went on to say that Canada could not accept blindly an undertaking of the Soviet union in this regard.
The minister's position as stated on behalf of the government is that there should not be a resumption of tests whether or not there is an agreement on system of controls. That statement is at variance with the reported statement of the Prime Minister which appears in tonight's Ottawa Journal, and I am asking the minister to explain whether the Prime Minister has been misquoted or whether there has been a change in government policy in the meantime.


Howard Charles Green: I think the hon. member will find that the Prime Minister did not advocate further nuclear tests, and there has been no change in government policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question was not whether the Prime Minister had indicated that there should not be any further nuclear tests. The Prime Minister is reported as having said that there should not be any cessation of tests in the absence of a system of controls because the governments of the west could not accept blindly an assurance given by the Soviet union. That statement is to be contrasted with the statement made by the minister that the policy of the government of Canada is that there should be no resumption of nuclear tests with or without nuclear controls. Those statements are diametrically opposed to one another. Is the Prime Minister stating new government policy or does this reflect once again a statement made by the head of the government in contradiction of his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs; or are we to conclude that the Prime Minister is now agreeing with the position which has been taken by the Minister of National Defence? Are we back again to the position where there is a divided cabinet opinion on a matter of such importance? We
Supply-External Affairs are entitled to have a clear and unequivocal statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what you got.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: While the minister is deciding on the reply he wishes to give the committee in answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Essex East, I should like to draw the minister's attention to a booklet called "News From Cuba" which has been circulated in the mails. Perhaps this would not be out of the ordinary if it were not for the fact that it has been distributed by use of the franking privilege which is extended to embassies in this country, with the result that Canadian taxpayers are picking up the charge for the postage required to distribute propaganda of this kind. I understand from friends of mine in Toronto of various ethnic origins that other embassies representing countries which are in fact Soviet satellites of one kind or another have also been availing themselves of this franking privilege for the purpose of distributing political propaganda through the mails, some of which is quite offensive to Canadian citizens, particularly to some people who are constituents of mine and are also taxpayers.
I think we should hear from the minister with respect to this policy of allowing embassies to send out to Canadian citizens, who in many cases do not wish to receive this material, propaganda praising the communist heaven in their particular parts of the world. The minister should tell us why Canadian taxpayers should be called upon to subsidize this activity by paying for the mailing of this material.


Howard Charles Green: I think this is a policy which was adopted by the government of which the hon. member was a member. There has been no change in policy. Embassies are free to distribute material here and Canada is free to distribute material in Russia.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it a fact, Mr. Chairman, that we do have a reciprocal posting privilege in Russia? If so, do we take advantage of it and distribute information there which would be beneficial to the people who do not have access to otherwise accurate information about what is going on in other parts of the world?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know much about the franking privileges in Russia because apparently Canada has never sent out any material in Russia.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister inquire into this, because unless we do have some reciprocal privilege, it would seem unfair advantage is being taken of the Canadian taxpayer for propaganda purposes.
3002	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had asked the Secretary oi State for External Affairs to comment on a statement made by the Prime Minister but he has not done so. When I last put the question to him I was paraphrasing the report of the Prime Minister contained in tonight's Ottawa Journal.


An hon. Member:: You should not have paraphrased.


Murdo William Martin: I had paraphrased a statement of the Prime Minister's which appears in today's Ottawa Journal. However, so there will not be any doubt about it I will read precisely what the Ottawa Journal attributes to the Prime Minister in this regard. The article reads, in part, as follows:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker has endorsed the western view that Russia's word cannot be trusted in a nuclear test ban without international control and inspection.
"Any unpoliced test ban treaty would be dangerous to the survival of the western world," he said.
"It would be a reliance upon the word of the U.S.S.R. without there being means to assure that their undertakings were being carried out."
Those words are all in quotation marks, and then the article continues:
He made the statement as he went to preside at a Saturday cabinet meeting.
This statement appears in tonight's Ottawa Journal at page 7.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What newspaper?


Murdo William Martin: The Ottawa
Journal, and the Ottawa Journal is known as a newspaper which, particularly on the eve of an election, blindly supports this administration or any administration with a similar ideological content. I would not object if the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked for an opportunity to deal with this matter later, but the statement of the Prime Minister calls into question at once the declared policy of the government of Canada in this respect. Just before he went to the disarmament conference in Geneva, Mr. Chairman, in answer to a question which I put to him, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the government continued to affirm as its policy the fact that there should be a cessation of nuclear tests, whether or not there was an agreed system of control. This statement was made without any qualification by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I noted that he had made it on other occasions.
Then, about six days ago the Prime Minister, speaking in Montreal, expressed a view consistent with this statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as to the policy of the government with regard to this subject. On Friday last I mentioned the fact that


the view of the Prime Minister, as reported in his speech in Montreal, was now in agreement with the view expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There was no issue taken with my statement of the government's position. I have repeated several times this afternoon that the government's declared policy was that there should be a cessation of tests whether or not a system of controls was agreed upon. This was the statement of government policy, and I have just repeated it.
Now we have a statement attributed to the Prime Minister which contradicts that statement of policy. These matters are now being discussed in Geneva. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been praised for his work at the disarmament conference and no one has sought in any way to fail to appreciate the contribution made by the hon. gentleman or his objectives, with which we are all in agreement. In the face of this statement of objectives, in the face of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs reported he did in Geneva, he cannot sit idly in his seat without explaining this statement by the Prime Minister which is in direct contradiction to the policy which he has affirmed from time to time. It is significant that the statement by the Prime Minister was made just as he was going into a cabinet meeting.
Has government policy in this regard changed as of Saturday last? Was there a cabinet meeting which dealt with this matter? The Prime Minister, according to this report, said that an unpoliced test ban treaty would be dangerous to the survival of the western countries. This is not the position this government has taken, but it has been the position of the United States throughout. It is a position from which this government did not hesitate to dissociate itself. We are discussing these supplementary estimates for external affairs, and this is a matter of vital importance affecting not only our own foreign policy but affecting the attitude Canada takes with regard to the position of its neighbour on the resumption of tests. This statement by the Prime Minister contradicts in every way the statement of policy given to this parliament by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Howard Charles Green: May I merely say that the statements the hon. member has been reading do not contradict the policy of the government. Canadian policy remains the same; we are against nuclear weapons tests.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend says the policy of the government is against tests, with or without controls; is that the situation?


Howard Charles Green: I have explained it; we are
against tests, period.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now, perhaps we are getting the facts. My hon. friend says we are now against the resumption of tests. Formerly, the Secretary of State for External Affairs never hesitated to add, whether or not we had a system of controls.


Howard Charles Green: Do not put words into my mouth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend deny he said in this house repeatedly that this government was against the resumption of tests, whether or not a system of controls was agreed upon? This was the position taken by my hon. friend in Geneva as well as in this house. When we come back to a discussion of this matter at a later date, we will have to confront the Secretary of State for External Affairs with his words, in view of the fact that obviously there has been a change in policy now, a change in policy which is announced by the Prime Minister in this statement which he made as he went into a cabinet meeting on Saturday last. If there was a change of policy, one could understand perhaps that there were good reasons for it. Surely, this house is entitled to know those reasons, and that is what we are not getting from the minister at this time.


Erhart Regier: What is Liberal policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that this is the policy of the government: we are against tests, period. The Prime Minister is reported to have said on Saturday, we are against test bans unless there are suitable measures for control and inspection. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs not think there is any contradiction between those two statements?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman. In view of the importance of this matter we shall simply have to be given the opportunity of presenting the minister with the statements that he has made on the subject from time to time and to ascertain from him why there has been a change, if indeed there has been a change, so that he can tell the country and parliament.
There may be good reasons for a change. The minister is in a better position than anyone else to know, because of the post he holds and because of his discussions with certain powers. There may be every justification for the changed position; but we are entitled to have more from the minister than a statement which seeks to suggest that there is no
Supply-External Affairs change in government policy, and that he himself has never affirmed that there should be a cessation of tests whether or not a system of controls was agreed on.
While one of my colleagues is looking up the precise statement, I would invite the minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Here is the statement.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No second leader.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is your first leader?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a matter of very great importance-


George Harris Hees: You don't like what you read, Paul.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One would not want to make references to the wrong context, but my hon. friend will remember that before he went to Geneva I asked him a specific question on this very subject. He clearly indicated then that there had been no change of policy and that the government was against the resumption of tests whether or not there was any agreement to provide for a system of control. He said that repeatedly during the last year and a half in this house. I say that the Prime Minister, who is here now, contradicted that statement of the secretary of state by his reported statement.
Perhaps the Prime Minister has not seen this statement. I understand he has been in Montreal discussing disarmament and perhaps he can tell us whether he said what he is reported to have said. Here is what the Prime Minister is reported in tonight's Ottawa Journal, at page 7, as having said:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker has endorsed the western view that Russia's word cannot be trusted in a nuclear test ban without international control and inspection.
"Any unpoliced test ban treaty would be dangerous to the survival of the western world," he said.
"It would be a reliance upon the word of the U.S.S.R. without there being means to assure that their undertakings were being carried out."
He made the statement as he went to preside at a Saturday cabinet meeting.
The matter under discussion between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself is: that statement of the Prime Minister is inconsistent with the declared policy of the government of Canada.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Not in any way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, all right. The Prime Minister says "not in any way." Perhaps he will explain to us how he can reconcile these words with the repeated declaration of policy by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Canadian government was opposed to nuclear testing whether or not there was a system of control. How can

Supply-External Affairs my right hon. friend say that there has been no change of policy? How could he say this is consistent with the declaration of the Secretary of State for External Affairs? The two are absolutely contradictory.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the one hand you cannot say that you do not trust the Soviet union, or you cannot say you must have a system of control and also agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs who said there should not be a resumption of tests whether or not there was an agreed system of control. These two statements stand in contradiction to one another.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister may nod his head all he wants but he will stand in condemnation by the Canadian people unless-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -unless he explains this away without delay. He has embarrassed his own Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Howard Charles Green: Rubbish.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has put himself in a position at odds with one of his own ministers; but we all recognize of course that this has not occurred for the first time. The Prime Minister may think this is a laughing matter-


John George Diefenbaker: It is the hon. gentleman's interpretation I am laughing at.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not interpreting the Prime Minister's statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are misinterpreting it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He said:
Any unpoliced test ban treaty would be dangerous to the survival of the western world.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Maybe he was misquoted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that the same as the policy declared by the government of Canada? The Prime Minister nods his head. All I can say is that by that act the Prime Minister has indicated without any doubt he does not accept the appreciation of the importance of this matter, and that lack of appreciation will be noted by the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if a proposal were made at the conference in Geneva for the


banning of nuclear tests, which was not accompanied by measures for international control and inspection, would the Canadian delegation be in favour of it?


Howard Charles Green: There is no point in answering hypothetical questions like that. Our position has been perfectly clear. We are against nuclear tests. Apparently the Liberal party is in favour of them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have reached the hour of five o'clock. Does my hon. friend not think that in a matter of this kind where we seek to submerge our political differences that he should unequivocally state the position?


John George Diefenbaker: When did the submergence begin?


The Chairman:: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to private members' business under section 3 of standing order 15.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder, before proceeding with private members' business, would the house consider a slight alteration, commencing at eight o'clock tonight at which time I suggest, in order that the other house may deal with the matter as well, that we consider item No. 3 on today's order paper.


Mr. Habel:: Changing their minds once more.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It will be consideration of the universal copyright convention, No. 3 on today's order paper. On our side there will be just one speaker, the Secretary of State.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far as we are concerned in the official opposition we are quite agreeable to the suggestion made by the house leader, on the understanding that the moment this matter is concluded we resume the business that was set out for today and that we were on at five o'clock. I think if the house leader could give us that assurance, then we would be very glad to co-operate with the government in this matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The members of this party are quite agreeable to the procedure suggested by the house leader, knowing the importance of the question to a great number of Canadians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it quite understood?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That arrangement is satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed by the house, then, that the business interrupted at five o'clock will continue interrupted at eight o'clock to allow for consideration of item 3, and that it will be resumed after item 3 has been disposed of?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDUSTRY


Mr. W. G. Beech (York South) moved:: That in the opinion of this house, the government should take under consideration the setting up of a department of industry for the purpose of promoting and assisting the manufacturing industry in Canada.
He said: I introduce this resolution in the sincere belief that the setting up of a department of industry within the government is absolutely necessary if our economy is to reach its full potential. Without in any way belittling the efforts of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue in that area, we would be naive indeed to believe that these efforts are satisfactory. Any hon. members who have accompanied their constituents in search of information or help with their problems in connection with matters pertaining to manufacturing or processing will know of the peregrinations from one department to another and the difficulty in obtaining definitive answers.
I draw to the attention of the house the matter I raised in the house on February 22 as reported on page 1174 of Hansard. Over two years ago, the Canadian boiler society, supported by the chief boiler inspectors of most of the provinces, made certain representations to the Department of Trade and Commerce. After some discussions these representations were referred to the Department of Finance. The delegates were told it was a tariff matter and would have to wait until the budget was brought down, even though no tariff changes were involved. When the budget appeared there was no mention of the problem. The group then made the suggestion that perhaps it could be taken care of by the Department of National Revenue.
After another year of talks it was decided by the Department of National Revenue it could not deal with the matter and that it could only be settled by an amendment to the tariff and so would have to wait for the 26207-1-191
Suggested Assistance to Industry budget. Well, another year has gone by, and so has the budget, without any mention of the problem. I asked what had happened about this problem and was informed that it was impossible to do anything about it, and was referred back to the Department of National Revenue for the answer.
I cite this as the type of treatment accorded some well known and responsible representatives of industries, simply because the people in these departments are not familiar with the problems of industry, or have not the authority to make decisions. If a fisherman comes to Ottawa with a problem he goes to the Department of Fisheries, a farmer to the Department of Agriculture, a working man to the Department of Labour, a logger to the Department of Forestry, a miner to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Surely with the ever growing importance of industry to our economy it should not be necessary to send its representatives from pillar to post in search of an answer.
All other phases of our economy have direct representation in the cabinet, but industry has to depend on the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has other responsibilities, some of which may well be in competition with industry. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in a brief presented to the Prime Minister's conference on employment in October 1960, said the following:
Manufacturing has not kept pace with the economic growth of Canada over the post-war years because its problems and its needs failed to receive government attention commensurate with its stature and potential as an employer of Canadians. To ensure that these matters receive their proper emphasis in the formulation of future government policy, manufacturing should have definite representation in the cabinet.
Then again in December 1961:
In view of the problems of establishing a satisfactory level of employment at the present time and of assuring a complete fulfilment of the nation's potential in the years ahead, we believe that an urgent need exists for more attention to be given at cabinet level to the difficulties and the growth potential of the manufacturing industry.
Manufacturing provides employment for one out of four members of the labour force; it accounts for somewhat more than one quarter of the gross domestic product. Considerably more Canadians work in manufacturing than in agriculture, mining, forestry and fisheries combined. When only wage and salary earners are considered, manufacturing is responsible for about 30 per cent of all jobs. Even this rather understates the case, since experience has shown that 100 new jobs in manufacturing lead to at least 100 new jobs in service industries.
All levels of government derive a large part of their revenues from manufacturing.
3006	HOUSE OF
Suggested Assistance to Industry Approximately half of all taxes on corporation income are paid by manufacturers. While it is not possible to cite a figure, it is obvious that the largest single share of personal income taxes, in terms of industrial origin, is paid by Canadians employed in manufacturing. The keen interest of most sizeable municipalities in securing new factories is testimony to the difference which manufacturing makes to municipal revenues, as well as to local income and business turnover.
One half of corporation profits, the wellspring of so much of the funds used for expanding production and living standards, are earned in manufacturing. Although manufacturing is our nation's chief source of actual and potential economic strength, it is correspondingly capable of providing a serious problem area when employment shows weakness. In 1958, a recession year, about one third of all unemployment insurance claimants were from the manufacturing industries. The welfare of manufacturing means the welfare of Canada, and any impairment of the prosperity of manufacturing means a serious impairment of the Canadian economy.
It has recently been calculated that nonfarm employment must be expanded 18 to 20 per cent in the next five years if the growth of the labour force, the continuing contraction of employment in agriculture and the above normal component of present unemployment are to be absorbed. This growth would involve the provision of an average annual increment of about 150,000 jobs and a total requirement for new jobs of about one million over the period. These figures point dramatically to the necessity to channel Canadian development into production with the highest possible potential in terms of gainful employment manufacturing.
One of the chief problems facing Canada is finding means to bring about the processing within our borders of more of our raw material exports. That this problem has persisted despite years of discussion at various levels of the community indicates that it requires a more concerted attack with all the tools of both technical and policy making research that can be brought to bear upon it. Its solution is a challenge worthy of the highest efforts of both government and business, but the achievement of real progress in this direction requires purposeful direction and co-ordination at the cabinet level.
It is evident that we cannot afford indecision-or delay in laying the soundest foundation possible for manufacturing expansion. Such a foundation can be built surely and swiftly only if the central policy-making body at the national level, the cabinet, includes a minister whose clearly designated responsibility is to
[Mr. Beech.1

understand and cope with the problems of growth in the manufacturing industries.
The necessity of providing a healthy environment for manufacturing presents government with quite a different set of problems from those of its relationships with other industries. This is especially so in the increasingly competitive world of today, when the prospect is for closer and more complex contacts with the economic forces of other nations. For that reason the effects of broad economic trends and of government policies need to be assessed with particular reference to manufacturing to determine their effect upon it. Such an assessment can best be made by a minister who concentrates his attention on manufacturing and has special knowledge of it.
It is an old saying, but a basic truth, that "What is everybody's business is nobody's business". While manufacturing is not in this extreme situation as regards its recognition in the structure of the cabinet, the diffusion of responsibility for matters relating to it cannot help but lead to a dilution of the quality of judgment, the knowl-edgeability and the initiative brought to bear upon government problems relating to manufacturing. The future of Canada and the necessity of expanding employment over the years ahead make manufacturing much too important for either government or industry to be content with anything less than distinct and definite cabinet representation.
The facts presented above suggest that there ought to be a separate minister and department of manufacturing but in view of the necessity for economy and compactness in government organizations, we believe as already indicated that appropriate representation can be accomplished through the minister and Department of Trade and Commerce, and that due recognition of this role should be given by their redesignation as the minister and department of industry and commerce. The alteration in emphasis of duties and responsibilities to which we have earlier referred would be largely a matter of giving greater effect and recognition to certain welcome structural changes which have recently taken place within the department.
These are the considered opinions of those who are in daily touch with the problems confronting industry in this country.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) had this to say in the house on February 20 last as reported at page 1065 of Hansard:
While other important countries were encouraging industrial developments by tax relief, accelerated depreciation, special allowances for research bonuses, special freight rates, credit and guaranteed payments for exports, our secondary industries were left to grow up like Topsy. Industry is playing a much more important part than it ever has in the history of this dominion. However we have lagged far behind, and as an example, I cite our great textile plants. During the last ten years of the former administration, in this cold country where we use so many textiles, 80 plants closed down and 22,000 people lost their jobs. In so far as heavy industries, chemicals and electrical appliances are concerned, 50 per cent more of our requirements were imported during that period. This was the result of other countries

encouraging their secondary industries which were able to export their surpluses. They were alive and alert to a situation.
After complimenting the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce for their efforts on behalf of industry, the hon. member concluded by saying:
I urge the government, and I say this with all sincerity although I know I may be on ticklish ground in so doing, to give serious consideration in the near future to the establishment of a governmental department of industry to act in coordination with the respective departments of industrial development in the provinces. I feel this is of paramount importance, to co-ordinate all the efforts. I compliment the government for the steps it has taken, for the new concept that it has demonstrated, but I urge the government that the time is overdue when we should have a department of industry to accelerate the development that is so vital to our future.
Mr. W. F. Lougheed in the preface of his book "Secondary Manufacturing Industry in the Canadian Economy" states:
For some time now I have been urging the creation of a federal department of industry. This study has strengthened my views concerning the need for industrial representation in the cabinet. Fishing has a spokesman in the councils of government, so, too, should secondary manufacturing industry.
And so it goes. Time will not permit me to cite figures to support my arguments, although they are readily available. I cannot stress too highly the need for concerted action, if Canada is to stand up to the ever-increasing threat to our economy from outside competition. The newly formed productivity council is a step in the right direction but the necessary results can only be achieved by the utmost co-operation between industry, labour and capital. This can only be brought about by government action.
There are those who will oppose this resolution on the grounds that it would only impose more government interference on our free enterprise system; but when the vital need for specialization and standardization is considered, if we are to successfully compete in the markets of the world, it is difficult to see how this can be accomplished without assistance from government.
Despite the attempts of the opposition to belittle the efforts of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the results of those efforts are now showing up and there can be no doubt they are responsible for the present upswing in our economy. That the government is aware of the growing importance of industry, particularly secondary industry, to our economy, is shown by the new measures introduced by the Minister of Finance in the present budget, especially as they relate to research.
This is one of the most important needs of industry in Canada, as we have far too long been dependant on the research organizations 26207-1-1914
Suggested Assistance to Industry of our competitors. I will close my necessarily confined remarks in connection with our research people with the admonition that their hearts may conceive and their minds devise in vain if industry is not prompt to execute the design; and this can only be done with assistance from the government at the highest level.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Oliawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by the hon. member for York South reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take under consideration the setting up of a department of industry for the purpose of promoting and assisting the manufacturing industry in Canada.
This is a motion which I am sure commends itself to all hon. members. In considering this whole broad subject matter I wish to remind the house that in the last year or two various suggestions have been put forward on this or related subjects. One suggestion was that a ministry of economic affairs should be established. Of course, there is an obvious objection to that proposal because no minister in any government could reasonably be asked to accept the proposition that another minister should have a superior position to him and that he should be under the direction of another minister. It will readily be seen that by its very nature such a proposition is bad and unacceptable. However, the fact that this suggestion has been made indicates the growing feeling in this country that there is a serious gap in the treatment of this subject, and that some action is required on the part of the government.
The need for such a department is a new one which has come about because of a combination of circumstances; but the fact of the matter is that before the change of government we had in the then minister of trade and commerce a minister to whom all the persons in the country concerned with the subject of industry generally, and the manufacturing industry in particular, could come with their problems-problems similar to the one mentioned by the hon. member for York South in the opening part of his remarks- and indeed all relevant problems. They could lay their problems before him to be brought before the cabinet for decision by the cabinet. I well know that over a period of years the leaders of labour, industry and other organizations having a direct concern, did come regularly and in numbers to the then minister and spell out their problems. I think all hon. members will agree that that situation obtained, and that the person filling the position of minister of trade and commerce at that time understood that type of problem. Since that minister has gone from us
3008	HOUSE OF
Suggested Assistance to Industry and there has been a new one, the need for this new department has been indicated and has shown itself. I am not suggesting that it is likely or indeed probable that we shall ever again have a man of the capacity in this field of the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe. Those things happen infrequently. I do not think anyone in the ministry would particularly quarrel with that statement. Ministers come and go but it is not often that you have one possessing the undoubted capacity and understanding of the problems as they affect industry, and the manufacturing industry in particular, to the extent those qualities were possessed by Right Hon. C. D. Howe. It is not often that event occurs in the life of succeeding governments.
There is one other factor that enters into this matter. The Department of Trade and Commerce is materially handicapped in dealing wiht this problem under its present organization. Unless it is going to be reorganized, it is necessary to set up a department such as the one indicated. To indicate what I mean when I say that the Department of Trade and Commerce would require to be reorganized, I would point out that it has now become a truncated department. The authority taken away from it under the present minister by the present government is something that restricts it to dealing with only part of what was formerly considered to be the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I do not know why that was done. I am not proposing to argue the matter now, but I point it out in considering this motion. I would point out that the discontinuance of the preparation and the publication of the Economic Outlook each year and the liquidation of the branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce which did the work in preparing that document are something that has materially handicapped the present government in dealing with problems confronting industry.


Mr. Pallell:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


John Cameron Pallett: Do I understand him to say that there has been a reduction in the number of persons preparing statistics on the economic position of the country?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is one of the things which bothers me a great deal. We have now simply wiped out that organization. It was a superb organization. When that branch was set up after the war it was headed by an outstanding man who left the department to become the principal of Queen's University. If you take into consideration the succession of heads of the branch, you will see that is the kind of 

treatment they received. The work that branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce did in assembling the statistical information on the projected undertakings in the economy of Canada for use of a government in considering and arriving at policy was a very great contribution. It is my opinion that it is one of the factors that helped to create the prosperity we had in those post-war years.


John Cameron Pallett: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


John Cameron Pallett: Is the hon. member suggesting that the people who are there now are not as good as the ones who were there previously?


George James McIlraith: I am suggesting that this branch of the department is virtually liquidated. That is what I am suggesting. I had an opportunity of working rather closely with that department and I can say frankly to the hon. member who asked the question that I think that this government made a great mistake. I will not ask him to agree with me about the circus performance in publishing that report on the Economic Outlook but I will ask him to agree with me that he should examine into the problem of just what has been done to the branch which prepared that kind of information for a ministry. A ministry cannot work without that kind of information. This government is materially handicapped in not having that kind of information in developing policy. That is the point I wish to make.
Then there is one other thing I wish to mention. By that action and others they have lost the kind of co-ordination that existed between labour, industry-I refer to the industrial leaders-and governments. The three must co-operate in order to get effective industrial production of a higher order. There is a role for each of the three. That coordination did take place, in fact, under the former minister of trade and commerce. As I say, it is a matter of regret that it does not take place now owing to a number of circumstances.
In order to show the need for the kind of department proposed by the hon. member for York South, perhaps a good illustration will be found in the situation in which some of the secondary manufacturing industry-and at the moment I am thinking about the automobile industry-found itself about two or three years ago. That problem was not grappled with by the government, and the kind of decision that was required to be taken then was not taken because, in my view-possibly other hon. members will have quite different views-the government simply did not have

the kind of organization that was capable of understanding the kind of problem confronting the industry and the effect, beneficial or otherwise, that certain proposed changes would have. That is a good example indicating the need.
If anyone has any doubt about the importance of the manufacturing industry in providing employment, he has only to examine the statistics on the subject. It is absolutely essential in this country that we keep the manufacturing industry and the secondary industries developing at a rate sufficient to provide the employment that will take care of the increase in the labour force that becomes available each year. That is the nub of the problem. It is interesting to note this fact. When you examine this subject you will find that there was sufficient development in Canada to more than take care of the increase in the labour force every year since the end of the war up to and including 1957, but that from 1958 on the increase in the labour force each year has been greater than has been the increase in jobs provided and available for them. That is the situation in which this country finds itself today.
In the last figures available it will be found that some 278,000 fewer jobs were made available through the development of the country than were required to meet the increase in the labour force. I will not give statistics on the subject. There are several that can be given showing the percentage increase in the gross national product and showing the percentage increase in terms of dollars and so on. Those figures are fairly well known. However, the thing works out in this way. The increase in the gross national product over the years 1945 to 1957 averaged out at about 4.6 per cent per year, and from 1958 to 1961 it averaged out at 1.5 per cent per year while the annual increase in the labour force over the whole period is about 2.5 per cent. If you take the gross national product and break it down in terms of what part of it comes-
Mr. Pallet!: When you say 2.5 per cent-


George James McIlraith: Just a moment-from the manufacturing industry, and then take the number of jobs made available from this large segment of the factors going into the gross national product, you will find that the manufacturing industry is quite important from the point of view of making employment available. I am sorry I cut off the hon. member for Peel. He had a question.


John Cameron Pallett: You said the increase in the labour force was 2.5 per cent. Over what period?


George James McIlraith: From 1945 to 1961.
16. 1962
Suggested Assistance to Industry
Mr. Pallet!: Your figures are wrong.


George James McIlraith: No, I think not. You can check carefully and you will find that those figures indicate the problem.
Mr. Pallet!: Half a million new jobs in four years would be more than that.


George James McIlraith: I would be glad to hear the hon. member for Peel speak, but the facts on this subject are perfectly clear and there can be no controversy about them. There is a very slight increase in employment but not an increase equal to the increase in the number of persons entering the labour force. Surely there cannot be a failure to recognize the problem created by that situation.
There are other factors to this problem. A department of industry would provide a ministry to which those persons in Canada directly concerned with the problem could go for the purpose of making representations, and bringing forward problems which they thought should be dealt with. Since the ministry would be devoted to this subject, it could build up the proper background of information required to make the proper kind of forecasts that are necessary in dealing with this difficult problem. It is not an easy or simple problem and I am not one to suggest that the solution is easy.
I am not saying that the officials of such a department would be infallible by any means, but the department could examine the method of procurement of defence requirements now being followed, which it seems to me has fallen badly by the wayside, and ascertain what are the implications of the method now being followed by the Department of Defence Production, that of merely procuring end of run goods from other countries instead of examining carefully the impact defencewise, from the point of view of industrial preparedness and the keeping of an industrial complex in Canada in healthy condition by procuring these articles in this country. With respect to some defence procurement there is no direct association between procurement of the articles in Canada and the indirect effect of doing so from the point of view of keeping defence industrial know-how alive and at work in a segment of our industry, so that that part of the industrial complex can make its contribution in ordinary peacetime activies.
Mr. Pallet!: Would the hon. member permit a question?


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the hon. member would wait. That is something that has slipped badly by the board, and I think
3010	HOUSE OF
Suggested Assistance to Industry innocently so far as the government is concerned. I am not suggesting that the government had any improper motives in that regard but I am suggesting they have fallen into the position where that kind of problem has not been getting sufficient attention. I think it is essential that it receive sufficient attention and I think a department of industry is one means whereby he problem might tend to receive sufficient attention.
It can be argued, of course, that possibly the Department of Defence Production should develop some of its facilities a bit more, though I am not suggesting that now. I am simply willing to grant that there are other means.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is this new department going to do that the Department of Trade and Commerce cannot do?


Mr, Mcllrailh:: That was the point of my remarks. Such a department was quite unnecessary until the change of government. Formerly this work was all done in the Department of Trade and Commerce; but now that department has been so truncated the job is not being done at all. If that department is not going to be restored to its role in this and other related fields, then the government should give consideration to setting up a separate department. In any event, the problem has to be considered. The hon. member for Peel had a question.


John Cameron Pallett: I wonder whether the hon. member recalls that the government which he supported cancelled the going into production of the first Canadian commercial jet transport?


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member for Peel wants to debate the subject of the production of aircraft, may I remind him that one of the hardest blows to any industry in Canada was the liquidation of the absolutely outstanding team of scientific specialists, technicians and engineers that had been gathered together in the Arrow project in his riding. The impact of the cancellation of that contract in the arbitrary way it was cancelled, without examining into the effect on the industry of the liquidation of that team of engineers, scientists and technicians-


Mr. Grafftey:: You put them to work on an obsolete aircraft.


George James McIlraith: -has been very severe and has contributed to the depression of the last three years. If any competence had been exercised in considering the cancellation of that contract, it could have been done in a way that would not have had such a harmful effect on the economy of Canada. It could have been done properly in a way that would


not have damaged the country and the industry of Canada to nearly the same extent.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to support the motion moved by the hon. member for York South. However, before indicating areas of agreement I should like to suggest that clarification of the motion would perhaps be of some value because it envisages the setting up of a department of industry. The problem there, of course, is that the word "industry" is used in such a broad way. I listened to the hon. member's remarks as carefully as I could and I felt that he really meant secondary industry. He talked about the fishing industry, the lumbering industry and various forms of industry which I am sure he would wish to keep outside such a department, as these primary industries have departments of their own. I take it what the hon. member wishes to see done is for a department to be set up which would be particularly concerned with secondary manufacturing, and it is in this way that I interpret the resolution that he has placed upon the order paper.
I think the resolution is an excellent one and I believe we must give some emphasis to something that is becoming more and more important in the economic life of our nation. In my view the organization of government as we have it today reflects the kind of economic organization which largely supported our nation at one time. Therefore the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and so on were very necessary and still are. But if in the structural organization of our government we are going to reflect the kind of economy that motivates our nation today we certainly need a department of secondary industry as our economy becomes more and more sophisticated. I do not think we want to burden a department which has, in a sense, become rather a hodgepodge already, that is our Department of Trade and Commerce. This department already deals with the bureau of statistics and several other branches. Certainly I do not believe it would be of advantage to burden that department with an industrial branch to look after secondary manufacturing. I feel it would be far better to have a separate department established with its own minister.
I think the hon. member for York South indicated some of the major reasons for my suggestion. Secondary industry is going to provide us with employment in the future. One of the professors at Queen's has indicated that over the next five years we in Canada will have to provide 5,000 jobs a week. These

jobs are going to have to be largely provided by secondary manufacturing. As has already been indicated, this area of manufacturing today supports more workers than any other area of our economy. Canada, over the past number of years, has become a major industrial nation. Certainly, I think we must recognize the fact that such a department has become a necessity. I do not disparage in any way the efforts that have been made by the Department of Trade and Commerce in this particular field. However, I am sure that all would recognize the need for some new organization in this particular area.
I believe we would agree that there are some very great developments that are taking place which merit the special attention of a minister and a departmental organization. There is, for instance, the problem of the combination of our industries and the fact that some of our industries are too small to compete. We are going to have to take a look at secondary manufacturing to see whether or not the units are sufficiently large to be able to compete on world markets. Then, too, we will have to look at some of our legislation, such as the Combines Investigation Act and other aspects of our legislation, to ascertain whether we can reorganize, reorient and redirect our efforts dealing with secondary manufacturing.
During the past few years we have been talking about the problem of United States control of secondary manufacturing. The bureau of statistics indicates to us that foreign ownership of secondary manufacturing has inched up from 38 per cent in 1926 to 57 per cent in 1959 and control has gone from 35 per cent to 57 per cent. This indicates the seriousness of the problem, particularly in the area of secondary manufacturing. Of course, we have seen this problem in the area of primary industry as well. This is a problem which can be dealt with, I believe, by a department particularly concerned with the problems of secondary industry.
We have to consider the problem of capital assistance to secondary industry because it is not needed in the same way or on the same terms as it is needed for primary industry.
I think, too, we have to take into account these nuances, these changes. We must not base our thinking upon primary industry. We have been talking a great deal about the relocation of industry. We have been talking about some of the problems of areas in our nation that have not been able to achieve the same level of development and prosperity as other areas. We have been talking about the possibility of relocating secondary industry. There are particular problems in connection with this suggestion which do not exist in
16. 1962
Suggested Assistance to Industry connection with primary industry. I feel that a department such as the one suggested by the hon. member for York South would indeed be a valuable addition in dealing with the problems of relocating secondary industry.
We have been talking, too, a great deal about the problems of training and about apprenticeship schemes. I feel it would be of value to have this department which could give advice and statistics to indicate trends to the Department of Labour when setting up new courses or new apprenticeship schemes.
I think that during this period of transition through which Canada is going the value of a department of industry would be readily seen. This department could look into the whole problem of the structure of our secondary industry. So often we tend to cram industry into one single area. I think this department could very well deal with that problem, just as it could with tariffs and the tax structure as they affect secondary industry. It has become almost a platitude over the past number of years to say that we have been exporting low employment content goods and importing high employment content goods. I am sure the government is concerned with this situation because it is one which we, as a nation, have to study. I think such a department could be a spur to activity in that area.
I know there are other members who wish to speak on this resolution, so I shall just close by commending the hon. member for introducing this motion this afternoon.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: The proposal put ferward by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Beech) is an intriguing one. It has a particular interest for me. If for a moment therefore I might become at least regional, if not parochial, I might mention that we in the Atlantic provinces, of which Newfoundland is one, have a particular interest in industrial development. Throughout our entire history we have had a great interest in trade. Perhaps some hon. members can remember the days when, comparatively speaking, the importance of some parts of the Atlantic provinces industrially was greater than it is now. We feel, and I think in this I express the sentiments of most people from the eastern seaboard, that a greater emphasis on industrial development could improve our lot considerably.
Actually, sir, the proposal that there should be a minister of industry is one which offers considerable possibilities. I would not, for a moment, suggest that this in itself will solve all our problems because government, although it has a great effect in these modem days upon industrial development, is not the
3012	HOUSE OF
Suggested Assistance to Industry whole answer. I think the hon. member himself suggested that there has to be co-ordination between government and private enterprise so that the co-operative eifort of one can be supplemented by the know-how of another. In this way, real prosperity can be achieved.
Before I go any farther, I should like to make one comment upon a remark made by the hon. member when he was making a comparison with the last ten years of the former administration. I think in fairness I could hardly be blamed for making a remark to the effect that if the past four years are to be regarded as the yardstick of prosperity, then the Tory yardstick is somewhat different in length from the Liberal yardstick.
To return to the suggestion that a ministry should be created and that it should give attention to the development of secondary industry, I would point out that big industries are essential and basic to Canadian industrial prosperity, but there are gaps in between them which have to be filled by smaller industries. Every additional small industry created will provide additional jobs and more jobs are needed to meet the demands of our rapidly growing population. Helping to create these industries and these jobs would be the concern of such a ministry.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: In the
short length of time available to me I should like to say a few words on this motion proposed by the hon. member for York South. At first glance it may appear that a movement to set up a department of industry for the purpose of promoting and assisting the manufacturing industry in Canada would be a good one, but there are various matters I believe would have to be taken into consideration before finally deciding that such department would be most advantageous for manufacturing industry throughout the country.
The hon. member for Ottawa West spoke about how things went along under the former minister of trade and commerce, and he also pointed out that under the defence production department we were getting more goods from other countries instead of keeping our industrial complex.


George James McIlraith: That was not what I said.


Howard Russell MacEwan: That was not what you said?


George James McIlraith: I do not want to be misinterpreted.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The Minister of Defence Production visited my area as well as that of


the hon. member for Halifax. I would like to point out a move which has been made by this government, particularly in the defence production department, regarding the production of the variable depth sonar and antisubmarine device. This was developed by our own scientists in the defence department, with the help of defence production officials. While the minister was in the province of Nova Scotia he saw the electronic equipment for it being made by Cossor Limited at Halifax. He also saw parts being made by Fairey Aviation in the constituency of Halifax, and he saw the housing for this equipment being made under subcontract in my area. That is one example of the things being done by this government in order to provide employment.
I would point out that other steps have also been taken by our Minister of Trade and Commerce in other fields, especially in the export credit field. I have talked about this with various manufacturers. Important officials in various industries have pointed out that domestically we cannot hope to use up all the products of our manufacturing operations and our heavy steel industry, and that we must try for exports.
The report of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, presented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, shows what has been done in this regard, and among the results achieved are some which are pertinent to the province of Nova Scotia. We have received export orders for rails to Mexico and various other things for South American countries. With the help of Industrial Estates Limited, a Nova Scotia crown corporation set up by the provincial government, and with co-operation between it and the federal Department of Trade and Commerce, a large industrial secondary industry complex has been established in the Halifax area.
In addition various other projects have been carried out to assist industry, as shown in the maritime provinces power development act, by which cheaper power is supplied for our industries. I do not submit this evening that all projects have been completed. I shall deal, however, with the province of Nova Scotia, as is better known to me and I do not have a full knowledge of other parts of the country.
The hon. member for Ottawa West pointed out how powerful was the former minister of trade and commerce. What he says is so and

was recognized by the Canadian people; but I submit that the present minister, together with the other ministers in this government, have shown themselves not only sympathetic to Nova Scotia but to other parts of the mari-times. Not only are they sympathetic but they are taking concrete steps to help stimulate manufacturing industry in that area.
No doubt plans will probably be announced by hon. gentlemen across the way, saying they are going to do a lot for the maritimes, but it is a little late for them to start that kind of thing now. They should have started many years ago.
It might be a good thing if a department of industry were set up to act as an agency for all other departments in helping to stimulate industry. Manufacturers from my area who now have to visit various government departments could then visit one central agency and transact their business. The idea contained in the motion is a good one and deserves further study. No doubt if it is the proper course to take it will be taken by this government. May I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale) moved:: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the universal copyright convention signed by Canada in Geneva in 1952 and protocol 3 thereto, and that this house do approve the same.
He said:
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I think that in introducing this resolution before the house, it would be appropriate for me, as the minister responsible for copyright affairs, to state the government's motives.
The universal copyright convention, copies of which have been tabled, was signed at Geneva on September 6, 1952, by 86 coun-
26207-1-192
16, 1962
Approval of Copyrights Convention tries, including Canada. Canada has not, however, ratified the convention. As a signatory, Canada has the right, under articles VIII and IX, to ratify the convention, as long as Canada is in a position, under its domestic law, to give effect to the terms of the convention-this condition being a requirement of article X. The resolution presently before the house recommends that Canada do now ratify this convention.
The convention came into being, and continues to exist, under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The member states as of this date-that is, the states which currently adhere, through ratification, acceptance or accession-number 39, and include the United Kingdom, the United States, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and a number of South and Central American republics.
Canada's international copyright relations presently consist of membership, dating back to 1896, in the international union for the protection of intellectual property (the Berne union), Canada being presently bound by the Rome revision (1928) thereof, and several bilateral arrangements made under the Canadian Copyright Act, with the United States, Sarawak and North Borneo. I shall refer again to the Berne union and to the arrangement with the United States. What membership in the Berne union and these several arrangements mean is that works of Canadian origin receive copyright protection in the member countries and in the countries with whom the arrangements exist, in return for reciprocate protection in Canada.
The universal copyright convention, in very general terms, assures to an author who is a national of a member state, or who first publishes in that state, national treatment in each other member state (by "national treatment" I mean such treatment as is accorded nationals of the state concerned under the domestic law of that state). The convention sets forth the types of works to which member states will guarantee protection, and stipulates the minimum periods for which such protection will be granted (i.e., the "term" of protection). The convention provides that any member state which, under its domestic law, requires certain formalities (including printing in that state, registration,
3014	HOUSE OF
Approval of Copyrights Convention deposit, etc.) as a condition of copyright will regard such requirements satisfied with respect to the works protected by the convention first published outside its territory and the author of which is not one of its nationals. The only condition is that a simple formality be observed, namely that all copies bear a symbol (the letter "C" in a circle) and carry the name of the copyright owner and the year of first publication of the work.
The principal advantage to Canada of ratification of this convention bears on the effect of such ratification on Canada's copyright relations with the United States, but there are certain other minor advantages. The minor advantages lie in the wider international copyright affiliations which Canada would thus bring about (particularly within the western hemisphere), resulting in the protection of Canadian works in those member states to which Canada is not already bound by treaty or arrangement (and, of course, a reciprocate obligation on the part of Canada to grant protection to the works of authors of those states or works first published therein), and, to a great extent, in the easing of requirements in those states whose domestic laws may contain more stringent demands in this respect.
The major advantage in ratification has to do with our copyright relations with the United States. In 1923 Canada issued a notice, under its act, to the effect that the United States:
-is a country which grants or has undertaken to grant either by treaty, convention, agreement or law, to citizens of Canada, the benefit of copyright on substantially the same basis as to its own citizens or copyright protection substantially equal to that conferred by the said act.
Henceforth, that country would be treated as if it were a country to which the Canadian Copyright Act extended, and the United States, in a reciprocal proclamation at the same time agreed to protect the works of Canadian authors, but such protection was to be conditional upon compliance with the requirements and formalities prescribed by the copyright laws of the United States. The United States have had, since 1891, certain printing (or "manufacturing", as they are usually called) provisions in their act, and from 1909 their law provided specifically that the owner of the copyright in a book or periodical first published outside the United States in the English language could obtain copyright protection in the United States (called ad interim protection) for five years from first publication.


However, if he imported into the United States more than 1500 copies of the work during that period, his United States copyright ceased. Canada, in 1923, amended its act by inserting therein certain manufacturing or printing clauses of its own, presumably to compensate for those in the United States law, but, due to the limitations in taking such action which were represented by Canada's membership in the Berne union, the Canadian clauses were operative only at the discretion of the minister and were, in reality, compulsory licensing provisions which did not take away the copyright (as the United States clauses did), but only required the copyright owner to permit publication, under certain circumstances, by others, on application and on payment of royalties. The United States manufacturing clause, on the other hand, is a mandatory requirement of the U.S. law, abolishes copyright protection on non-compliance, and has resulted in compelling the owners of copyright works in English to print them in the United States as a condition of enjoying copyright protection in that country.
The effect of these requirements of United States law on the Canadian printing and publishing industry is readily apparent. Any Canadian author writing in the English language, who anticipates an appreciable sale of his work in the United States must have his work published in that country to assure his copyright protection there. He could, of course, publish the work simultaneously in Canada and in the United States, but such action is not economically practicable. The Canadian printing and publishing industry is thus denied this business. Canadian authors, for their part, must compete with their American fellows for the attention and favour of American publishers, may be required to accept contracts on less favourable terms than they might secure from a rejuvenated Canadian publishing industry, and are in some danger of losing their identity as Canadian writers. In the interests, therefore, of Canadian literature, of Canadian authors, and of the Canadian printing and publishing industry it is obviously essential that measures be taken to make the manufacturing clauses of the United States copyright law inoperative so far as Canadian authors are concerned.
In that respect, I would refer hon. members to the very appropriate comments made by the royal commission on publications. I will not quote them here so as to be as brief as possible.

We suggested to the United States government, some months ago, through diplomatic channels, that that government tree Canadian authors and authors first publishing in Canada from the requirements of the manufacturing clause, in return for a guarantee by Canada that we would not exercise our compulsory licensing provisions against American copyright owners. The reply was that compliance with this request on the part of the United States was not possible without amendment to the United States law, and that the way was already open to us to secure our object by ratification of the universal copyright convention.
We were already aware, of course, that ratification of the convention would solve this particular problem. This is because the United States as a member nation will no longer be able to invoke the "manufacturing clause" of its law with respect to works published in another member nation, since this is a type of formality which, under the terms of the convention, is satisfied simply by compliance with the minimum of formalities required by the convention, which I mentioned earlier.
The present United States law so provides; that is, a subsection specifies that works of the nationals of member countries, or works first published in such countries are exempt from certain provisions of the United States law-including the manufacturing requirement, and also requirements relating to deposit, mechanical rights, import prohibitions, etc.-as long as copies of the work bear the "C-in-a circle" symbol, the name of the copyright proprietor and year of first publication, in other words, comply with the convention requirement.
It may be wondered, under the circumstances, why action towards ratification of the convention has been delayed. There are various reasons. The Ilsley commission on patents, copyright and industrial designs recommend, in its report on copyright, ratification of the convention, but only after other recommendations which it made-relating particularly to the term of copyright, and also to removal of our printing clauses -should be given legislative effect by a new copyright act. I will make brief mention of this report and the activity which has taken place with respect to it. The report was tabled in 1958, and contained recommendations for a wholesale amendment of the Copyright Act. The subject of copyright 26207-1-1924
16, 1962
Approval of Copyrights Convention is an extremely involved one, as anyone who undertakes a serious investigation of it soon realizes. The recommendations of the Ilsley report on this subject, the comments made with respect to the report and on all aspects of the subject have been under very active study for over two years in my department by a committee of officials to whom the task has been assigned.
That means that the legislation we propose to introduce will not necessarily implement the conclusions contained in the Ilsley report. Of course, it is the government and not royal commission which is responsible for legislation. For the time being, I could say that we may depart from certain of the report's conclusions. At any rate, when the legislation is introduced in the house, hon. members will have every opportunity to discuss its provisions and to make their own suggestions.
Specifically with respect to the Ilsley commission's recommendation that the universal copyright convention be ratified only after the Copyright Act is amended, in accordance with the commission's recommendations, I wish to point out that, under article IV of the convention, it will not be possible to make any amendment concerning the term of copyright after the convention has been ratified. Article IV states, in part, that the term of protection for works protected under the convention shall be not less than life of the author and 25 years after his death, but if a contracting state, on the effective date of the convention in that state, has limited the term for certain classes of works to a period computed from the first publication of the works, such a state will be permitted to continue to do so. The Ilsley commission recommended a term based on publication; thus, we would have to include the term in a new copyright act before ratification could be undertaken. I do not propose to go into detail at this time with respect to the pros and cons of the Ilsley commission recommendation as to a term of 56 years from date of publication, as indeed is the case in the United States, but it is not the intention of the government to accept that recommendation at present.
We are of the view that there is no great advantage to be gained by shortening our present term of life of the author plus 50 years to bring it into line with the United States term of 56 years from publication, and

Approval of Copyrights Convention consider that any advantage to be so gained would have to be very real to justify departing from the term which has been in effect in this country for many years, or from the basis of determining such a term-i.e., life of the author-which prevails not only in Canada but in the overwhelming majority of countries granting copyright protection. We readily admit, that the vast majority of works in copyright lose most, if not all of their monetary value long before the expiration of their copyright term.
Nevertheless, for that minority of works which are of lasting cultural value we are of the opinion that both the public's and the author's interest require that the copyright protection of such works be such as to ensure to the authors such financial reward as would encourage further production.
With respect to the possible claim of unfairness arising from a longer term of protection in Canada than in the United States, a remedy would seem to lie in the adoption of a provision, possible under the conventions, under which the term of protection in Canada for non-Canadian works should never exceed that of the country of origin- rather than the adoption of a shorter term for Canadian works.
Finally, I might say that there is understood to be in the United States-one of the last (if not the last) bastions of the term from publication-a substantial body of opinion developing in favour of a longer United States term. At any rate, convinced as we are that the term should be based upon the life of the author, and that it should be one which is at least 25 years after his death (as required by the universal copyright convention), there is no need to await amendment of the copyright act before ratifying the convention.
Another fact which gave us pause was the existence of the compulsory licensing provisions in our present act. These we were at first (as the Ilsley commission apparently also was) disposed to regard as incompatible with the requirements of the convention. We are now, however, of the view that our licensing clauses affect only the "content" of copyright-that is, the extent of the protection-but do not remove copyright. Since the "content" of copyright is nowhere defined in the convention (except with respect to term and to translations), it now appears- and we have an opinion of the deputy at-


torney general to corroborate our view in this respect-that the provisions of our present act are, indeed, such as will permit our giving effect to the terms of the convention.
The way ahead to ratification at this time therefore seems clear. There are three protocols attached to the convention, and the question arises as to the ratification of these as well. The first protocol would assimilate, for purposes of the convention, stateless persons and refugees habitually residing in member states with nationals of that state; the second protocol provides for protection of the works of the United Nations, its specialized agencies and the organization of American states; the third concerns the effective date of instruments of ratification or acceptance of, or accession to, the convention. Although it may in the future be desirable that all of these protocols be ratified (as the Ilsley Commission recommends), the first two could not be implemented before our legislation is amended. The third protocol's purpose appears to be to provide a suitable procedure permitting any country to condition the entry into force of its ratification, acceptance or accession upon the United States' becoming a party to the convention, but to achieve this without saying so in the convention or protocol. Ratification of this protocol is not affected by our legislation and can do no harm, and we propose ratification of protocol three of the convention.
There is one final consideration-namely, the means by which, under our present act, the extension of protection to universal copyright convention member states can in fact be implemented. Subsection 2 of section 4 of the Copyright Act provides, in effect, that the provisions of the act may be extended to or in respect of the citizens of a non-Berne union foreign country if that foreign country has granted or undertaken to grant by treaty, convention, agreement or law, to citizens of Canada the benefit of copyright on substantially the same basis as to its own citizens. A country which has ratified the convention has undertaken, by virtue of article II of the convention, to give to Canada, once Canada itself ratifies the convention, the benefit of copyright on the same basis as to its own citizens. The minister, may, through notice in the Canada Gazette, under authority of the abovementioned subsection, certify that any universal copyright convention country which is not a Berne union country (Canada already being affiliated with the Berne union members) is to be treated as one to which the Canadian Copyright Act extends.

I think that that about covers the background of this move by the government toward ratification of the universal copyright convention.
In conclusion, I wish to suggest that since the government has not yet drawn up the text of the new Copyright Act, the whole subject of copyright revision be not opened up at this time, nor that there be any discussion raised with respect to such questions as are not relevant to the motion before the house, that is, ratification of the universal copyright convention.
(Text):


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say at the outset that I am quite prepared to follow the minister's suggestion not to go into the intricacies of the question of a new copyright act at this time, since I assume the house is ready and anxious to speed on with its business to the termination of consideration of the supplementary estimates. However, I should like to make a few remarks with respect to the resolution before the house and I apologize to the house for the fact that I have found it necessary to make some rather extensive notes respecting this matter since otherwise I find it very difficult to remember dates and particular details.
Since coming to parliament, Mr. Speaker, I have taken a considerable interest in the subject of copyright and have this year, as I did last year, introduced a private bill to amend the present outmoded Copyright Act-that is, our domestic legislation-and also to ratify the convention which is under discussion and the protocols, with one of which this resolution also deals. In the past year I have widely distributed my modest offering and have requested and in many cases received some very constructive suggestions and criticism with respect to it. That bill was designed partly to bring the government to the point of this action and partly to give those people interested in the public at large specific draft legislation upon which to comment. I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that it may well be that my modest effort has reached at least part of its objective in bringing this convention before the house for ratification.
Last year I frequently asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) when a resolution such as this might be brought before the house and when the government might be expected to introduce a new copyright act. After all, a royal commission set up in 1957 under the distinguished chairmanship of the
16, 1962	3017
Approval of Copyrights Convention Hon. J. L. Ilsley, to which the minister has referred, recommended the taking of such a step, and the recent royal commission on publications under the chairmanship of Mr. O'Leary did the same. As well, the Canadian authors association has presented a brief to the minister and the graphic arts industries association has repeatedly urged such action upon the government. In fact, I assume that in the change of business this matter has been brought before the house as a result of a meeting of publishers in Toronto within the past 10 days and a number of wires and representations made both to the government and to the opposition, including a letter which appeared in this morning's Montreal Gazette signed by Mr. Marsh Jeanneret, director of the University of Toronto press, which pointed out the great disability that would occur and the unfairness to Canadian publishers and authors if in fact this resolution were not ratified by this parliament.
In January, 1961, Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa Citizen in its issue of the 18th of that month reported that the Secretary of State had "labelled a redress of the present copyright situation imperative". I note the word "imperative", although that was January of 1961. He is also quoted in the same article as having said that he would "probe the practicality of having Canada adhere to the 1952 Geneva universal copyright convention". The minister was further reported in the Globe and Mail of March 8, 1961, as having written the president of the Canadian authors association as follows:
I hope that it will be possible to introduce a bill to revise the Copyright Act at the next session of parliament.
True to his word at least in part, we have before us a resolution to ratify the convention, although not a new Copyright Act. This encouraged all those interested, whether in the literary or artistic fields or in the printing and publishing lines, to believe that finally this legislation might be receiving a thorough overhaul. It was indeed a disappointment then to find in the speech from the throne this year no reference to a new act but only to the implementation of this treaty and, for the reasons explained by the minister, of only one of its three protocols.
Hon. members might well ask why the question of implementing this treaty is considered of sufficient importance to be included as a paragraph in the speech from the throne and as a matter of urgency at this time. There is, of course, the immediate problem which received considerable publicity last year when the chairman of the royal commission on publications learned to his obvious surprise of what is called the manufacturing
3018	HOUSE OF
Approval of Copyrights Convention clause, to which the minister has referred, in United States copyright legislation and its adverse effects upon our literary, printing and publishing people.
It is true that many writers have ventured the opinion that we might solve our problems and assist our own people simply by ratification of what is called the U.C.C., the treaty which is before us; but the so-called manufacturing clause has long been a part of United States copyright law, since 1909, in fact, and has frequently been the subject of heated debate in the United States congress. The convention has already received study in the other place and approval at least in committee; but will the assent of this house to this resolution solve the problem, as suggested by the minister, of the adverse effect upon Canadians of the American domestic legislation, much less make less urgent the need to amend our own copyright law? I think not. But in order to answer the question properly it is necessary to make a quick survey of the history of our copyright law in Canada, its purpose and the extension of these rights elsewhere in the world by means of our treaties with other nations.
Copyright laws do not protect ideas as patent laws do, but merely expressions of ideas. The report of the Ilsley royal commission explains, and I quote:
Copyright is in effect a right to prevent the appropriation of the expressed results of the labours of an author by other persons. That an author should have this right, at least for a limited period, is generally recognized-on the ground of justice, expediency or both.
A nation may, of course, legislate with respect to protection of such rights only as they may extend within its own territorial boundaries. The same rights are only extended to other countries and the nationals of other countries by reciprocal treaty.
In 1886 a group of countries signed an international treaty or convention by which each country signing agreed to give certain rights in respect of works of its nationals to the nationals of the other signatory countries. This came to be called the Berne union, and Canada signed by Britain upon the British government's initiative. Subsequently, in the same way, in 1896 Canada became the only North American country to sign what was called the Paris amendment to the Berne union convention. Later Great Britain adhered in 1923 at our request to another revision drawn at Berlin in 1908. Canada also became a party to the Rome revision of 1928, which fact, in the words of the Ilsley report, "places important limits upon Canada's freedom of action in legislating" in this field, with the result that "Canada is morally obligated in passing legislation to respect the Rome 

convention". In 1948 the latest revision of the Berne union took place at Brussels, which Canada signed but to which she has never acceded.
Our Copyright Act, that is our domestic legislation, was passed in 1921 and proclaimed in force in 1924. It was modelled upon the imperial act of 1911 and both were framed to accord as nearly as possible with the Berne union convention, to which we were a signatory. The United States, however, has never been a Berne union country. The United States, which has protected copyright since 1891 by its domestic laws, has been an adherent to another international convention, the Buenos Aires convention, which included most of the South American countries except Brazil. In addition, the United States has, by a series of presidential proclamations provided for in its own copyright act, extended U.S. copyright to the nationals of other nations on a reciprocal basis.
These two groups have almost diametrically opposed theories of copyright. I am indebted to an article entitled "International Copyright Control, A Canadian Viewpoint", by Messrs. Sterling and MacLeod for this short comparison which may be of assistance to members of the house:
The continental concept expressed by the Berne union, views copyright as the primary and natural right of an author to tangible and intangible property in his work. From the primary right there may be derived particular rights which can be expanded or redefined as circumstances demand but, under this concept, the author has no obligation to comply with any formalities such as notice or registration of ownership. His right arises ab initio. The opposing theory, endorsed by the United States and Latin American countries, among others, postulates that copyright is a privilege conferred by the state to encourage creation and to ensure the fullest use of intellectual works. It emphasizes the need to balance the author's rights and the interests of society. To accomplish this, the state defines copyright and then prescribes necessary formalities by which copyright protection can be secured-
Now, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is attempting to reconcile these two opposed views, and an attempt to do so was made in the universal copyright convention with which this resolution deals. This convention was promulgated in 1952 pursuant to article 27 of the universal declaration of human rights. It was an attempt, not to set up a rival to the Berne convention but rather to form a compromise solution for the union and non-union countries to secure so far as possible a truly universal copyright union.
This convention was signed on September 6, 1952, as the minister has said, at Geneva by some 86 countries including Canada and the United States, and it was subsequently signed by another four countries. The United States thereupon undertook a study of its copyright

act and, in order to comply with the terms of the Geneva convention, undertook a fairly substantial modification of its own domestic legislation. Having done so it then, in 1955, ratified the universal copyright convention. The United Kingdom followed the same course. They set up a committee appointed by the president of the board of trade as early as April, 1951, and that was called the Gregory committee. Subsequently, as a result of its report, the United Kingdom parliament adopted a new piece of domestic legislation, the copyright act of 1956, whereupon the United Kingdom then also ratified the universal copyright convention.
Canada started along this path as well. After signing the universal copyright convention in 1952, in order to review all of its commercial legislation which had, as stated earlier, been framed to accord with the Berne union convention and which had not been substantially altered in almost 40 years, Canada constituted a royal commission, which has been already referred to, under the distinguished chairmanship of the Hon. J. L. Ilsley on June 10, 1954. Its terms of reference may be of interest to hon. members of the house, many of whom were not here at that time, and I quote:
-to inquire as to whether federal legislation relating in any way to patents of invention, industrial designs, copyright and trade marks affords reasonable incentive to invention and research, to the development of literary and artistic talents, to creativeness, and to making available to the Canadian public scientific, technical, literary and artistic creations and other applications, adaptations and uses, in a manner and on terms adequately safeguarded the paramount public interest, the whole in the light of present day economic conditions, scientific, technical and industrial developments, trade practices and any other relevant factors or circumstances, including practices under or related to the said legislation and any relevant international convention to which Canada is a party.
In brief, the commission was set up to bring our commercial legislation into the late fifties or into the sixties. This commission, Mr. Speaker, made a series of separate reports on the various fields which it had studied, the first of which was submitted on August 1, 1957. On page 7 of the report the commissioners comment as follows:
Copyright seems somewhat more urgent-
I again call to the attention of the house the fact that this statement was made on August 1, 1957.
Copyright seems somewhat more urgent than patents, trade marks or industrial designs, chiefly because Canada has signed two international conventions but has delayed adherence to those conventions pending, as we understand it, our report on copyright.
The commission, of course, received many representations, discussed the matter with
16, 1962	3019
Approval of Copyrights Convention many experts in the field and had great benefit from the report of the Gregory committee in the United Kingdom and the discussions in both houses of the British parliament, together with the new United Kingdom act of 1956. In addition, two members of the commission visited Washington, London, Paris, Berne and the Hague to discuss problems with foreign experts. The obvious course intended to be followed was to establish principles for a new act, to give protection to our citizens and to conform to these international treaties.
In fact, during the almost five years since the report was made, no attempt whatever, so far as the public is aware, has been made to draft a new act which would, in advance, conform to the treaty which we are being asked by resolution to adopt. This treaty has been prepared upon the basis of a markedly different philosophy of copyright from that upon which our domestic legislation is based. It was only, Mr. Speaker, when the other place, in its standing committee on external relations, had before it certain representatives of the minister's department that it became public knowledge that over a period of years there had been a committee set up by the Department of the Secretary of State to study this problem. The committee was composed of Mr. Charles Stein, the former undersecretary of state, Mr. Harris Arbique, general executive assistant, Department of the Secretary of State, and Mr. Michel, commissioner of patents, and they had been discussing the possibility of drafting legislation for a new copyright act. One can only assume that now that the former under secretary of state has been replaced by another appointee, this committee will again get back to studying the legislation so that we can look forward to further amendments or to a whole new domestic act.
It is surely transparently clear, Mr. Speaker, from a reading of the Ilsley report and a perusal of the conduct followed in both the United States and the United Kingdom, that the proper course and the one that was intended that Canada would follow is to clear up our own legislative problems first in this field rather than to compound them by ratifying the treaty first. But what of the problem arising from the so-called United States manufacturing clause? Will, in fact, this problem disappear if we at once ratify the universal copyright convention? I should like to make a rather extensive reference to a very clear statement on the matter contained in a paper written by Marsh Jeanneret, director of the University of Toronto press, and himself a lawyer, as it appears in the September-Oc-tober 1961 issue of Quill and Quire, pages
3020	HOUSE OF
Approval of Copyrights Convention 2, 3 and 4, and which has been issued as a reprint. Mr. Jeanneret says this in discussing this problem, and its effect on Canada:
We are simply concerned with the mutuality of copyright, or lack of it, between this country and the United States on ordinary books written in English.
Just as an aside, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is rather a shame when we have a Secretary of State who is a native, French speaking member of the house, that this could not have dealt with French publications as well, but in fact it deals only with English publications.
What is the situation?
The Canadian Copyright Act of 1921 provided that the protection it afforded Canadian citizens was to be extended automatically to citizens of countries that adhered to the Berne convention. The United States was not and is not an adherent to the Berne convention. But the Canadian act went on to provide that the minister might certify that even a country which has not adhered to the Berne convention could be brought under the Canadian copyright blanket if the minister decided that such a country had granted to Canadian citizens the benefit of copyright protection on substantially the same basis as to its own citizens.
The United States copyright act of 1909 had already stated that where a foreign nation extends to citizens of the United States the benefit of copyright on substantially the same basis as to its own citizens, United States copyright may be extended "by presidential proclamation" to the works of proprietors who are citizens of such a foreign nation. But the apparent reasonableness of this provision in the American act is shattered by the further conditions normally imposed on such foreign works by section 16 of the American act-usually referred to as the "manufacturing clause." Here is the actual wording of the relevant phrases of the discriminatory legislation:
"-The text of all copies accorded protection ... shall be printed from type set within the limits of the United States, either by hand or by the aid of any kind of typesetting machine, or from plates made within the limits of the United States from type set therein, or, if the text be produced by lithographic process, or photoengraving process, then by a process wholly performed within the limits of the United States, and the printing of the text and binding of the said book shall be performed within the limits of the United States ... provided, however, that said requirements shall not apply to works in raised characters for the use of the blind, or to books or periodicals of foreign origin in a language or languages other than English," etc.
The same section contains provisions for foreign author or copyright owner to procure ad interim copyright protection in the United States by registering his foreign-produced edition within six months; in such cases the U.S. manufacturing provisions need not be complied with for a period of five years, provided that not more than 1,500 copies in all of such a book may be imported into the United States during the period of such ad interim copyright protection. In practice, if more than 1,500 copies are imported into the United States, the holder of the ad interim copyright is called upon to abandon formally his claim to any U.S. copyright protection.


It is clear from what precedes that the "manufacturing clause" in the United States act distinguishes the latter legislation completely from its Canadian counterpart. Nevertheless, on December 26, 1923, Canada issued a declaration whereby the rights conferred by the Canadian act were to be extended to works of U.S. origin. As a result of this certification, the President of the United States on the next day issued a proclamation extending the benefits of the United States act to citizens of Canada. At first glance this must have appeared as a happy and reasonable reciprocal arrangement. Let it be clearly noted, however, that the extension of the United States act to works of Canadian ciitzens applied only to works manufactured in compliance with the provisions of the manufacturing clause quoted above.
In 1955, the United States ratified the universal copyright convention, from which Canada still stands aloof-notwithstanding the recommendations of the Hsley commission in favour of Canadian ratification. Among other countries which have long since ratified this new convention is the United Kingdom. By the terms of the universal copyright convention, adherent countries are required to give protection without formality. The United States therefore was obliged to suspend the manufacturing provisions vis-a-vis the works written by the citizens of other convention countries. However, it is of the greatest importance to note that (a) the manufacturing provisions still stand with respect to the works of citizens of countries which are not members of the universal copyright convention; and (b) the same provisions still deprive a United States author of the right to American copyright even if he publishes in another universal copyright convention country but does not observe the American manufacturing requirements. This last point is of real significance to Canada, even if this country does ratify the universal copyright convention.
The problem is not as simple as the minister has suggested. The ratification of the U.C.C. will not relieve from the manufacturing clause.
As Mr. Jeanneret said last fall, this is an action which could not be deferred much longer; but while Canadian authors would be offered some protection if they published first in the United States, American authors who publish first in Canada will be deprived of their rights at home.
In conclusion, the real question is not "how often do American publishers pirate Canadian copyrights" The important question is, "how often are Canadian publishers not commissioned to publish a work of American authorship"? The unreciprocal copyright protection existing today between Canada and the United States masquerades under the so-called reciprocal agreement, referred to earlier. Ratification by Canada of the universal copyright convention will only partially relieve the problem.
It was this, the manufacturing clause which when it came to the notice of the chairman of the royal commission on publications, Mr. O'Leary, led him to include, in his report under section 8, a reference to the advisability of ratifying this convention, although he did not seem to appreciate that ratification would be far from curing all ills complained of.

It was said that two royal commissions have recommended immediate ratification. What did interested members of the public and press think of it? I have already referred to the article "International Copyright Control"-a Canadian viewpoint-wherein the authors recommended ratification. Last year the Canadian authors association presented a brief to the Secretary of State called "The Authors Bill of Rights" which included these remarks:
We ask for Canada's adherence to the universal copyright convention, an action enabling Canadian authors to receive automatic protection in all 35 countries now members .. . The Canadian authors association is convinced that this country should enact a new, fully modern copyright law as expeditiously as possible.
The graphic arts industries association, in a brief circulated to all members of parliament dated February 5, 1962, dealing with the royal commission on publications, says in part:
A second step would be ratification by parliament of the universal copyright convention, which would have the effect, among other things, of partially offsetting the vicious restrictions of the U.S. copyright act, which have severely restricted Canadian book publishing and printing for nearly 40 years.
According to the same brief:
The printing, publishing and allied trades employ more than 74,000 persons-more than any other manufacturing industry, including more talented and skilled people than any other industry.
Of the public press, Mr. J. B. McGeachy writing in the Financial Post, the late Miss Judith Robinson, in two columns in the Toronto Telegram, and editorials in the Winnipeg Free Press and the Toronto Globe and Mail have indicated support for both ratification of this treaty and amendment to our domestic copyright legislation.
One might ask why then the delay of nearly five years from the time of the Ilsley report. There has been obvious urgency for providing more employment opportunities in Canada, and there is and will be a necessity to provide more and more opportunity for our skilled workers in such fields. There was only one reason expressed by the Ilsley report which would require a policy decision, other of course than preparing and passing new domestic legislation first-which was the whole purpose of the report-and that other reason was that if the U.C.C. were ratified first it would not be possible to make, if thought advisable, as in fact the commission recommended, any change in the term of years through which copyright would exist.
Under our present legislation copyright protection is extended to an author for his lifetime plus 25 years after, with a right for an additional 25 years to his representatives
16, 1962	3021
Approval of Copyrights Convention to collect royalities, but not to prevent copying. This is not the term of "life plus 50 years" which has been requested by the authors and to which Canada is already morally bound to adhere by the terms of the Rome convention of the Berne union, when all parties to that convention so enact.
The Ilsley commission recommended commencing the term of copyright at the time of publication of the work, to run for 56 years from the time of publication, or at the author's death. Four reasons were given for this recommendation, one being that it would bring the term more in line with that extended in the United States. The United States term is 28 years from publication plus an additional renewal for 20 years, and thereafter the work passes into the public domain.
The royal commission's recommendation in this regard has been very controversial, as the minister said. Debate is hot and heavy among those interested as to whether the term should be shorter or longer. Perhaps the difference in attitude is shown when one remembers that in the past year, when Verdi's copyright with respect to his works was about to expire the government of Italy gave in to popular pressure and extended the term, perhaps because the proceeds go to a retired musicians' home. Yet when the same problem arose in England with respect to the copyright in Gilbert and Sullivan's operettas, the government refused to extend copyright and let them go into public domain.
The Berne union countries generally have a term of life plus 50 years. It is most interesting to note that just last year the United States register of copyrights made a submission to the house committee on the judiciary of the U.C. congress, dealing with general revision of the United States copyright law, and at page 58, recommended amending the U.S. term to be reasonably close to the usual European term of the author's life plus 50 years, suggesting that there should be a maximum term of 76 years from first public dissemination. Yet Canada, in almost five years, seems incapable of making up her mind as to the length of term which should be adopted, and therefore abandons all those who might hope to see legislation in this field brought in line with that in the rest of the world, and leaves our authors with 25 years after life, with some other limited rights.
Is there still urgency about ratifying this convention? Of course it will be of some assistance in relieving against the United States manufacturing clause. It will allow our authors to sell their books and dispense with registration formalities. But its passage should not be allowed to dispel the urgency of new

Approval of Copyrights Convention domestic legislation to meet the needs of the times. And its passage will prevent a needed change in term of copyright.
It may be that even the need for urgency is almost passed. If the government continues to drag its feet to the very end of its term in office, in fact our neighbours to the south may yet solve the problem, as so often this government has left it to them to do. For in the same report of the United States register of copyright, to which I earlier referred, which has been disseminated to all those interested for comment, leading to a bill to be presented to congress, is the following recommendation:
The copyright office does not believe, in principle, that the rights accorded to authors should be dependant upon the employment of domestic printers. The office therefore recommends that the new law contain no provision requiring the manufacture of works in the United States nor any provision requiring the securing of ad interim copyright. It also believes there should be no provision in the copyright law limiting importation to 1500 copies.
So, in effect, had we waited six months the United States government might have cured the problem on its own.
In any event, we are once again being asked to put the cart before the horse-to give approval to a convention now ratified by some 39 of the 90 signatory countries which signed in 1952 or later. Again we are making a stab at the immediate problem, without dealing with the heart of the matter.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding I should like to mention briefly one other matter. This resolution asks only for approval of protocol 3. It appears to be the opinion of the government, as expressed in the debate in the other place by the government leader, that the other two protocols require legislation. I take it then that the government intends to ratify by means of order in council only, since protocol No. 3 deals only with effective date, and that no legislation is at the moment planned with respect to protocols 1 and 2 which respectively deal with the application of copyright to stateless persons, refugees, and to works first published by the United Nations or its agencies or by the organization of American states. It is greatly to be regretted that the conclusion that must inevitably be drawn from the fact of the announcement in the speech from the throne and the hasty bringing up of this motion on what might be the third, or second, or last day of this parliament is that Canada must await the return to responsibility of a Liberal government which is prepared to deal with this, as with so many other problems, without delay.


Walter George Pitman: Perhaps it is a matter of concern to us all that this resolution should be brought before this house in its last days when time is of the essence. It is a matter of concern that we could not have put things in their right order; we could have cleaned up all the complexities and cleaned up our act of parliament before we went off on this ratification.
None the less, the government is to be congratulated for turning to this matter and doing justice to those who are our authors and artists in this country in the last days of the session. I was interested to hear the hon. lady who represents Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) mention a Canadian authors' bill of rights. In a sense this is very close to being a bill of rights as far as Canadian authors and artists are concerned, because in any democracy a basic freedom is surely the sanctity of property. Throughout the history of democracy in Britain there has been concern about the security of a man's possessions and their defence against authoritarian rule. We have seen in the desultory attitude in the U.S.S.R. and other satellite countries an attitude toward this particular aspect of a man's property which would lead us to believe that they are not very concerned with what we would call political democracy.
Some men's property is in buildings, goods and property of various kinds. Others use their imagination and produce literature, music, poetry and so on. Both kinds of property, whether material or of the imagination require protection. The Ilsley report states in this regard: "Nothing is more certainly a man's property than the fruit of his brain". That, I think, indicates the concern of all of us in this house. This legislation will, we hope, protect and give advantages to our authors and artists with regard to the property which emanates from the mind and imagination of gifted men and women in Canada. The resolution therefore commends itself to us.
Both the minister and the hon. member for Niagara Falls have given long accounts of the stages by which Canada has moved since 1896. I do not wish to repeat what has been said already. We do know that in the interim period this has been hanging fire since 1952 when Canada and 85 other countries signed this convention, 39 of those countries having already ratified the convention. It is remarkable to note in passing that this is another example of the work of the United Nations, particularly of UNESCO. We should not forget these organizations associated with the United Nations which do such good work. This convention was said to be appropriate to all the nations in the world. Canada thus joins a large number of countries which are seeking to protect their authors and artists.

Since 1896, since Canada was a member of the Berne convention, we have seen a number of revisions and we have also had a bilateral agreement with the United States. As both the minister and the hon. member for Niagara Falls have stated, the main problem has been the manufacturing clause in the United States legislation. The Canadian authors association has for many years sought to give arguments and reasons why we must advance in this area, and advance quickly. The royal commission pointed out the problems which were faced by our authors, and the O'Leary commission has now brought us to the point where we are ready to put this through before we leave for our constituencies. The advantages are many. Canada will be in a co-operative affiliation with many other nations. This will protect our authors. We shall be joining in an international agreement which is a progressive and forward-looking agreement which will, we hope, provide an impetus to our own arts and literature.
The immediate problem has been that of our association with our neighbour, the United States. It is always a difficult thing to live beside a giant. Although, in connection with the manufacturing clause we can, in a sense, reciprocate and keep out United States publications, it is obvious that United States facilities for Americans in Canada are not to be compared with the advantages which Canadians can secure in the United States market. The situation has been detrimental to the Canadian publishing and printing industry. A great deal of employment which would have come to Canada has gone by the way for the past number of years.
I hope that other artists will soon be brought under the Canadian legislation. As we know, there have been tremendous changes since the Canadian legislation was put through. I do not want to discuss them tonight because, as the minister said, we are not dealing with the act itself. I think we should express the position of this party, however, and say that we hope to deal with this matter as soon as possible. We in this chamber are concerned with the economic development of Canada but if we are to secure any kind of nationhood we must be equally concerned about artistic development, which is really the basis and the bond of nationhood in this nation of ours.
The royal commission dealt with more than just copyright. It dealt with patents, trade marks and industrial design. These were dealt with in separate reports and, of course, we cannot enter upon that field of discussion now. I will simply say that here nothing has been done in these other areas and it is a matter of great concern in Canada that we should be
Supply-External Affairs using legislation which is entirely and completely out of date in these other areas. An example I could give is the Industrial Design and Union Label Act. It is so out of date in its present form as to be completely unworkable. It does not even cover shape in terms of the design of particular articles. It appears that in our concern over securing economic progress we have allowed this problem to go unheeded and surely we have now come to the point when we must take definite action. In this parliament we have seen the sands of time run out and we must now adopt a hodgepodge solution to it. We must take stopgap measures in the hope that the problem will temporarily be dealt with until we return to this chamber once again.
I congratulate the government on taking this initiative and express the hope that the government will soon introduce other legislation that will be of benefit to our authors and artists, with whose problems I trust this chamber will concern itself more in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: The house will now resume the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
696.	Canadian representation at international conferences-further amount required, $115,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister not going to be here?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, he is on his way. I suggest that the hon. member proceed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think we had better wait until the minister is present.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We may as well pass the items now. There was a full discussion before five o'clock, was there not?


Murdo William Martin: I shall place on the record the references to the observations of the minister on the point we were discussing before the debate was interrupted. These are observations made by the minister in this connection in answer to certain questions. These may be found on the following pages of Hansard for the dates cited. The first is to be found at page 2563 of Hansard of April 6, 1962; a statement that was not contested by the minister will be found at page 2335 of Hansard of March 30, 1962; at page 1593, of March 8, 1962; at page 761, of February 12, 1962; at page 2549 of volume 3 for the session of 1960 and at pages 4534-5 of volume 4 for the session of 1960.

Supply-External Affairs
These statements in connection with the government's policy on the resumption of tests, with regard to the attitudes taken by the Canadian government in connection therewith and with regard to the question of controls or no controls, speak for themselves. They are to be contrasted with the statement of the government's policy of the minister and with the statement attributed to the Prime Minister on Saturday last from which statement I have already quoted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before this vote carries, Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question about reported arrangements-if that is not too strong a word-or reported negotiations between the United States and the U.S.S.R. which appear to have leaked in Germany and which deal, among other things, with an understanding which is under discussion, at least according to this report, between these two powers to the effect that neither will make available to any third country nuclear weapons or information concerning the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons. The press reports concerning these negotiations which emanated from Bonn and which have all the earmarks of a calculated leak in the Bonn are in very considerable detail. While I do not propose to go into the reports generally, because they deal with arrangements covering Berlin and access to Berlin and questions of that nature which we all hope will be worked out satisfactorily, nevertheless they cover the point that these two powers will refuse to make available nuclear weapons to any third power.
If this report is accurate it of course has a very important bearing on the whole question of the extension of nuclear weapons to a third power. In view of the great publicity given to this report over the week end, could the minister say anything about it?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman. I have no comment to make on that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether he has any comment to make on the report in today's Globe and Mail in which the Minister of Justice is quoted as having revealed that British Columbia has made new Columbia river proposals that seem to represent a significant modification of the government's previous position. This comment was contained in a statement issued in the minister's home constituency of Kamloops where he was visiting during the week end.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with the item under consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I understood, Mr. Chairman, that under this item we would have a general discussion such as would normally have taken place under the departmental item, No. 692.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the item carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman. I just made an observation. It was understood we would have a general discussion under this item rather than under item No. 692.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this is not an item under which hon. members are entitled to ask any question having to do with external affairs. I suggest the hon. member should adhere to the item under consideration. As a matter of fact I answered this same question this afternoon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the minister answered it, that is a satisfactory reply, but it certainly is proper in my submission to ask this question. That was the agreement reached the other night.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, General Burns in Geneva on April 12 in his statement to the disarmament conference said among other things:
We are opposed to all nuclear weapon tests.
He then went on to refer to the proposal put forward by the non-aligned powers there in an effort to break what he referred to as a deadlock. It does seem to be a deadlock. He went on to say when speaking for the Canadian delegation, and I quote from his statement:
The Canadian delegation has heard with the greatest of interest and sympathy statements made by the eight non-engaged members of this committee. We would like particularly to support the appeal of the representative of Mexico which, if I understand it correctly, was that the nuclear powers should submit again to their governments, with great seriousness, the possibility for some agreement, based on a move in their present positions, which has been submitted to them over the past few weeks, and particularly the last week or so, by the non-engaged states.
General Burns referred to these proposals. His statement has been made public. Can the minister give us any indication what these proposals are to which General Burns has given the agreement of his government?


Howard Charles Green: From time to time as this subject was up for discussion in the conference, proposals were made by the various non-aligned countries and also, of course, by Canada. I think the Leader of the Opposition can take it that the proposals of the unaligned countries were summed up in the submission which was made today on behalf of the eight.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister give us any indication of what those proposals are? I am thinking particularly of the reports that they have put forward proposals for inspection and control in the hope that their proposals will end this deadlock. The reports I read are to the effect that they are supporting a kind of inspection and control which would be concentrated in what they call neutral hands, perhaps under United Nations auspices and also that this inspection and control-and this is a very important matter-could perhaps-and I may be wrong about this because I am only quoting from a report-be carried on outside of the boundaries of the great powers such as the Soviet union, for instance.


Howard Charles Green: I dealt with that matter this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. There is one other feature about the proposal and that was that the checking should be done by scientists of the different countries rather than by political bodies in the different countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize if the minister dealt with the matter this afternoon when I was not here. But as to this checking by scientists which is suggested in this proposal- and this may be a very imaginative and important proposal-is it to be done by scientists who will not require to be in the territory of a country where an explosion might take place?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, but there is also the suggestion that there should be a co-ordinating group which could send in scientists to check in order to ascertain whether there had been an atomic blast in a country about which there was a complaint or about which there was any doubt.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister consider this kind of international inspection and control satisfactory as a possible way out of this deadlock?


Howard Charles Green: I am not sufficient of a scientist to be able to say that. These proposals will be accepted or otherwise depending, I presume, on the opinions of the scientists of the Soviet union, the United States and the United Kingdom.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether or not the prospects for a meeting of the heads of government or of the heads of state may take place before the conclusion of the present conference in Geneva, as was envisaged some weeks ago? The minister will recall saying, in answer to a question, that there was a possibility that there would be such a meeting and that it would not be confined to the great powers. Has the
Supply-External Affairs situation developed sufficiently to warrant a statement by the minister in that context?


Howard Charles Green: There has been no suggestion recently that a meeting of the heads of state is imminent.
Item agreed.
697.	Grant to defray a portion of the costs of Canadian participation in the first session of the Atlantic convention, $6,000.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister a question with reference to this grant to defray a portion of the costs of Canadian participation in the first session of the Atlantic convention. Would the minister mind explaining to the committee what the Atlantic convention actually did and how the persons who attended it were appointed?


Howard Charles Green: On October 2 last year approval in principle was given to participation in an international citizens commission on NATO. This idea was originated by Mr. Christian Herter, former secretary of state of the United States. He and Will Clayton, a distinguished democrat, were named by the United States as the two heads to act for the United States in this meeting. Canada after giving full consideration to the plan, and having ascertained that various other members of NATO were participating, sent delegates over to a preparatory commission which met in Paris in December. At the final meeting there were seven Canadians. They were nominated by the government. They were picked from the different parties in Canada. For instance, Mr. Alistair Stewart of Winnipeg was one of those chosen.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He was chosen by the government?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
698.	Contribution towards the furnishing of Marlborough House, London, England, in an amount of £310, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1962, which is, $915.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I was wondering what kind of furniture could be bought for Marlborough House for $915. Perhaps the minister could explain what this is really all about.


Howard Charles Green: In 1959 the British government indicated their willingness to provide a building in London for commonwealth activities and in particular for the use of bodies concerned with commonwealth consultation on economic affairs. Her Majesty the Queen made Marlborough House available for this purpose. At the fourth meeting of the commonwealth economic consultative council, the Canadian representative proposed that it would be of

Supply-External Affairs value as a symbol if each country were given the opportunity to participate in the furnishing of Marlborough House. Subsequenty, each commonwealth country agreed to present six chairs for use in the conference rooms. That is the reason for this vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special aid programs-
699.	Expenses in connection with Canada's participation in the world refugee year, for the completion of the tuberculous refugee program-further amount required, $64,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister will recall that on January 29, 1962, certain questions were asked of the government with regard to the situation of Tibetan refugees, particularly those who are destitute and who are in the territory outside the jurisdiction of the government of India, particularly in the northern valleys of Nepal. Has any change taken place in the policy of the government toward assisting these unfortunate individuals who apparently are the victims of aggression perpetrated against them and their country.


Howard Charles Green: This vote has to do only with the tuberculous refugees who were brought in from Europe. That program worked out extremely well. There is no provision for aid to the refugees in Nepal to whom the hon. member for Essex East refers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say
whether refugees still are being brought to Canada under this program or whether this vote is just to pay for the completion of a program that has been completed?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently there are still 10 persons in sanatoria, 131 persons on full subsistence and 48 persons on partial subsistence. In addition to the funds provided for under the Department of External Affairs 1961-62 appropriations, accounts amounting to $40,000 have been paid by the immigration branch from their vote "Transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers". The approximate monthly expenditure is running at $12,000.
In order to reimburse the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the $40,000 expenditure already made and to provide for normal expenditures of $12,000 per month for February and March of this year, a further $64,000 is required; and that, of course, is the vote which is now being considered.
Commencing with the 1962-63 fiscal year and subsequently thereafter, all expenses will be borne by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it there are no more new people being admitted to Canada. That is the point I was making.


Howard Charles Green: That is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are there none left in the
camps?


Howard Charles Green: I made inquiries about that when I was in Geneva and I think the problem of the refugees in Europe can be considered as largely settled. The tubercular refugee program was one of the finest features which led to the settling of the problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can certainly agree with the minister about that. After all, we started admitting these people at the time of the Hungarian difficulty and that was what encouraged us to feel that rehabilitation was possible. It is one of the few things I really commend this government for continuing that we started.


Howard Charles Green: The tubercular refugee program was ours completely. You had nothing to do with it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is completely and utterly wrong. There were at least as many tubercular people admitted by the previous government among the Hungarian refugees as have been admitted subsequently under this other program, and if it had not been for that earlier experience I doubt very much that this government would have embarked on this program.


Frank Charles McGee: I wonder whether the minister can tell us if any other countries followed Canada's lead in this field. As I recall, our contribution to world refugee year was the lead we established in this field. Was our program followed by any other countries? Was it emulated by any other countries?


Howard Charles Green: Some other countries did take tubercular refugees as well, but I have not got the details this evening.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know the minister is right when he says this has nothing to do with the Tibetan refugees, but in view of the fact that some of us have been getting some correspondence on this matter as to what Canada may be able to do, and perhaps the minister has too-I have had some from British Columbia-can the minister give us any indication, even though the matter may not come under this item, whether requests have been made to the Canadian government to help these people and if any consideration is being given to the matter?


Howard Charles Green: One or two suggestions have been received with regard to these unfortunate people but there are many complications involved in trying to help them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
700.	To reimburse the agricultural stabilization board for skim milk powder donated to international relief agencies, $114,282.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this is a vote to reimburse the agricultural stabilization board for skim milk powder donated to international relief agencies. Has any consideration been given to using some of our butter surplus for similar purposes? I do not know whether this is feasible or practical but the matter has been raised in correspondence with me on a number of occasions.


Howard Charles Green: I understand it is not feasible to dispose of butter in this way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
701.	Assessments for membership in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied- further amount required in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1962, $471,976.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister wish to take advantage of this item to say anything about the organization of American states, about which he spoke so eloquently some time ago but about which we have heard nothing since?


Howard Charles Green: This vote has to do with the organization for economic co-operation and development in Europe.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought I would give the minister a chance to talk about other things.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
704. Assessment for the United Nations Congo ad hoc account for 1961-to extend the purposes of vote 516 of the supplementary estimates, 1961-62, to provide for payment of the assessment for the said account for 1962 and to provide a further amount of $2,493,376 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars; the amount required in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1962, is, $2,612,591.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister wish to say anything about the position now with regard to the supplementary fund to take care of the Congo operation? I recognize, of course, that this refers to the normal assessment imposed on members of the United Nations with regard to the United Nations Congo ad hoc account, but the United States congress has now decided to act on the recommendation of the president to provide
Supply-External Affairs $100 million by way of credit. Can the minister say what the situation is now with regard to this further assistance to the United Nations to enable it to carry on?


Howard Charles Green: The latest figures I have with regard to the United Nations bond issue show that a total of $50,215,000 has been subscribed. That is in addition, of course, to United States purchases. So the bond sales are coming along fairly well. If I remember correctly, some offers have been made since April 2, which is about two weeks ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
706. Canada's share of the costs incurred by the United Nations of the Geneva conference on the settlement of the Laotian question, $11,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister say whether or not the Geneva conference is still in session even though there may not actually be any current meetings? Will there be further expenditures which Canada will have to bear in connection with this conference? This would be the appropriate item for the minister to indicate whether or not the objective of establishing a truly neutral government has succeeded. In that connection, what is the position now with regard to the truce commission of which Canada is a member? Is that commission continuing to work toward fulfilling the objectives? Is there in fact a cease-fire, has a truly independent government been established, and when will the work assigned to the commission by the Geneva conference terminate?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the conference at Geneva in effect has finished its work and reached agreement but there remains the job of setting up a government in Laos. As the hon. member knows, there are three different factions in that unfortunate country, one friendly to the west, one friendly to the communists and one which is a so-called neutral. Each of them is headed by a prince. These three princes have met on various occasions in an effort to form a coalition government but so far they have not reached an agreement.
The prince who heads the neutral group is in Europe at the present time. He is the one designated by the west and the east as prime minister. They are all supporting him. But out in the field in Laos it has been impossible to bring about agreement so that the conference in effect is in suspension until the princes agree. Originally Mr. Ronning, our high commissioner to India, headed our delegation and he was assisted by Mr. Bridle our ambassador to Turkey and also by senior officers of the Department of National Defence. At the present time we are keeping a middle grade foreign service officer in

Ways and Means
Geneva who is responsible lor keeping in touch with the other representatives. As soon as agreement on the government is reached in Laos the whole work can be finished.
That is the situation at the present time. The commission in Laos is functioning under Mr. Mayrand who is in charge of the Canadian delegation to the international control commission. They have not been able to move about very much, but I think the very fact they have been in the country has helped reduce the fighting. There has been some skirmishing going on, but no serious fighting. It would appear that both sides are anxious to prevent a general war breaking out, and that is the position at the moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a case where the minister's optimism has only been partially justified.


Mr. McMillan:: I should like to ask one question. Does this vote, and the other votes that have to do with foreign payments, take into consideration the depreciated value of our dollar? The reason I ask is that I see the previous vote speaks about $300,000 and gives the amount as $315,067. I was wondering if all these votes take into consideration the fact our dollar is depreciated from that of the United States dollar?


Howard Charles Green: In each case the amount voted is the Canadian equivalent of the moneys required to meet the payments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, the sum of $136,416,981, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I realize that it is not usual to have a debate at this stage in our proceedings leading up to a supply bill. But the very fact that the rules do provide for a debate in committee of ways and means is conclusive evidence that a debate at this stage is in order and, in the present circumstances, I feel it is required. The purpose of a debate in committee of supply is to maintain the control of the house over the expenditures of the government. The purpose of a debate in committee of ways and means is to maintain the control of the house

over the raising of money to meet expenditures of the government which may have been voted.
Now, Mr. Chairman, including this set of further supplementary estimates for 1961-62, with which we have been dealing, the government has asked for $341 million in a single fiscal year as compared with a total of $357 million in further supplementary estimates for the five years ending March 31, 1957. This $341 million is not far short of half the total deficit for the fiscal year that has just ended. Since these estimates were brought before us we were told the government anticipates a deficit in the current year of $745 million which, based on the record of the past, is likely to be an underestimate.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we on this side have no assurance of any kind, though we thought we had received such an assurance some days ago, that the house will be given the normal opportunity which falls to the house to debate the conditions of the nation's finances and the disturbing disclosures made in the white paper which has been tabled and which deals with our financial and economic situation. We feel, therefore, in the official opposition that we have a duty to decide whether or not to concur in the committee's request, and before doing that to review the nation's finances and the relationship that these huge expenditures which are now before us and which the government is asking authority to make, bear to the general economic and financial policy of the government, as well as the record of the government in this field. If we had any assurance that before this house adjourns for the Easter recess there would be an opportunity to debate this vitally important matter in the normal way, or even after the Easter recess, we would not have to fall back on this procedure in order to bring this matter to the attention of the house.
If the government had been able to convince us that there were matters on the order paper which were of great importance to the country to have passed at once, naturally we would want to give that request the consideration it deserves, just as we gave such consideration to the government this afternoon when they asked for an alteration in the business of the house so that the copyright resolution, which up until this afternoon had not been put forward as a matter of very great urgency, could be dealt with. We felt, since we had been pressing for this, that this was a matter of importance and should be dealt with before the Easter recess. We do not consider some of the items on the order paper have this measure of urgency

attached to them. They are not urgently important, although they may be important in the long run. For instance, there are two matters on the order paper which may be of far reaching, long range importance but which, even if they were passed in this session, could not come into immediate effect. One of these is the redistribution measure and the other is the Senate measure, the bill for which provides that it shall not come into effect immediately.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we feel that the state of the nation's finances is the most urgent problem before us in this house at this time. The upholding of the principle of control of expenditure and taxation is a fundamental right and a fundamental duty of the representatives of the people in parliament, and as this may be the only opportunity that we shall have to discharge that duty and exercise that right, we propose to take advantage of this opportunity.
As I say, if we had been given any indication of the plan of the government in respect of the budget debate, if we had been given any indication up to this Monday of the plans of the government with regard to the business of this parliament during this session it might not have been, and indeed would not have been necessary to adopt this procedure to bring about a debate which we consider to be of very great importance. But that has not been the practice followed by this government.
It would have been open to the government to have told us before now that this house will adjourn this session and that there will not be a session after Easter. In other words, it would have been possible for the government to have indicated, at least in a general way, the length of time this session would take and how much business we could expect to get through during that time, or it would have been possible for the government to have indicated during the last day or two that we will be coming back after Easter and that we will have an opportunity after Easter to deal with the business on the order paper and any additional business the government cares to bring forward.
The government has not followed either of these courses. The Prime Minister has preferred to keep parliament and the country in suspense, to play this cat and mouse game, this monkey-shine as it has been called, right up to the last minute, right up to today. Perhaps it is not of very great importance whether the opposition or indeed government members are kept in suspense in this unprecedented way, but it is of some importance to the country to be kept in suspense in this
Ways and Means
way. It is of some importance to the business of the country to be kept in suspense in this way and to have these contrived and manufactured election crises brought about and then removed, and then others brought about in their place. It seems to be a game which the Prime Minister delights in playing, perhaps because of some advantage he may think is in it for himself; but it is certainly to the country's disadvantage.
I would say that by this time the country has become heartily sick, as indeed some of the government's own supporters are, at the performance of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in this matter since January 18.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The country is disgusted with the obstructionist tactics of the opposition doing everything to prevent proper debate. The budget would have been debated long ago but for that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Finance once again talks about the obstructionist tactics of the opposition. Every day the government puts something new on the order paper and asks us to pass it in a couple of hours-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -without telling us whether we shall have an opportunity to debate these matters after Easter. Just today the government changed its mind and decided that the copyright bill was of the first importance and ought to be considered tonight.
We do not know what may be on the order paper tomorrow. We do not know whether we will be here after Wednesday. We do not know what is going to happen because the government prefers to keep the house and the country in the dark and by doing that, as I said Mr. Chairman, is making the people of the country sick at this monkey-shine.


Jacques Flynn: Has the hon. member not assumed that he will not even get back where he is after the election?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister is perfectly right. I will not come back here after the election; I will be coming back over there.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone can bring this unsettling condition to an end. We were led to believe last week that he was going to do it today, that he was going to get up in the house and make a full statement. We have not heard about it today and it is high time we and the country were told what the plans of the government are, if they have any plans, with regard to the business of this session and the business of this parliament.

Business of the House
In view of the fact that we cannot get information on that, in view of the fact that we are not told we will be given an opportunity to debate the nation's business at this time, we propose to take advantage of this opportunity to do just that.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. It being ten o'clock I must rise to report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of this house.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

['You do it, anyway.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the house leader could indicate what next item of business will be dealt with tomorrow, after we have completed the supply bill?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, in order to get through some of the business before the Easter adjournment we will start off with No. 12 on the order paper, the resolution dealing with the electoral boundaries commission, and then the motion in the name of the Minister of Agriculture concerning the international wheat agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is of the utmost importance.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will then have the second reading of Bill C-79, to amend the Customs Act, and the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing
with provincial taxes and fees of crown corporations. We will then deal with the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Everything but the budget.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will then deal with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with the Freight Rates Reduction Act, the second reading of Bill C-86 concerning the British North America Act, and the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister concerning retiring allowances for senators. Tomorrow is a long day but the house could expeditiously get through most of that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister insult the house by suggesting that we are not going to deal with supply, which is our primary business? It is an outrage.
! Mr. Churchill: The opposition has spent half this session dealing with supplementary estimates. The appropriation bill could pass in ten seconds, and after we have passed those other items we shall call that for tomorrow. I reserve the right to change the order of business I have announced tonight.


An hon. Member:: You do it, anyway.


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

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
696.	Canadian representation at international conferences-further amount required, $115,000.
697.	Grant to defray a portion of the costs of Canadian participation in the first session of the Atlantic convention, $6,000.
698.	Contribution towards the furnishing of Marlborough House, London, England, in an amount of £310, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1962, which is, $915.
Contributions to international economic and special
aid programs-
Special aid programs-[DOT]
699.	Expenses in connection with Canada's participation in the world refugee year, for the completion of the tuberculous refugee program-further amount required, $64,000.
700.	To reimburse the agricultural stabilization board for skim milk powder donated to international relief agencies, $114,282.
Other payments to international organizations and
programs
701.	Assessments for membership in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied- further amount required in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1962, $471,976.
702.	Payment to the international civil aviation organization in part reimbursement of compensation paid to its Canadian employees for Quebec income tax for the 1960 taxation year-further amount required, $1,465.
Supply-Items Passed
703.	To provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates-further amount required, $27,202.
704.	Assessment for the United Nations Congo ad hoc account for 1961-to extend the purposes of vote 516 of the supplementary estimates, 1961-62, to provide for payment of the assessment for the said account for 1962 and to provide a further amount of $2,493,376 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars; the amount required in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1962, is, $2,612,591.
705.	Assessment towards financing the United Nations emergency force in an amount of $300,690 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1962, which is, $315,067.
706.	Canada's share of the costs incurred by the United Nations of the Geneva conference on the settlement of the Laotian question, $11,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
761.	Additional advance to the working capital fund of the United Nations organization in the amount of $2,391 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1962, which is $2,506.
762.	Additional advance to the working capital fund of the food and agriculture organization in the amount of $9,694 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1962, which is $10,157.
763.	Additional advance to the working capital fund of the intergovernmental maritime consultative organization in the amount of $560 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1962, which is $587.


[Stage Direction]
I should like now to make a few remarks in my capacity as representative of Canada. We feel that we cannot remain silent in this very important meeting today, a meeting in which the statements made have reached a very high level of responsibility. The subject which is being discussed is one which is perhaps crucial to the opinion which the outside world will hold of our activities here and of the chances of success in our major task of obtaining general and complete disarmament.
In the matter of an agreement on the cessation of nuclear tests, we are, as representatives have made clear, somewhat at an eleventh hour, but the Canadian delegation feels that it is not too late, though it is very late. I should like to read into the record once more what the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada said in this regard at our fourth meeting on March 19. He said:
We are opposed to all nuclear weapon tests. In this we share the view of most other countries. Indeed, the major nuclear powers themselves have stated at this very conference that they would like to see all tests stopped. However, they now find themselves unable to reach final accord owing to disagreement on inspection. Is there, then, no alternative to another series of tests with all the harmful consequences that such action would bring? Is it not possible, within the framework of this committee, to make the further effort which is required to break the deadlock. In my opinion, such an effort must be made, for otherwise the prospects of this conference itself could be seriously threatened.
He concluded by saying:
In the minds of the public, the impression has been created, because of disagreement in these nuclear test talks, that this conference is going to be a failure. This, I submit, is a very bad situation and one which I hope will be clarified. Countries which do not possess nuclear weapons cannot put a stop to these tests. However, we can and do appeal to the nuclear states to do everything in their power to see that a solution is not further delayed.
The Canadian delegation has heard with the greatest of interest and sympathy statements made by the eight non-engaged members of this committee. We would like particularly to support the appeal of the representative of Mexico which, if I understand it correctly, was that the nuclear powers should submit again to their governments, with great seriousness, the possibility for
some agreement, based on a move in their present positions, which has been submitted to them over the past few weeks, and particularly the last week or so, by the nonengaged states. We are very sympathetic to the efforts which these states have made to try to find some ground where views of the two sides could meet.
We were also impressed with what was said by the representative of Nigeria, when he summarized statements made by the Soviet union on the one side and the U.K. on the other side as to the support which they believe their positions have from non-engaged nations. 1 think he wanted to draw attention to what the non-engaged nations really want, and that is a cessation of tests and a feeling that there should be some effective measure of international control, associated with any agreement.
But, basically, after listening to the speeches this morning, it seems to me that all those nations which are not members of one alliance or another here want an agreement, and that means that there must be a reconsideration of positions.
We heard with interest, the representative of the U.S.S.R. who, as I heard him, said he was ready to think through all suggestions and ponder all possibilities. We heard a similar statement from the U.S.A. representative that these things had been considered and would continue to be considered.
We can see, through developments in this nuclear testing situation, that action creates reaction, and so it goes on. Cannot a stop be put to this? Cannot this thing be stopped somewhere? It seems to us that the representatives of nuclear powers here, in their arguments, are something like men wrestling on the edge of a precipice. Cannot they break loose, stand back, and think of the precipice that lies before them? We do not think, even if nuclear tests take place, that that should end the possibility of general and complete disarmament, but it certainly would have a grave effect on the proceedings of this conference and on the possibility of reaching an early agreement.
I felt it my duty, as representative of Canada, to put these views on record at this meeting.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 17, 1962