October 31, 1949


Mr. Claxion: (Minister of National Defence)


1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. See answers to Nos. 1 and 2 above.




Mr. Nose worthy: What consideration is the government giving to the provision of a post office for either or both the village of Forest Hill and the township of York?




Hazen Robert Argue

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Argue:

For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, agreements and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan since January 1, 1944, in connection with irrigation development within these provinces?





Hazen Robert Argue

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Argue:

For a copy of all orders in council passed since January 1, 1944, setting forth government policy in relation to irrigation development in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.




Joseph William Noseworthy

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Noseworihy:

For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the office of the Postmaster General, and individuals and organizations, in Forest Hill and York township, between January 1, 1946 and October 25, 1949, relating to the provision of a post office in Forest Hill and/or York township.





Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved:

That a special committee be appointed to examine into the operations of the atomic energy eontrol

Atomic Energy

board; that the said committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee; and to report from time to time; that the said committee consist of Messrs. Breithaupt, Brooks, Coldwell, Bourget, Gibson (Comox-Alberni), Green, Kirk (Digby-Yar-mouth), Low, McCusker, Mcllraith, Murphy, Pinard, Stuart (Charlotte), Winkler.

He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving that a special committee of the house be appointed to examine into the operations of the atomic energy control board, it might not be out of place for me to recall briefly the developments that have taken place in this field in Canada.

Canada's association with the development in nuclear physics dates back to Lord Rutherford's investigation of radioactivity at McGill university in 1899. In Canada, as elsewhere, this research was at first largely a matter of concern of the physics departments of the various universities. It was pure research concerned with driving back the frontiers of human knowledge rather than with any so-called practical application of the knowledge thus gained.

The theoretical equivalence of mass and energy had come to be accepted early in this century. However, it was not until 1939, with the discovery in Germany that, under certain conditions, the atom of a particular isotope of uranium would split into two nearly equal parts, that the matter began to assume practical implications. This split, or fission, as it came to be called, was accompanied by an enormous release of energy. Very soon the theory was advanced that the process might be made to propagate itself as a chain reaction.

Calculations made at the time showed that a few pounds of uranium undergoing fission might release energy equivalent to something like 20,000 tons of T.N.T. Thus the possibility opened up of a new weapon of war of fantastic power relative to anything which had been previously used. When world war II broke out, the possibility of producing a weapon based on a nuclear chain reaction became of immense importance to all governments. If this could be done, obviously the nation which succeeded first might well gain a decisive advantage.

From 1940 on, information on the possibility of producing an atomic weapon was interchanged between Britain, the United States and Canada. Towards the end of 1942, plans were made for an important section of the work to be carried on in Canada, and accordingly a joint laboratory of United Kingdom and Canadian staff was established in Montreal under the administration of the national research council. In addition to carrying out the research work in the Montreal laboratory, and other research in the national research council in Ottawa, in the

(Mr. Howe.]

laboratories of the Department of Mines and Resources and at the universities throughout the country, Canada contributed many men to the scientific work on projects in the United States and in the United Kingdom. We also set up the necessary control of radioactive substances under the metals controller.

A further development was the decision to build a pilot plant for the production of plutonium by a heavy water reactor at Chalk River. I might say that the scientists had worked out two or three alternative possible methods for producing plutonium, which is a new element possessing explosive properties. The United States, which was carrying the development burden at that time, largely because of its great resources in money and productive capacity, undertook to try out two or three possible methods, but this method of using the heavy water reactor was not one of them. It was suggested that Canada try it; so that line of development was undertaken as a Canadian project. This plant was approaching completion on schedule when the war ended. We then found ourselves in the very fortunate position of having in existence facilities capable of carrying forward research in atomic energy, but not so large nor so expensive to operate as would make their continued use prohibitive in peacetime.

The atomic energy control board was established by the Atomic Energy Control Act, 1946, to administer the atomic energy program in Canada and continue the control of radioactive material. As hon. members will recall, the board reports to the committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research, as does the national research council. The chairman of that committee, of course, represents the committee on the floor of the house and tables the annual reports of the board.

Shortly after its formation the board was made responsible for the control and administration of the Chalk River plant. In order that large scale research on the production and application of atomic energy might be carried on in Canada, the board decided that this plant should be completed and maintained as a research establishment. It requested the national research council to operate the plant on its behalf.

The plant and the associated residential village are located on expropriated areas totalling about ten thousand acres, of which the village accounts for slightly less than one square mile and the plant site for the other fifteen square miles. A quite small proportion of the plant site is actually occupied by the plant proper, the remainder assuring isolation from privately owned

property. The fact that the property adjoins one end of the large Petawawa military reserve reduced the amount of land which had to be expropriated, that end of the reserve being unoccupied. The plant consists of approximately one hundred-odd buildings and structures, along with the outside steam, air, power, water and sewer lines serving them.

Of most of the buildings it need only be said that they are of conventional type, built for semi-permanence. All are on concrete foundations, and most are of wooden frame construction. There are, however, a number of structures which, by their nature, are of a permanent type. Into this category fall the power house, filtration plant and pile building, all of which are of concrete, steel and brick.

The pile building is the central feature of the project, but it will be realized that the details of the pile are still of a secret nature and cannot yet be disclosed. Recently, however, the pile has been referred to by the director of reactor development of the United States atomic energy commission as having the most advanced design and performance of present known reactors.

In order to house plant personnel, a spot on the Ottawa river six or seven miles away from the plant was chosen for the site of a village. Although this extent of separation of plant and village may have been unnecessarily large, the site chosen is considerably more attractive than those available nearer to the operating area. At the village, housing units were provided in single dwellings, mostly of the wartime type, in multiple dwellings, in staff hotel and dormitory blocks. The village has a population of nearly two thousand. There is not sufficient living accommodation in the village to house all the employees, but more houses are being built each year, and it is hoped to remedy the situation within a few years.

I should like now to say something about atomic energy in general, and then speak of what is going on in the plant.

When the first bomb was dropped, it was realized that an unbelievably large source of energy, which it had been thought would never be practically available, had actually been tapped. It was, and still is, impossible to say just when or how this reservoir of available power will be harnessed in a large way to peaceful pursuits, but it is certain that the world's potential source of energy has been increased many thousandfold by this development.

To give a practical illustration, I hold in my hand a small cylinder of natural metallic uranium. It has been calculated that if every

Atomic Energy

bit of this very heavy metal could be turned into energy, we would get the same quantity of power that could be developed by about 500,000 tons of coal, or about the power we now get out of the large Shipshaw plant in one year. Of course this cannot be done at the moment, but there is little doubt that some day we shall be able to fly to remote areas, in one small aeroplane, more potential power in the form of nuclear fuel than can be hauled today in a hundred railway coal cars, and one does not require an extraordinary imagination to envisage what that may mean to future development. But there are many problems to be solved before commercial atomic power is an economic reality. Chalk River is working vigorously on the fundamental problems involved, and is keeping in as close touch as possible with what is going on in other countries.

While commercial atomic power is definitely not just around the corner, there are immediate dividends in connection with radioactive isotopes and their use in medicine, biological research and industrial applications which some people feel may ultimately yield greater and more significant returns than all the conceivable applications of ordinary power.

Radioactive isotopes have three main uses. They are useful as tracers in research and analytical procedures. They hold great promise in the field of medicine for clinical use as a radioactive source, and they have almost limitless possibilities in the broad field of industry, for control and other purposes.

Perhaps a few examples would be helpful. For instance, iodine is known to concentrate in the thyroid gland; hence if a compound containing radioactive iodine is given to a patient, the course of its path through the body may be traced and the rate of accumulation in the thyroid can be determined by instruments outside the human body which record intensities of radiation. It can easily be seen that in a similar way, where treatment by radiation has proved helpful, it may be possible in the future to carry that radiation to the proper tissues by radioisotopes.

There is surely an immense field for the use of tracers in research work in chemistry, in biology and in medicine. In determining just what happens in biological processes, the tracer techniques provide a new tool as potentially novel and useful as was the microscope when first introduced. In the treatment of disease there is a future so hopeful that many believe the benefits from medical research alone will some day repay manyfold all our considerable expenditures.

Atomic Energy

I could go on giving you scores of examples of the use that is now being made of radioisotopes by Canadian scientists, but time will not permit. I do want to say, however, that in the field of agriculture also the experiments being carried out in western Canada have already given most important information about the way in which plants take up elements from fertilizers, where the various nutritional elements in feeds go, and how they are assimilated. It is predicted that the use of tracers will have a profound effect on agricultural science and production.

But perhaps the greatest quantitative use of tracers will be in industry. Even today isotopes and radiation are being used in scores of industries, in chemical plants, in metallurgy, in textiles, in the oil industry, and in thousands of plants, particularly in the United States where intensive studies are being made everywhere to see if industrial processes cannot be unproved and costs cut down by use of this new technique. For instance, in mixing chemicals, tracers can indicate accurately how much of each type is in the final product. Again, where raw materials from different parts of the world go into one product, and where quality is effected by blending, tracer techniques can provide easily the definite answer wanted as to just how much of each ingredient is in the final product. In metallurgy the uses are obvious and many. In studies of the wear of bearings it has been possible to detect the migration of atoms of metals from one piece to another, information that it was heretofore impossible to obtain. Also the phenomena of annealing, grain growth, and transformation of one type of iron into another can be closely studied. I could go on with other uses, but I think it is hardly necessary for me to do so.

I should now like to say something as to what is being done at the moment at Chalk River. The pile is running satisfactorily; the project is producing, using and distributing a series of radioisotopes, and the research and engineering staffs are extremely busy on an extensive series of investigations on the chemical, biological, medical and industrial uses of isotopes. The project is also carrying on fundamental nuclear investigations on the effect of radiation on structural material which are necessary before commercial atomic energy plants can become a practical economic reality.

I might say that for the most part the materials that are used in ordinary construction cannot be used in handling radioactive material, since they absorb radioactivity from the material, hence a whole

technology of new materials must be worked out as we adapt atomic energy for commercial use.

In the field of radioactive isotopes the situation has more immediate promise. Chalk River is now making dozens of different kinds and is regularly distributing to Canadian universities and institutions quantities of many of the more important radioisotopes, such as radioactive phosphorus, sodium, carbon, calcium, iodine, etc. In addition, of course, even larger quantities are being used in the national research laboratories at Chalk River and elsewhere.

From what I have said I hope that hon. members will appreciate that the Chalk River project is not an ordinary industrial undertaking. It is really an exploration expedition into a land of great promise. We have a professional staff of about 195, an additional 965 non-professional employees, and, besides the output of isotopes and plutonium, many original scientific papers are being issued, and these are rapidly establishing the scientific quality and reputation of this Canadian scientific centre, which even now is a place to which the great scientists of the world come for discussions and information. While the tangible and immediate results in production, in research and in development are impressive and worth while, I would like to remind the house that the ultimate results of the best research can seldom be immediately discerned. We know by experience that where we have first-rate research in any field there is almost sure to be an overflow into adjacent fields, and the unexpected harvests are often the most valuable.

I suggest to the house that this rather large enterprise started at Chalk River in a time of war is turning out to be an absolutely first-rate effort that will continue in the years to come to be a credit to Canada in every sense. I suggest that the committee will find its study of the work being carried on in the field of atomic energy of absorbing interest. Although I have been intimately associated with this work from 1942 to the present time, I would hesitate to lay claim to any scientific knowledge of the subject. I say that so that members of the committee will not be so ambitious as to hope to be able to master the science in a few sittings. The committee can count on the fullest co-operation from the atomic energy control board, from the national research council, from the staff at Chalk River, and from the government as a whole, in any direction that will facilitate its work.

Hon. members may have noticed that the powers of the committee as set out in the resolution do not include the power to send

for papers and persons. The reason is that we have secrecy provisions in the field of atomic energy which are common to Canada, the United States and Great Britain. The agreement between the three powers provides that certain classifications of information- a smaller class now than during the war years-must be kept wholly secret. Certain communications come to me which I am not at liberty to disclose to anyone else. Therefore we think that difficulties might be presented if the committee had the power to send for papers. All the information about atomic energy is in the hands of officers of the government. I can give the members of the committee the assurance that any member of the government the committee wishes to question will be presented before the committee, and that any papers that may be called for will be presented to the committee, provided that they are not still on the classified and secret list. With this assurance the committee should have no difficulty in working within its present terms of reference.


Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those happy occasions on which every party in the house is in agreement. As I listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) this afternoon and looked around the chamber I thought that one very promising feature of the occasion was the interest being taken in this debate. It recalled to my mind the debate which took place in 1946, when the bill was passed setting up the atomic energy control board. At that time barely a handful of hon. members stayed in the house, even to listen to the minister. Perhaps the reason for that was that the hon. members, like Canadians generally, were overwhelmed by the immensity of the development of atomic energy, and particularly overwhelmed by the power of the atomic bomb. However, in the intervening three years we seem to have developed. It is a hopeful aspect of the matter that so many hon. members are interested today. I believe the public generally are also greatly interested in this question of atomic energy.

The official opposition can hardly oppose the setting up of this committee, because we have pressed for it from the time of the first debate in 1946. Throughout we have been supported by the members of the C.C.F. party and of the Social Credit party, and have been grateful for that support.

The situation of course, Mr. Speaker, has been an anomalous one, because from the start in the United States they have had a committee of congress. In fact they have had three committees: a committee of congress, a committee of the defence forces, and a

Atomic Energy

committee chosen from scientists and from the business world. These three committees were set up as watchdog committees to check the operations of the United States atomic energy commission. In Canada we have had nothing of the kind, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce alone of all hon. members-perhaps there have been one or two others-has been the only one in Canada really in touch with the development of atomic energy. That has not been entirely wise, particularly because Canada has been concentrating on the development of atomic energy for peaceful uses.

I am sure that the setting up of the committee will give the members of the committee a better understanding of the potentialities of atomic energy. Further it will be noticed that power is given to the committee to report back to parliament. In that way all hon. members should get a better understanding of atomic energy. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in a country where we have a democratic system of government it is essential that on all public questions parliament should be kept informed to the greatest degree possible.

I hope also that as a result of the setting up of this committee the Canadian people will get a better understanding of the potentialities of atomic energy. Much interest is now being taken in this subject, as I said a few moments ago. Of course that interest was heightened by the announcement a few weeks ago that the Soviet union is now able to make the atomic bomb. I am confident that that impressed itself on the minds of the Canadian people, just as it did on the minds of hon. members. Furthermore, Canadians have always taken a deep interest in new developments, because we are still a pioneering people, and perhaps take greater interest in new things than any of the countries of the old world.

Although Canada has been working in the industrial field with regard to atomic energy, there has been little opportunity for our people to follow what is being done. Consequently there has been much lack of knowledge, and great confusion with regard to this question. I am sure the position today is that as a result there is no public opinion behind the plans of the government with regard to atomic energy. In the long run the burden of making decisions concerning atomic energy, or any other question, rests squarely on the shoulders of the people as a whole, and not solely on members of the government or members of parliament.

The minister has pointed out that Canada is in a favoured position with regard to atomic energy. Of course this is true. There

Atomic Energy

are several ways in which we have been particularly favoured. In the first place we got in on the ground floor. As the minister said today, Canada has been involved in the development of atomic energy since 1940. We were in at the start with the American and the British. I hold in my hand the declaration on atomic energy which was made on November 15, 1945, nearly four years ago, by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of Canada. It was an historic declaration. I suggest to hon. members who are here for the first time that they would be well advised to secure a copy and read the statesmanlike declaration made at this time by the leaders of these three countries.

Canada has been a partner from the start, although I notice in the press of today an indication that we are not quite a full partner. Apparently the United States is not yet in a position to make full disclosure of the developments in that country for industrial uses. I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce was quite correct in taking the stand he is quoted as having taken, to the effect that so far as Canada is concerned she proposes to continue supplying the United States with uranium, although the government of the United States had not yet received power to pass on all the information available in that country. Apparently part of the agreement between the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada was that such information should be exchanged. This agreement expires at the end of this year, and Canada has now offered to carry on her part by continuing the supply of uranium. I feel confident that in due course the United States will make arrangements to give Canada and Great Britain any information that may be available for industrial uses.

We are also in a favoured position-and in this instance a more favoured position than the United States,-because we have the raw materials. We have the uranium in Canada, and also the hydroelectric power with which to produce heavy water,-one of the essential components in the use of atomic energy in the industrial world. I do not pretend to know anything about the scientific end of this business, nor do I suppose many hon. members who will serve on the committee will know much about it, even after we have completed our deliberations. Certainly, however, Canada is in a most favoured position in being able to supply the necessary raw materials.

We are in a favoured position too, because the Canadian people from coast to coast are interested in prospecting. In these days one ing into one's own back yard, in search of

[Mr "reem]

never knows when a prospector may be peer-uranium. There seem to be only a few who are successful, but the urge to go out to find uranium is now very much like the old urge to go to the Yukon to find gold. This urge to prospect is a good thing.

Then we have the scientists and engineers. I believe tribute should be paid to Canadian scientists for the part they have taken in the development of atomic energy. In this connection one must also pay tribute to Canadian universities, of which ten, according to the annual report of the atomic energy control board for the fiscal year 1948-1949, are co-operating with the board. These are the universities of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba; McMaster university, the university of Toronto, Queen's university, McGill university, Macdonald college and Dalhousie. All have rendered excellent service-and there may have been others.

Finally, Canada is a member of the atomic energy commission of the United Nations, and we shall continue to hold that membership even when not a member of the security council. As I understand the situation, the eleven nations which have representatives on the security council, and Canada, constitute the atomic energy commission of the United Nations.

Canada appears to be the leader in the industrial field. I have before me a press dispatch containing a speech made three or four days ago by Dr. C. J. Mackenzie, president of the national research council and chairman of the atomic energy control board. He is quoted as saying:

Canada's experimental work so far has placed her in the forefront of the nations in the industrial field. Canada's main interest is in the peacetime application of atomic energy.

Today one need not dwell on the potentialities of atomic energy. The minister has placed on record some startling statements concerning those potentialities. In a speech delivered on May 28 he made this remarkable statement about atomic energy:

Canada is in the front line of this the most exciting scientific venture of all times.

A somewhat similar statement has been made by Dr. Mackenzie. Last Saturday a statement was made by Kenneth F. Tupper, the new dean of the faculty of applied science and engineering at the university of Toronto. Dean Tupper has been associated with the work at Chalk River, and, in the course of a statement somewhat similar to that made by the minister, he pointed out one great difficulty, namely, that because of the military uses to which atomic energy can be put, the development for industrial purposes is being held back. In other words the need for some

military control is making it more difficult to develop atomic energy for peacetime purposes. He said in part:

The peacetime use of atomic energy for fuel or power awaits the solution of its international control . . . Until we have achieved a state of assured world peace, nations will not forgo the hoarding of nuclear fuels for possible military use.

The article goes on to say:

Dean Tupper, who since 1947 has been director of the engineering division of the atomic energy project at Chalk River, said there was not the slightest doubt that atomic energy could be used for fuel.

So we shall still be hampered by the failure of the nations of the world to agree on some method of controlling atomic energy, in a military sense.

Concerning what this wonderful development may mean for Canada, we of the official opposition believe that, to as great an extent as possible, atomic energy should be used in Canada for Canadians. We do not say that it must not be supplied to other nations, but

we urge that it be used in Canada for Canadians to the fullest possible extent. We believe, too, that in this field Canada can be of great help to other nations. There is a significant paragraph in the declaration on atomic energy made in 1945 by the three leaders. It reads as follows:

Representing as we do the three countries which possess the knowledge essential to the use of atomic energy, we declare at the outset our willingness, as a first contribution, to proceed with the exchange of fundamental scientific information and the interchange of scientists and scientific literature for peaceful ends with any nation that will fully reciprocate.

I hope that this is still the policy of the Canadian government, because I have no doubt that the declaration expresses Canadian feelings. The developments in Canada may be the means of helping not only Canadians but the peoples of all nations. I sometimes wonder if creating better means by which nations can help other nations, may not be the only way to bring about world cooperation and indeed to do away with war.

In conclusion I should like to say a word or two about this special committee. We realize that the setting up of the committee is in the nature of an experiment. It is a special committee and as such will pass out of existence at the end of the present session. We hope that if the work of the committee is successful the government will have it appointed again in the session of 1950. Some comment has been made on the fact that no power is being given to the committee to call witnesses or to send for papers, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce explained that this afternoon.

I do not think the government need worry about the committee. The importance of the

Atomic Energy

subject is clearly realized, not only by members who are to serve on the committee, but also by the house at large. Personally I feel it a great honour to be chosen to serve on the committee and I am confident that all other hon. members who are to serve on it feel the same way. I think the minister will find that a deep sense of responsibility will be shown by the members of the committee, and I am sure that they will take up their work in a spirit of service to their fellow Canadians.

Mr. M. J. Cold well (Roseiown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, like the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) I feel that while this debate may not be the most important of this session, the subject under discussion is probably the most important we could discuss at this or any other time. None of us know much about atomic energy, but some of us have been interested in it from the time the first bomb fell on Hiroshima.

I had the good fortune in December, 1945, to be invited to attend a meeting in New York called by the New York Nation, to which a number of scientists who had been instrumental in splitting the atom and in making the bomb had been invited. My contribution this afternoon will to some extent be made upon the basis of what I learned at that time, and the information I have been able to obtain since from the bulletins issued during the last several years by a group of atomic scientists.

It is true that in the United States they have several committees dealing with atomic energy, one being a congressional committee; but I hope that our committee will not follow the course pursued by the committee of congress, which has been mainly one of witch-hunting and has been of little value in the field of atomic energy. Indeed I would go so far as to say that it has been distinctly detrimental to the best interests of the development of this great power in the United States and throughout the world.

It is important that members of parliament, even those with scientific and engineering knowledge as limited as my own, should have some understanding of this most important problem. As I think I said in this house in 1946, the discovery of atomic energy is the greatest discovery made by man since the discovery of the use of fire. It has promise of great development, for good or for evil. I saw a paragraph in a recent atomic energy bulletin, the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" for August and September, which I think is worth putting before the house,

Atomic Energy

because it emphasizes the difficulties faced by a legislative body such as this when dealing with a matter of this kind and formulating policies in regard thereto. Referring largely to the activities of the congressional committee in the United States, the bulletin states:

If the democratic system of government is not to become a mere shell, through the incapacity of the legislators to understand some of the most important things about which they legislate, some changes are needed. In the first place, the legislators must be provided with really competent advisers, whose integrity, independence, and competence they trust. It will also be necessary for the AEC to take the responsible members of the committee more intimately into its confidence than it seems to have done, so that the committee will not suffer from the sense of bafflement which only aggravates the elements of pettiness and pique which are so often present in our political life. Beyond this, major political parties or at least their congressional representatives, could perhaps give consideration to introducing some representation of scientists and technologists into their inner councils, and even into congress (if a constituency can be found willing to have such an unorthodox representation, and if scientists are capable of that degree of public spirit and political ambition). A few competent scientists and engineers, scattered over the benches of the majority and of the opposition, might enable committees dealing with scientific and technical matters to lift future investigations of the AEC-and the AEC should be probed by congress often and deeply-to a much higher level than Senator Hickenlooper has achieved.

I think that statement is perfectly true. We do not want to descend to the level to which they have descended in the United States. We want to be in position to listen to the advice and information which can be given to us by people whom we can trust. After all, I believe we have a group of men and women working in the scientific field in this country, at Chalk River and in the national research council, which in proportion to our population is one of the best in the world. In one of these bulletins- I cannot just put my hand on it at the moment-I remember reading an article by Professor Harold Urey, one of the modern atom scientists. Discussing the difficulties that had arisen in the atomic energy commission of the United Nations, he went on to say that the technical problems before that commission were elucidated by the one man who understood them intimately, and he named General McNaughton, Canada's representative on that commission. Consequently we do not have to be ashamed of what Canada has done and is doing in this field.

I am happy indeed to have an opportunity of serving on this committee. I know that many other hon. members envy some of us the opportunity we have been given in this connection. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) remarked that this matter

had been brought to the attention of the people of Canada once again by the announcement, two or three weeks ago, that Russia had succeeded in making an atomic bomb. If I may refer to the conference I attended in New York in December, 1945, I remember distinctly that Professor Szilard and others who spoke on that occasion prophesied that within a measurable period of time-some of them said within five years-the atomic bomb would no longer be a secret resting with one, two or three countries. After all, if scientific knowledge is to be useful to the world, it must be made freely available. I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra quite meant this, and if he did, I do not go along with him; but I understood him to say we should endeavour to use our knowledge of atomic energy purely for the good of the Canadian people.


Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

No, I did not say that.


Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Coldwell:

I did not think the hon. member meant that, though that interpretation might have been placed upon his words. This is a world problem, and I am one of those who believe that no amount of blacking out on the part of Russia, the United States or any other country can prevent scientific knowledge from passing around the world and becoming available to all first-class scientists. This, I think, has been illustrated by the fact that recently we have learned that the atomic bomb is no longer the secret of any one nation.

I refer again to the most recent of these bulletins I have already mentioned, that of October, 1949

and here I am quoting an authoritative document in this particular field. The board of sponsors comprises J. Robert Oppenheimer as chairman, Harold C. Urey as vice-chairman, and among the members such names as Albert Einstein, James Franck, E. U. Condon, and a number of others; therefore it can be regarded as an authoritative document in regard to these matters. These scientists give a new warning to the world. In a letter signed by Harrison Brown, James Franck, Joseph E. Mayer, Leo Szilard and Harold Urey, they quoted from an article in the New York Times of September 28, 1949, in which General Walter Bedell Smith, former ambassador to the Soviet union, speaking of Russia's production of atomic bombs, was reported to have stated:

I said a month ago at the governors' conference in Colorado that they would probably test the bomb in a few months. However. I believe that it will take Soviet Russia at least ten years to get to the point of mass production that we have now reached. I know that American techniques and industrial

skills are far better than the best the soviet can offer. There is no reason for the soviet to reach, in less than ten years, the mass production that we have reached now.

Commenting on that statement, they say:

We, the undersigned, are aware of the problems involved in the large-scale production of atomic bombs. To our regret we have to say that the above statement, attributed by the New York Times to General Bedell Smith, has no basis in fact.

That is signed, as I have indicated, by the scientists I named. In our discussion of this important matter I do not think we should concentrate upon the atomic bomb. I had hoped that long ere this the United Nations would have reached agreement on a plan to control it. I think I understand fairly well the plan that was approved by the assembly of the United Nations, the only people voting against it, if I remember rightly, being the Soviet union and the nations associated with it or under its domination. That plan has not been made effective. Last Saturday night, in the weekly report from the United Nations at Lake Success, given by our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), I noticed a new suggestion, a modification of that plan, so in the light of more recent events perhaps the nations are reconsidering the situation.

I believe we must have world control of atomic energy in some form, with adequate inspection, and no iron curtain to keep inspectors out of any country at all. We must have free access, for inspection, to all factories, industries, and so on, producing atomic energy materials. In this way we can probably approach the time when atomic energy may be used for the good of mankind. I do not think any of us in the house this afternoon could have helped being greatly impressed when the Minister of Trade and Commerce held in his hand a small cylinder of uranium and told us that, turned into energy, it could replace hundreds of thousands of tons of coal, if mankind could but reach the stage at which that energy could be so utilized. In some respects it is almost a terrifying thing, not only from the point of view of war but from the point of view of peace. It means that if this comes about-[DOT] and I should not say "if", because it will come about-it will mean a complete revolution in our society, a complete transformation of our industrial processes, a greater industrial revolution than that which occurred when coking coal was first used for the manufacture of steel, starting the industrial revolution of almost two hundred years ago. I think perhaps that thought was in the mind of one of the men who split the atom when he spoke in New York, as I heard him speak, on the occasion to which I have referred. I have

Atomic Energy

in my hand a transcript of his speech; and on that occasion Dr. Leo Szilard, one of the famous atom scientists, said:

On. the third day of March, 1939, Dr. Walter Zinn and I performed a simple experiment on the seventh floor of the Pupin building at Columbia.

After two days of preparation, everything was ready and all we had to do was turn a switch, lean back and watch the screen of a television tube.

If flashes of light appeared on the screen, that would mean that neutrons were emitted in the fission process of uranium, and this in turn would mean that the large scale liberation of atomic energy was just around the corner.

We turned the switch and we saw the flashes. We watched them for a little while and then we switched everything off and went home.

That night there was very little doubt in my mind the world was headed for grief.

This crucial phenomenon was independently discovered just about the same time by Anderson and Formi, and by Halban, Joliot and Kovarski. They used different methods, but arrived at the same conclusions; and I have, therefore, good hopes that my own plea of not guilty will receive merciful consideration in the heavenly court of justice.

The first use to which this great new potent energy was put was the mass destruction of mankind.

A little later in the same address, the same scientist said this:

Let me try, then, to reduce to a simple formula what I believe to be the difficulty that we have to overcome.

Politics has been defined as the art of the possible. Science might be defined as the art of the impossible. The crisis which is upon us may not find its ultimate solution until the statesmen catch up with the scientists, and politics, too, becomes the art of the impossible. This, I believe, might be achieved when the statesmen will be more afraid of the atomic bomb than they are afraid of using their imagination, because imagination is the tool which has to be used if the impossible is to be accomplished.

I hope this committee will have the effect of bringing the challenge to us in this House of Commons and making us consider the impossible, not only in the field of science, but also in the field of social relations, based upon the scientific implications of atomic energy and the like. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in appointing this committee I believe the house is taking a proper and logical step. It is taking a step which is essential for the well-being of our country. By informing the members of the House of Commons on the atomic energy problem, we shall enable all hon. members to do something about informing the people of the country about atomic energy and its possibilities.

I know the difficulties that have arisen- the determination on the part of the Soviet union, for example, that there must be no interference with her national sovereignty; that the factories of the Soviet union must be under the control of that country and not subject to any world authority. This is

Atomic Energy

bedevilling the situation today, perhaps in part because of a lack of confidence among the great nations of the world. Whether for this or for any other reason, I believe Canada should do as it has done; it should join the other democratic countries in demanding that this great power be subject to complete international inspection under United Nations authority. Every facility for inspection should be given without let or hindrance.

Of course this does mean that at least we have moved some distance along the road towards the day of the parliament of man, when national sovereignty as we have known it will have ceased to be a problem to the peoples of the world. Retaining our special national culture and our national attributes, we may yet find a way of overcoming international difficulties.

As I said in the beginning, in the field of science it is impossible to maintain secrecy. As Szilard points out, certain scientists discovered how to split the atom about the same time as he did-Joliot and Kovarski in France; Halban in another country, and the others he named. No doubt by that time the Germans and Russians had also learned that part of the secret.

At the same conference I remember an address of Dr. Henry DeWolf Smyth, who, as many hon. members will recall, wrote the report on the first atomic bomb explosion in New Mexico before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. He has something to say which I think we should bear in mind in this young country. It has a particular bearing upon the resolution moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) in the field of education. He said:

The most important technical resource of a nation is neither raw materials nor equipment, but educated men. Obviously we will need an increasing supply of such men in the post-war period. Under wartime policy the training of such men practically stopped. The policy of the selective service has made students in the sciences almost non-existent. The resumption of training must be .encouraged in every possible way. The scientific men from the universities on the wartime projects should be returned as soon as possible to their normal activities of teaching and research. The welfare and safety of this country can be assured only by leaving them free to pass on what they have learned to a new generation of educated and trained men. If we lock our scientists up in secret laboratories, neither they nor the country will develop. The free interchange of ideas, nationally and internationally, is the strength of science, as indeed it is of every other department of men's lives.

Ideas are a common inheritance from thoughtful men in all countries and all civilizations. To speak of continued secrecy in the field of thought and discovery is to deny our moral birthright and the very tradition which has brought us this far from savagery. Secrecy in any field of peacetime is fatal to man's growth and to any hope for a world society.

The tragedy is that, owing to a lack of confidence among the great nations of the

world, secrecy has been enjoined in many areas of scientific research. But it seems to me that in our own country, with the development of groups of scientists, young men in our universities trained in science, with a national research council and the Chalk River project, we have a remarkable opportunity to develop more and more able scientists to the end that atomic energy may be brought under human control and utilized for good, not only in our own country but in the world generally.

When we say that atomic energy should be utilized for the good of our country and for the world generally, let us bear in mind the fact that politics must keep up with science so that legislators and scientists may march side by side. Atomic energy is bound to bring in its train industrial revolution. We must guide the political and social revolution to keep pace with it, so that we shall not fall into the kind of disaster experienced after the industrial revolution of years ago; or, indeed, that the world may not fall asunder and mankind perish in the flames of war.


Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):

Mr. Speaker, I am in that unfortunate position in the speaking list that when an important topic of this description comes before the house, by the time it is my turn to speak there is little left to say. This is particularly true when I am preceded by eloquent speakers who have given great thought and study to the problems before the house. This afternoon therefore I do not intend to take up much time, but there are perhaps a few things that have not yet been said. Those only I wish to stress.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we welcome the setting up of this committee. When it was proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) some time ago we felt that it was a desirable thing to do. We thought that the government's acceptance of the recommendation showed that they too sensed the great importance of getting before the people of Canada certain information which they should have. In spite of the fact that atomic energy investigation and development in this country have remained almost entirely "top secret" to date, the people of the country ought to know certain things.

The reason is quite plain. Nations are governed by the attitudes of the masses. If we expect our people to behave in a sensible way, sensible attitudes must be cultivated amongst them. The only way in which such sensible attitudes can be cultivated is to get before them as much information as possible. That means that the government cannot continue for any length of time to keep things

locked up in the secret list entirely. That was one of the great reasons why at the time we felt constrained to support the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the official opposition in asking the government to set up this committee.

It is only natural that the atomic energy board, having regard to its very nature, should let out to the people and to the members of this parliament as little information as possible. By the very nature of things, it is an ultra-conservative board. The setting up of this committee is going to go a long way toward helping the people of Canada to get what they should have and therefore toward helping them reach a sensible attitude.

I should like to explain just what I mean by a "sensible attitude". I have heard what has been said by people who have been influenced by the sensational aspects of reports of the development of atomic bombs for destructive purposes for war. There can be no settled state of mind where people are swayed by the emotional and sensational aspects of such reports. It is therefore important that the people be let in on as much of the information as it is possible for them to get.

The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) quite eloquently and well, I thought, brought out the point that, if we are seriously to attempt to prevent the widespread application of atomic energy for destructive purposes for war, we must see to it that the people are in possession of the facts as far as we can possibly get those facts to them. They are in this position. They are the victims of a world-wide campaign, on the part of the enemies of free men, which is designed to get people to do, under the threat of war, what their enemies usually get them to do under the duress of warfare itself. I am satisfied that one of the reasons why Russia and her satellities are not prepared to submit to international control of atomic energy, and particularly the inspection part of it, is that they hope to obtain, under the threat of war, what they would normally be able to obtain under the duress of war if they thought they could lick the world. That seems to be the way they have been carrying on for years.

I feel quite satisfied that they do not want to go to war and they do not want to see atomic energy let loose upon the world, because they know that they would be amongst the victims, the same as other people. If Canadians, the people of the United States and of the other democratic countries can be influenced to do, under the fear of war, things that the enemies of free men want them to do, then those enemies have accomplished their purpose without having to resort to the

Atomic Energy

force of arms. As free men in a free country I think that our duty ought constantly to be to seek out the source of our enemy's power and strength and then, before he starts using or realizing on that strength for his own purposes, to see to it that his powder is wet so it will not go off. One of the best ways of making sure that his powder will not go off is to have a well-informed people with a sensible attitude. I believe that attitude can be settled fairly well if this committee performs its functions as I think it will; and I therefore say, Mr. Speaker, that we are happy that this committee is being set up.

There is one other thing I should like to mention before I sit down and it is this. I hope that the terms of reference in the resolution itself are broad enough so that the members of the committee may investigate production of uranium in this country. When I say "investigate production" I mean this. I am aware of a good many places where uranium ore could be produced in much greater quantities than it is being produced today. Why it is not being produced is something that I think ought to be generally known by this House of Commons; for there is no element known to man today that is so important as uranium. If there are discouragements to the production of uranium, I think we should know it; if there are not sufficient encouragements to the production of uranium ores, then I think the members of the House of Commons ought to know it. If the investigation is conducted on a scale broad enough so that this phase can also be studied, perhaps out of the work of the committee may come certain new and better encouragements to the faster production of uranium ores for our stockpiles-not for war purposes; I am not by any means so greatly concerned about that as I am for peacetime purposes.

I echo the sentiments of my hon. friends who have spoken before me. Let us concentrate as far as is humanly possible upon the peacetime aspects of atomic energy. After all, they are the ones which contribute to the happiness and prosperity of the people and therefore they are the ones which should receive our greatest study. But at the same time let us not overlook the fact that there is every possibility that our enemies have the atomic bomb. Let us therefore be wise in what we say and do with respect to reserves of those things which might help to make us equal in a world where there is no complete friendship amongst nations.


Thomas Langton Church

Progressive Conservative

Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):

For a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call to the attention of the house the cause and effect of this proposed resolution, if we pass it. I referred to the matter the other day, in


Atomic Energy

connection with what has been done so tar. The resolution of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who has taken a great interest in this work since the fall of Japan, reads as follows:

That a special committee be appointed to examine into the operations of the atomic energy control board; that the said committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee; and to report from time to time . . .

So far so good; but if you look a little closer at the work of the committee to be appointed you will see that all they will be doing is collection of some information about this very grave question that confronts the world today. It is either extinction of the human race or something else in the way of peaceful use of this great power. We have to look at the cause and effect of the resolution. Canada has spent considerable sums of money on a plant in the Ottawa valley. Canada, along with United States, has made a study of its effects in peace or war, which is the right thing to do I suppose. I called attention to this matter after the fall of Japan:

The main point to remember about the atomic bomb is that its use may depend on the gradual restoration of a more civilized world. Humanity may have to face the question-which is the least unendurable, a vast physical destruction or the surrender of the whole of mankind to a diabolical tyranny such as the world has never seen?

That is correct. It is quite true that the atomic weapon cannot be separated from the great problems of peace and war. You cannot separate them by appointing a committee with very limited power. We are a nation of only eleven million people. We have not the capacity or the method and manner of handling this problem. It is quite true, as I say, that this atomic weapon cannot be separated from the whole question of war and peace.

The atomic bomb-as it is popularly called-is a more dreadful weapon than any that have so far appeared (there may be worse coming). But it is, after all, just a weapon. Thus we are driven back to considering the causes of war.

The resolution does not go far enough in that connection. They should consider the whole problem if they are to consider it at all.

I am reading now from the Dean of Chichester's address which appeared some time ago in Everybody's magazine which is edited by a very great man Mr. Pote in England. He called attention to a very great situation which confronts the mother country. He is also backed up in what he says by a man whom I regard as one of the greatest men of England, the Most Rev. and Right Hon. Cyril F. Garbett, Archbishop of York,

who spoke in the cathedral at Victoria, British Columbia, just a week ago yesterday. In that address as reported in The Canadian Churchman of the Church of England, he called attention to what was going on in the world. The report of his address reads in part:

"Our age does indeed need good news. We live in an age of crisis; millions of people are sorrowful, anxious and worried. People are more worried perhaps than at any other time in history.

Over mankind hangs the danger of the atomic bomb with all its awful possibilities. There is the deepening shadow of atheistic communism blotting out both faith and freedom.

The Christian faith has good news today-it has news of God.

Christianity teaches that God is the living Lord, infinite in His love for humanity. God is not an impersonal power.

Sometimes people ask, is man of any value? The Christian faith replies, "Every man and child has value in the sight of God and God cares for them."

He told the congregation this life was a school preparing people for a great life after death. "God was ready to help and individuals and nations have failed because they did not ask for that help."

I might call the attention of the house to the fact that Canada has made a study of this problem since the fall of Japan. The other day the western powers announced that Russia has produced an atomic bomb. She knows all about it. She has also got more deadly weapons than that at the present time. I am not one of those who believe what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said the other day about the whole question, that we would have no war at least for five years. I notice he is not in his seat today. Therefore I have to be careful and not misquote what he said. I understood him to say that war is not probable for about five years. I noticed something in the press and in Hansard about it. He said there would not be another war for that period of time. I referred to it the other day and at the session last spring, and he did not correct me. I believe he was too optimistic in his statement. I believe he was for many reasons. May I ask this question. If we appoint this committee to secure this information firsthand is Canada secure or is she not? I say she is not secure on the sea, on the land or in the air, and we are now faced with a deadly weapon which may destroy the whole human race. With the limited power given to this committee I doubt whether we can accomplish anything.

I hold in my hand a picture of the United States atomic energy plant. It is a peaceful looking village away down in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. That manufacturing plant is the birthplace of the atomic bomb. Russia knows everything that is going on down in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. She knows more than we in Canada do about it. We are supposed to get our information from the UNO. If we are depending on the UNO we are leaning on

a weak reed. We have had some of it before. We have had two wars in one generation. It may be three strikes and we are out this time. When the western powers announced that Russia had the atomic bomb, Russia prepared a new peace offensive, if you please. That is what they have always done. Germany did the same thing, and we had two wars in a single generation. Russia is now doing it. They have adopted a peace offensive at the UNO, and the writers have been giving effect to it. The time has come when we should be wide awake on this question. This whole matter started on August 6, 1945, by an event which, as is stated by the Dean of Chichester-

-shocked the world. The bomb that dropped on Hiroshima revealed that man had in his power a means of destruction so vast and so sudden that it could conceivably wipe out, without a word of warning, the whole industrial capacity of a nation. Since then, still vaster weapons of destruction are in the making.

This is by the same people. He continues:

Blotting out the civilization of continents closely packed with human beings, like Europe or North America-

And, in Canada, Montreal, Toronto and other large centres.

-seems to have come within the range of possibility. Small wonder was it that in most countries, immediately after the war-

Continues the Dean of Chichester-

-there arose a demand that humanity must instantly discover either a means for controlling the monster it had created, or else eliminate altogether such fiendish devices. Indeed, there were not a few who said that since war had become so manifest an absurdity the only thing that sensible and reasonable people all over the world could do, was to abandon war altogether.

No doubt it would, if the majority of people in the world were sufficiently reasonable and sensible- and, what is supremely important, prepared to act together with insight and vigour.

It is quite true that the atomic weapon cannot be separated from the whole problem of war and peace.

Then he goes on to ask: Why do wars happen? He asks this question: What is it that causes these wars? I say one of the causes is pacifism. Only the other day Mr. Churchill said in the British House of Commons, in a debate on foreign affairs, that Britain never consented to Russia's being asked to come into the Pacific-and Mr. Churchill said the same thing three or four years ago. Russia had nothing to do with the Pacific before they were invited. And they were invited by whom? They were invited by the United States a week before Japan fell. The late President Roosevelt and General Eisenhower invited Russia to come into the Pacific.

What did Russia do? Immediately, in less than three days, they landed 500,000 troops in Manchuria. They must have gone up by

Atomic Energy

way of Alaska to cross. What further did they do? They caused this whole situation- communism, and all that kind of thing-in Asia. They have China by the throat now- with the British fleet away up the river, something which never happened before in tour centuries.

They were invited to come into the Pacific and have caused all kinds of damage. The Dean of Chichester refers to the condition in Asia, and to the fact that Russia now has most of Europe in its grasp, and it may be that Asia is in the same position. He points out that humanity has but one choice, and then continues:

Fortunately the west can confront Russia with overwhelming strength in industry, munitions and manpower, and has established a lead in atomic research which will be immensely difficult for the Kremlin to overtake. It is our duty to do all in our power to preserve that lead.

Yet, assuming that a balance of power in our favour is maintained, the question remains, "Is this sufficient to enable the world to settle down? Is it conceivable that there can really be a secure and contented world while Russia holds half Europe in thrall? Can genuine peace be established while Europe is half slave and half free? Again, is not more than Europe involved? If Asia, besides China and including India, Burma and the East Indies, come under the Russian grip can there be world recovery?" These are questions for the second stage of the conflict in which we are all at present engaged. When retreat is forced on Russia somewhere, the scene may brighten everywhere.

So I say it is a duty to encourage peace-loving countries. And do not forget this one fact, as the Dean of Chichester points out:

It is not armaments that make wars, but the people who have control of the armaments. Wars are not caused by things but by the mind of man. The United States. Great Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, and Norway had greatly reduced their armaments after the first world war. Denmark had practically abolished armaments altogether. This did not save any of these countries. There was another country, populous and powerful, that was bending all its energies to the preparation of war,-

And he was referring to Germany-

-which was greatly encouraged in its preparations by the weakness of the peace-loving countries and their obvious unwillingness and unreadiness for war.

Britain abandoned the finest army, navy, and air force the world had ever seen, after the first war. The result was that when another war came she had nothing. Then, he continues:

The truth is that wars in modem times are caused by the emergence of a group of determined men who are able to rouse and mobilize within their nation a passionate desire to expand and dominate. They aim at indoctrinating their people with a conviction of superiority, an imposing idea that they are destined to rule the world, because of their great strength and particularly because they alone possess the true political philosophy for which the whole of mankind is waiting. The kindling idea, universal in its scope, and simple in

Atomic Energy

its expression, plus the sense of destiny, are essential to the war-machine. Men and women need a great cause, or what appears to be a great cause, if they are to be keyed up to endure the vast sacrifices that war, and preparation for war, demands.

The idea may be-in fact generally i9- an illusion, masking the inner essence, which is the love of power and more power. That is the real driving force of those who have managed to get control of the national mind and the national resources. But without the idea-the world view-that control can never be obtained. Of course, ruthlessness is also essential. The idea kindles the idealist, the concentration camps and the purges keep the less convinced and the feebler folk tied to the chariot wheels of aggrandizing power.

It was thus that Napoleon spread the rule of fire and the sword across Europe, with the slogan of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." It was with the glorification of kultur that Imperial Germany set out to conquer the world. "National Socialism," combining national destiny with what sounded like a broad philosophy of human equality, welded the German people into a devastating military machine under the fanatical leadership of Hitler.

I have almost concluded what I wished to say in this connection. Let me ask this question: Are we secure, or are we insecure? I say we are not secure, and for the reasons I have given. We can do little or nothing to prevent an unfortunate situation from developing, as that great man Churchill, who is the voice of England, has said.

Dr. Garbett preached in the constituency of my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) the other day, and called the attention of the Canadian people and of the empire, of America and of Great Britain to what is going to happen if atomic warfare succeeds. Are we secure on land, on sea and in the air? I say we are not. We are doing just what we did after the first war. At that time we liquidated the finest army, navy and air force we had ever seen-and now, after this war, we make the same mistake.

What about coming wars? For no doubt a war will come. It may come like a thief in the night, the way the first and second world wars came. I can remember being laughed at in this House of Commons when I quoted from the thirty-seventh chapter of Jeremiah. I referred to that chapter on September 10, 1945-and they did not laugh then. What I said was:

Where are now your prophets which prophesied unto you, saying, The king of Babylon shall not come against you, nor against this land?

When the war came, some of the pacifists in this house said: "What is the use of our sending across an army every few years when we can get all the defence we require from Washington?" There may have been some reason to say that at the time, but I can tell you that, unless we get rid of our present way of thinking, the third war will come before we know it. It will come as the other two came, like a thief in the night. Canada will be found unprepared on land

and sea, and in the air, as far as the necessary atomic energy for defence purposes is concerned.


October 31, 1949