You have agreed that a meeting of the Canada-United States Ministerial Committee should take place in Washington on November 9. I should like to raise for your consideration in this memorandum some ideas concerning the type of questions which might usefully be discussed at this meeting.

The Committee was established to consult periodically on all matters affecting the joint defence of Canada and the United States. It was clearly envisaged that the Committee should review at the highest level not only military questions but also the political and economic aspects of joint defence problems. It is significant in this respect that in establishing the Com-mittee provision was made that the two national sections should be led respectively by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Secretary of State of the United States. Your predecessor served as Chairman of the first meeting last year, and Mr. Herter will chair the November meeting in Washington.

I am inclined to believe that the best use will not be made of the Committee if Ministers are asked to consider too many specific Canada-United States defence projects at their meetings. I am convinced that these meetings should be taken as opportunities for Ministers to engage in a wide-ranging discussion of the factors, both international and domestic, which affect Canada-United States defence co-operation. I do not think it is desirable that the meetings should be regarded as occasions on which firm agreement should necessarily be reached on specific topics; rather, the meetings should provide each side with the opportunity at this high level to bring forward for discussion those views which are basic to any decisions on specific defence projects in the intervals between meetings.

It could be made clear at the outset of an informal discussion of the kind I would envisage that the views expressed were not to be taken as binding on either Government. If, in order to achieve the full and frank exchange of views which would be so useful, it was considered desirable to keep the record of the discussion to a minimum, this could be easily arranged. When officials of the two Governments meet to discuss defence topics they normally are dealing with specific projects. Only Ministers are really in a position to discuss broad policy considerations fully and frankly. It seems to me that to do less on occasions such as this is not to take full advantage of the opportunity provided by the Committee's existence. It is frank exchanges of general views at this level which, I believe, will make a reality of "consultation" between the two Governments much more so than the technical exchanges which take place at the official level. The two Governments face a common problem in the defence of North America. It seems to me essential, therefore, that at the highest level the Governments should fully understand what each other's views are even if there may remain areas of disagreement as to how or whether these views should be translated into action.

Ample opportunity is given on both the Canadian and United States sides for Ministers and senior officials to examine in detail the specific joint defence projects which are recommended. In Canada, the Cabinet Defence Committee and the Cabinet examine detailed recommenda-tions in this respect. What is missing, however, is a periodic exchange of views at the Ministerial level between Canada and the United States on the basic factors which make these specific projects necessary or, on the other hand, make it difficult to proceed with them in the manner recommended by the military authorities.

I would recommend, therefore, that an attempt be made to provide mainly for general discussion at the November meeting of the Ministerial Committee, and to place little emphasis on a discussion of specific Canada-United States defence projects. Such a discussion would provide an opportunity for individual participants to put forward their ideas and their concerns about the future of Canada-United States defence co-operation and, indeed, of Western strategy generally. It should introduce a great deal more flexibility than is normally the case at meetings where the participants confine themselves mainly to expounding written briefs which have been prepared in advance. Such discussion would, of course, not rule out the consideration of certain major specific Canada-United States projects on which full agreement had not previously been reached - such as the storage of nuclear weapons in Canada. I am inclined to believe, however, that even such a question as this is less important in itself than in how it fits into the much more basic policy question of the need for the use of nuclear weapons generally, and the effect of their deployment, display and possible use.

There is attached for your consideration a paper containing "talking points" on political aspects of our defence co-operation with the United States in relation to Western strategy generally which I think could serve as the basis for the kind of discussion which I think would be most useful. I should be grateful to know if you would agree that we might attempt to arrange for a general discussion of the kind I have mentioned. If you do agree, would you wish me to write on your behalf to the Ministers of Finance, National Defence and Defence Production informing them of your desire to have the November discussions devoted to these more general questions while not ruling out the possibility of some discussion of particular topics of special interest to individual Ministers.

N.A. ROBERTSON