1960-01-20

CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-33, to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting at advance polls).
Som


a hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to give a much broader advance poll voting privilege than now exists.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-34, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in explaining the purpose of this bill I cannot do better than repeat the illuminating words used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he introduced and spoke to an identical bill in this house on February 28, 1955, as reported at page 1543 of Hansard for that date. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that is my birthday and I trust it is a good omen.
The Prime Minister said, and I repeat and support:
Mr. Speaker, as provincial legislation has proven ineffective to control the wanton pollution by municipalities and industrial concerns of interprovincial rivers, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to provide punishment for the offence of water pollution.
Then the Prime Minister later said that this amendment is demanded by tens of thousands of people, literally hundreds of thousands in this country, who are asking for some action on the part of the federal government to protect them from the cupidity of those who, because of their power, believe they can with impunity deny the use of these waters to present and future generations.
Mr. Speaker, if the house will forgive a temporary lapse of good parliamentary manners, I should like to say that on this issue I am happy to follow John.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER RESPECTING ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members will give me leave to make a brief statement about the use of routine proceedings, I think this might be an appropriate time to do so and to consider routine proceedings in so far as ministerial statements and oral questions without notice are part of those proceedings.
As hon. gentlemen appreciate, time is given at the beginning of each sitting of the house for routine proceedings, because they are routine or formal in their nature; matters which with few exceptions are dealt with without debate. They are proceedings which require attention, but not much time, before the house enters upon the orders of the day and the substantial business before it.
Although there are exceptional days when routine proceedings are not accomplished quickly, if the past is any criterion for the future routine proceedings should be concluded within approximately half an hour of the beginning of the sitting. Perhaps it is desirable that this should be so. If too many or too long ministerial statements are made and commented upon by two hon. members, as the situation is now, from opposition parties, and if hon. members do not limit their oral questions in accordance with the established practice, it will be at the expense of the time for the debate of matters appearing on the order paper.
Ministerial statements should relate to matters of importance and should be as brief as the subject matter permits; they should not be provocative in their nature. In saying these things I am not referring to any particular incident but to the practice of the house in general, about which, it seems to me, we should remind ourselves at the beginning of a session. The comments on ministerial statements should also be brief and unprovocative, or temperate at least, and should not become a debate in any sense of the word but a preliminary comment with such reservations as may be felt necessary with respect to future discussion of the subject.
May I say, too, that a ministerial statement should not be introduced in answer to a question unless the statement itself is of such brevity and urgency that it can be accepted as an answer to a question in accordance with the practice relating to oral questions.
130	HOUSE OF
Statement by Mr. Speaker
On the subject of oral questions, other Speakers have found it desirable from time to time to remind the house of the practice as it has been followed and as it has been explained in the commentaries on our procedure so that there might be harmony between the Speakers and the house in the application of those principles, and the avoidance of unnecessary argument. In the past, following that practice, Mr. Speaker Macdonald made a very precise and excellent statement on the practice with respect to oral statements which I commend to the attention of all members of the house. Perhaps they will make a note of it, because I do not propose to read at any length. This statement will be found in the Journals for 1951 at pages 427 and 428. Mr. Speaker Beaudoin made a comprehensive review of the practice on March 16, 1956 and this may be found at the beginning of page 2206 of Hansard for that year. I myself made a statement on October 17, 1957.
If I may be permitted a moment more I should like to read what appears to me to be the essential practice as it is explained in Hansard and in the citations in Beauchesne. The standing orders-that is standing orders 39, 40 and 41-provide only for written questions to be answered by the tabling of written answers or, if the question is marked with an asterisk, to be answered orally on Wednesday within the first hour or on other days after the last order of business. Other oral questions asked upon the calling of orders of the day are sanctioned only by usage. Beauchesne in the fourth edition, citation 173, paragraph 1 says:
The practice has been so long and so regularly in the house that, if not impossible, in my opinion, it would be inadvisable to stop it. It seems to me manifestly unfair to compel ministers to answer questions on important matters without an opportunity to consult their chief officers; and it would be arbitrary to deprive private members of putting certain questions of immediate urgency on the orders of the day being called.
The following principles have been applied to oral questions:
1.	The question should seek information or press for action on a matter relating to public affairs of such immediate urgency that it would be improper to put it on the order paper. I remind hon. members that the order paper is the normal way of getting information which can be given in answer to a question.
2.	Both questions and answers should be concise, factual and free of opinion and argument or observations which might lead to debate.
3.	Explanations can be sought regarding the intention of the government but not an


explanation of an opinion upon a matter of policy. That is citation 178 in Beauchesne.
4.	Other detailed limitations, some 40 in number, are set out in citation 171 of Beauchesne and apply to oral as well as written questions.
5.	Supplementary questions are matters of grace; that is, at this stage of the proceedings.
6.	The minister is entitled to notice if he asks for it. An answer cannot be insisted upon nor is it regular to comment upon refusal to answer. In effect oral questions are a limited supplement to the questions which may be put on the order paper, and are for the purpose of enabling hon. members to get information on public affairs of urgent importance without delay and to bring such matters to the attention of the government.
As I said, I am not reflecting upon anything that has been done nor commenting upon any particular episode, but in accordance with what seemed to me to be good custom of former Speakers I draw these practices-because they are practices rather than specific provisions in the rules-to the attention of hon. members for their guidance so that we can make the best use of our time and particularly not unduly extend the period of routine proceedings.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would comment on a statement made on television last night by the Associate Minister of National Defence. In order that I may not be in any rway inaccurate or in any way unfair to the associate minister I will quote the words from the text he used, as taken down. He said:
-I would say this, that actually the national defence is actually conducted in Canada in accordance with the definite commitments which were arrived at at the NATO conference table.
Subsequently he said:
-actually the figure of $1,700 million is the figure which was arrived at-by mutual assent at the NATO conference table. This is the figure that was set for Canada at the time.
He later said:
Well, actually this is an agreement that we arrived at which is proportionate to what was considered was to be-is our size and our responsibility in this.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman's experience on those press conferences

Inquiries of the Ministry
has been such that he would appreciate that report. It has been specifically followed as a the entire record would have to be examined practice of the house that that sort of ques-in order to ascertain the exact facts. Expur- tion is not permissible. If it is a question gated portions are not always in accordance asking for information about the subject with the entire intent and context. Under matter of the statement, well and good, but the circumstances I feel that the minister the hon. member cannot ask simply for con-himself might reply to that question.	firmation.


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that last night at the commencement of the interview which took place on the television network I did say that our defence budget was greatly determined by NATO. Subsequently I clarified this statement by explaining that Canada has certain defence commitments to NATO which, to a large extent, govern our government expenditures, and that those NATO commitments have been the basis of Canada's defence planning since the organization of the alliance. I made it abundantly clear that there is no agreement with NATO regarding any fixed expenditures for defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, since there is a discrepancy between what the minister has stated he said and what I have quoted him as saying, from the text of his statement as taken down, would the minister, in order to remove this discrepancy, table the exact text of what he said last night from beginning to end so there will not be any question of misquoting him? Will the minister answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver East.
(Translation):


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Associate Minister of National Defence about the statement he made on television, today's paper La Presse, quotes the words of the minister, and adds:
Our defence budget set up by NATO
Mr. Pierre Sevigny, associate minister of defence, stated last night that the amount of the Canadian defence budget is set by NATO.
He added that this year's defence budget, amounting to $1,700,000,000, had been established at a ministers' meeting of NATO and that Canada had approved that figure at the time.
My question to the minister is this: Would the minister say that this statement of La Presse is inaccurate?


Mr. Graffley:: He already answered that question. This is just repetition.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Laurier as I understand his question, is asking for confirmation or denial of a newspaper 79951-0-9J


Lionel Chevrier: That was not the purport of my question, Mr. Speaker, to ask for confirmation or denial. I read the statement as it appeared in the press, and I then asked the minister whether or not the statement had been made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the minister should answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be a little obtuse today, but I see no difference between the two.



REFERENCE TO REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister noted the reports in yesterday's papers that President Eisenhower in his budget message to congress said that for the time being the manned bomber is the major threat? If that is so, will the Prime Minister relate that statement and stand to his own in this House of Commons as expressed last Monday evening, to the effect that in the 1960's we would be in the missile age?


Mr. Speaker:: If I may intervene, the hon. member's question relates to the subject matter on which the Prime Minister was speaking when the throne speech debate was last before the house. As I understand it, he resumes his speech on that subject today, and since the question is one of those broad questions which it is difficult to answer with the sort of answer which is permissible at this time, I would suggest that the hon. member allow the matter to be dealt with in the debate.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make on the statement of the President of the United States that for the time being the manned bomber is the major threat.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is not for the Prime Minister to make any comment on a statement made by the President of the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: His master's voice must not be questioned.

Inquiries of the Ministry



REFERENCE TO REPORTED STATEMENT BY U.S. DEFENCE SECRETARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister's attention been called to a report from Washington attributed to the secretary of defence of the United States of America to the effect that the whole Bomarc program is to be reappraised because, among other things, of the vulnerability of the Bomarc bases?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, I have the complete answer which was given by the secretary of defence to a question which was asked before the congressional committee. The secretary of defence, in answer to the question-
In your opinion is there a need for both the Bomarc and the Nike programs?
-starts out by saying:
I think our opinion remains unchanged after the very comprehensive study we gave the problem. The intelligence on which this judgment is based has not changed except for Mr. Khrushchev's speech this morning.
And he finishes up by saying:
The "mix"-
That is the mixture of weapons that there are for air defence.
.-we now have had a very comprehensive examination by congress and by the department of defence only four or five months ago. I think we should stand by that program.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister have the report from Washington which states that in five recent tests of the solid fuel driven Bomarc B missile the ramjet engine failed to function in every case?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, Canada is very fortunate that these expensive weapons are being developed by an ally and that Canada does not have to pay for the development and testing herself. These tests are going on all the time, and the people responsible for the development of the Bomarc and other missiles are learning from their experience.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us if it is still the policy of the government to continue with the installation of the Bomarc missiles in Canada?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fulion:: That is the third time the hon. member has failed to get off the ground.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the

Minister of National Defence. I can assure you, sir, that it is most urgent and springs from the representations of municipalities on behalf of thousands of irate constituents of mine. In view of the annoyance, inconvenience and, in some cases, fear expressed by residents of the Rossland-Trail area over the breaking of the sound barrier by planes of the United States air force in their immediate district, and in view of the minister's expressed intention to have the origin of the noise investigated to see whether it has been caused by United States air force aircraft or Sons of Freedom activities-I may say that the local residents and the editorial writer for the Trail Times, who is public relations officer for the Progressive Conservative party, thoroughly enjoyed the minister's sense of humour-would the minister inform the house of the result of this investigation and what action is being taken to protect the rights of Canadian citizens?


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be pleased to have that matter looked into.



USE OF LACROSSE MISSILE BY CANADIAN ARMY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the government to equip the Canadian army with the Lacrosse missile?


George Randolph Pearkes: An announcement was made about a year ago as to the government's intention in that respect.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it still the intention of the government?


George Randolph Pearkes: The government has not changed its intention.



OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have another question to ask the Minister of National Defence. Will the Minister of National Defence inform the house whether, in transferring nuclear weapons to the armed forces of Canada, the United States relinquishes any of its legal obligations and rights to control the use of those weapons?


George Randolph Pearkes: This matter was discussed by the Prime Minister the day before yesterday, and I understand he still has some more remarks to make on the matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether he still agrees with the opinion he expressed on November 10, that nuclear warheads for Bo-marc missiles stored in Canada would remain under United States control?


George Randolph Pearkes: Nuclear warheads stored in Canada are the property of the United States until they are released for use by the Canadian forces. When they are released to Canada, then Canada has the sole use and direction of use of those weapons. As was explained the day before yesterday by the Prime Minister, that will be a decision for the Canadian government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary question. Will the minister confirm that such weapons can now be released to Canadian forces under United States law?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker, there are no such weapons stored in Canada. Therefore they cannot now be released to the Canadian forces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister, Mr. Speaker, has not answered my question, by accident of course. I asked him whether, under United States law, such weapons could be released to Canada for storage in Canada and used by Canadian forces.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a secondary aspect to that question. It is improper to ask for an opinion on Canadian law; therefore I think the same would apply to an opinion on United States law.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more important to us than finding out whether, under the present law of the United States, these weapons which the minister said would be used by Canadian forces can be released.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the importance of the information, but my objection, which is based on the practice of the house, is that the hon. member is seeking the information from the wrong source and in the wrong way.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, may I add a word on the point of order. Is not what the Leader of the Opposition is asking for a matter of fact? What is prohibited by the rules is an interpretation of or an opinion on law. That is the distinction, it seems to me; it is a fine one, but a very important one.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understood the question the hon. member was asking the minister whether, under United States law, certain
Inquiries of the Ministry things could be done, and it seems to me that the essence of the question is what is the law of the United States on the subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I asked that question to ascertain the fact. It bears upon important considerations of defence policy, and without this knowledge we cannot discuss the policy.
Perhaps I can address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who should know something about this matter. Is it not a fact that under United States law these weapons cannot be released for use or storage in Canada at the present time?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not giving any opinions on United States law either.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question arising out of the statement which the Prime Minister made in the house the other night, as reported on page 73 of Hansard of January 18 last, to the effect that there will be Canadian control of the use of nuclear weapons in Canada; they are his words. My question is, can such weapons, when released to Canada, be used in the defence of Canada if necessary, without any permission being obtained from a United States governmental authority?


George Randolph Pearkes: As was pointed out by the Prime Minister the day before yesterday, all matters connected with the storage and use of nuclear weapons in Canada are now the subject of discussion between Canada and the United States. The Prime Minister made Canada's position perfectly clear in the statement he gave the day before yesterday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, again the minister has not answered my question. I asked him what is the present position in the matter, not what may be the position in the future.


George Randolph Pearkes: The present position is that negotiations are continuing now.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister give us any information as to the announcement reportedly made in Washington today by Senator Warren
134	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Magnuson that the United States and Canadian governments have reached tentative agreement on legislation to provide pilots for vessels navigating the great lakes?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any report of such a statement. However, thinking that the hon. member would probably be asking for some information along this line I have an answer here with me in order to bring him up to date.
During the past several months there have been frequent and continuing consultations between Canadian and United States officials, and a great deal of progress has been made in the direction of achieving a common point of view with regard to pilotage matters on the great lakes. We are very hopeful that the United States administration may find it possible to introduce legislation in congress this year which will be sufficiently similar to the position we have taken to make possible a sound working arrangement between the two countries. In this event it would be my intention to introduce legislation dealing with this matter in so far as Canada is concerned during the present session of parliament. While such legislation would probably be similar to that which we had in mind a year ago, I am not yet in a position to comment on its final form since consultation between the two governments is still continuing.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Can the minister assure us that we will not encounter the same report from Washington that we had last year from Vice Admiral Richmond? After consultation with the minister he reported to congress that the minister did not seem to know what he wanted.


George Harris Hees: I have never heard of that statement, but I would think it was as much lacking in factual basis as most of the statements the hon. member makes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will have it on the minister's desk within ten minutes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he tell the house the attitude of the government toward the special programs of provincial governments with respect to aid to underdeveloped countries, such as the program announced by the province of Manitoba?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which is before the Manitoba legislature, and I think it would be quite improper for me to comment at this time.



COLOMBO PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Ottawa West asked whether the grant of $7 million for the provision of wheat to India under the Colombo plan would involve the setting up of counterpart funds by the Indian government.
This allocation for the provision of wheat, as well as the other allocations for commodities in this program, will involve the establishment in local currency of counterpart funds equivalent to the amount of the Canadian grant. These funds will be used to cover the local costs of economic development projects agreed upon by the two governments.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I wish to direct a question to the charming Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of Mr. Justice Stewart's judgment in the Supreme Court of Ontario, setting aside an immigration deportation order against one Imre Hirsch, and the learned judge's criticisms of the arbitrary nature of the procedure followed in that case, has the minister any intention of recommending major changes in the procedures?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I have no intention of suggesting any changes on the basis of any one case.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
REPORTED PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES ON f104g AIRFRAMES
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister tell the house whether it is a fact that Canada will be obliged to pay the Lockheed corporation an extra $4J million for the F104G as royalties on patents covering the airframes, which inventions were developed with the assistance of United States government funds. If such is the case, has the department made

Inquiries of the Ministry
any representations to the United States rifles might fall into the hands of some indefence department to have the practice dividuals who might use them for criminal altered?	purposes?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister is in a position to answer the question I would not object, but it is a question which it seems to me would require statistical information.


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Jean-Thomas Richard: No, Mr. Speaker. I will be quite willing to have the minister take the question as notice.


An hon. Member:: Put it on the order paper.


Jean-Thomas Richard: It is not a
question for the order paper. It is a question of fact.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: I have no objection to answering the question, but it will take a good deal of information and I shall be obliged to get that information. If the hon. member wants to put the question on the order paper I will give him a complete answer.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is the minister asking me to put this question on the order paper?


Mr. O'Hurley:: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: And get an answer in 1961.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Surely we are not down to that procedure.



HORNET RIFLE-DISPOSITION BY CROWN ASSETS CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Rouleau: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production in connection with the intention of the government to make the use of the Hornet rifle illegal. How many of these rifles were distributed by the crown assets corporation, and did the crown assets corporation receive any advice or seek any advice from the R.C.M.P. or the R.C.A.F. as to the suitability of these weapons for public use?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member can hardly expect an answer to the first part of his question. I suggest that he put it on the order paper. He is asking for statistical information. It will undoubtedly have to be looked up.


Guy Rouleau: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does the minister contemplate a serious inquiry as to why the Hornet rifle was offered for sale to the general public by the crown assets corporation, when it was known that those


Edmund Davie Fulton: The
Minister of Justice initiated such an inquiry some months ago, but of course it would take too long a time to give the results to be appropriate for a reply on the orders of the day. I am certain that an appropriate occasion to give information on the results of the inquiry will occur later in the session.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinily-Conceplion):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the increase in the number of unemployed in Newfoundland, would the minister please advise the house if and when the proposed land assembly project in St. John's will commence?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I thank the hon. member for Trinity-Conception for this question. In reply I would say that there are certain preliminary matters which must be decided before a decision can be made on the subject of the St. John's land assembly project.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. May I ask him the position of the negotiations between the television and radio producers in Montreal and the C.B.C.; and can the minister say why it has not been possible to reach an agreement after more than one year since the beginning of the dispute?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I have not the latest information on the negotiations between the two parties designated by the hon. member, but I shall be glad to get the information on that matter.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the house

Inquiries of the Ministry whether a borrower from the industrial development bank can prepay a loan without having to pay a penalty; and if not, why not?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I thank the hon. gentleman for sending me notice of his intention to ask this question. I must remind him that the industrial development bank is a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada and as Minister of Finance I have no control over it. However, if hon. members wish me to obtain from the bank information that is available to them, I am happy at all times to do so.
However, there is something that should be said on a point of order here. The purpose of these questions on the orders of the day, as you have pointed out on more than one occasion, Mr. Speaker, is to obtain information. It is a fact that the hon. gentleman obtained from the industrial development bank within the last week the answer to the question he has asked in the house today.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  G. J. Mc@: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister advise the house whether the proposed trade treaty between Canada and Russia has yet been completed?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: It has not been completed but it is close to being completed.


George James McIlraith: I have a supplementary question. On June 18 last the minister, in answer to a similar question, said this:
I hope very soon to be able to announce the conclusion of an agreement.
That was more than six months ago. I wonder whether the minister could give us any more precise information as to the unusual delay, and as to precisely when we may expect a conclusion to be reached.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My statement to which the hon. member referred was correct at that time. We seemed on the verge of completing our negotiations, but other factors arose and negotiations were carried on. One of the key negotiators for the other side returned home to Russia and was absent for several months. On his return negotiations were reopened. I express the hope that we are now close to completing the agreement.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the deep concern of the people of the village of Thornhill I wonder if the minister has any information to give the house concerning the route of the proposed access line to the marshalling yard in metropolitan Toronto?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will get in touch with the management of the Canadian National Railways and report to the hon. member as soon as I can.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The question just asked by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, which is very much on the minds of many people living round the periphery of metropolitan Toronto, was referred to the minister by the hon. member some months ago, at which time the minister was going to refer it to the Canadian National Railways. I wondered why the minister has not yet received word from the railway in answer to the hon. member's question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have talked about this matter from time to time with the management of the Canadian National Railways, and have been kept informed of the progress of this matter. Quite naturally, when the hon. member asked for the most up to date information that is exactly what I intend to get for him. I will get in touch with the Canadian National Railways and get the most up to date information I can for him right away.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a report in today's New York Times to the effect that commonwealth status for Cyprus is being written into a bill-that is, a United Kingdom bill-establishing the island's independence from Britain. My question is, was Canada consulted about this and, if so, what position did it take?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Canada was consulted in connection with the Cyprus question. In so

far as the nature of the consultations is concerned, there being as yet no final determination I think the hon. gentleman, on the basis of his own experience, will realize and recognize that it would be inappropriate to say more at this time.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. If I get a positive answer I will not ask any questions tomorrow. Has the minister sought full information from the coal operators in order to minimize the extent of the proposed lay-offs in the coal mines of Nova Scotia and, if he has not, will he get such information and give it to the house at the first opportunity?


Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not think the minister has given a reply to my question at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has to make his own reply, and hon. members are not entitled to comment on the content or the sufficiency of the reply. The hon. member asked two questions and got one answer.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. Is the minister concerned about the lay-offs which will take place in the mines?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member does not want to reflect upon the responsibility of the minister.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I was hoping I might have a positive answer, Mr. Speaker.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Emilien Morissette for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, hon. members will appreciate that a speech which has had to be broken off is not altogether easy to resume without making a summary of what has already been said. However, I do not propose to follow the usual course of reviewing in any detail what I said previously or of repeating the views which I expressed on behalf of the Canadian government regarding nuclear weapons. Those views are fully set forth at 79951-0-10
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker page 73 of Hansard. I will content myself by simply summarizing what has already been said with regard to the lack of certainty, and confusion referred to in the amendment, and the examples which I gave respecting the views expressed in various parts of Canada and the United States by the Leader of the Opposition. During the intervening months since last session, he indicated fully the degree of the confusion of his views and the uncertainty of his remedies in this particular matter.
Much has been made today of some remarks passed last evening on the national television network to which I am making no reference, a full answer having been given. I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition will recall that he, too, had an experience on November 10, 1959 when, in a press conference, he revealed in some detail his views with regard to various matters, including nuclear weapons. I do not want to be forced into a position where I shall have to go into detail in that regard. But I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that if he would reread the record of that occasion he would, I am sure, come objectively to the conclusion that on the basis of the answers which he gave there was that uncertainty and that confusion which he has included in the motion of non-confidence and ascribed to the government. To summarize what he had to say, without going into detail, he said at page 5 of the text:
We should not get into the field of atomic weapons at all unless we have control over the atomic weapons our forces would be using.
Then, at the bottom of page 6, I quote again:
I said that we should have nothing whatsoever to do with strategic nuclear weapons, the hydrogen bomb, and that sort of thing. We should not allow our forces to use those weapons, however technical they may be and for defence, until we get specific information on the effect they would have on fallout and the atmosphere. I have said we should not allow our forces to be armed by nuclear weapons, tactical or strategical, which are under the control of another power.
Then, a little later on, he had this to say:
We have never been told why the United States should not allow nuclear weapons in the hands of Canadian troops to be under the control of Canadian troops.
And, again:
Are we on the same plane of equipment with the United States forces if a Canadian platoon with a nuclear mortar cannot use it except on orders from the United States forces.
It was in order to answer such uncertainty and confusion in the mind of the hon. gentleman that I went particularly into detail, because the views of the government have been expressed on more than one occasion by the Minister of National Defence. Indeed I would
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker point out that on November 17-and I am referring to a report by Clark Davey, a Globe and Mail reporter-appeared the following:
Liberal Leader Pearson predicted today-
That would be November 16.
-that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would find itself in serious trouble unless the United States, Britain and Prance dedicated control of their nuclear weapons to the NATO council in every circumstance short of total war.
I think the answer to the ideas expressed by the hon. gentleman were given by himself the other day in silence when I asked him what he would do were he to find out that it would be impossible to secure the consent of all 15 countries. What, then, would his actions be?
Then the report goes on to say:
In a 70-minute press conference which seemed to confuse Liberal defence policy as often as it clarified it, Mr. Pearson returned to his argument that Canadian forces should not be armed with nuclear weapons under the control of any other country. He came close to calling for the scrapping of Canada's nine home defence squadrons of CF-lOO's because they were obsolete, but never took what appeared to be his thinking out loud quite that far.
And then the article goes on-this is a quotation again:
No one power, no matter how powerful, should have authority, within the NATO alliance to approve the use of nuclear weapons on its own.
Then, a little later:
There was more than national pride involved, he added. It was a case of national sovereignty. He suggested it might be better to move United States forces into Canadian bases under a political agreement between the two countries, and permit them to fire as well as control nuclear weapons.
And finally, amidst this series of statements characterized by that confusion and uncertainty which is incorporated in the amendment, we have the hon. gentleman saying this:
The Canadian forces and the Canadian government-would be in a much stronger position if Canada bought its own missiles.
That was on November 16, 1959. A few days later the hon. gentleman went to Halifax and as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, he said:
I do not think Canada should accept nuclear weapons either under our own or any other control until we know a great deal more about the effects of radiation.
That is an unusually uncertain course and view to be expressed by one who says that this government, having made its position clear, is uncertain.
Let me pass on to the next report, taken from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of November 24, which comments on a statement made by the hon. gentleman:

Addressing a packed assembly in the spacious Donald Eddy memorial hall here, he said the Liberal party "will vigorously oppose the decision of Prime Minister Diefenbaker's government to equip Canadian forces with weapons that can be used for the defence of Canada only with the authority of another country."
-The United States was a friendly power but nevertheless it was not right that "a single country should control the defence of another."
The next report is taken from the Winnipeg Free Press and I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will appreciate this. It carries the headline: "Haggis Puts Mike in Mood". The article states:
"Intolerable" was the word Mr. Pearson used to describe the situation where at Canadian missile sites an American must press the button to send off a Bomarc missile. Canadian forces should not be armed with any form of nuclear weapon the use of which is controlled by any other single government.
What basis did the hon. gentleman have for all these statements? Surely not the declarations made by the Minister of National Defence. Let us examine what was said by the minister. It is not a case of my having just one newspaper report because there are many and they are consistent. The Ottawa Citizen on November 10, 1959, reported:
Canada will have atomic warheads for the Bomarc missiles by 1961, defence minister Pearkes indicated today. He rejected the suggestion that United States officers would control Canadian Bomarc atomic warheads. Mr. Pearkes emphasized that the Bomarc was a defensive weapon. Under no circumstances could this atomic weapon be used without the express consent of the Canadian government.
Lester Bowles Pearson: And that of the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the surprising thing in this connection, Mr. Speaker, that on a matter as serious as survival the Leader of the Opposition, knowing that these statements had been made by the Minister of National Defence reflecting the views of the government, proceeded to carry across Canada the message that the use in Canada of nuclear weapons, if they were brought into Canada, would be at the wish, authority and under the control of another power.
I quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Star written by William McGuffin, staff writer:
Mr. Pearkes emphasized-
Referring to the weapons in question:
-that they "cannot be used without the permission of the Canadian government."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, they are our
weapons.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what the record
says. I have read the statements that were made. And yet, in the face of all those circumstances the hon. gentleman chose to follow a course of giving to the people of

Canada information which was not in accordance with the declarations of the government and indeed was as far removed as possible from those declarations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the Prime Minister would permit a question? I would refer the hon. gentleman to page 1396 of Hansard of July 2 last on this point, but meanwhile I would ask the Prime Minister if he will deny that these weapons cannot be used for the defence of Canada without the permission of the United States authorities, these Canadian weapons in the hands of Canadian forces?


John George Diefenbaker: This does not relate to
the situation at all.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me answer this
clearly and definitely. The hon. gentleman having followed a course of insinuation, and declarations not based on the facts, now endeavours to wriggle out of the position in which he finds himself.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The people will decide
who is wriggling.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me repeat what I
said the other evening so there will be no misunderstanding on this point. I refer hon. gentlemen opposite to my remarks reported at page 73 of Hansard of January 18, 1960, where I said:
While I have carefully explained the views of the government on previous occasions-
I am omitting some words which are irrelevant because they refer to negotiations still under way. I continued:
-Canada's stand might be summarized in this way: Eventually Canadian forces may require certain nuclear weapons if Canadian forces are to be kept effective.
Then I went on to say:
We cannot change the principle of United States ownership-they have taken a firm stand in this regard-but there shall be Canadian control of use in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: By United States permission.


John George Diefenbaker: I went on to say:
I want to make it abundantly clear that nuclear weapons will not be used by the Canadian forces except as the Canadian government decides and in the manner approved by the Canadian government. Canada retains its full freedom of choice and decision.
I underline those words.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now answer my question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have
already made it abundantly clear that use 79951-0-10J
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker will be determined by Canada but ownership will remain in the United States unless the United States changes its views in this regard.
The Leader of the Opposition knows very well that through the years this question has been discussed with the United States. I wonder whether he suggests that the control over nuclear weapons should be released to the extent that the powers here, there and every place should have them available to them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is asking me a question I shall be glad to answer it right now.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. I want to get the hon. gentleman's views.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My point, Mr. Speaker, is this. If these weapons are released to Canadian forces, for use by Canadian forces for the defence of Canada, they should be owned by Canada and should be used under Canadian authority exclusively.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. gentleman never expressed that view before.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I remind you of the fact that the hon. gentleman made a speech to the air force veterans association on November 6, 1959. This, too, is tremendously interesting. I have endeavoured to follow him in his peregrinations as he attempted to secure support on the part of the Canadian people who are fearful, as all people are today, of the danger and possibility of nuclear war. Let me read what he said on that occasion as his words are found at page 5 of the text of the address:
The position of a middle power, however, is different. Canada cannot, for instance, and should not, expect to be able to defend itself by possessing every kind of defence equipment.
I have studied the hon. gentleman's course as he has gone up and down the length of this country making statements that we shall welcome parliament being convened so that here we may review the situation together. Then, he goes on to say:
By maintaining and equipping police forces which would be available, with other forces, for use as the agent for carrying out an international decision.
The latter I haven't time to talk about tonight but it should be accepted, in my view, as a major part of our defence policy.
The former does not require us, I believe, to participate in any form of nuclear retaliation. That, it seems to me, can be left to the state-and there is only one on the western side

which now has nuclear strategic weapons for retaliation, the exclusive control of which it is not able or willing to share with its allies and friends.
Canada should, I think, bow out of this field of defence action while, certainly, not bowing out of her obligation to contribute to collective security.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
I welcomed that interruption a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, because it gave me the opportunity to mention the last major declaration but one made by the Leader of the Opposition. I have it before me. It is dated December 9. This is the final revised version. It reads:
Grit Leader Gives Views
Liberal Leader Lester B. Pearson-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest it was revised by the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I am going to read the entire dispatch. Speaking of revision, I am informed that the hon. gentleman is writing a revised type of biography which will give him a knowledge of revision not possessed by any other man.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How about a little government policy?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. King, as revised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the Prime Minister for the advertisement.


John George Diefenbaker: I continue:
Liberal Leader Lester B. Pearson said Monday he would not agree to arming Canadian soldiers with nuclear weapons until he knew a good deal more about their effects.
This would include their effects on the atmosphere through radioactive fallout, he told a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the National Liberal Federation's advisory council.
He also said it would be intolerable to him that Canadians should be armed with weapons under control of another country-the United States.
If Canadian troops were to have nuclear weapons, they should be under the control of a Canadian commander or under the collective control of NATO.
Asked for his view on storing of U.S. nuclear weapons in Canada, he said that if this were essential it should be done only if the Canadian government had some say in their use.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Do you object to that?


John George Diefenbaker: I have carried the house along that sinuous course taken by the hon. gentleman. He ended up at the end of the year with qualifications in almost every statement he made, instead of coming out and saying on a matter as important and as serious as this to our survival that the question ought to be discussed in a responsible manner based on the situation in which we find ourselves and also reserving for Canada that sovereignty which is the essence not only of our survival as a nation but also of our co-operation with all parts of other NATO countries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That certainly is clear.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to give information not intelligence. Defence is the primary consideration of those in the government because everything else would be in vain if our policies in regard to defence diminished in the

slightest way the chances of assuring peace, or gave to any potential aggressor the impression that our defensive powers had weakened. In other words, our policy is this, to seek every way possible, in the manner followed so brilliantly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to attain disarmament, to take off the backs not only of Canadians but of people everywhere that load of debt, that load of expenditure that is continuing year by year to mount up astronomically, and at the same time maintain our defences within the natural limitations of Canada's position. I go back to the days of Nehemiah. He followed that course; he maintained his defences and at the same time continued to press for action and agreement to attain peace.
There is one matter to which some reference has been made on other occasions. It was not made by the hon. gentleman the other day. I refer to the question of nuclear testing. The important test of the prospects for successful negotiations will be the success or failure of the resumed negotiations on nuclear testing. In the weeks between now and the middle of May there will be renewed opportunities for the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet union who have been meeting at Geneva for the past months to make further progress toward agreement on the discontinuance of nuclear tests. I have on many occasions emphasized the importance which the Canadian government attaches to the successful outcome of those negotiations. The achievement of a treaty on nuclear testing, apart from the new confidence that it would build up and bring to the later talks on general disarmament would be of value as evidence of the practicability of joint measures of inspection and control. Moreover, as my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs made clear at the recent session of the general assembly, the Canadian government hopes that there will be an end to nuclear testing.
Now, sir, I am going to review for a moment something of the stands which we have taken, without going into detail, but simply drawing the attention of the house to the first statement made in 1959 on this subject, and then following through. It was on February 20, 1959, at page 1221 of Hansard, that I made the announcement with respect to the CF-105. I pointed out the development of the aircraft had been a success, although behind the original schedule. Then, I used these words.
Unfortunately these outstanding achievements have been overtaken by events. In recent months it has come to be realized that the bomber threat against which the CF-105 was intended to provide defence has diminished, and alternative means of meeting the threat have been developed much earlier than was expected.



I960

[Stage Direction]
I set out in some detail the necessity of action being taken to assure that Canada's expenditure should return the largest possible degree of potential defence. I pointed out that there had been a change in the international outlook and that throughout the year, on more than one occasion, the minister of defence has referred in detail to that changing concept. He does not say it is taking place today but it is under way.
The change from the manned bomber to the intercontinental ballistic missile and other tactical weapons is accelerating. There were many who thought that he was unjustified in this regard. I mentioned the other day the speech made by Mr. Khrushchev and I am going to refer to his exact words on this subject for these words bear out the intelligence that was available to the Canadian government that there was a change taking place and that the U.S.S.R. was reducing the number of manned bombers and more and more directing its attention to intercontinental and other missiles. I am referring now to a verbatim report of his speech. Mr. Khrushchev said:
Our state has at its disposal powerful rocket equipment. The military air force and navy have lost their previous importance in view of the modern development of military equipment. This type of armament is not being reduced but replaced. Almost the entire military air force is being replaced by rocket equipment. We have by now sharply cut, and it seems will continue sharply to cut and even discontinue the manufacture of bombers and other obsolete equipment. In the navy, the submarine fleet assumes great importance, while surface ships can no longer play the part they once did. In our country the armed forces have been to a considerable extent transferred to rocket and nuclear arms. These arms are being perfected and will continue to be perfected until they are banned.
There is no doubt whatsoever that we realized the effect of the decision which we had to make in February of 1959 but, having regard to the knowledge we had, in all honour we could take no other. We were criticized severely for the stand we took at that time in respect of the CF-105. In the light of events that have taken place since, that decision was a proper decision. It was not based, as one weekly magazine recently said, on any direction on the part of the Prime Minister, and so there will be no mistake about it let me say that it was Time magazine. That decision was based on the unified agreement of the cabinet as a whole arrived at as a result of representations from those who had some knowledge of what was going on in the U.S.S.R. I emphasize that fact. It was a decision that all of us would have been pleased not to make. We would have been pleased if we
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker could have done otherwise and still be consistent with our responsibility, our realization of the situation and our determination that whatever stand we would take with regard to the matter would be dictated solely by Canada's survival from the point of view of defence.
Somebody today made reference to a statement made by the President of the United States. The fact is that the quotation which he placed before the minister did not reveal the whole story. As I understood his question, he asked whether or not the president had stated in his state of the union message that for the time being the manned bomber is the major threat. But he failed to point out that the president went on to say, as I said on February 20 last, and I emphasize this:
The substantial progress being made in ballistic missile technology is rapidly shifting the main threat from manned bombers to missiles.
When the hon. member for Trinity, (Mr. Hellyer) asked his question a while ago he failed to point out the fact that the president had made it perfectly clear that missile technology is rapidly shifting the main threat.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -my point was that if the president had made it so clear and the Prime Minister had made it so clear I could not understand the government going ahead with the Bomarc installations.


An hon. Member:: You would not understand anything.


John George Diefenbaker: You know, Mr. Speaker, after having heard the hon. gentleman utter those words from Olympus with regard to the F-104G, "no ruddy good", I can understand why he talks the way he does now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A great way to deal with a serious question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A very serious subject
seriously dealt with.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. members talk of
seriousness. The Leader of the Opposition talks of seriousness. I have the record to show the sinuous course that he took for political purposes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Praise from the master.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, self-identification on the hon. gentleman's part is not necessary. What changes have been made to meet the new weapon developments and the new concepts in order to adapt Canada to the new conditions? We had the establishment of the North American air defence command and the cancellation of the Arrow
142	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenhaker program with regard to which I say that Khrushchev's speech represents confirmation of the validity of the stand that we took, a stand that was bitterly opposed and criticized. Yet in the light of succeeding events I can say today that that decision, on the basis of the knowledge which we had then as now, was the right and only proper one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would permit a question on that point because his argument is a very interesting one. Could he relate that argument to the statement made at the time by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) that had they been able to find a market in the United States for the Arrow they would have continued its manufacture?


John George Diefenbaker: I think the hon. gentleman, as usual, has just produced one part of a statement and not the rest. Until I see the entire statement of the Minister of National Defence I will take him to be right, as he was in this matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is the trouble with your speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have it for the Prime Minister in a minute.


John George Diefenbaker: We decided to equip the Canadian army with surface to surface missiles. We extended the destroyer escort program. We decided on the equipment of the NATO air division with a new strike reconnaissance aircraft, the F-104G, and on the basis of changing conditions we brought about a new role for the army in survival operations.
I am not going to tell hon. members that I am satisfied with everything pertaining to defence. Far from it. This is a tremendous problem. When the hon. gentleman was a minister it is one that must have impressed him and those associated with him in the cabinet to which he then belonged, the endeavour to arrive at the best conclusion with whatever information is available. He will tell you on the basis of his experience that you have to rely on the views of those who are authorities in the field of defence, on such intelligence as you have and on reports which other countries have on the subject of the technological changes that are taking place so rapidly.
If mistakes had not been made we could have saved billions of dollars since 1945. I am not criticizing the former government for the course it took. It took the best course that it could take; it took the course that you could expect to be taken by loyal, honest and patriotic Canadians. We are all in that position in the House of Commons, whether or not we disagree in administration and the


like. They did the best they could. They proceeded on the basis not of experiment but of the experience of their officials-not the domination of their officials-and the knowledge they had. I am not going to say to you that, in the light of experience, there are some things which are done that, if you had the same backsight-and I do not like that expression

as you have foresight-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The same vision.


John George Diefenbaker: -or the reverse, I should say, things would have been different. However, I say this to you. When criticism is made based not on the facts but sheerly on the imaginative processes of political aspirations, then a halt should be called when things are as serious as they are. Because of that situation, if the hon. gentlemen have better answers than they have given in the last few months, and if their thinking has now coalesced to a point where they will be able to point out what changes should be made which would secure Canada a larger degree of defence with less expenditure, as was suggested in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to the veterans' meeting in Montreal, then we are going to give them an opportunity to do so.
Much has been said with regard to the setting up of a royal commission on defence. I think the hon. gentleman advocated that course in Montreal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No; I said a defence committee, in an appropriate form to be determined by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I had read in the
speech "royal commission".


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is one way in which
it can be done, I said.


John George Diefenbaker: I never trust my memory. I go to the record:
Therefore, it seems to me absolutely essential, a matter of urgent necessity, that through a select parliamentary committee or a royal commission on defence-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Note the word "or".


John George Diefenbaker: The quotation continues:
-we should now make the most thorough and complete re-examination of our whole defence policy to bring it into line with new conditions.
This matter has been discussed previously in parliament. The question of setting up a select committee received the attention of parliament on more than one occasion. In 1951, in the month of November, a motion was made by Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent to set up a committee. It is to be found in Hansard of November 13, 1951 at page 954.

In the course of his remarks Mr. St. Laurent made this statement, and I think it sums up the situation constitutionally:
But it would be wrong to think that this committee is being set up to replace the government or to replace parliament in determining the policies of this country in the international atmosphere that exists at the present time.
Then he also discussed on more than one occasion the question of parliamentary responsibility and the necessity that we in Canada should realize that committees are different here from those in the United States. On the occasion to which I refer he said this:
It is not being set up for the purpose for which committees were demanded in previous years, that is to have the committee act as committees do under the United States constitution in preparing estimates, determining what the budgets will be and how the moneys provided in those budgets will be expended. Those are matters to be recommended to the house by the government, and to be determined by parliament itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the
Prime Minister would give the reference. I think he failed to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; Hansard of November 13, 1951, pages 971 and 972.
I remember well sitting on the other side of the house in the days of war when I was a member of the committee on war expenditures. One night I raised a question, and in the days of war we were extremely careful not to raise anything that in any way might cause doubts on the unity of the country as a whole or might undermine confidence anywhere in our defence policies. I pointed out that in so far as the air force training schemes were concerned-the elementary flying training schools-large profits were being made by private people operating them. I remember Hon. Mr. Power rising and saying there was no foundation for that statement, and he did so with power and effect. I knew the statement was correct. I said, "If the minister finds that I am right, will he change the situation?" I shall always remember the next morning when he called me on the telephone and said, "You were right and it will be stopped". That man is today in the Senate. In the days of war-it is not too late to pay a tribute to him; and in doing so I am not taking away any honour from the other ministers of defence-he made a tremendous contribution to Canada.
He spoke in the House of Commons on February 6, 1951. He spoke on the setting up of a committee on defence expenditures and as reported at page 145 of Hansard of that year he said this:
-it seems to me that since we are embarking upon a program calling for the expenditure of $5 billion, this House of Commons of Canada has a duty to scrutinize and supervise that expenditure.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker It is extremely difficult for that scrutiny and supervision to be carried out in a house composed of as many members as we have here; and I believe that if a committee on expenditure were set up, with an appropriate reference which could be agreed upon by the leaders of the government and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), much good would result.
I think those were appropriate words. This matter has been fully discussed. I point out the tremendous responsibility resting on those who must discharge the duties of government, in determining what course to follow, not to be dominated by the military-the civil authority must be supreme-but to secure from the military and other qualified persons, both within our own country and outside of it, the best information we can obtain and then, having secured that information to act, whatever the detrimental political consequences may be.
I am therefore going to advise the house that it is my intention to move for the setting up of a special select committee on defence expenditures. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that it should be a small committee. I am prepared to accept, as is the government, the views of hon. members in this house as to the numbers in that committee, to the end that there will be available a body which will determine the course it will take as to what meetings shall or shall not be open or closed. But in the light of all the circumstances, it will review the expenditures to the end that the ability, the training and the capacity of members in every part of the house may be used for the purpose of examining this most important problem.
There has been some criticism that some of these things have not been mentioned in the speech from the throne. I would remind hon. members once more, as I did the other evening, that that has been the course followed throughout the years under our system of government. Lest someone immediately rise and say, "Well, there is no reference to that in the speech from the throne", I would point out that that, too, was the situation in 1951, when the speech from the throne revealed no suggestion of that action being taken. The speech from the throne is simply a general outline and as different from the president's state of the nation speech as is daylight from darkness.
I have now placed before the house the situation in general regarding our attitude to the subject of defence, and I have spoken with that sense of responsibility as to the awfulness of the mistake that can bo made if we in the free world are unable to anticipate the course which will be taken at any time by Mr. Khrushchev.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am out of order, but may I interrupt the Prime Minister at this time in order to tell the Prime Minister how much we on this side of the house appreciate the announcement he has made, and may I assure him of our wholehearted desire to co-operate in this proposed committee on defence expenditures, so that we may assist in working out a national policy on defence on the broadest possible basis.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest to the hon. member that he did not follow that course in the latter part of his statement. While I appreciate the spirit of co-operation, may I point out the words of qualification which the former prime minister, the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, gave as to the course that such a committee can take under our form of government.
I now have an announcement to make, and I have been requested to make it. It is one which I do with great regret because of the contribution this man has made to Canada. He will remain in his present position for some months in a desire to bring about a continuance and completion of the negotiations which are taking place in the military field, to which reference was made earlier today by the Minister of National Defence.
General Charles Foulkes, chairman of the chiefs of staff, has requested authority to re-linguish his appointment as chairman, chiefs of staff, and proceed on leave pending retirement. The government has reluctantly accepted his request. The retirement of this officer will bring to an end 35 years of service in the Canadian armed forces, including over 14 years as chief of staff.
I am not going to outline at this time the successive appointments that he held throughout the years, and the contributions he made in days of war which have been recognized in one of the recent war books. He became chief of the general staff on August 21, 1945, and it was due to his able planning that the difficult task of demobilization and reconversion of the army to post-war organization was carried out. On February 21, 1951 he became first chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, responsible for the co-ordinating of all interservice operational and strategic matters. The military history of NATO would not be complete without mention of General Foulkes, who has served that organization as Canadian military representative from its earliest period and has the longest continuous service as a chief of staff with NATO.
On behalf of the members of the government and myself, may I say that General Foulkes combines the brilliant organization and meticulous attention to detail required of


a staff officer, with high qualities of leadership and drive, and his retirement will bring to an end a lifetime of continuous service to Canada. As a result of his service and experience, his advice has been invaluable to successive governments. I am sure his retirement will be regretted, not only by hon. members of this house but by Canadians generally.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with one or two other matters. I am not going to deal with defence production today. I will do so at an early date, however, because the hon. Leader of the Opposition has made some statements in regard to views expressed on the subject of defence production. In the course of one of his T.V. appearances, at which he is, if I may be allowed to say so as an amateur, becoming quite professional, he alleged that I had been incorrect in a statement which I had made relative to Canada securing a larger share last year in defence production than had been the case for many years. I am not going to deal with that in detail on this occasion excepting to say that when he spoke on the C.B.C. on that occasion he alleged that I had spoken of U.S. defence expenditure, when he knew, if he had read my remarks, examined the script and heard the words I delivered, that I referred to joint production sharing for defence. He knew that, yet he left the impression with the people of Canada in that speech that I had referred to defence expenditure.
But he knew better, because on the occasion of that well known appearance on November 10 on T.V. "Press Conference", one of the
questioners asked:
Well, that is exactly what the Prime Minister has said. He said on November 3 over the C.B.C., and 1 quote from his words, "I have said on more than one occasion that if we co-operate in defence there should be joint production sharing for defence."
However, when the hon. gentleman chose to speak and to charge me with distortion and worse, it was he who was doing that which he alleged of me, because I referred to joint production sharing and he dealt in his speech with defence expenditures. He surprised me on that occasion, because I have a tremendous respect for the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, they are making him over for the worse. He went on to say that many of the statements I made could be described as examples of distortion, misrepresentation and inaccuracy. And then he went on to say:
The Prime Minister told an audience in Toronto the other night, and he repeated it on television, that under his government-
Now listen to this. These are his words:
-United States defence orders, contracts and sub-contracts placed in Canada in the first nine months of this year had amounted to $75 million.

I never made that statement at any time, indirectly or at all. He had the script before him. I spoke of joint production sharing. Yet the Leader of the Opposition who had the record, if not deliberately then wantonly changed what I had said from joint production sharing to United States defence orders, and made those statements which in the light of retrospect I am sure he would not have made again had he realized what he was doing. I am going to go into particulars of that, line, paragraph and chapter, and I repeat what I said then, that in the year 1959 as a result of the actions of this government and the contribution made by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) we have been able to increase our share of this defence production sharing with the United States to a figure which has not been equalled in any year since 1953. This is the record.
And then the hon. gentleman went on to talk about $300 million worth of expenditure and the like. Those were not defence sharing expenditures; they had to do with defence expenditures in Canada by the United States. The figures that I gave for the period in question-1953 to 1959

tell their story. I find the record to be as follows: in 1959, $75,600,000; in 1958, $26,824,000-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister what those figures actually cover?


John George Diefenbaker: They cover what is included in joint defence sharing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What is that?


John George Diefenbaker: Quite a different thing from what the hon. gentleman is endeavouring to get across to the people of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What does it mean?


John George Diefenbaker: Orders from the United States shared by Canada in connection with defence-in 1957,	$55,236,000; in 1956,
$16,313,000; in 1955, $27,731,000; in 1954, $20,165,000 and in 1953, $49,870,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister to clear this point up? Do those figures include both contracts and subcontracts?


John George Diefenbaker: They include what is shared in Canada by Canadians as a result of defence sharing. Let there be no mistake about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the Prime Minister inform us from what source these figures are derived? Have they been published before?


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the hon. gentleman does not suggest that the Leader of the Opposition made his statement out of the consideration of a fiction.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking about the Prime Minister's figures.


John George Diefenbaker: These are statements of the Department of Defence Production.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have they been published?


John George Diefenbaker: They are available in the books of the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What book?


An hon. Member:: Do your homework outside.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order. It has always been the practice in this house since I first started observing it 22 years ago that when statistics are cited as public statistics the source of them is always given; the page reference, the date and all other particulars in relation to them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking the Prime Minister about these figures because I am, frankly, confused. I have never heard this phrase "joint production" before, and I should like to know where those figures appeared.


Mr. Speaker:: With the permission of the hon. member who has the floor, that question may be asked, and it has been asked, but unless an official document is being read the house does not have the right to ask that it be produced.


An hon. Member:: We are not asking for that.


John George Diefenbaker: Those are the facts. When the Leader of the Opposition-and I say this not in criticism-I am not going to answer him in kind-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Prime ministerial infallibility.


John George Diefenbaker: As far as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is concerned I am not talking about him. He is not in this category. I am speaking about the Leader of the Opposition. When he made this statement in which he alleged there had been misrepresentation on my part, all I can say is that I will not answer him in kind. This is the record. These are the facts. He dealt with the whole field of defence expenditure. I dealt with the field of production sharing for defence, and I repeat what I said-that as a result of the actions of the minister and of the Minister of Defence Production we have been able to secure a new relationship with the United States, and there is a degree of co-operation in this regard which has been most beneficial to Canada in 1959 and which will, I know, continue in the years ahead.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the Prime
Minister will tell us in what publication these figures will be found?


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly. By looking up the records.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What records?


John George Diefenbaker: The records of the Department of Defence Production. I have already given that information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which publication of the department?


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member has the floor he has not the right to press his questions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it not customary, when figures have been cited by the Prime Minister, to identify the source?


John George Diefenbaker: Where did you get them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was not speaking in the House of Commons, and I got my own figures.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to say it is not customary for a speaker using figures to give the source-


John George Diefenbaker: I have nothing more to add, excepting this: that last remark of the Leader of the Opposition reveals the situation-"I did not use those figures in the House of Commons".


Lester Bowles Pearson: I used them and I identified them, which is more than you did.


John George Diefenbaker: They were given on the national television and they bore no resemblance to the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Prime ministerial infallibility. This is the truth.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry to have taken the length of time I have but I felt it necessary to deal with the question of defence which was dealt with at such length by the Leader of the Opposition.
I am going to deal now as briefly as I can with the general state of the economy. I propose to do so because last year the hon. member for Essex East who is a skilled parliamentarian indicated that I had failed to refer to Canada's financial situation in the throne speech debate. I shall leave the various specialized fields of governmental activity to the respective ministers who will report on the situation in the fields under their purview and I shall leave it to the Minister of Finance to make a detailed statement concerning the monetary and fiscal front. I am simply going to refer for a few moments to the forebodings and predictions of catastrophe and calamity, the chronic wails and

the repetitious use of words such as "fumbling" that were indulged in by the Leader of the Opposition.
This word "fumbling" is an interesting one and apparently it holds a peculiar fascination for that hon. gentleman. He even used it with reference to the United Kingdom, France and the United States. They fumbled, too, he said, as reported in a speech in Geneva Park on August 10, 1958. Let me put it in the kindliest way: his overuse of the word seems to indicate a marked tendency to a jaundiced view of things.
Hon. members will have noticed that he stayed away from the specialized field of prophecy when he spoke the other day. There was a reference to boom in his speech. He stayed away from a discussion of what happened in 1959 as compared to what he predicted would happen. Look at the record. His prophecies of January, 1959, viewed in the light of retrospect become a calendar of confusion in which he apparently took his counsel from frustration.
"Disaster, financial mess." You have heard those expressions from the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if you read the press. His 1958 remarks on the throne speech in the house contained dark forebodings couched in terms such as these:-"We are still in the recession." I refer you to pages 25 and 30 of Hansard of that year. Other expressions in which he freely indulged were: "Inflation therefore remains a menace in the midst of recession, that is the dilemma." In 1959 he depicted our future in sombre tones.
It Is the most difficult and dangerous situation that has confronted this country in many years. The economic picture as it faces us in this country today is a picture of recession and unemployment, a picture of inflation and rising prices, becoming more and more dangerous, the government placing an inflationary time bomb in the midst of our national economy.
Last year the hon. gentleman gave expression to this thought:
We may well reach a very dangerous situation, a crisis of confidence, rising prices, rising costs, rising deficits and rising unemployment.
That is the general picture he placed before the people. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) as reported at page 37 of Hansard of January 19, 1959, directed a question to the Leader of the Opposition in these words:
Why do you not offer something constructive, then?
The hon. gentleman replied:
That is your job.
I am not going to engage in a lengthy recital of the statements that were made although I have them here in detail. The Leader of the Opposition last year, as was the case in 1957 and 1958, viewed Canada's



[Stage Direction]
economic condition as a mess with trade gone and markets disappearing and inflation stealing from the average Canadian as never before. It was indeed a frightful picture he presented. He did not say things like that the other day. He looked over at me and said-using words to this effect-"I suppose that the Prime Minister has some statements that he will quote." On January 19, 1959, I said, as reported at page 65 of Hansard of that date:
What we need today Is not the kind of picayune attitude exhibited by the Leader of the Opposition but more hope and less fear ... We on this side of the house have confidence in Canada her present and her future.
What has happened in the intervening time? I am simply going to place before the house in very few words an outline of the economic outlook of our country. Notwithstanding the failure of efforts of hon. members opposite as prophets a year ago, they have recently been expressing concern about the economic outlook for 1960. No one in the world can but have concern today. One has only to read Mr. Khrushchev's speech of a few days ago to realize that he believes the communist system will ultimately destroy capitalism, that the communist system will take over because it can do a better job economically. Over and over again when he spoke in the United States Mr. Khrushchev told the industrialists of that country that when he said, "I will bury you." What he meant was not burial with bombs but with improved economic prospects under a communist regime.
A realistic appraisal of Canada's economic prospects for 1960 requires that all these problems be seen in their proper perspective. I have examined the situation in particular this year to ascertain what has transpired since the house met in January of 1959. Canada's gross national product in 1959 is estimated at about $34,750 million, an increase of 7 per cent as forecast in the budget by the Minister of Finance. Since the 1959 over-all price level was on the average about 2 per cent above that of 1958, the gain in national output in volume terms was about 5 per cent. Both in value and dollar terms, Canada produced more goods and services in 1959 than in any other year in history.
During the first 11 months of 1959 the number of persons with jobs averaged 5,880,000 representing 2.7 per cent more than the 5,726,000 average for the corresponding period of 1958. Unemployment throughout the year was lower than in 1958.
Much was said by hon. gentlemen opposite about the danger of exports and how we were losing our trade. Canada's exports of goods in 1959 exceeded the $5 billion mark for
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker the first time. This record high level of commodity exports is about 5 per cent above both the 1958 level and the previous peak of 1957, and that in a world where trading blocs are being established as the Leader of the Opposition said and at a time when Mr. Khrushchev pictures an all-out communist world economic offensive. This is a record not unworthy of Canada.
Capital spending by business after a two year decline commenced to turn upward in the second quarter of 1959 and has been rising ever since.
They spoke of runaway inflation. The consumer price index averaged 1.1 per cent higher in 1959 than in 1958. There is a renewed confidence in government securities, the particulars of which I could give but which will be given by the Minister of Finance.
The government's general financial policy has been criticized by the hon. gentleman. He talks of the largest cash deficit in history, the largest addition ever made to the national debt. These statements on his part are not supported by the facts. Government expenditures in relation to the gross national product in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960 are estimated at about 16 per cent of the gross national product. That is about approximately the same proportion as total federal government expenditures to gross national product for the three years from 1955 to 1957. On the basis of net national debt in relation to gross national product, the relation of the net national debt per capita, in both of these there is a clear expression of a strong financial position in Canada.
We made expenditures. We expanded the housing developments of Canada; we extended social security; we made more available to the provinces than ever before, and more public works, as the Minister of Finance says, than ever before.
Mr. Nowlan:: Twice as much for coal.


John George Diefenbaker: We did these things in order to meet a situation where Canada found itself in a recession, a recession that was joined in by the United States. We fought the recession; we met the situation. As a result of our action many extensions in social security payments were made. It is all very well for the opposition to say that these things we did while in office. Well, they made provision for hospital insurance, but we had to put up the money, $160 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The taxpayers put up the money.
148	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: We did not increase the amount of family allowance payments but the number of families increased the annual amount by $98 million. In fact, there was about half a billion dollars increase in the expenditures in social security; old age pensions and the federal government's share of assistance to the blind, disabled and unemployed increased by $38 million. Payments of pensions and other benefits to war veter -[DOT] ans increased by $34 million. I could go on. There was extra assistance provided to the provinces. All of these things we have to do, many of these things we have to do; many of them were necessary to meet the recession situation.
I ask whoever follows me to tell me this: Is it wasteful to spend more money to fight recession? Is it wasteful to bring social assistance to additional Canadians? Is it wasteful to provide more funds for the provinces and municipalities? Is it wasteful to spend money to further national development? These are some of the kinds of expenditures that were made, all of which were necessary to meet a situation. In so far as the national development plan is concerned, it has brought about new vistas of development in this country. Indeed, on the occasion of the Liberal meeting in the month of December the Hon. George Prudham paid tribute to what had been done by this government in northern development, a development that should have taken place years before as I see it and as this government sees it.
Now, then, last year-and I notice the Leader of the Opposition did not get around to this part of the speech this year-the chief lieutenant of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Essex East, quoted what the bank presidents had to say. I would like to hear them quote today the views expressed across Canada by the very presidents and general managers to whom the hon. member for Essex East referred last year as being critical of this government and of Canadian development and of Canada's economic future. Let me quote from the annual report of the president and general manager of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. This gentleman was mentioned last year at page 185 of Hansard as one of those who was critical of the government; he was mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East. Mr. Ashforth said:
Let us now turn to the Canadian scene.
Canadians in 1959 produced more, imported more, exported more, earned more, spent more and saved more than any previous year.
Last year this gentleman was taken as a witness. This year he was not quoted by the opposition. He went on:
A year ago Canada was labouring in the early stages of recovery from recession. Today, we are


in the midst of a period of broad expansion which is carrying our national output and our standard of living to new heights.
You understand why he was not quoted. What about the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce? What did he have to say in his report:
We may now anticipate in this year a greater production of goods and services than we have experienced in any peacetime period.
Those are the words of Neil McKinnon. He referred to the question of unemployment as it was in September and said:
In September, less than 3 per cent of the labour force was unemployed which, allowing for temporary unemployed and the unemployable, is considered to be full employment.
Then, we have the president of the Imperial Bank, Mr. Proctor. This is his report:
The vigour of the business recovery which was already evident at our last annual meeting, is the most important development of the past year. Last July industrial production stood 8.5 per cent above the recession low of August, 1958, which carried us 2.3 per cent above the peak level of the 1956-57 boom. The rise of 7.5 per cent in gross national product over the last year was almost all solid gain as prices rose only 2 per cent. Employment is now running higher than ever before and unemployment has fallen to much lower levels. Canadians are better off than they have ever been.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was that 1956-57 boom to which the minister referred the recession the government inherited from the Liberals?


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact I
could answer that with some of the documents that I have if I could locate them. I can't always find them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are hidden again, are they?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the only
time that anything has ever been hidden was the report that was revealed on January 14, 1958, in this house, to the eternal discredit of those who sit opposite.
Mr. Proctor went on to say this, because I believe in calling as witnesses those who the members in the opposition said last year-and I refer particularly to the hon. member for Essex East-were men whose views could be depended upon.
Mr. Proctor went on to say:
That the decline of 1957-1958 was not more drastic is quite remarkable as deflationary forces then at work in the economy were powerful indeed. Inventory investment fell from a 1956 peak rate of $1,100 million a year to a disinvestment rate of $300 million a year at the low point of 1958, a net swing of nearly $2 billion. From peak to trough the change in the annual rate of spending on machinery and equipment amounted to



[Stage Direction]
$800 million and on non-residential construction to $500 million. Yet despite these severe cuts in market demand, gross national expenditure merely paused in its upward march.
The forces sustaining the economy and so accounting for this remarkable behaviour-
I underline these words.
-of the national output in the face of the decline in investment standing are readily identified.
I could go on and take other bank reports one after the other but I will end by quoting from the Financial Post of November 28, 1959 an article headed "They've No Doubts About 1960":
To a sizable cross-section of top Canadian executives, the prospects for business next year look bright indeed. Most expect their companies will chalk up very substantial sales gains in 1960. In a majority of firms, profits will rise appreciably.
It goes on to set out in detail what has been done in this connection. There is the picture, Mr. Speaker, the picture described in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition in the words set forth there. We have had economic difficulties. In the United States they find that bond prices have fallen to unheard of levels over a period of 25 to 30 years. Interest rates are the highest in 25 years and more. That is the situation in the United States.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, is it the responsibility of the government of Canada that this condition of affairs has arisen? The same situation prevails with respect to interest rates in European countries. Yet the opposition continually harps on these things and endeavours to lead the Canadian people to believe that we are responsible for what has happened with respect to interest rates and the like which are the subject of their criticism. With maximum exports abroad, with the gross national product at the level of which I have spoken, for those things they say that providence is responsible. As the Minister of Finance has said, the level of interest rates is in part due to the increasing demand for investment money in our country.
We are going to meet and face up to these problems which are placed before the people of Canada as our responsibility. When I look at the situation in which we found ourselves after we came into power, having to meet a recession with respect to which the last government concealed the report on Canada's economic outlook-that still seres the heart of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate

with that report hidden from the Canadian people and no action taken on it by the government of the day, with the warnings in that report not having been heeded, none the less we faced up to the situation.
John Whitney Pickersgill: You did not discover it for six months.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: What is the babbling interruption?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will tell the Prime Minister what it is. The Prime Minister was in office for six months and did not even find out what was happening.


Michael Starr: It was too well hidden.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the hon. member say that I did not find the report for six months?


John Whitney Pickersgill: You did not find out what was happening for six months.


John George Diefenbaker: He is correct that the report was well hidden.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You did not find out what was happening for six months.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, there is the record. There are other matters that will be dealt with that will be equally unpalatable to the opposition. I now read the motion of non-confidence:
This house is of the opinion that the failure of the government to develop and enunciate clear and consistent policies-
I have mentioned some of the clear and consistent policies of the. opposition with respect to defence and some of the clear and consistent prophecies made last year by the opposition.
-or to provide full and accurate information-
Whatever support there is for that I do not know. We have endeavoured to supply accurate information. I have taken today the information supplied by the bank presidents who last year were called as witnesses for the opposition.
-is a major cause of the confusion and uncertainty that prevails about national defence-
Confusion? Uncertainty? Read Hansard, Mr. Speaker. Read the course taken by the Leader of the Opposition on the question of defence. You cannot make sense out of it. It has no directness. It lacks cohesiveness. One statement jars with another, and that is one of the major problems we face.
-public finance, agriculture, markets, employment and in other important areas of governmental responsibility.
The ministers responsible for the particular fields in question will deal therewith. Under all the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that even the Leader of the Opposition had to admit there was a boom although he did so with difficulty in view of his prophecies of dire disaster last year and the year before-


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister to point out where I admitted in my speech that there was a boom?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I cannot find it now.

The Address-Mr. Argue


Lester Bowles Pearson: You certainly cannot; it is not there.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the hon. gentleman never use the word "boom"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I used it but I did not use it in that sense.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has stated that I said in my speech that there was a boom. This is a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the hon.
gentleman did not use the word "boom" in the way I took it but if this is their idea of a boom then I ask the house to interpret "boom" the way the average Canadian does today and to vote confidence in the government.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in recent hours we have seen an exhibition by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that I suggest does not inspire the confidence and respect of the institution of parliament in him nor will that kind of exhibition likely inspire confidence in him on the part of the Canadian people.
Before going on with the remarks I have to make I should like to compliment the mover of the address (Mr. Morissette). I was extremely sorry that a longstanding engagement, for the first time since I have been a member of the house, made it impossible for me to be here to listen to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. However, from reading the speech, from reports from my colleagues and reports in the press, I know he made an excellent contribution. I am certain that he has more valuable work to perform in the days ahead. I want to agree with all those who have referred to the ability, grace and charm of the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman). We hope she will do the house the honour in the future of rewarding us with many more excellent contributions to our debates.
In his speech the other night the Prime Minister made a number of important announcements and in his speech this afternoon he made the important announcement that a defence committee would be set up.
In reading over the speech from the throne, we find it to be a relatively barren and empty document. I want to associate myself and the C.C.F. party with the remarks made by the Prime Minister about our Governor General and the excellent and competent manner in which he is performing his duties. However, in the speech from the throne which he provided for the Governor General to

read I think the Prime Minister left him very little ammunition because he retained most of it for himself to be used on Monday evening and again today.
We are facing at this time, in my opinion and that of the C.C.F. group, a very great challenge. Our economic system-yes, our way of life-is being challenged today as it has never been challenged before. In the statement of the Prime Minister or in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) I do not find anything which would indicate to me that they realize the great gravity of this challenge.
The other night the Prime Minister made the announcement that a Hoover commission would be set up to inquire into government efficiency. We shall support any step that is likely to improve the efficiency of government. However, it seems to me that it would be a mistake for the government to spend too much of its energy in endeavouring to ferret out all possible inefficiency and waste and not spend sufficient energy in laying plans for a great economic expansion and development in this country. I think one can be overly concerned with a reduction of expenditures in a period of time when increased expenditures and development are necessary.
We are to have a Hoover commission apparently to look into the efficiency of the civil service. I believe the Canadian civil service is efficient. I believe the government soon-immediately, now-should announce increases in civil service salaries. The civil servants of this country should not be made the victims of the government's failure to halt inflation and to prevent the cost of living from rising. As our production increases, I feel the civil servants have a just claim for a fair share of that increased production. 1 think it would increase the efficiency and the morale of the civil service if the government now dealt with their well founded submissions for certain increases in salary.
I do not believe the people of Canada or of the North American continent are prepared to accept the position of second-class world citizens. As we look forward to celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of this country we should be taking every feasible step to make certain that the wealth and the production of this nation expands at the greatest possible rate and that such production is made available to Canadians and is distributed on an equitable basis.
I never thought that I would see the time in this house when the statements of the premier of the Soviet union would be quoted by the Prime Minister of the country in support of action taken by the government. People are coming to realize that statements

made by that gentleman and statistics emanating from that country are such that they should be given our greatest consideration.
I think there are many aspects of our capitalistic system that can be questioned. Unless some of the difficulties and some of the crises that face our nation are overcome we may well become second-class world citizens in this decade. Soviet production is going ahead at an exceedingly rapid rate. It is forecast that by 1965 its industrial production will overtake that of the United States.
The joint Canadian-United States committee recently issued a publication entitled "The Growth of Soviet Economic Power" in which it is pointed out that the industrial capacity of the Soviet union is increasing at the rate of 9.5 per cent per year as compared to an increase of 3.5 per cent in the United States. Although per capita consumption in the Soviet union is low, it is expanding at the rate of 5 per cent per year as compared to a rate of increase of only 3 per cent in Canada and the United States.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Could he identify the source of the information? I was not quite sure I heard it correctly.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is a book entitled "The Growth of Soviet Economic Power" put out by the well known joint Canadian-United States committee, an official committee between Canada and the United States. I do not think anybody is going to question the validity of the members of that committee or their importance or the statistics that I have just quoted from their publication.
In my opinion the first thing that our nation needs to look to is this tremendous lag in production. Production may have gone up some, as it has, this year. It may level off next year. There may be a recession in the following year, a matter about which I shall have something more to say.
The second reason we need to look at this economic system is that we have been wasting our resources. We have unemployed resources in the maritime provinces. We have unemployed resources in the agricultural industry. Agricultural producers are facing grave marketing difficulties. The government's program of deficiency payments is not working out. The agricultural industry is not receiving its fair share of the income of this country. Its production is not as efficient as it could be and the best possible use of that production is not being made.
The Address-Mr. Argue
Another way in which our economy is wasteful is in the field of defence expenditures. There is a private member's resolution on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), which sets forth the opinion and the policy of the C.C.F. with regard to defence and defence questions. I am not going to read that resolution at this time because my time is limited and time does not permit. We believe that there is room for a substantial reduction in the defence expenditures of this country. We think that not only did the previous administration spend money on defence that was proven a waste, but that this government is doing the very same thing. For example, we think that the Bomarc will be proven to be a waste of money and an inconsequential addition to Canada's defence.
We welcome the setting up of a defence committee. Not only do we welcome the setting up of such a committee, but we suggest to the Prime Minister that a member of the opposition might be made the chairman of that committee, and that the committee should not only examine defence expenditures but should look at defence policy and arrive at the best possible defence policy for the days ahead. There is not much use in inquiring into the mistakes which have been made in the past if the committee is not allowed to set up its own view as to what policy should be followed in the defence matters of this country.
Another way our economy is falling, another area in which we are losing production, is because of unemployment. Recent statistics show that there are 370,000 unplaced applicants for work in this country, or 5.9 per cent of the labour force. Surely this is an indictment of this system when almost 6 per cent of our man power and woman power-and this is a growing percentage-should be unemployed and should not have the opportunity to perform useful work.
We are experiencing other difficulties. We are experiencing a trade crisis. The government can talk of increased exports, but we are all aware that Canada's export markets are in jeopardy, that many of Canada's industries are finding difficulty in obtaining markets.
I would like to refer, Mr. Speaker, to the report of the Canadian-United States joint committee on the growth of Soviet economic power, in which it points out that Canadian exports of lumber to the United Kingdom have declined substantially since 1954-55 from over $70 million at that time to not much over $40 million in 1958, while Russian exports have continued to rise more or less

The Address-Mr. Argue steadily. In fact, since 1956 United Kingdom imports of lumber from Russia have consistently exceeded those from Canada.
As far as wheat is concerned, the Soviet union has now become the world's third largest wheat exporting nation and it is forecast that Russia will be able by 1965 to export from five million to ten million tons of wheat, which will endanger Canada's position as the second largest wheat exporting nation. This is an economic offensive; this is an economic threat to the welfare of Canada, and something about which the government needs to develop a new and farsighted trade policy.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, may I-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have only forty minutes, and questions can be put to me after I conclude, at which time I shall be very pleased to answer all of the questions of the hon. gentleman.
This country is facing a trade crisis in another way. Our deficit of international payments is rapidly growing higher. It is estimated that during this year the deficit may exceed more than $1,500 million. This means that to a larger and larger extent the control and ownership of the resources of this country are being transferred to foreign citizens. It means that our country's future is being mortgaged. Therefore we will have to repay these obligations at some future date, and in the meantime a very large part of the productive wealth of this country will accrue to people outside our nation. We heard so much from hon. gentlemen opposite over the years about the domination of Canadian industry by United States capital and about the control of Canadian industry by that capital. We had expected that the government would do something that would at least reduce the rate of transfer of control of Canadian industry to outside capital. That has not happened. Instead of a reduction, the rate has accelerated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a very eminent Canadian, Mr. J. E. Coyne, the governor of the Bank of Canada, made a very interesting speech in Winnipeg on January 18. The governor of the Bank of Canada is reported by the Winnipeg papers as having stated the following:
Canadian savings and the machinery of the Canadian capital market now can supply all of the capital funds needed by governments and business combined to carry on a capital expenditure program as large in total as is sound and healthy for the Canadian economy to sustain in any one year-


In other words, according to the governor of the Bank of Canada the $1500 million international deficit that this country has incurred is unsound and unhealthy. I think that this is a tremendous indictment of this government by the governor of the Bank of Canada. Action by the government is necessary to reduce Canada's dependence on outside capital and to increase the ownership of Canadian resources by Canadians.
The Prime Minister talked about inflation. He seemed to be quite happy that, in his view, inflation was not serious. But I would suggest that a 2 per cent annual increase in the price level is serious. Over a lifetime it eats away a very substantial part of the savings of the Canadian people. Inflation is a robber of the earnings of low income groups, and is a very great danger which faces this country today. We have a lag in production. We are wasting many of our natural and human resources. A larger and larger part of the industry and wealth of this country is being transferred to outside ownership.
We face inflation, but apparently the problem of recession and depression has not yet been mastered. The Prime Minister referred to conditions today. The year end report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) forecast a relatively prosperous 1960; but the minister and the government have failed to look into the future, and we wonder why they have not made a report of conditions that are likely to occur in 1961 or 1962.
I have in my hand the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday, January 9, which bears the heading:
Recession in 1962, government expert fears; warns post-war down turn.
Another heading reads: "Could mean election day switch" and it is an article by Victor Mackie, the well-known and competent journalist of the Winnipeg Free Press.
I have since obtained the speech delivered by Dr. O. J. Firestone, the economic adviser in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I am wondering if he is the author of the so-called hidden report. I ask if he has made the same submission to the minister and to the government as he made to the Canadian people in this well known speech. In that speech he said:
What I am implying is that the recession we may be facing in 1962 could be more extensive than anything we have yet experienced since the end of the second world war.
In other words, unless action is taken to thwart this danger our nation could be facing in 1962 a greater and more serious recession than anything which prevailed under the former Liberal administration. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to reveal

any report he has from his economic experts forecasting economic conditions in Canada in 1961 and 1962. The nation should be apprised now of the possibility of a depression or a severe recession in 1962. We cannot compete with the growing production of the Soviet union and the threat which it presents to democracy and to our type of system if we have to face periodic booms and busts. I see nothing in the economic policy of the government or in the proposals in the speech from the throne-or in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition which lacks proposals- which would suggest to me that there is a program forthcoming which would make possible the increase in production of which our nation is capable. I believe that 1960 will see for all practical purposes the end in this country of many of the basic tenets on which the Liberal and Conservative parties are founded with respect to our economic system and our so-called free enterprise economy.
One of the things we have in common in all parts of this house is a belief in democracy, a belief in the importance of free discussion, a belief that the ordinary citizen should have a right to the facts. But I wonder if the ordinary citizen of this country today has access to the facts, or if the millions of dollars which are used by advertisers learning from the Madison avenue mass media manipulators have so influenced the judgment of the Canadian people as to make it impossible for many citizens to exercise a free, fair and unbiased judgment. The government is turning increasingly the television and radio facilities of this country over to private hands; there has been a very disturbing growth in newspaper chains across this country until today four groups control approximately one third of the circulation of all the newspapers in Canada. Is this something which is in keeping with democracy and in keeping with free discussion?
I think this represents a great danger to freedom and to democracy and I think we should inquire into what effective steps can be taken to break the monopoly which exists in these media and whether we can reduce the quantity of advertising, so that freedom of will will not be in jeopardy. I do not know what the answers may be, but I have placed this resolution on the order paper and I am pleased that in this members' lottery instituted by the government in which all the resolutions are put into a hat and drawn, mine is in such a position that it is likely to be debated. I am hopeful we can set up a committee of this house to inquire into the whole question of the control of newspaper, radio and television facilities in this country so that all feasible and practical steps may be
The Address-Mr. Argue taken which will assure freedom of discussion and maintenance of the strength of democracy in Canada.
Here are some of the problems which face our nation. Here are some of the challenges, and I suggest that there are certain things which should be done at this time. The first thing which I suggest is that we should agree that there is a sense of urgency, that we cannot delay throughout this decade in coming to grips with the problem of lagging production and the need to accelerate production. We should come to grips with the problem of unused and underemployed resources. We in the C.C.F. say we need a national economic plan; that there should be some direction of the economy by the government in order that there may be a channelling of investment into the most productive fields and the most necessary industries. We say that there should be at this time a further development of social security measures; that the great productive capacity of this country should be made available to the people of the nation. We say that there should be an increase in old age pensions brought into effect at this session. To ask senior citizens of this country to exist on $55 a month is not in keeping with our concept of democracy and justice. The pension should be at least $75 a month.
We suggest that the government's hospitalization program, which has been so well accepted across this country in almost every province and will be accepted soon, we hope, in all the provinces, should be still further developed. It is time, in our view, for another great step forward during this session and for the government to introduce an over-all medical plan which will make it possible for provinces to provide medical, dental and optical services. The province of Saskatchewan, under our C.C.F. government, in 1947 pioneered in the field of hospitalization. I am confident that Saskatchewan will pioneer again in the field of prepaid medical services by re-electing the present government and thereby assuring the people of that province the beginning of a pre-paid medical program on January 1, 1961.
We say that there is a need for a further development of public ownership. When I read some of the debates and some of the controversy which is going on within the British labour party today, I think there are people in that party who are walking into a trap which has been set for them by political enemies. I think that an increasing development of public ownership is necessary. I have already advocated some increase in the field of health insurance. I wish I had time to refer as I would like to to the last annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines

The Address-Mr. Argue which I have on my desk in which it is indicated there has been a reduction of 20 per cent in tourist fares. The president of the company said that in 1959, if it had not been for Canadian Pacific Air Lines and the inefficient duplication of services allowed by the government of Canada Trans-Canada Air Lines could have brought about another 5 per cent reduction in fares. This is an indication of efficiency in public service.
The Saskatchewan government insurance office in a competitive way, without any control over the purchasers of insurance, has brought down fire insurance rates on home dwellings in Saskatchewan to a rate of 40 cents per $100 of insurance as compared to 70 cents in either Alberta or Manitoba.
There is room for a further development of public ownership. I am not suggesting all out nationalization or that the government should move in and confiscate industry. I am fully opposed to such a move but in a growing and expanding economy, in the interests of efficiency and lower prices, there is room for an expansion of public ownership as well as of the co-operative movement. There is also room for private enterprise and for the individual businessman. But as the price spreads commission report pointed out, in the food retailing industry the independent merchant is being squeezed to the wall. The people who are true free enterprisers are going out of existence under the policies followed by this government. There is room for corporate ownership, too, but that should be controlled and it also needs to be developed in the interests of Canadians.
We suggest there is need for management in the field of trade, that if Mr. Coyne is right in saying that in relation to other factors we can produce the capital required for development in this country without depending on outside capital to the extent of $1,500 million, steps should be taken to develop the Canadian economy in the interests of Canadians.
We feel that under the system of trade and with increased tariffs the international payments situation is not likely to improve. We think our movement in the years ahead has an opportunity to be of great service to the people of this country. We do not feel as our opponents often tell us that there is a great division in the interests of farmers, workers, small businessmen and professional people. As we see it, the people in this country who are prepared and willing to engage in productive services should have an opportunity to receive a fair return for their services.
We think there is need for a greater measure of equality. We feel we must play our role in international affairs as Canadians. Not

only should we be producing more goods in Canada and making these available, on a more equitable basis to Canadian citizens but we should be prepared to play an increasing part in making our production available to underdeveloped countries and needy nations throughout the world.
We need in this country a bill of rights without question, but we need one that is not simply window dressing. We need a bill of rights of substance, one that guarantees fundamental human freedoms for the people of Canada. We feel that such a bill of rights, should be properly an amendment to the constitution. The Prime Minister has announced that steps are being taken to meet the situation in a certain way and we feel he should consider a bill of rights as an amendment to the constitution.
Believing that our economy has been wasteful and that there is need for the government to remove uncertainty and confusion, I should like to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the period after the word "responsibility" and adding thereto the following words:
"and has failed to initiate the fundamental economic and social planning necessary to remove the uncertainty and confusion that exists."
We feel it is imperative for the Canadian nation to realize the challenge that exists from abroad, to accept that challenge, and to so order our economy so as to make the great wealth of this nation available to all our citizens.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I believe that the hon. member for Assiniboia referred the house to statistics on trade from which he quoted and indicated that they were issued by an official joint committee of Canada and the United States. Could he elaborate further and tell the house in what way this committee is an official committee?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is a governmental committee but I think it was composed of officials of this country who are well known. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress comes to mind as well as the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and some well known economists in the government service. This is a joint committee of Canadian and United States citizens. The committee is composed of highly respected persons who are doing a survey in various economic matters of mutual interest. I think this is a very fine document that has been produced and that the members of this committee are responsible individuals. T believe this publication should recommend itself to the hon. member.

(Translation):


Mr. Arlhur Maloney (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tender the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) my most sincere congratulations for his magnificent contribution in answer to the speech from the throne. I also want to add a tribute to our colleague, the hon. member for the riding of Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman).
If other hon. members who will take part in the present discussion give us contributions equal in quality to those of the hon. members for Rimouski and Grenville-Dundas, I am sure that the whole debate on the speech from the throne will be not only most interesting but also very useful.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, the members of this house who have the interests of their country and its people at heart must surely have derived encouragement from the indicators brought to our attention by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) which demonstrated the buoyant condition of the economy of our country today. On January 11, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when speaking in Toronto to the Canadian Club, said this:
For the Canadian economy, the new decade of the 1960's opens in an expansionary phase, one that gives promise of being more securely founded in terms of demand, resources and productivity. Nineteen sixty offers the prospect of continued sustainable growth provided we are prepared to pay heed to the lessons of the 1950's. New elements bid fair to come forward to lift the economy to new heights, chief among them export demand and capital investment.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) in a statement he issued from his office in Ottawa on December 28, spoke with equal optimism about the future. He pointed out in his statement that whereas Canada's expansion at the beginning of the last decade got its stimulus from defence, from our involvement in the Korean war, and the assistance given to the inauguration of NATO, today's expansion at the beginning of the 1960's was, as he put it, "anchored to the more solid foundations of constructive peacetime pursuits". He emphasized that the present dominant push comes from the growing needs of Canadians for goods and services. Our economic recovery and our present expansion run alongside the economy of the United States.
Notwithstanding the opinions that have been voiced-as were expected-to the contrary, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the leader of the C.C.F. group, I belong, I think, to that much larger group of fellow Canadians who believe that the present condition in our economy was not
The Address-Mr. Maloney something that was brought about by accident but was brought about as a direct result of government activity commenced on June 21, 1957.
Never in the history of our country has so dedicated a group worked so tirelessly in the interests of their country to restore health to its economy and to restore optimism and confidence to the spirit of our people.
I want to take advantage of the next few minutes to say a few words about the subject of immigration. I have not found at any time any criticism from any reliable quarter about the decision of the government to put into effect a plan, originally decided upon by its Liberal predecessor in 1957, of reducing the number of immigrants admitted to Canada, and of continuing a slowdown policy during a time when it was believed by many that it was neither fair nor just to entice immigrants to come to Canada because of the recessive forces that were then at work in our country, in the United States and in so many countries of the world during parts of 1957 and 1958.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question. He has made the statement, if I understood it correctly, that the government has continued a policy initiated by their predecessor. Does he refer to something that was done by me? If so, will he tell the house what it was, because I have no recollection of having initiated any policy.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: You never did anything.


Arthur Edward Martin Maloney: I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the plan formulated by the government of which the hon. member was a member and which was introduced to slow down the number of immigrants admitted to Canada, a plan which we did not cause any interference with after the election of June 10.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I deny categorically that there ever was any such plan.


Arthur Edward Martin Maloney: Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves, and I regret I find myself in the position of contradicting my hon. friend.
In view, however, of the statements which have been made about the economy of our country and its condition today by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and in view of the comparable good condition of the United States economy, it occurs to me that the time is now ripe to take a second look at the policy which has been in effect since the summer of 1957.
An analysis of the statistics issued by the dominion bureau concerning the numbers and ethnic origin of immigrants from overseas

The Address-Mr. Maloney between the years 1946 and 1957 inclusive shows that in that period we admitted a total of 1,669,340 immigrants, ranging from Albanians to the various people who make up the country of Yugoslavia. Peoples of over 47 different ethnic origins came to Canada in that interval. By far the largest percentage came from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Immigrants from the British Isles totalled 31.9 per cent of the over-all immigration during that period. I was surprised to observe that up to the end of 1957 immigrants from France represented only 2 per cent of our over-all immigration, the numbers being 32,729. I should like to see further encouragement held out to immigrants coming from the motherland of Canada's other great basic race. Immigrants to the number of 12.9 per cent came from Germany; 11.6 per cent from Italy, although this percentage, I would imagine, is somewhat higher now by reason of the additional immigration of large numbers of very worth-while Italian immigrants in the year 1959. In the year 1958 the additional number of immigrants admitted to Canada was 124,700, making a grand total since 1946, and including that year, of approximately 2 million immigrants.
I have heard it estimated that we lose annually to the United States of America something like 40,000 of our residents. If that is so, then the net gain of immigrants over emigrants between the years 1956 and 1959 would have been about 1J million, a loss of about 25 per cent.
It is not uncommon to hear fellow citizens, when we talk about this subject, voice the view that people who are permitted to enter Canada as immigrants take jobs from Canadians already established and aggravate conditions of unemployment in the country. Such people, of course, fail to advert to the contribution that immigrants make by their employment of labour, their consumption of Canadian products and their production of wealth.
Well informed economists who study the subject with the knowledge of experts take the position that these arguments are false and insist that there is little or no connection between immigration and unemployment. The royal commissioners responsible for the report on Canada's economic prospects, after an exhaustive review and study of our country's economy and of the factors that give it health, stated that immigrants have made a decided contribution to the scale of economic development in Canada. In part of their report they state:
It is our firm belief that it is in Canada's interest to continue to encourage people from other countries to emigrate here in order both to assist and

participate in the development of our country and also to contribute further variety to our social organizations and institutions.
Three quarters of the immigrants who come to Canada are adults but only half of them are persons who go into our labour force. The other half are wives or children or dependents who fall into some other category. In other words, it is only the remaining half which takes its place in the labour market and often brings with it badly needed skills.
An illustration of that point can be found with reference to the figures for 1958 when, as I say, about 124,700 immigrants came to Canada. Of this group 30,344 were children, 24,795 were wives and the others who fell into the category of dependents numbered 6,534. The balance, numbering 63,078, included workers of all kinds broken up into a number of different categories, many of whom intended to get into the field of manufacturing or construction or on some kind of project where mechanical skill would be required.
Apropos of those who had it in mind to get into the field of manufacturing, an interesting survey was sponsored in 1958 by the Canadian National Railways. That survey under the auspices of the railway established a relationship to exist between the growth of a community on the one hand and increased manufacturing employment on the other. According to the survey it was concluded that if simply 100 manufacturing workers are added to a community this is what will occur. There will be a total population increase in that community of 427 persons. One hundred and seventeen more workers will be employed in fields other than manufacturing, for example, construction, utilities, communications. One hundred and thirty-one more households will be created. The school population will increase by 66 pupils. One hundred and eighty seven motor vehicles of all kinds will be registered and 393 new telephones, both business and domestic, will be installed. Three more retail establishments will be constructed and total retail sales in the community will increase annually by almost $1 million. The C.N.R. survey I have just mentioned was based on the addition of 100 workers in the manufacturing field only and is not applicable to additions to any other sectors of employment.
Between 1946 and the end of 1958, if we examine what these immigrants brought with them we find that immigrants brought into Canada approximately $800 million in cash and securities. In addition, they brought with them settlers' effects that had a total value of about $300 million. In the year 1957

alone the newcomers brought to Canada some $101 million in visible assets and $41,800,000 in settlers' effects.
The Minister of Finance must have felt happy if he looked at the books for the year 1957 because he would have ascertained that in that year alone immigrants paid in direct taxation an amount estimated at $190 million, and the accumulated savings of this element of our population in the year 1957 were approximately $146 million.
Statistics are never a very attractive subject matter for a speech. Ordinarily I do not like indulging in reference to them too frequently but you do not get a really accurate picture of the immigrant and his contribution until you study the facts and the figures. I never realized what close track the statisticians keep of all of us until I came across some figures they keep with respect to immigrants in particular.
Using as a base the census figures that were obtained in the year 1951, it has been estimated, it seems with reasonable accuracy, that between 1951 and the end of 1958 immigrants numbered about 1,365,000 and it is believed that in that period immigrants did the following things. They established more than 248,000 households, purchased nearly
173.000	electric or gas ranges, more than
105.000	electric refrigerators, more than
128.000	electric washing machines, more than
72.000	electric vacuum cleaners, more than
207.000	radios and more than 81,000 passenger automobiles. Finally, as I learned from a speech by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) which I read the statisticians have established that these people spoke in a multiplicity of tongues through 120,000 new telephones in their homes.
I have had the advantage of studying pretty carefully many of the excellent
Business of the House
speeches that our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has delivered during the last few months in various Canadian communities. Many of the statistics to which I have referred derive their authority from her remarks. If she has the opportunity to say so I think she will agree that her speeches disclosing these facts, enlightening as they are, must have startled and amazed the large numbers of fellow Canadians who were included in her audiences. Mr. Speaker, I note that it is six o'clock. May I move the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Maloney the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what the business is for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will proceed with item No. 5 on today's order paper under government orders which is second reading of Bill No. C-32 dealing with provisional payments in respect to unthreshed grain. That being completed, we will then go on with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with guarantees for bank loans to grain producers in the prairie provinces. It is my hope that on Thursday, if not on Thursday then on Friday, we may complete these two measures. That being done, we will revert at that stage to the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Lionel Chevrier: In other words, if we do not dispose of them tomorrow we will go on with them on Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Were tenders called for the construction of the federal building at Campbellton, New Brunswick?
2.	If so: (a) what was the amount of the lowest tender? (b) to whom was the contract awarded, and at what amount? (c) has work been started and at what date?
3.	Is the contractor proceeding with the work on the understanding of the original amount of his tender, or has any adjustment been made extending the original amount of the tender?
4.	If so, what is the additional amount awarded to the contractor involved?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
1.	Yes, on August 18, 1958.
2.	(a) $307,000;	(b) Kenney Construction
Co. Ltd., Yarmouth, N.S. at $307,000. (c) Yes, on October 1, 1958.
3.	There have been two minor adjustments.
4.	$411.80.


COAL PRODUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT LOANS
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What is the total amount loaned to date under the maritime coal production assistance act?
2.	What are the names of the companies receiving such loans together with: (a) the amount loaned in each case; (b) the present standing of each loan; (c) the interest rate charged for each individual loan?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of
Mines and Technical Surveys):
1.	As of January 18, 1960, the total amount of loans authorized under the Coal Production Assistance Act (formerly the maritime coal production assistance act) was $11,135,780.67. As of the same date, the amount advanced on these loans totalled $9,661,276.60.
2.	The names of the companies receiving such loans, the amount loaned in each case, the present standing of each loan, and the interest rate charged for each individual loan are shown by the following tabulation:
Name of Company	Authorized Amount of Loan	Amount Advanced	Amount Repaid	Balance Owing	Interest Rate$	$	$	$	%Avon Coal Co. Ltd., Minto, N.B., No. 1	
375,000.00	375,000.00	375,000.00	nil	2*" 2	
82,000.00	82,000.00	82,000.00	nil	2" 3	
333,000.00	333,000.00	333,000.00	nil	3.3" 4	
132,000.00	132,000.00	64,500.00	67,500.00	4!" 5	
620,000.00	620,000.00	none due yet	620,000.00	aBras d'Or Coal Co. Ltd., Bras d'Or, N.S., No. 1	
42,000.00	42,000.00	none due yet	42,000.00	5" 2	
80,000.00	80,000.00	none due yet	80,000.00	51Crawford Contractors Ltd., Minto, N.B	
140,000.00	140,000.00	39,330.38	100,663.62	3?Dominion Coal Co. Ltd., Sydney, N.S	
7,500,000.00	6,984,584.S3	1,278,278.70	5,706,306.13	3? to July 1, 1957; 4 thereafterDoucet Sons Ltd., Inverness, N.S	
47,738,67	47,738.67	6,853.78	40,884.89	5Four Star Collieries Ltd., Bras d'Or, N.S., No. 1	
100,000.00	100,000.00	100,000.00	nil	2f" 3	
62,000.00	62,000.00	62,000.00	nil	3iD. W. & R. A. Mills Ltd., Minto, N.B., No. 1	
305,850.00	305,850.00	305,850.00	nil	4" 2	
214,000.00	214,000 00	154,405.06	59,594.94	5iV. C. McMann Ltd., Minto, N.B., No. 1	
8,175.00	8,175.00	8,175.00	nil	3" 2	
28,017.00	28,017.00	8,057.10	19,959.90	QIWestern Dominion Coal Co. Lt 1., Taylorton, Saskatchewan	
1,066,000.00 11,135,780.67	106,911.10 9,661,276.60	none due yet 2,817,456.02	106,911.10 6,843,820.58	5
NB: Loan No. 2 to Four Star Collieries, Ltd., was cancelled at the company's request before funds were advanced because of a change in the company's plans.
JANUARY 20, I960	159
Questions

Thursday, January 21, 1S60


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-33, to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting at advance polls).
Som


a hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to give a much broader advance poll voting privilege than now exists.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


CRIMINAL CODE
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-34, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in explaining the purpose of this bill I cannot do better than repeat the illuminating words used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he introduced and spoke to an identical bill in this house on February 28, 1955, as reported at page 1543 of Hansard for that date. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that is my birthday and I trust it is a good omen.
The Prime Minister said, and I repeat and support:
Mr. Speaker, as provincial legislation has proven ineffective to control the wanton pollution by municipalities and industrial concerns of interprovincial rivers, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to provide punishment for the offence of water pollution.
Then the Prime Minister later said that this amendment is demanded by tens of thousands of people, literally hundreds of thousands in this country, who are asking for some action on the part of the federal government to protect them from the cupidity of those who, because of their power, believe they can with impunity deny the use of these waters to present and future generations.
Mr. Speaker, if the house will forgive a temporary lapse of good parliamentary manners, I should like to say that on this issue I am happy to follow John.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER RESPECTING ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members will give me leave to make a brief statement about the use of routine proceedings, I think this might be an appropriate time to do so and to consider routine proceedings in so far as ministerial statements and oral questions without notice are part of those proceedings.
As hon. gentlemen appreciate, time is given at the beginning of each sitting of the house for routine proceedings, because they are routine or formal in their nature; matters which with few exceptions are dealt with without debate. They are proceedings which require attention, but not much time, before the house enters upon the orders of the day and the substantial business before it.
Although there are exceptional days when routine proceedings are not accomplished quickly, if the past is any criterion for the future routine proceedings should be concluded within approximately half an hour of the beginning of the sitting. Perhaps it is desirable that this should be so. If too many or too long ministerial statements are made and commented upon by two hon. members, as the situation is now, from opposition parties, and if hon. members do not limit their oral questions in accordance with the established practice, it will be at the expense of the time for the debate of matters appearing on the order paper.
Ministerial statements should relate to matters of importance and should be as brief as the subject matter permits; they should not be provocative in their nature. In saying these things I am not referring to any particular incident but to the practice of the house in general, about which, it seems to me, we should remind ourselves at the beginning of a session. The comments on ministerial statements should also be brief and unprovocative, or temperate at least, and should not become a debate in any sense of the word but a preliminary comment with such reservations as may be felt necessary with respect to future discussion of the subject.
May I say, too, that a ministerial statement should not be introduced in answer to a question unless the statement itself is of such brevity and urgency that it can be accepted as an answer to a question in accordance with the practice relating to oral questions.
130	HOUSE OF
Statement by Mr. Speaker
On the subject of oral questions, other Speakers have found it desirable from time to time to remind the house of the practice as it has been followed and as it has been explained in the commentaries on our procedure so that there might be harmony between the Speakers and the house in the application of those principles, and the avoidance of unnecessary argument. In the past, following that practice, Mr. Speaker Macdonald made a very precise and excellent statement on the practice with respect to oral statements which I commend to the attention of all members of the house. Perhaps they will make a note of it, because I do not propose to read at any length. This statement will be found in the Journals for 1951 at pages 427 and 428. Mr. Speaker Beaudoin made a comprehensive review of the practice on March 16, 1956 and this may be found at the beginning of page 2206 of Hansard for that year. I myself made a statement on October 17, 1957.
If I may be permitted a moment more I should like to read what appears to me to be the essential practice as it is explained in Hansard and in the citations in Beauchesne. The standing orders-that is standing orders 39, 40 and 41-provide only for written questions to be answered by the tabling of written answers or, if the question is marked with an asterisk, to be answered orally on Wednesday within the first hour or on other days after the last order of business. Other oral questions asked upon the calling of orders of the day are sanctioned only by usage. Beauchesne in the fourth edition, citation 173, paragraph 1 says:
The practice has been so long and so regularly in the house that, if not impossible, in my opinion, it would be inadvisable to stop it. It seems to me manifestly unfair to compel ministers to answer questions on important matters without an opportunity to consult their chief officers; and it would be arbitrary to deprive private members of putting certain questions of immediate urgency on the orders of the day being called.
The following principles have been applied to oral questions:
1.	The question should seek information or press for action on a matter relating to public affairs of such immediate urgency that it would be improper to put it on the order paper. I remind hon. members that the order paper is the normal way of getting information which can be given in answer to a question.
2.	Both questions and answers should be concise, factual and free of opinion and argument or observations which might lead to debate.
3.	Explanations can be sought regarding the intention of the government but not an


explanation of an opinion upon a matter of policy. That is citation 178 in Beauchesne.
4.	Other detailed limitations, some 40 in number, are set out in citation 171 of Beauchesne and apply to oral as well as written questions.
5.	Supplementary questions are matters of grace; that is, at this stage of the proceedings.
6.	The minister is entitled to notice if he asks for it. An answer cannot be insisted upon nor is it regular to comment upon refusal to answer. In effect oral questions are a limited supplement to the questions which may be put on the order paper, and are for the purpose of enabling hon. members to get information on public affairs of urgent importance without delay and to bring such matters to the attention of the government.
As I said, I am not reflecting upon anything that has been done nor commenting upon any particular episode, but in accordance with what seemed to me to be good custom of former Speakers I draw these practices-because they are practices rather than specific provisions in the rules-to the attention of hon. members for their guidance so that we can make the best use of our time and particularly not unduly extend the period of routine proceedings.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would comment on a statement made on television last night by the Associate Minister of National Defence. In order that I may not be in any rway inaccurate or in any way unfair to the associate minister I will quote the words from the text he used, as taken down. He said:
-I would say this, that actually the national defence is actually conducted in Canada in accordance with the definite commitments which were arrived at at the NATO conference table.
Subsequently he said:
-actually the figure of $1,700 million is the figure which was arrived at-by mutual assent at the NATO conference table. This is the figure that was set for Canada at the time.
He later said:
Well, actually this is an agreement that we arrived at which is proportionate to what was considered was to be-is our size and our responsibility in this.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman's experience on those press conferences

Inquiries of the Ministry
has been such that he would appreciate that report. It has been specifically followed as a the entire record would have to be examined practice of the house that that sort of ques-in order to ascertain the exact facts. Expur- tion is not permissible. If it is a question gated portions are not always in accordance asking for information about the subject with the entire intent and context. Under matter of the statement, well and good, but the circumstances I feel that the minister the hon. member cannot ask simply for con-himself might reply to that question.	firmation.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that last night at the commencement of the interview which took place on the television network I did say that our defence budget was greatly determined by NATO. Subsequently I clarified this statement by explaining that Canada has certain defence commitments to NATO which, to a large extent, govern our government expenditures, and that those NATO commitments have been the basis of Canada's defence planning since the organization of the alliance. I made it abundantly clear that there is no agreement with NATO regarding any fixed expenditures for defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, since there is a discrepancy between what the minister has stated he said and what I have quoted him as saying, from the text of his statement as taken down, would the minister, in order to remove this discrepancy, table the exact text of what he said last night from beginning to end so there will not be any question of misquoting him? Will the minister answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver East.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Associate Minister of National Defence about the statement he made on television, today's paper La Presse, quotes the words of the minister, and adds:
Our defence budget set up by NATO
Mr. Pierre Sevigny, associate minister of defence, stated last night that the amount of the Canadian defence budget is set by NATO.
He added that this year's defence budget, amounting to $1,700,000,000, had been established at a ministers' meeting of NATO and that Canada had approved that figure at the time.
My question to the minister is this: Would the minister say that this statement of La Presse is inaccurate?


William Heward Grafftey: He already answered that question. This is just repetition.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Laurier as I understand his question, is asking for confirmation or denial of a newspaper 79951-0-9J


Lionel Chevrier: That was not the purport of my question, Mr. Speaker, to ask for confirmation or denial. I read the statement as it appeared in the press, and I then asked the minister whether or not the statement had been made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the minister should answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be a little obtuse today, but I see no difference between the two.


REFERENCE TO REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister noted the reports in yesterday's papers that President Eisenhower in his budget message to congress said that for the time being the manned bomber is the major threat? If that is so, will the Prime Minister relate that statement and stand to his own in this House of Commons as expressed last Monday evening, to the effect that in the 1960's we would be in the missile age?


Mr. Speaker:: If I may intervene, the hon. member's question relates to the subject matter on which the Prime Minister was speaking when the throne speech debate was last before the house. As I understand it, he resumes his speech on that subject today, and since the question is one of those broad questions which it is difficult to answer with the sort of answer which is permissible at this time, I would suggest that the hon. member allow the matter to be dealt with in the debate.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make on the statement of the President of the United States that for the time being the manned bomber is the major threat.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not for the Prime Minister to make any comment on a statement made by the President of the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: His master's voice must not be questioned.

Inquiries of the Ministry


REFERENCE TO REPORTED STATEMENT BY U.S. DEFENCE SECRETARY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister's attention been called to a report from Washington attributed to the secretary of defence of the United States of America to the effect that the whole Bomarc program is to be reappraised because, among other things, of the vulnerability of the Bomarc bases?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, I have the complete answer which was given by the secretary of defence to a question which was asked before the congressional committee. The secretary of defence, in answer to the question-
In your opinion is there a need for both the Bomarc and the Nike programs?
-starts out by saying:
I think our opinion remains unchanged after the very comprehensive study we gave the problem. The intelligence on which this judgment is based has not changed except for Mr. Khrushchev's speech this morning.
And he finishes up by saying:
The "mix"-
That is the mixture of weapons that there are for air defence.
.-we now have had a very comprehensive examination by congress and by the department of defence only four or five months ago. I think we should stand by that program.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister have the report from Washington which states that in five recent tests of the solid fuel driven Bomarc B missile the ramjet engine failed to function in every case?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, Canada is very fortunate that these expensive weapons are being developed by an ally and that Canada does not have to pay for the development and testing herself. These tests are going on all the time, and the people responsible for the development of the Bomarc and other missiles are learning from their experience.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister tell us if it is still the policy of the government to continue with the installation of the Bomarc missiles in Canada?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the third time the hon. member has failed to get off the ground.


BRITISH COLUMBIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the

Minister of National Defence. I can assure you, sir, that it is most urgent and springs from the representations of municipalities on behalf of thousands of irate constituents of mine. In view of the annoyance, inconvenience and, in some cases, fear expressed by residents of the Rossland-Trail area over the breaking of the sound barrier by planes of the United States air force in their immediate district, and in view of the minister's expressed intention to have the origin of the noise investigated to see whether it has been caused by United States air force aircraft or Sons of Freedom activities-I may say that the local residents and the editorial writer for the Trail Times, who is public relations officer for the Progressive Conservative party, thoroughly enjoyed the minister's sense of humour-would the minister inform the house of the result of this investigation and what action is being taken to protect the rights of Canadian citizens?


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be pleased to have that matter looked into.


USE OF LACROSSE MISSILE BY CANADIAN ARMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the government to equip the Canadian army with the Lacrosse missile?


George Randolph Pearkes: An announcement was made about a year ago as to the government's intention in that respect.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it still the intention of the government?


George Randolph Pearkes: The government has not changed its intention.


OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have another question to ask the Minister of National Defence. Will the Minister of National Defence inform the house whether, in transferring nuclear weapons to the armed forces of Canada, the United States relinquishes any of its legal obligations and rights to control the use of those weapons?


George Randolph Pearkes: This matter was discussed by the Prime Minister the day before yesterday, and I understand he still has some more remarks to make on the matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether he still agrees with the opinion he expressed on November 10, that nuclear warheads for Bo-marc missiles stored in Canada would remain under United States control?


George Randolph Pearkes: Nuclear warheads stored in Canada are the property of the United States until they are released for use by the Canadian forces. When they are released to Canada, then Canada has the sole use and direction of use of those weapons. As was explained the day before yesterday by the Prime Minister, that will be a decision for the Canadian government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary question. Will the minister confirm that such weapons can now be released to Canadian forces under United States law?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker, there are no such weapons stored in Canada. Therefore they cannot now be released to the Canadian forces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister, Mr. Speaker, has not answered my question, by accident of course. I asked him whether, under United States law, such weapons could be released to Canada for storage in Canada and used by Canadian forces.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a secondary aspect to that question. It is improper to ask for an opinion on Canadian law; therefore I think the same would apply to an opinion on United States law.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more important to us than finding out whether, under the present law of the United States, these weapons which the minister said would be used by Canadian forces can be released.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the importance of the information, but my objection, which is based on the practice of the house, is that the hon. member is seeking the information from the wrong source and in the wrong way.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, may I add a word on the point of order. Is not what the Leader of the Opposition is asking for a matter of fact? What is prohibited by the rules is an interpretation of or an opinion on law. That is the distinction, it seems to me; it is a fine one, but a very important one.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understood the question the hon. member was asking the minister whether, under United States law, certain
Inquiries of the Ministry things could be done, and it seems to me that the essence of the question is what is the law of the United States on the subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I asked that question to ascertain the fact. It bears upon important considerations of defence policy, and without this knowledge we cannot discuss the policy.
Perhaps I can address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who should know something about this matter. Is it not a fact that under United States law these weapons cannot be released for use or storage in Canada at the present time?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am not giving any opinions on United States law either.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question arising out of the statement which the Prime Minister made in the house the other night, as reported on page 73 of Hansard of January 18 last, to the effect that there will be Canadian control of the use of nuclear weapons in Canada; they are his words. My question is, can such weapons, when released to Canada, be used in the defence of Canada if necessary, without any permission being obtained from a United States governmental authority?


George Randolph Pearkes: As was pointed out by the Prime Minister the day before yesterday, all matters connected with the storage and use of nuclear weapons in Canada are now the subject of discussion between Canada and the United States. The Prime Minister made Canada's position perfectly clear in the statement he gave the day before yesterday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, again the minister has not answered my question. I asked him what is the present position in the matter, not what may be the position in the future.


George Randolph Pearkes: The present position is that negotiations are continuing now.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister give us any information as to the announcement reportedly made in Washington today by Senator Warren
134	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Magnuson that the United States and Canadian governments have reached tentative agreement on legislation to provide pilots for vessels navigating the great lakes?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any report of such a statement. However, thinking that the hon. member would probably be asking for some information along this line I have an answer here with me in order to bring him up to date.
During the past several months there have been frequent and continuing consultations between Canadian and United States officials, and a great deal of progress has been made in the direction of achieving a common point of view with regard to pilotage matters on the great lakes. We are very hopeful that the United States administration may find it possible to introduce legislation in congress this year which will be sufficiently similar to the position we have taken to make possible a sound working arrangement between the two countries. In this event it would be my intention to introduce legislation dealing with this matter in so far as Canada is concerned during the present session of parliament. While such legislation would probably be similar to that which we had in mind a year ago, I am not yet in a position to comment on its final form since consultation between the two governments is still continuing.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Can the minister assure us that we will not encounter the same report from Washington that we had last year from Vice Admiral Richmond? After consultation with the minister he reported to congress that the minister did not seem to know what he wanted.


George Harris Hees: I have never heard of that statement, but I would think it was as much lacking in factual basis as most of the statements the hon. member makes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will have it on the minister's desk within ten minutes.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he tell the house the attitude of the government toward the special programs of provincial governments with respect to aid to underdeveloped countries, such as the program announced by the province of Manitoba?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which is before the Manitoba legislature, and I think it would be quite improper for me to comment at this time.


COLOMBO PLAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Ottawa West asked whether the grant of $7 million for the provision of wheat to India under the Colombo plan would involve the setting up of counterpart funds by the Indian government.
This allocation for the provision of wheat, as well as the other allocations for commodities in this program, will involve the establishment in local currency of counterpart funds equivalent to the amount of the Canadian grant. These funds will be used to cover the local costs of economic development projects agreed upon by the two governments.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Rouleau: I wish to direct a question to the charming Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of Mr. Justice Stewart's judgment in the Supreme Court of Ontario, setting aside an immigration deportation order against one Imre Hirsch, and the learned judge's criticisms of the arbitrary nature of the procedure followed in that case, has the minister any intention of recommending major changes in the procedures?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have no intention of suggesting any changes on the basis of any one case.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
REPORTED PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES ON f104g AIRFRAMES
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Thomas Richard: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister tell the house whether it is a fact that Canada will be obliged to pay the Lockheed corporation an extra $4J million for the F104G as royalties on patents covering the airframes, which inventions were developed with the assistance of United States government funds. If such is the case, has the department made

Inquiries of the Ministry
any representations to the United States rifles might fall into the hands of some indefence department to have the practice dividuals who might use them for criminal altered?	purposes?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister is in a position to answer the question I would not object, but it is a question which it seems to me would require statistical information.


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Jean-Thomas Richard: No, Mr. Speaker. I will be quite willing to have the minister take the question as notice.


An hon. Member:: Put it on the order paper.


Jean-Thomas Richard: It is not a
question for the order paper. It is a question of fact.


Donat Raymond: I have no objection to answering the question, but it will take a good deal of information and I shall be obliged to get that information. If the hon. member wants to put the question on the order paper I will give him a complete answer.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is the minister asking me to put this question on the order paper?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: And get an answer in 1961.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Surely we are not down to that procedure.


HORNET RIFLE-DISPOSITION BY CROWN ASSETS CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Rouleau: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production in connection with the intention of the government to make the use of the Hornet rifle illegal. How many of these rifles were distributed by the crown assets corporation, and did the crown assets corporation receive any advice or seek any advice from the R.C.M.P. or the R.C.A.F. as to the suitability of these weapons for public use?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member can hardly expect an answer to the first part of his question. I suggest that he put it on the order paper. He is asking for statistical information. It will undoubtedly have to be looked up.


Guy Rouleau: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does the minister contemplate a serious inquiry as to why the Hornet rifle was offered for sale to the general public by the crown assets corporation, when it was known that those


Edmund Davie Fulton: The
Minister of Justice initiated such an inquiry some months ago, but of course it would take too long a time to give the results to be appropriate for a reply on the orders of the day. I am certain that an appropriate occasion to give information on the results of the inquiry will occur later in the session.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Roy Tucker: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the increase in the number of unemployed in Newfoundland, would the minister please advise the house if and when the proposed land assembly project in St. John's will commence?


David James Walker: I thank the hon. member for Trinity-Conception for this question. In reply I would say that there are certain preliminary matters which must be decided before a decision can be made on the subject of the St. John's land assembly project.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. May I ask him the position of the negotiations between the television and radio producers in Montreal and the C.B.C.; and can the minister say why it has not been possible to reach an agreement after more than one year since the beginning of the dispute?


Michael Starr: I have not the latest information on the negotiations between the two parties designated by the hon. member, but I shall be glad to get the information on that matter.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the house

Inquiries of the Ministry whether a borrower from the industrial development bank can prepay a loan without having to pay a penalty; and if not, why not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the hon. gentleman for sending me notice of his intention to ask this question. I must remind him that the industrial development bank is a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada and as Minister of Finance I have no control over it. However, if hon. members wish me to obtain from the bank information that is available to them, I am happy at all times to do so.
However, there is something that should be said on a point of order here. The purpose of these questions on the orders of the day, as you have pointed out on more than one occasion, Mr. Speaker, is to obtain information. It is a fact that the hon. gentleman obtained from the industrial development bank within the last week the answer to the question he has asked in the house today.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  G. J. Mc@: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister advise the house whether the proposed trade treaty between Canada and Russia has yet been completed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has not been completed but it is close to being completed.


George James McIlraith: I have a supplementary question. On June 18 last the minister, in answer to a similar question, said this:
I hope very soon to be able to announce the conclusion of an agreement.
That was more than six months ago. I wonder whether the minister could give us any more precise information as to the unusual delay, and as to precisely when we may expect a conclusion to be reached.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My statement to which the hon. member referred was correct at that time. We seemed on the verge of completing our negotiations, but other factors arose and negotiations were carried on. One of the key negotiators for the other side returned home to Russia and was absent for several months. On his return negotiations were reopened. I express the hope that we are now close to completing the agreement.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the deep concern of the people of the village of Thornhill I wonder if the minister has any information to give the house concerning the route of the proposed access line to the marshalling yard in metropolitan Toronto?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will get in touch with the management of the Canadian National Railways and report to the hon. member as soon as I can.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The question just asked by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, which is very much on the minds of many people living round the periphery of metropolitan Toronto, was referred to the minister by the hon. member some months ago, at which time the minister was going to refer it to the Canadian National Railways. I wondered why the minister has not yet received word from the railway in answer to the hon. member's question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have talked about this matter from time to time with the management of the Canadian National Railways, and have been kept informed of the progress of this matter. Quite naturally, when the hon. member asked for the most up to date information that is exactly what I intend to get for him. I will get in touch with the Canadian National Railways and get the most up to date information I can for him right away.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a report in today's New York Times to the effect that commonwealth status for Cyprus is being written into a bill-that is, a United Kingdom bill-establishing the island's independence from Britain. My question is, was Canada consulted about this and, if so, what position did it take?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Canada was consulted in connection with the Cyprus question. In so

far as the nature of the consultations is concerned, there being as yet no final determination I think the hon. gentleman, on the basis of his own experience, will realize and recognize that it would be inappropriate to say more at this time.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. If I get a positive answer I will not ask any questions tomorrow. Has the minister sought full information from the coal operators in order to minimize the extent of the proposed lay-offs in the coal mines of Nova Scotia and, if he has not, will he get such information and give it to the house at the first opportunity?


Paul Comtois: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not think the minister has given a reply to my question at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has to make his own reply, and hon. members are not entitled to comment on the content or the sufficiency of the reply. The hon. member asked two questions and got one answer.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. Is the minister concerned about the lay-offs which will take place in the mines?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member does not want to reflect upon the responsibility of the minister.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I was hoping I might have a positive answer, Mr. Speaker.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Emilien Morissette for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, hon. members will appreciate that a speech which has had to be broken off is not altogether easy to resume without making a summary of what has already been said. However, I do not propose to follow the usual course of reviewing in any detail what I said previously or of repeating the views which I expressed on behalf of the Canadian government regarding nuclear weapons. Those views are fully set forth at 79951-0-10
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker page 73 of Hansard. I will content myself by simply summarizing what has already been said with regard to the lack of certainty, and confusion referred to in the amendment, and the examples which I gave respecting the views expressed in various parts of Canada and the United States by the Leader of the Opposition. During the intervening months since last session, he indicated fully the degree of the confusion of his views and the uncertainty of his remedies in this particular matter.
Much has been made today of some remarks passed last evening on the national television network to which I am making no reference, a full answer having been given. I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition will recall that he, too, had an experience on November 10, 1959 when, in a press conference, he revealed in some detail his views with regard to various matters, including nuclear weapons. I do not want to be forced into a position where I shall have to go into detail in that regard. But I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that if he would reread the record of that occasion he would, I am sure, come objectively to the conclusion that on the basis of the answers which he gave there was that uncertainty and that confusion which he has included in the motion of non-confidence and ascribed to the government. To summarize what he had to say, without going into detail, he said at page 5 of the text:
We should not get into the field of atomic weapons at all unless we have control over the atomic weapons our forces would be using.
Then, at the bottom of page 6, I quote again:
I said that we should have nothing whatsoever to do with strategic nuclear weapons, the hydrogen bomb, and that sort of thing. We should not allow our forces to use those weapons, however technical they may be and for defence, until we get specific information on the effect they would have on fallout and the atmosphere. I have said we should not allow our forces to be armed by nuclear weapons, tactical or strategical, which are under the control of another power.
Then, a little later on, he had this to say:
We have never been told why the United States should not allow nuclear weapons in the hands of Canadian troops to be under the control of Canadian troops.
And, again:
Are we on the same plane of equipment with the United States forces if a Canadian platoon with a nuclear mortar cannot use it except on orders from the United States forces.
It was in order to answer such uncertainty and confusion in the mind of the hon. gentleman that I went particularly into detail, because the views of the government have been expressed on more than one occasion by the Minister of National Defence. Indeed I would
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker point out that on November 17-and I am referring to a report by Clark Davey, a Globe and Mail reporter-appeared the following:
Liberal Leader Pearson predicted today-
That would be November 16.
-that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would find itself in serious trouble unless the United States, Britain and Prance dedicated control of their nuclear weapons to the NATO council in every circumstance short of total war.
I think the answer to the ideas expressed by the hon. gentleman were given by himself the other day in silence when I asked him what he would do were he to find out that it would be impossible to secure the consent of all 15 countries. What, then, would his actions be?
Then the report goes on to say:
In a 70-minute press conference which seemed to confuse Liberal defence policy as often as it clarified it, Mr. Pearson returned to his argument that Canadian forces should not be armed with nuclear weapons under the control of any other country. He came close to calling for the scrapping of Canada's nine home defence squadrons of CF-lOO's because they were obsolete, but never took what appeared to be his thinking out loud quite that far.
And then the article goes on-this is a quotation again:
No one power, no matter how powerful, should have authority, within the NATO alliance to approve the use of nuclear weapons on its own.
Then, a little later:
There was more than national pride involved, he added. It was a case of national sovereignty. He suggested it might be better to move United States forces into Canadian bases under a political agreement between the two countries, and permit them to fire as well as control nuclear weapons.
And finally, amidst this series of statements characterized by that confusion and uncertainty which is incorporated in the amendment, we have the hon. gentleman saying this:
The Canadian forces and the Canadian government-would be in a much stronger position if Canada bought its own missiles.
That was on November 16, 1959. A few days later the hon. gentleman went to Halifax and as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, he said:
I do not think Canada should accept nuclear weapons either under our own or any other control until we know a great deal more about the effects of radiation.
That is an unusually uncertain course and view to be expressed by one who says that this government, having made its position clear, is uncertain.
Let me pass on to the next report, taken from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of November 24, which comments on a statement made by the hon. gentleman:

Addressing a packed assembly in the spacious Donald Eddy memorial hall here, he said the Liberal party "will vigorously oppose the decision of Prime Minister Diefenbaker's government to equip Canadian forces with weapons that can be used for the defence of Canada only with the authority of another country."
-The United States was a friendly power but nevertheless it was not right that "a single country should control the defence of another."
The next report is taken from the Winnipeg Free Press and I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will appreciate this. It carries the headline: "Haggis Puts Mike in Mood". The article states:
"Intolerable" was the word Mr. Pearson used to describe the situation where at Canadian missile sites an American must press the button to send off a Bomarc missile. Canadian forces should not be armed with any form of nuclear weapon the use of which is controlled by any other single government.
What basis did the hon. gentleman have for all these statements? Surely not the declarations made by the Minister of National Defence. Let us examine what was said by the minister. It is not a case of my having just one newspaper report because there are many and they are consistent. The Ottawa Citizen on November 10, 1959, reported:
Canada will have atomic warheads for the Bomarc missiles by 1961, defence minister Pearkes indicated today. He rejected the suggestion that United States officers would control Canadian Bomarc atomic warheads. Mr. Pearkes emphasized that the Bomarc was a defensive weapon. Under no circumstances could this atomic weapon be used without the express consent of the Canadian government.
Lester Bowles Pearson: And that of the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the surprising thing in this connection, Mr. Speaker, that on a matter as serious as survival the Leader of the Opposition, knowing that these statements had been made by the Minister of National Defence reflecting the views of the government, proceeded to carry across Canada the message that the use in Canada of nuclear weapons, if they were brought into Canada, would be at the wish, authority and under the control of another power.
I quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Star written by William McGuffin, staff writer:
Mr. Pearkes emphasized-
Referring to the weapons in question:
-that they "cannot be used without the permission of the Canadian government."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, they are our
weapons.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what the record
says. I have read the statements that were made. And yet, in the face of all those circumstances the hon. gentleman chose to follow a course of giving to the people of

Canada information which was not in accordance with the declarations of the government and indeed was as far removed as possible from those declarations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the Prime Minister would permit a question? I would refer the hon. gentleman to page 1396 of Hansard of July 2 last on this point, but meanwhile I would ask the Prime Minister if he will deny that these weapons cannot be used for the defence of Canada without the permission of the United States authorities, these Canadian weapons in the hands of Canadian forces?


John George Diefenbaker: This does not relate to
the situation at all.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me answer this
clearly and definitely. The hon. gentleman having followed a course of insinuation, and declarations not based on the facts, now endeavours to wriggle out of the position in which he finds himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The people will decide
who is wriggling.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me repeat what I
said the other evening so there will be no misunderstanding on this point. I refer hon. gentlemen opposite to my remarks reported at page 73 of Hansard of January 18, 1960, where I said:
While I have carefully explained the views of the government on previous occasions-
I am omitting some words which are irrelevant because they refer to negotiations still under way. I continued:
-Canada's stand might be summarized in this way: Eventually Canadian forces may require certain nuclear weapons if Canadian forces are to be kept effective.
Then I went on to say:
We cannot change the principle of United States ownership-they have taken a firm stand in this regard-but there shall be Canadian control of use in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: By United States permission.


John George Diefenbaker: I went on to say:
I want to make it abundantly clear that nuclear weapons will not be used by the Canadian forces except as the Canadian government decides and in the manner approved by the Canadian government. Canada retains its full freedom of choice and decision.
I underline those words.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now answer my question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have
already made it abundantly clear that use 79951-0-10J
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker will be determined by Canada but ownership will remain in the United States unless the United States changes its views in this regard.
The Leader of the Opposition knows very well that through the years this question has been discussed with the United States. I wonder whether he suggests that the control over nuclear weapons should be released to the extent that the powers here, there and every place should have them available to them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is asking me a question I shall be glad to answer it right now.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. I want to get the hon. gentleman's views.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My point, Mr. Speaker, is this. If these weapons are released to Canadian forces, for use by Canadian forces for the defence of Canada, they should be owned by Canada and should be used under Canadian authority exclusively.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. gentleman never expressed that view before.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I remind you of the fact that the hon. gentleman made a speech to the air force veterans association on November 6, 1959. This, too, is tremendously interesting. I have endeavoured to follow him in his peregrinations as he attempted to secure support on the part of the Canadian people who are fearful, as all people are today, of the danger and possibility of nuclear war. Let me read what he said on that occasion as his words are found at page 5 of the text of the address:
The position of a middle power, however, is different. Canada cannot, for instance, and should not, expect to be able to defend itself by possessing every kind of defence equipment.
I have studied the hon. gentleman's course as he has gone up and down the length of this country making statements that we shall welcome parliament being convened so that here we may review the situation together. Then, he goes on to say:
By maintaining and equipping police forces which would be available, with other forces, for use as the agent for carrying out an international decision.
The latter I haven't time to talk about tonight but it should be accepted, in my view, as a major part of our defence policy.
The former does not require us, I believe, to participate in any form of nuclear retaliation. That, it seems to me, can be left to the state-and there is only one on the western side

which now has nuclear strategic weapons for retaliation, the exclusive control of which it is not able or willing to share with its allies and friends.
Canada should, I think, bow out of this field of defence action while, certainly, not bowing out of her obligation to contribute to collective security.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
I welcomed that interruption a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, because it gave me the opportunity to mention the last major declaration but one made by the Leader of the Opposition. I have it before me. It is dated December 9. This is the final revised version. It reads:
Grit Leader Gives Views
Liberal Leader Lester B. Pearson-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest it was revised by the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I am going to read the entire dispatch. Speaking of revision, I am informed that the hon. gentleman is writing a revised type of biography which will give him a knowledge of revision not possessed by any other man.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How about a little government policy?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. King, as revised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the Prime Minister for the advertisement.


John George Diefenbaker: I continue:
Liberal Leader Lester B. Pearson said Monday he would not agree to arming Canadian soldiers with nuclear weapons until he knew a good deal more about their effects.
This would include their effects on the atmosphere through radioactive fallout, he told a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the National Liberal Federation's advisory council.
He also said it would be intolerable to him that Canadians should be armed with weapons under control of another country-the United States.
If Canadian troops were to have nuclear weapons, they should be under the control of a Canadian commander or under the collective control of NATO.
Asked for his view on storing of U.S. nuclear weapons in Canada, he said that if this were essential it should be done only if the Canadian government had some say in their use.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Do you object to that?


John George Diefenbaker: I have carried the house along that sinuous course taken by the hon. gentleman. He ended up at the end of the year with qualifications in almost every statement he made, instead of coming out and saying on a matter as important and as serious as this to our survival that the question ought to be discussed in a responsible manner based on the situation in which we find ourselves and also reserving for Canada that sovereignty which is the essence not only of our survival as a nation but also of our co-operation with all parts of other NATO countries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That certainly is clear.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to give information not intelligence. Defence is the primary consideration of those in the government because everything else would be in vain if our policies in regard to defence diminished in the

slightest way the chances of assuring peace, or gave to any potential aggressor the impression that our defensive powers had weakened. In other words, our policy is this, to seek every way possible, in the manner followed so brilliantly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to attain disarmament, to take off the backs not only of Canadians but of people everywhere that load of debt, that load of expenditure that is continuing year by year to mount up astronomically, and at the same time maintain our defences within the natural limitations of Canada's position. I go back to the days of Nehemiah. He followed that course; he maintained his defences and at the same time continued to press for action and agreement to attain peace.
There is one matter to which some reference has been made on other occasions. It was not made by the hon. gentleman the other day. I refer to the question of nuclear testing. The important test of the prospects for successful negotiations will be the success or failure of the resumed negotiations on nuclear testing. In the weeks between now and the middle of May there will be renewed opportunities for the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet union who have been meeting at Geneva for the past months to make further progress toward agreement on the discontinuance of nuclear tests. I have on many occasions emphasized the importance which the Canadian government attaches to the successful outcome of those negotiations. The achievement of a treaty on nuclear testing, apart from the new confidence that it would build up and bring to the later talks on general disarmament would be of value as evidence of the practicability of joint measures of inspection and control. Moreover, as my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs made clear at the recent session of the general assembly, the Canadian government hopes that there will be an end to nuclear testing.
Now, sir, I am going to review for a moment something of the stands which we have taken, without going into detail, but simply drawing the attention of the house to the first statement made in 1959 on this subject, and then following through. It was on February 20, 1959, at page 1221 of Hansard, that I made the announcement with respect to the CF-105. I pointed out the development of the aircraft had been a success, although behind the original schedule. Then, I used these words.
Unfortunately these outstanding achievements have been overtaken by events. In recent months it has come to be realized that the bomber threat against which the CF-105 was intended to provide defence has diminished, and alternative means of meeting the threat have been developed much earlier than was expected.



I960

[Stage Direction]
I set out in some detail the necessity of action being taken to assure that Canada's expenditure should return the largest possible degree of potential defence. I pointed out that there had been a change in the international outlook and that throughout the year, on more than one occasion, the minister of defence has referred in detail to that changing concept. He does not say it is taking place today but it is under way.
The change from the manned bomber to the intercontinental ballistic missile and other tactical weapons is accelerating. There were many who thought that he was unjustified in this regard. I mentioned the other day the speech made by Mr. Khrushchev and I am going to refer to his exact words on this subject for these words bear out the intelligence that was available to the Canadian government that there was a change taking place and that the U.S.S.R. was reducing the number of manned bombers and more and more directing its attention to intercontinental and other missiles. I am referring now to a verbatim report of his speech. Mr. Khrushchev said:
Our state has at its disposal powerful rocket equipment. The military air force and navy have lost their previous importance in view of the modern development of military equipment. This type of armament is not being reduced but replaced. Almost the entire military air force is being replaced by rocket equipment. We have by now sharply cut, and it seems will continue sharply to cut and even discontinue the manufacture of bombers and other obsolete equipment. In the navy, the submarine fleet assumes great importance, while surface ships can no longer play the part they once did. In our country the armed forces have been to a considerable extent transferred to rocket and nuclear arms. These arms are being perfected and will continue to be perfected until they are banned.
There is no doubt whatsoever that we realized the effect of the decision which we had to make in February of 1959 but, having regard to the knowledge we had, in all honour we could take no other. We were criticized severely for the stand we took at that time in respect of the CF-105. In the light of events that have taken place since, that decision was a proper decision. It was not based, as one weekly magazine recently said, on any direction on the part of the Prime Minister, and so there will be no mistake about it let me say that it was Time magazine. That decision was based on the unified agreement of the cabinet as a whole arrived at as a result of representations from those who had some knowledge of what was going on in the U.S.S.R. I emphasize that fact. It was a decision that all of us would have been pleased not to make. We would have been pleased if we
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker could have done otherwise and still be consistent with our responsibility, our realization of the situation and our determination that whatever stand we would take with regard to the matter would be dictated solely by Canada's survival from the point of view of defence.
Somebody today made reference to a statement made by the President of the United States. The fact is that the quotation which he placed before the minister did not reveal the whole story. As I understood his question, he asked whether or not the president had stated in his state of the union message that for the time being the manned bomber is the major threat. But he failed to point out that the president went on to say, as I said on February 20 last, and I emphasize this:
The substantial progress being made in ballistic missile technology is rapidly shifting the main threat from manned bombers to missiles.
When the hon. member for Trinity, (Mr. Hellyer) asked his question a while ago he failed to point out the fact that the president had made it perfectly clear that missile technology is rapidly shifting the main threat.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -my point was that if the president had made it so clear and the Prime Minister had made it so clear I could not understand the government going ahead with the Bomarc installations.


An hon. Member:: You would not understand anything.


John George Diefenbaker: You know, Mr. Speaker, after having heard the hon. gentleman utter those words from Olympus with regard to the F-104G, "no ruddy good", I can understand why he talks the way he does now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A great way to deal with a serious question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A very serious subject
seriously dealt with.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. members talk of
seriousness. The Leader of the Opposition talks of seriousness. I have the record to show the sinuous course that he took for political purposes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Praise from the master.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, self-identification on the hon. gentleman's part is not necessary. What changes have been made to meet the new weapon developments and the new concepts in order to adapt Canada to the new conditions? We had the establishment of the North American air defence command and the cancellation of the Arrow
142	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenhaker program with regard to which I say that Khrushchev's speech represents confirmation of the validity of the stand that we took, a stand that was bitterly opposed and criticized. Yet in the light of succeeding events I can say today that that decision, on the basis of the knowledge which we had then as now, was the right and only proper one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would permit a question on that point because his argument is a very interesting one. Could he relate that argument to the statement made at the time by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) that had they been able to find a market in the United States for the Arrow they would have continued its manufacture?


John George Diefenbaker: I think the hon. gentleman, as usual, has just produced one part of a statement and not the rest. Until I see the entire statement of the Minister of National Defence I will take him to be right, as he was in this matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is the trouble with your speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have it for the Prime Minister in a minute.


John George Diefenbaker: We decided to equip the Canadian army with surface to surface missiles. We extended the destroyer escort program. We decided on the equipment of the NATO air division with a new strike reconnaissance aircraft, the F-104G, and on the basis of changing conditions we brought about a new role for the army in survival operations.
I am not going to tell hon. members that I am satisfied with everything pertaining to defence. Far from it. This is a tremendous problem. When the hon. gentleman was a minister it is one that must have impressed him and those associated with him in the cabinet to which he then belonged, the endeavour to arrive at the best conclusion with whatever information is available. He will tell you on the basis of his experience that you have to rely on the views of those who are authorities in the field of defence, on such intelligence as you have and on reports which other countries have on the subject of the technological changes that are taking place so rapidly.
If mistakes had not been made we could have saved billions of dollars since 1945. I am not criticizing the former government for the course it took. It took the best course that it could take; it took the course that you could expect to be taken by loyal, honest and patriotic Canadians. We are all in that position in the House of Commons, whether or not we disagree in administration and the


like. They did the best they could. They proceeded on the basis not of experiment but of the experience of their officials-not the domination of their officials-and the knowledge they had. I am not going to say to you that, in the light of experience, there are some things which are done that, if you had the same backsight-and I do not like that expression

as you have foresight-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The same vision.


John George Diefenbaker: -or the reverse, I should say, things would have been different. However, I say this to you. When criticism is made based not on the facts but sheerly on the imaginative processes of political aspirations, then a halt should be called when things are as serious as they are. Because of that situation, if the hon. gentlemen have better answers than they have given in the last few months, and if their thinking has now coalesced to a point where they will be able to point out what changes should be made which would secure Canada a larger degree of defence with less expenditure, as was suggested in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to the veterans' meeting in Montreal, then we are going to give them an opportunity to do so.
Much has been said with regard to the setting up of a royal commission on defence. I think the hon. gentleman advocated that course in Montreal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No; I said a defence committee, in an appropriate form to be determined by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I had read in the
speech "royal commission".


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is one way in which
it can be done, I said.


John George Diefenbaker: I never trust my memory. I go to the record:
Therefore, it seems to me absolutely essential, a matter of urgent necessity, that through a select parliamentary committee or a royal commission on defence-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Note the word "or".


John George Diefenbaker: The quotation continues:
-we should now make the most thorough and complete re-examination of our whole defence policy to bring it into line with new conditions.
This matter has been discussed previously in parliament. The question of setting up a select committee received the attention of parliament on more than one occasion. In 1951, in the month of November, a motion was made by Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent to set up a committee. It is to be found in Hansard of November 13, 1951 at page 954.

In the course of his remarks Mr. St. Laurent made this statement, and I think it sums up the situation constitutionally:
But it would be wrong to think that this committee is being set up to replace the government or to replace parliament in determining the policies of this country in the international atmosphere that exists at the present time.
Then he also discussed on more than one occasion the question of parliamentary responsibility and the necessity that we in Canada should realize that committees are different here from those in the United States. On the occasion to which I refer he said this:
It is not being set up for the purpose for which committees were demanded in previous years, that is to have the committee act as committees do under the United States constitution in preparing estimates, determining what the budgets will be and how the moneys provided in those budgets will be expended. Those are matters to be recommended to the house by the government, and to be determined by parliament itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the
Prime Minister would give the reference. I think he failed to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; Hansard of November 13, 1951, pages 971 and 972.
I remember well sitting on the other side of the house in the days of war when I was a member of the committee on war expenditures. One night I raised a question, and in the days of war we were extremely careful not to raise anything that in any way might cause doubts on the unity of the country as a whole or might undermine confidence anywhere in our defence policies. I pointed out that in so far as the air force training schemes were concerned-the elementary flying training schools-large profits were being made by private people operating them. I remember Hon. Mr. Power rising and saying there was no foundation for that statement, and he did so with power and effect. I knew the statement was correct. I said, "If the minister finds that I am right, will he change the situation?" I shall always remember the next morning when he called me on the telephone and said, "You were right and it will be stopped". That man is today in the Senate. In the days of war-it is not too late to pay a tribute to him; and in doing so I am not taking away any honour from the other ministers of defence-he made a tremendous contribution to Canada.
He spoke in the House of Commons on February 6, 1951. He spoke on the setting up of a committee on defence expenditures and as reported at page 145 of Hansard of that year he said this:
-it seems to me that since we are embarking upon a program calling for the expenditure of $5 billion, this House of Commons of Canada has a duty to scrutinize and supervise that expenditure.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker It is extremely difficult for that scrutiny and supervision to be carried out in a house composed of as many members as we have here; and I believe that if a committee on expenditure were set up, with an appropriate reference which could be agreed upon by the leaders of the government and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), much good would result.
I think those were appropriate words. This matter has been fully discussed. I point out the tremendous responsibility resting on those who must discharge the duties of government, in determining what course to follow, not to be dominated by the military-the civil authority must be supreme-but to secure from the military and other qualified persons, both within our own country and outside of it, the best information we can obtain and then, having secured that information to act, whatever the detrimental political consequences may be.
I am therefore going to advise the house that it is my intention to move for the setting up of a special select committee on defence expenditures. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that it should be a small committee. I am prepared to accept, as is the government, the views of hon. members in this house as to the numbers in that committee, to the end that there will be available a body which will determine the course it will take as to what meetings shall or shall not be open or closed. But in the light of all the circumstances, it will review the expenditures to the end that the ability, the training and the capacity of members in every part of the house may be used for the purpose of examining this most important problem.
There has been some criticism that some of these things have not been mentioned in the speech from the throne. I would remind hon. members once more, as I did the other evening, that that has been the course followed throughout the years under our system of government. Lest someone immediately rise and say, "Well, there is no reference to that in the speech from the throne", I would point out that that, too, was the situation in 1951, when the speech from the throne revealed no suggestion of that action being taken. The speech from the throne is simply a general outline and as different from the president's state of the nation speech as is daylight from darkness.
I have now placed before the house the situation in general regarding our attitude to the subject of defence, and I have spoken with that sense of responsibility as to the awfulness of the mistake that can bo made if we in the free world are unable to anticipate the course which will be taken at any time by Mr. Khrushchev.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am out of order, but may I interrupt the Prime Minister at this time in order to tell the Prime Minister how much we on this side of the house appreciate the announcement he has made, and may I assure him of our wholehearted desire to co-operate in this proposed committee on defence expenditures, so that we may assist in working out a national policy on defence on the broadest possible basis.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest to the hon. member that he did not follow that course in the latter part of his statement. While I appreciate the spirit of co-operation, may I point out the words of qualification which the former prime minister, the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, gave as to the course that such a committee can take under our form of government.
I now have an announcement to make, and I have been requested to make it. It is one which I do with great regret because of the contribution this man has made to Canada. He will remain in his present position for some months in a desire to bring about a continuance and completion of the negotiations which are taking place in the military field, to which reference was made earlier today by the Minister of National Defence.
General Charles Foulkes, chairman of the chiefs of staff, has requested authority to re-linguish his appointment as chairman, chiefs of staff, and proceed on leave pending retirement. The government has reluctantly accepted his request. The retirement of this officer will bring to an end 35 years of service in the Canadian armed forces, including over 14 years as chief of staff.
I am not going to outline at this time the successive appointments that he held throughout the years, and the contributions he made in days of war which have been recognized in one of the recent war books. He became chief of the general staff on August 21, 1945, and it was due to his able planning that the difficult task of demobilization and reconversion of the army to post-war organization was carried out. On February 21, 1951 he became first chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, responsible for the co-ordinating of all interservice operational and strategic matters. The military history of NATO would not be complete without mention of General Foulkes, who has served that organization as Canadian military representative from its earliest period and has the longest continuous service as a chief of staff with NATO.
On behalf of the members of the government and myself, may I say that General Foulkes combines the brilliant organization and meticulous attention to detail required of


a staff officer, with high qualities of leadership and drive, and his retirement will bring to an end a lifetime of continuous service to Canada. As a result of his service and experience, his advice has been invaluable to successive governments. I am sure his retirement will be regretted, not only by hon. members of this house but by Canadians generally.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with one or two other matters. I am not going to deal with defence production today. I will do so at an early date, however, because the hon. Leader of the Opposition has made some statements in regard to views expressed on the subject of defence production. In the course of one of his T.V. appearances, at which he is, if I may be allowed to say so as an amateur, becoming quite professional, he alleged that I had been incorrect in a statement which I had made relative to Canada securing a larger share last year in defence production than had been the case for many years. I am not going to deal with that in detail on this occasion excepting to say that when he spoke on the C.B.C. on that occasion he alleged that I had spoken of U.S. defence expenditure, when he knew, if he had read my remarks, examined the script and heard the words I delivered, that I referred to joint production sharing for defence. He knew that, yet he left the impression with the people of Canada in that speech that I had referred to defence expenditure.
But he knew better, because on the occasion of that well known appearance on November 10 on T.V. "Press Conference", one of the
questioners asked:
Well, that is exactly what the Prime Minister has said. He said on November 3 over the C.B.C., and 1 quote from his words, "I have said on more than one occasion that if we co-operate in defence there should be joint production sharing for defence."
However, when the hon. gentleman chose to speak and to charge me with distortion and worse, it was he who was doing that which he alleged of me, because I referred to joint production sharing and he dealt in his speech with defence expenditures. He surprised me on that occasion, because I have a tremendous respect for the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, they are making him over for the worse. He went on to say that many of the statements I made could be described as examples of distortion, misrepresentation and inaccuracy. And then he went on to say:
The Prime Minister told an audience in Toronto the other night, and he repeated it on television, that under his government-
Now listen to this. These are his words:
-United States defence orders, contracts and sub-contracts placed in Canada in the first nine months of this year had amounted to $75 million.

I never made that statement at any time, indirectly or at all. He had the script before him. I spoke of joint production sharing. Yet the Leader of the Opposition who had the record, if not deliberately then wantonly changed what I had said from joint production sharing to United States defence orders, and made those statements which in the light of retrospect I am sure he would not have made again had he realized what he was doing. I am going to go into particulars of that, line, paragraph and chapter, and I repeat what I said then, that in the year 1959 as a result of the actions of this government and the contribution made by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) we have been able to increase our share of this defence production sharing with the United States to a figure which has not been equalled in any year since 1953. This is the record.
And then the hon. gentleman went on to talk about $300 million worth of expenditure and the like. Those were not defence sharing expenditures; they had to do with defence expenditures in Canada by the United States. The figures that I gave for the period in question-1953 to 1959

tell their story. I find the record to be as follows: in 1959, $75,600,000; in 1958, $26,824,000-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister what those figures actually cover?


John George Diefenbaker: They cover what is included in joint defence sharing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What is that?


John George Diefenbaker: Quite a different thing from what the hon. gentleman is endeavouring to get across to the people of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What does it mean?


John George Diefenbaker: Orders from the United States shared by Canada in connection with defence-in 1957,	$55,236,000; in 1956,
$16,313,000; in 1955, $27,731,000; in 1954, $20,165,000 and in 1953, $49,870,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister to clear this point up? Do those figures include both contracts and subcontracts?


John George Diefenbaker: They include what is shared in Canada by Canadians as a result of defence sharing. Let there be no mistake about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the Prime Minister inform us from what source these figures are derived? Have they been published before?


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the hon. gentleman does not suggest that the Leader of the Opposition made his statement out of the consideration of a fiction.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking about the Prime Minister's figures.


John George Diefenbaker: These are statements of the Department of Defence Production.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have they been published?


John George Diefenbaker: They are available in the books of the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What book?


An hon. Member:: Do your homework outside.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order. It has always been the practice in this house since I first started observing it 22 years ago that when statistics are cited as public statistics the source of them is always given; the page reference, the date and all other particulars in relation to them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking the Prime Minister about these figures because I am, frankly, confused. I have never heard this phrase "joint production" before, and I should like to know where those figures appeared.


Mr. Speaker:: With the permission of the hon. member who has the floor, that question may be asked, and it has been asked, but unless an official document is being read the house does not have the right to ask that it be produced.


An hon. Member:: We are not asking for that.


John George Diefenbaker: Those are the facts. When the Leader of the Opposition-and I say this not in criticism-I am not going to answer him in kind-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Prime ministerial infallibility.


John George Diefenbaker: As far as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is concerned I am not talking about him. He is not in this category. I am speaking about the Leader of the Opposition. When he made this statement in which he alleged there had been misrepresentation on my part, all I can say is that I will not answer him in kind. This is the record. These are the facts. He dealt with the whole field of defence expenditure. I dealt with the field of production sharing for defence, and I repeat what I said-that as a result of the actions of the minister and of the Minister of Defence Production we have been able to secure a new relationship with the United States, and there is a degree of co-operation in this regard which has been most beneficial to Canada in 1959 and which will, I know, continue in the years ahead.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the Prime
Minister will tell us in what publication these figures will be found?


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly. By looking up the records.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What records?


John George Diefenbaker: The records of the Department of Defence Production. I have already given that information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which publication of the department?


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member has the floor he has not the right to press his questions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it not customary, when figures have been cited by the Prime Minister, to identify the source?


John George Diefenbaker: Where did you get them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was not speaking in the House of Commons, and I got my own figures.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to say it is not customary for a speaker using figures to give the source-


John George Diefenbaker: I have nothing more to add, excepting this: that last remark of the Leader of the Opposition reveals the situation-"I did not use those figures in the House of Commons".


Lester Bowles Pearson: I used them and I identified them, which is more than you did.


John George Diefenbaker: They were given on the national television and they bore no resemblance to the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Prime ministerial infallibility. This is the truth.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry to have taken the length of time I have but I felt it necessary to deal with the question of defence which was dealt with at such length by the Leader of the Opposition.
I am going to deal now as briefly as I can with the general state of the economy. I propose to do so because last year the hon. member for Essex East who is a skilled parliamentarian indicated that I had failed to refer to Canada's financial situation in the throne speech debate. I shall leave the various specialized fields of governmental activity to the respective ministers who will report on the situation in the fields under their purview and I shall leave it to the Minister of Finance to make a detailed statement concerning the monetary and fiscal front. I am simply going to refer for a few moments to the forebodings and predictions of catastrophe and calamity, the chronic wails and

the repetitious use of words such as "fumbling" that were indulged in by the Leader of the Opposition.
This word "fumbling" is an interesting one and apparently it holds a peculiar fascination for that hon. gentleman. He even used it with reference to the United Kingdom, France and the United States. They fumbled, too, he said, as reported in a speech in Geneva Park on August 10, 1958. Let me put it in the kindliest way: his overuse of the word seems to indicate a marked tendency to a jaundiced view of things.
Hon. members will have noticed that he stayed away from the specialized field of prophecy when he spoke the other day. There was a reference to boom in his speech. He stayed away from a discussion of what happened in 1959 as compared to what he predicted would happen. Look at the record. His prophecies of January, 1959, viewed in the light of retrospect become a calendar of confusion in which he apparently took his counsel from frustration.
"Disaster, financial mess." You have heard those expressions from the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if you read the press. His 1958 remarks on the throne speech in the house contained dark forebodings couched in terms such as these:-"We are still in the recession." I refer you to pages 25 and 30 of Hansard of that year. Other expressions in which he freely indulged were: "Inflation therefore remains a menace in the midst of recession, that is the dilemma." In 1959 he depicted our future in sombre tones.
It Is the most difficult and dangerous situation that has confronted this country in many years. The economic picture as it faces us in this country today is a picture of recession and unemployment, a picture of inflation and rising prices, becoming more and more dangerous, the government placing an inflationary time bomb in the midst of our national economy.
Last year the hon. gentleman gave expression to this thought:
We may well reach a very dangerous situation, a crisis of confidence, rising prices, rising costs, rising deficits and rising unemployment.
That is the general picture he placed before the people. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) as reported at page 37 of Hansard of January 19, 1959, directed a question to the Leader of the Opposition in these words:
Why do you not offer something constructive, then?
The hon. gentleman replied:
That is your job.
I am not going to engage in a lengthy recital of the statements that were made although I have them here in detail. The Leader of the Opposition last year, as was the case in 1957 and 1958, viewed Canada's



[Stage Direction]
economic condition as a mess with trade gone and markets disappearing and inflation stealing from the average Canadian as never before. It was indeed a frightful picture he presented. He did not say things like that the other day. He looked over at me and said-using words to this effect-"I suppose that the Prime Minister has some statements that he will quote." On January 19, 1959, I said, as reported at page 65 of Hansard of that date:
What we need today Is not the kind of picayune attitude exhibited by the Leader of the Opposition but more hope and less fear ... We on this side of the house have confidence in Canada her present and her future.
What has happened in the intervening time? I am simply going to place before the house in very few words an outline of the economic outlook of our country. Notwithstanding the failure of efforts of hon. members opposite as prophets a year ago, they have recently been expressing concern about the economic outlook for 1960. No one in the world can but have concern today. One has only to read Mr. Khrushchev's speech of a few days ago to realize that he believes the communist system will ultimately destroy capitalism, that the communist system will take over because it can do a better job economically. Over and over again when he spoke in the United States Mr. Khrushchev told the industrialists of that country that when he said, "I will bury you." What he meant was not burial with bombs but with improved economic prospects under a communist regime.
A realistic appraisal of Canada's economic prospects for 1960 requires that all these problems be seen in their proper perspective. I have examined the situation in particular this year to ascertain what has transpired since the house met in January of 1959. Canada's gross national product in 1959 is estimated at about $34,750 million, an increase of 7 per cent as forecast in the budget by the Minister of Finance. Since the 1959 over-all price level was on the average about 2 per cent above that of 1958, the gain in national output in volume terms was about 5 per cent. Both in value and dollar terms, Canada produced more goods and services in 1959 than in any other year in history.
During the first 11 months of 1959 the number of persons with jobs averaged 5,880,000 representing 2.7 per cent more than the 5,726,000 average for the corresponding period of 1958. Unemployment throughout the year was lower than in 1958.
Much was said by hon. gentlemen opposite about the danger of exports and how we were losing our trade. Canada's exports of goods in 1959 exceeded the $5 billion mark for
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker the first time. This record high level of commodity exports is about 5 per cent above both the 1958 level and the previous peak of 1957, and that in a world where trading blocs are being established as the Leader of the Opposition said and at a time when Mr. Khrushchev pictures an all-out communist world economic offensive. This is a record not unworthy of Canada.
Capital spending by business after a two year decline commenced to turn upward in the second quarter of 1959 and has been rising ever since.
They spoke of runaway inflation. The consumer price index averaged 1.1 per cent higher in 1959 than in 1958. There is a renewed confidence in government securities, the particulars of which I could give but which will be given by the Minister of Finance.
The government's general financial policy has been criticized by the hon. gentleman. He talks of the largest cash deficit in history, the largest addition ever made to the national debt. These statements on his part are not supported by the facts. Government expenditures in relation to the gross national product in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960 are estimated at about 16 per cent of the gross national product. That is about approximately the same proportion as total federal government expenditures to gross national product for the three years from 1955 to 1957. On the basis of net national debt in relation to gross national product, the relation of the net national debt per capita, in both of these there is a clear expression of a strong financial position in Canada.
We made expenditures. We expanded the housing developments of Canada; we extended social security; we made more available to the provinces than ever before, and more public works, as the Minister of Finance says, than ever before.
George Clyde Nowlan: Twice as much for coal.


John George Diefenbaker: We did these things in order to meet a situation where Canada found itself in a recession, a recession that was joined in by the United States. We fought the recession; we met the situation. As a result of our action many extensions in social security payments were made. It is all very well for the opposition to say that these things we did while in office. Well, they made provision for hospital insurance, but we had to put up the money, $160 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The taxpayers put up the money.
148	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: We did not increase the amount of family allowance payments but the number of families increased the annual amount by $98 million. In fact, there was about half a billion dollars increase in the expenditures in social security; old age pensions and the federal government's share of assistance to the blind, disabled and unemployed increased by $38 million. Payments of pensions and other benefits to war veter -[DOT] ans increased by $34 million. I could go on. There was extra assistance provided to the provinces. All of these things we have to do, many of these things we have to do; many of them were necessary to meet the recession situation.
I ask whoever follows me to tell me this: Is it wasteful to spend more money to fight recession? Is it wasteful to bring social assistance to additional Canadians? Is it wasteful to provide more funds for the provinces and municipalities? Is it wasteful to spend money to further national development? These are some of the kinds of expenditures that were made, all of which were necessary to meet a situation. In so far as the national development plan is concerned, it has brought about new vistas of development in this country. Indeed, on the occasion of the Liberal meeting in the month of December the Hon. George Prudham paid tribute to what had been done by this government in northern development, a development that should have taken place years before as I see it and as this government sees it.
Now, then, last year-and I notice the Leader of the Opposition did not get around to this part of the speech this year-the chief lieutenant of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Essex East, quoted what the bank presidents had to say. I would like to hear them quote today the views expressed across Canada by the very presidents and general managers to whom the hon. member for Essex East referred last year as being critical of this government and of Canadian development and of Canada's economic future. Let me quote from the annual report of the president and general manager of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. This gentleman was mentioned last year at page 185 of Hansard as one of those who was critical of the government; he was mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East. Mr. Ashforth said:
Let us now turn to the Canadian scene.
Canadians in 1959 produced more, imported more, exported more, earned more, spent more and saved more than any previous year.
Last year this gentleman was taken as a witness. This year he was not quoted by the opposition. He went on:
A year ago Canada was labouring in the early stages of recovery from recession. Today, we are


in the midst of a period of broad expansion which is carrying our national output and our standard of living to new heights.
You understand why he was not quoted. What about the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce? What did he have to say in his report:
We may now anticipate in this year a greater production of goods and services than we have experienced in any peacetime period.
Those are the words of Neil McKinnon. He referred to the question of unemployment as it was in September and said:
In September, less than 3 per cent of the labour force was unemployed which, allowing for temporary unemployed and the unemployable, is considered to be full employment.
Then, we have the president of the Imperial Bank, Mr. Proctor. This is his report:
The vigour of the business recovery which was already evident at our last annual meeting, is the most important development of the past year. Last July industrial production stood 8.5 per cent above the recession low of August, 1958, which carried us 2.3 per cent above the peak level of the 1956-57 boom. The rise of 7.5 per cent in gross national product over the last year was almost all solid gain as prices rose only 2 per cent. Employment is now running higher than ever before and unemployment has fallen to much lower levels. Canadians are better off than they have ever been.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was that 1956-57 boom to which the minister referred the recession the government inherited from the Liberals?


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact I
could answer that with some of the documents that I have if I could locate them. I can't always find them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are hidden again, are they?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the only
time that anything has ever been hidden was the report that was revealed on January 14, 1958, in this house, to the eternal discredit of those who sit opposite.
Mr. Proctor went on to say this, because I believe in calling as witnesses those who the members in the opposition said last year-and I refer particularly to the hon. member for Essex East-were men whose views could be depended upon.
Mr. Proctor went on to say:
That the decline of 1957-1958 was not more drastic is quite remarkable as deflationary forces then at work in the economy were powerful indeed. Inventory investment fell from a 1956 peak rate of $1,100 million a year to a disinvestment rate of $300 million a year at the low point of 1958, a net swing of nearly $2 billion. From peak to trough the change in the annual rate of spending on machinery and equipment amounted to



[Stage Direction]
$800 million and on non-residential construction to $500 million. Yet despite these severe cuts in market demand, gross national expenditure merely paused in its upward march.
The forces sustaining the economy and so accounting for this remarkable behaviour-
I underline these words.
-of the national output in the face of the decline in investment standing are readily identified.
I could go on and take other bank reports one after the other but I will end by quoting from the Financial Post of November 28, 1959 an article headed "They've No Doubts About 1960":
To a sizable cross-section of top Canadian executives, the prospects for business next year look bright indeed. Most expect their companies will chalk up very substantial sales gains in 1960. In a majority of firms, profits will rise appreciably.
It goes on to set out in detail what has been done in this connection. There is the picture, Mr. Speaker, the picture described in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition in the words set forth there. We have had economic difficulties. In the United States they find that bond prices have fallen to unheard of levels over a period of 25 to 30 years. Interest rates are the highest in 25 years and more. That is the situation in the United States.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, is it the responsibility of the government of Canada that this condition of affairs has arisen? The same situation prevails with respect to interest rates in European countries. Yet the opposition continually harps on these things and endeavours to lead the Canadian people to believe that we are responsible for what has happened with respect to interest rates and the like which are the subject of their criticism. With maximum exports abroad, with the gross national product at the level of which I have spoken, for those things they say that providence is responsible. As the Minister of Finance has said, the level of interest rates is in part due to the increasing demand for investment money in our country.
We are going to meet and face up to these problems which are placed before the people of Canada as our responsibility. When I look at the situation in which we found ourselves after we came into power, having to meet a recession with respect to which the last government concealed the report on Canada's economic outlook-that still seres the heart of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate

with that report hidden from the Canadian people and no action taken on it by the government of the day, with the warnings in that report not having been heeded, none the less we faced up to the situation.
John Whitney Pickersgill: You did not discover it for six months.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: What is the babbling interruption?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will tell the Prime Minister what it is. The Prime Minister was in office for six months and did not even find out what was happening.


Michael Starr: It was too well hidden.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the hon. member say that I did not find the report for six months?


John Whitney Pickersgill: You did not find out what was happening for six months.


John George Diefenbaker: He is correct that the report was well hidden.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You did not find out what was happening for six months.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, there is the record. There are other matters that will be dealt with that will be equally unpalatable to the opposition. I now read the motion of non-confidence:
This house is of the opinion that the failure of the government to develop and enunciate clear and consistent policies-
I have mentioned some of the clear and consistent policies of the. opposition with respect to defence and some of the clear and consistent prophecies made last year by the opposition.
-or to provide full and accurate information-
Whatever support there is for that I do not know. We have endeavoured to supply accurate information. I have taken today the information supplied by the bank presidents who last year were called as witnesses for the opposition.
-is a major cause of the confusion and uncertainty that prevails about national defence-
Confusion? Uncertainty? Read Hansard, Mr. Speaker. Read the course taken by the Leader of the Opposition on the question of defence. You cannot make sense out of it. It has no directness. It lacks cohesiveness. One statement jars with another, and that is one of the major problems we face.
-public finance, agriculture, markets, employment and in other important areas of governmental responsibility.
The ministers responsible for the particular fields in question will deal therewith. Under all the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that even the Leader of the Opposition had to admit there was a boom although he did so with difficulty in view of his prophecies of dire disaster last year and the year before-


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister to point out where I admitted in my speech that there was a boom?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I cannot find it now.

The Address-Mr. Argue


Lester Bowles Pearson: You certainly cannot; it is not there.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the hon. gentleman never use the word "boom"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I used it but I did not use it in that sense.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has stated that I said in my speech that there was a boom. This is a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the hon.
gentleman did not use the word "boom" in the way I took it but if this is their idea of a boom then I ask the house to interpret "boom" the way the average Canadian does today and to vote confidence in the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, in recent hours we have seen an exhibition by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that I suggest does not inspire the confidence and respect of the institution of parliament in him nor will that kind of exhibition likely inspire confidence in him on the part of the Canadian people.
Before going on with the remarks I have to make I should like to compliment the mover of the address (Mr. Morissette). I was extremely sorry that a longstanding engagement, for the first time since I have been a member of the house, made it impossible for me to be here to listen to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. However, from reading the speech, from reports from my colleagues and reports in the press, I know he made an excellent contribution. I am certain that he has more valuable work to perform in the days ahead. I want to agree with all those who have referred to the ability, grace and charm of the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman). We hope she will do the house the honour in the future of rewarding us with many more excellent contributions to our debates.
In his speech the other night the Prime Minister made a number of important announcements and in his speech this afternoon he made the important announcement that a defence committee would be set up.
In reading over the speech from the throne, we find it to be a relatively barren and empty document. I want to associate myself and the C.C.F. party with the remarks made by the Prime Minister about our Governor General and the excellent and competent manner in which he is performing his duties. However, in the speech from the throne which he provided for the Governor General to

read I think the Prime Minister left him very little ammunition because he retained most of it for himself to be used on Monday evening and again today.
We are facing at this time, in my opinion and that of the C.C.F. group, a very great challenge. Our economic system-yes, our way of life-is being challenged today as it has never been challenged before. In the statement of the Prime Minister or in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) I do not find anything which would indicate to me that they realize the great gravity of this challenge.
The other night the Prime Minister made the announcement that a Hoover commission would be set up to inquire into government efficiency. We shall support any step that is likely to improve the efficiency of government. However, it seems to me that it would be a mistake for the government to spend too much of its energy in endeavouring to ferret out all possible inefficiency and waste and not spend sufficient energy in laying plans for a great economic expansion and development in this country. I think one can be overly concerned with a reduction of expenditures in a period of time when increased expenditures and development are necessary.
We are to have a Hoover commission apparently to look into the efficiency of the civil service. I believe the Canadian civil service is efficient. I believe the government soon-immediately, now-should announce increases in civil service salaries. The civil servants of this country should not be made the victims of the government's failure to halt inflation and to prevent the cost of living from rising. As our production increases, I feel the civil servants have a just claim for a fair share of that increased production. 1 think it would increase the efficiency and the morale of the civil service if the government now dealt with their well founded submissions for certain increases in salary.
I do not believe the people of Canada or of the North American continent are prepared to accept the position of second-class world citizens. As we look forward to celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of this country we should be taking every feasible step to make certain that the wealth and the production of this nation expands at the greatest possible rate and that such production is made available to Canadians and is distributed on an equitable basis.
I never thought that I would see the time in this house when the statements of the premier of the Soviet union would be quoted by the Prime Minister of the country in support of action taken by the government. People are coming to realize that statements

made by that gentleman and statistics emanating from that country are such that they should be given our greatest consideration.
I think there are many aspects of our capitalistic system that can be questioned. Unless some of the difficulties and some of the crises that face our nation are overcome we may well become second-class world citizens in this decade. Soviet production is going ahead at an exceedingly rapid rate. It is forecast that by 1965 its industrial production will overtake that of the United States.
The joint Canadian-United States committee recently issued a publication entitled "The Growth of Soviet Economic Power" in which it is pointed out that the industrial capacity of the Soviet union is increasing at the rate of 9.5 per cent per year as compared to an increase of 3.5 per cent in the United States. Although per capita consumption in the Soviet union is low, it is expanding at the rate of 5 per cent per year as compared to a rate of increase of only 3 per cent in Canada and the United States.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Could he identify the source of the information? I was not quite sure I heard it correctly.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is a book entitled "The Growth of Soviet Economic Power" put out by the well known joint Canadian-United States committee, an official committee between Canada and the United States. I do not think anybody is going to question the validity of the members of that committee or their importance or the statistics that I have just quoted from their publication.
In my opinion the first thing that our nation needs to look to is this tremendous lag in production. Production may have gone up some, as it has, this year. It may level off next year. There may be a recession in the following year, a matter about which I shall have something more to say.
The second reason we need to look at this economic system is that we have been wasting our resources. We have unemployed resources in the maritime provinces. We have unemployed resources in the agricultural industry. Agricultural producers are facing grave marketing difficulties. The government's program of deficiency payments is not working out. The agricultural industry is not receiving its fair share of the income of this country. Its production is not as efficient as it could be and the best possible use of that production is not being made.
The Address-Mr. Argue
Another way in which our economy is wasteful is in the field of defence expenditures. There is a private member's resolution on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), which sets forth the opinion and the policy of the C.C.F. with regard to defence and defence questions. I am not going to read that resolution at this time because my time is limited and time does not permit. We believe that there is room for a substantial reduction in the defence expenditures of this country. We think that not only did the previous administration spend money on defence that was proven a waste, but that this government is doing the very same thing. For example, we think that the Bomarc will be proven to be a waste of money and an inconsequential addition to Canada's defence.
We welcome the setting up of a defence committee. Not only do we welcome the setting up of such a committee, but we suggest to the Prime Minister that a member of the opposition might be made the chairman of that committee, and that the committee should not only examine defence expenditures but should look at defence policy and arrive at the best possible defence policy for the days ahead. There is not much use in inquiring into the mistakes which have been made in the past if the committee is not allowed to set up its own view as to what policy should be followed in the defence matters of this country.
Another way our economy is falling, another area in which we are losing production, is because of unemployment. Recent statistics show that there are 370,000 unplaced applicants for work in this country, or 5.9 per cent of the labour force. Surely this is an indictment of this system when almost 6 per cent of our man power and woman power-and this is a growing percentage-should be unemployed and should not have the opportunity to perform useful work.
We are experiencing other difficulties. We are experiencing a trade crisis. The government can talk of increased exports, but we are all aware that Canada's export markets are in jeopardy, that many of Canada's industries are finding difficulty in obtaining markets.
I would like to refer, Mr. Speaker, to the report of the Canadian-United States joint committee on the growth of Soviet economic power, in which it points out that Canadian exports of lumber to the United Kingdom have declined substantially since 1954-55 from over $70 million at that time to not much over $40 million in 1958, while Russian exports have continued to rise more or less

The Address-Mr. Argue steadily. In fact, since 1956 United Kingdom imports of lumber from Russia have consistently exceeded those from Canada.
As far as wheat is concerned, the Soviet union has now become the world's third largest wheat exporting nation and it is forecast that Russia will be able by 1965 to export from five million to ten million tons of wheat, which will endanger Canada's position as the second largest wheat exporting nation. This is an economic offensive; this is an economic threat to the welfare of Canada, and something about which the government needs to develop a new and farsighted trade policy.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, may I-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have only forty minutes, and questions can be put to me after I conclude, at which time I shall be very pleased to answer all of the questions of the hon. gentleman.
This country is facing a trade crisis in another way. Our deficit of international payments is rapidly growing higher. It is estimated that during this year the deficit may exceed more than $1,500 million. This means that to a larger and larger extent the control and ownership of the resources of this country are being transferred to foreign citizens. It means that our country's future is being mortgaged. Therefore we will have to repay these obligations at some future date, and in the meantime a very large part of the productive wealth of this country will accrue to people outside our nation. We heard so much from hon. gentlemen opposite over the years about the domination of Canadian industry by United States capital and about the control of Canadian industry by that capital. We had expected that the government would do something that would at least reduce the rate of transfer of control of Canadian industry to outside capital. That has not happened. Instead of a reduction, the rate has accelerated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a very eminent Canadian, Mr. J. E. Coyne, the governor of the Bank of Canada, made a very interesting speech in Winnipeg on January 18. The governor of the Bank of Canada is reported by the Winnipeg papers as having stated the following:
Canadian savings and the machinery of the Canadian capital market now can supply all of the capital funds needed by governments and business combined to carry on a capital expenditure program as large in total as is sound and healthy for the Canadian economy to sustain in any one year-


In other words, according to the governor of the Bank of Canada the $1500 million international deficit that this country has incurred is unsound and unhealthy. I think that this is a tremendous indictment of this government by the governor of the Bank of Canada. Action by the government is necessary to reduce Canada's dependence on outside capital and to increase the ownership of Canadian resources by Canadians.
The Prime Minister talked about inflation. He seemed to be quite happy that, in his view, inflation was not serious. But I would suggest that a 2 per cent annual increase in the price level is serious. Over a lifetime it eats away a very substantial part of the savings of the Canadian people. Inflation is a robber of the earnings of low income groups, and is a very great danger which faces this country today. We have a lag in production. We are wasting many of our natural and human resources. A larger and larger part of the industry and wealth of this country is being transferred to outside ownership.
We face inflation, but apparently the problem of recession and depression has not yet been mastered. The Prime Minister referred to conditions today. The year end report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) forecast a relatively prosperous 1960; but the minister and the government have failed to look into the future, and we wonder why they have not made a report of conditions that are likely to occur in 1961 or 1962.
I have in my hand the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday, January 9, which bears the heading:
Recession in 1962, government expert fears; warns post-war down turn.
Another heading reads: "Could mean election day switch" and it is an article by Victor Mackie, the well-known and competent journalist of the Winnipeg Free Press.
I have since obtained the speech delivered by Dr. O. J. Firestone, the economic adviser in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I am wondering if he is the author of the so-called hidden report. I ask if he has made the same submission to the minister and to the government as he made to the Canadian people in this well known speech. In that speech he said:
What I am implying is that the recession we may be facing in 1962 could be more extensive than anything we have yet experienced since the end of the second world war.
In other words, unless action is taken to thwart this danger our nation could be facing in 1962 a greater and more serious recession than anything which prevailed under the former Liberal administration. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to reveal

any report he has from his economic experts forecasting economic conditions in Canada in 1961 and 1962. The nation should be apprised now of the possibility of a depression or a severe recession in 1962. We cannot compete with the growing production of the Soviet union and the threat which it presents to democracy and to our type of system if we have to face periodic booms and busts. I see nothing in the economic policy of the government or in the proposals in the speech from the throne-or in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition which lacks proposals- which would suggest to me that there is a program forthcoming which would make possible the increase in production of which our nation is capable. I believe that 1960 will see for all practical purposes the end in this country of many of the basic tenets on which the Liberal and Conservative parties are founded with respect to our economic system and our so-called free enterprise economy.
One of the things we have in common in all parts of this house is a belief in democracy, a belief in the importance of free discussion, a belief that the ordinary citizen should have a right to the facts. But I wonder if the ordinary citizen of this country today has access to the facts, or if the millions of dollars which are used by advertisers learning from the Madison avenue mass media manipulators have so influenced the judgment of the Canadian people as to make it impossible for many citizens to exercise a free, fair and unbiased judgment. The government is turning increasingly the television and radio facilities of this country over to private hands; there has been a very disturbing growth in newspaper chains across this country until today four groups control approximately one third of the circulation of all the newspapers in Canada. Is this something which is in keeping with democracy and in keeping with free discussion?
I think this represents a great danger to freedom and to democracy and I think we should inquire into what effective steps can be taken to break the monopoly which exists in these media and whether we can reduce the quantity of advertising, so that freedom of will will not be in jeopardy. I do not know what the answers may be, but I have placed this resolution on the order paper and I am pleased that in this members' lottery instituted by the government in which all the resolutions are put into a hat and drawn, mine is in such a position that it is likely to be debated. I am hopeful we can set up a committee of this house to inquire into the whole question of the control of newspaper, radio and television facilities in this country so that all feasible and practical steps may be
The Address-Mr. Argue taken which will assure freedom of discussion and maintenance of the strength of democracy in Canada.
Here are some of the problems which face our nation. Here are some of the challenges, and I suggest that there are certain things which should be done at this time. The first thing which I suggest is that we should agree that there is a sense of urgency, that we cannot delay throughout this decade in coming to grips with the problem of lagging production and the need to accelerate production. We should come to grips with the problem of unused and underemployed resources. We in the C.C.F. say we need a national economic plan; that there should be some direction of the economy by the government in order that there may be a channelling of investment into the most productive fields and the most necessary industries. We say that there should be at this time a further development of social security measures; that the great productive capacity of this country should be made available to the people of the nation. We say that there should be an increase in old age pensions brought into effect at this session. To ask senior citizens of this country to exist on $55 a month is not in keeping with our concept of democracy and justice. The pension should be at least $75 a month.
We suggest that the government's hospitalization program, which has been so well accepted across this country in almost every province and will be accepted soon, we hope, in all the provinces, should be still further developed. It is time, in our view, for another great step forward during this session and for the government to introduce an over-all medical plan which will make it possible for provinces to provide medical, dental and optical services. The province of Saskatchewan, under our C.C.F. government, in 1947 pioneered in the field of hospitalization. I am confident that Saskatchewan will pioneer again in the field of prepaid medical services by re-electing the present government and thereby assuring the people of that province the beginning of a pre-paid medical program on January 1, 1961.
We say that there is a need for a further development of public ownership. When I read some of the debates and some of the controversy which is going on within the British labour party today, I think there are people in that party who are walking into a trap which has been set for them by political enemies. I think that an increasing development of public ownership is necessary. I have already advocated some increase in the field of health insurance. I wish I had time to refer as I would like to to the last annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines

The Address-Mr. Argue which I have on my desk in which it is indicated there has been a reduction of 20 per cent in tourist fares. The president of the company said that in 1959, if it had not been for Canadian Pacific Air Lines and the inefficient duplication of services allowed by the government of Canada Trans-Canada Air Lines could have brought about another 5 per cent reduction in fares. This is an indication of efficiency in public service.
The Saskatchewan government insurance office in a competitive way, without any control over the purchasers of insurance, has brought down fire insurance rates on home dwellings in Saskatchewan to a rate of 40 cents per $100 of insurance as compared to 70 cents in either Alberta or Manitoba.
There is room for a further development of public ownership. I am not suggesting all out nationalization or that the government should move in and confiscate industry. I am fully opposed to such a move but in a growing and expanding economy, in the interests of efficiency and lower prices, there is room for an expansion of public ownership as well as of the co-operative movement. There is also room for private enterprise and for the individual businessman. But as the price spreads commission report pointed out, in the food retailing industry the independent merchant is being squeezed to the wall. The people who are true free enterprisers are going out of existence under the policies followed by this government. There is room for corporate ownership, too, but that should be controlled and it also needs to be developed in the interests of Canadians.
We suggest there is need for management in the field of trade, that if Mr. Coyne is right in saying that in relation to other factors we can produce the capital required for development in this country without depending on outside capital to the extent of $1,500 million, steps should be taken to develop the Canadian economy in the interests of Canadians.
We feel that under the system of trade and with increased tariffs the international payments situation is not likely to improve. We think our movement in the years ahead has an opportunity to be of great service to the people of this country. We do not feel as our opponents often tell us that there is a great division in the interests of farmers, workers, small businessmen and professional people. As we see it, the people in this country who are prepared and willing to engage in productive services should have an opportunity to receive a fair return for their services.
We think there is need for a greater measure of equality. We feel we must play our role in international affairs as Canadians. Not

only should we be producing more goods in Canada and making these available, on a more equitable basis to Canadian citizens but we should be prepared to play an increasing part in making our production available to underdeveloped countries and needy nations throughout the world.
We need in this country a bill of rights without question, but we need one that is not simply window dressing. We need a bill of rights of substance, one that guarantees fundamental human freedoms for the people of Canada. We feel that such a bill of rights, should be properly an amendment to the constitution. The Prime Minister has announced that steps are being taken to meet the situation in a certain way and we feel he should consider a bill of rights as an amendment to the constitution.
Believing that our economy has been wasteful and that there is need for the government to remove uncertainty and confusion, I should like to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the period after the word "responsibility" and adding thereto the following words:
"and has failed to initiate the fundamental economic and social planning necessary to remove the uncertainty and confusion that exists."
We feel it is imperative for the Canadian nation to realize the challenge that exists from abroad, to accept that challenge, and to so order our economy so as to make the great wealth of this nation available to all our citizens.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I believe that the hon. member for Assiniboia referred the house to statistics on trade from which he quoted and indicated that they were issued by an official joint committee of Canada and the United States. Could he elaborate further and tell the house in what way this committee is an official committee?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is a governmental committee but I think it was composed of officials of this country who are well known. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress comes to mind as well as the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and some well known economists in the government service. This is a joint committee of Canadian and United States citizens. The committee is composed of highly respected persons who are doing a survey in various economic matters of mutual interest. I think this is a very fine document that has been produced and that the members of this committee are responsible individuals. T believe this publication should recommend itself to the hon. member.

(Translation):


Arthur Edward Martin Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I want to tender the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) my most sincere congratulations for his magnificent contribution in answer to the speech from the throne. I also want to add a tribute to our colleague, the hon. member for the riding of Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman).
If other hon. members who will take part in the present discussion give us contributions equal in quality to those of the hon. members for Rimouski and Grenville-Dundas, I am sure that the whole debate on the speech from the throne will be not only most interesting but also very useful.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, the members of this house who have the interests of their country and its people at heart must surely have derived encouragement from the indicators brought to our attention by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) which demonstrated the buoyant condition of the economy of our country today. On January 11, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when speaking in Toronto to the Canadian Club, said this:
For the Canadian economy, the new decade of the 1960's opens in an expansionary phase, one that gives promise of being more securely founded in terms of demand, resources and productivity. Nineteen sixty offers the prospect of continued sustainable growth provided we are prepared to pay heed to the lessons of the 1950's. New elements bid fair to come forward to lift the economy to new heights, chief among them export demand and capital investment.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) in a statement he issued from his office in Ottawa on December 28, spoke with equal optimism about the future. He pointed out in his statement that whereas Canada's expansion at the beginning of the last decade got its stimulus from defence, from our involvement in the Korean war, and the assistance given to the inauguration of NATO, today's expansion at the beginning of the 1960's was, as he put it, "anchored to the more solid foundations of constructive peacetime pursuits". He emphasized that the present dominant push comes from the growing needs of Canadians for goods and services. Our economic recovery and our present expansion run alongside the economy of the United States.
Notwithstanding the opinions that have been voiced-as were expected-to the contrary, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the leader of the C.C.F. group, I belong, I think, to that much larger group of fellow Canadians who believe that the present condition in our economy was not
The Address-Mr. Maloney something that was brought about by accident but was brought about as a direct result of government activity commenced on June 21, 1957.
Never in the history of our country has so dedicated a group worked so tirelessly in the interests of their country to restore health to its economy and to restore optimism and confidence to the spirit of our people.
I want to take advantage of the next few minutes to say a few words about the subject of immigration. I have not found at any time any criticism from any reliable quarter about the decision of the government to put into effect a plan, originally decided upon by its Liberal predecessor in 1957, of reducing the number of immigrants admitted to Canada, and of continuing a slowdown policy during a time when it was believed by many that it was neither fair nor just to entice immigrants to come to Canada because of the recessive forces that were then at work in our country, in the United States and in so many countries of the world during parts of 1957 and 1958.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question. He has made the statement, if I understood it correctly, that the government has continued a policy initiated by their predecessor. Does he refer to something that was done by me? If so, will he tell the house what it was, because I have no recollection of having initiated any policy.


Thomas Miller Bell: You never did anything.


Arthur Edward Martin Maloney: I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the plan formulated by the government of which the hon. member was a member and which was introduced to slow down the number of immigrants admitted to Canada, a plan which we did not cause any interference with after the election of June 10.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I deny categorically that there ever was any such plan.


Arthur Edward Martin Maloney: Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves, and I regret I find myself in the position of contradicting my hon. friend.
In view, however, of the statements which have been made about the economy of our country and its condition today by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and in view of the comparable good condition of the United States economy, it occurs to me that the time is now ripe to take a second look at the policy which has been in effect since the summer of 1957.
An analysis of the statistics issued by the dominion bureau concerning the numbers and ethnic origin of immigrants from overseas

The Address-Mr. Maloney between the years 1946 and 1957 inclusive shows that in that period we admitted a total of 1,669,340 immigrants, ranging from Albanians to the various people who make up the country of Yugoslavia. Peoples of over 47 different ethnic origins came to Canada in that interval. By far the largest percentage came from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Immigrants from the British Isles totalled 31.9 per cent of the over-all immigration during that period. I was surprised to observe that up to the end of 1957 immigrants from France represented only 2 per cent of our over-all immigration, the numbers being 32,729. I should like to see further encouragement held out to immigrants coming from the motherland of Canada's other great basic race. Immigrants to the number of 12.9 per cent came from Germany; 11.6 per cent from Italy, although this percentage, I would imagine, is somewhat higher now by reason of the additional immigration of large numbers of very worth-while Italian immigrants in the year 1959. In the year 1958 the additional number of immigrants admitted to Canada was 124,700, making a grand total since 1946, and including that year, of approximately 2 million immigrants.
I have heard it estimated that we lose annually to the United States of America something like 40,000 of our residents. If that is so, then the net gain of immigrants over emigrants between the years 1956 and 1959 would have been about 1J million, a loss of about 25 per cent.
It is not uncommon to hear fellow citizens, when we talk about this subject, voice the view that people who are permitted to enter Canada as immigrants take jobs from Canadians already established and aggravate conditions of unemployment in the country. Such people, of course, fail to advert to the contribution that immigrants make by their employment of labour, their consumption of Canadian products and their production of wealth.
Well informed economists who study the subject with the knowledge of experts take the position that these arguments are false and insist that there is little or no connection between immigration and unemployment. The royal commissioners responsible for the report on Canada's economic prospects, after an exhaustive review and study of our country's economy and of the factors that give it health, stated that immigrants have made a decided contribution to the scale of economic development in Canada. In part of their report they state:
It is our firm belief that it is in Canada's interest to continue to encourage people from other countries to emigrate here in order both to assist and

participate in the development of our country and also to contribute further variety to our social organizations and institutions.
Three quarters of the immigrants who come to Canada are adults but only half of them are persons who go into our labour force. The other half are wives or children or dependents who fall into some other category. In other words, it is only the remaining half which takes its place in the labour market and often brings with it badly needed skills.
An illustration of that point can be found with reference to the figures for 1958 when, as I say, about 124,700 immigrants came to Canada. Of this group 30,344 were children, 24,795 were wives and the others who fell into the category of dependents numbered 6,534. The balance, numbering 63,078, included workers of all kinds broken up into a number of different categories, many of whom intended to get into the field of manufacturing or construction or on some kind of project where mechanical skill would be required.
Apropos of those who had it in mind to get into the field of manufacturing, an interesting survey was sponsored in 1958 by the Canadian National Railways. That survey under the auspices of the railway established a relationship to exist between the growth of a community on the one hand and increased manufacturing employment on the other. According to the survey it was concluded that if simply 100 manufacturing workers are added to a community this is what will occur. There will be a total population increase in that community of 427 persons. One hundred and seventeen more workers will be employed in fields other than manufacturing, for example, construction, utilities, communications. One hundred and thirty-one more households will be created. The school population will increase by 66 pupils. One hundred and eighty seven motor vehicles of all kinds will be registered and 393 new telephones, both business and domestic, will be installed. Three more retail establishments will be constructed and total retail sales in the community will increase annually by almost $1 million. The C.N.R. survey I have just mentioned was based on the addition of 100 workers in the manufacturing field only and is not applicable to additions to any other sectors of employment.
Between 1946 and the end of 1958, if we examine what these immigrants brought with them we find that immigrants brought into Canada approximately $800 million in cash and securities. In addition, they brought with them settlers' effects that had a total value of about $300 million. In the year 1957

alone the newcomers brought to Canada some $101 million in visible assets and $41,800,000 in settlers' effects.
The Minister of Finance must have felt happy if he looked at the books for the year 1957 because he would have ascertained that in that year alone immigrants paid in direct taxation an amount estimated at $190 million, and the accumulated savings of this element of our population in the year 1957 were approximately $146 million.
Statistics are never a very attractive subject matter for a speech. Ordinarily I do not like indulging in reference to them too frequently but you do not get a really accurate picture of the immigrant and his contribution until you study the facts and the figures. I never realized what close track the statisticians keep of all of us until I came across some figures they keep with respect to immigrants in particular.
Using as a base the census figures that were obtained in the year 1951, it has been estimated, it seems with reasonable accuracy, that between 1951 and the end of 1958 immigrants numbered about 1,365,000 and it is believed that in that period immigrants did the following things. They established more than 248,000 households, purchased nearly
173.000	electric or gas ranges, more than
105.000	electric refrigerators, more than
128.000	electric washing machines, more than
72.000	electric vacuum cleaners, more than
207.000	radios and more than 81,000 passenger automobiles. Finally, as I learned from a speech by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) which I read the statisticians have established that these people spoke in a multiplicity of tongues through 120,000 new telephones in their homes.
I have had the advantage of studying pretty carefully many of the excellent
Business of the House
speeches that our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has delivered during the last few months in various Canadian communities. Many of the statistics to which I have referred derive their authority from her remarks. If she has the opportunity to say so I think she will agree that her speeches disclosing these facts, enlightening as they are, must have startled and amazed the large numbers of fellow Canadians who were included in her audiences. Mr. Speaker, I note that it is six o'clock. May I move the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Maloney the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what the business is for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will proceed with item No. 5 on today's order paper under government orders which is second reading of Bill No. C-32 dealing with provisional payments in respect to unthreshed grain. That being completed, we will then go on with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with guarantees for bank loans to grain producers in the prairie provinces. It is my hope that on Thursday, if not on Thursday then on Friday, we may complete these two measures. That being done, we will revert at that stage to the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Lionel Chevrier: In other words, if we do not dispose of them tomorrow we will go on with them on Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Were tenders called for the construction of the federal building at Campbellton, New Brunswick?
2.	If so: (a) what was the amount of the lowest tender? (b) to whom was the contract awarded, and at what amount? (c) has work been started and at what date?
3.	Is the contractor proceeding with the work on the understanding of the original amount of his tender, or has any adjustment been made extending the original amount of the tender?
4.	If so, what is the additional amount awarded to the contractor involved?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
1.	Yes, on August 18, 1958.
2.	(a) $307,000;	(b) Kenney Construction
Co. Ltd., Yarmouth, N.S. at $307,000. (c) Yes, on October 1, 1958.
3.	There have been two minor adjustments.
4.	$411.80.


COAL PRODUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT LOANS
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What is the total amount loaned to date under the maritime coal production assistance act?
2.	What are the names of the companies receiving such loans together with: (a) the amount loaned in each case; (b) the present standing of each loan; (c) the interest rate charged for each individual loan?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of
Mines and Technical Surveys):
1.	As of January 18, 1960, the total amount of loans authorized under the Coal Production Assistance Act (formerly the maritime coal production assistance act) was $11,135,780.67. As of the same date, the amount advanced on these loans totalled $9,661,276.60.
2.	The names of the companies receiving such loans, the amount loaned in each case, the present standing of each loan, and the interest rate charged for each individual loan are shown by the following tabulation:
Name of Company	Authorized Amount of Loan	Amount Advanced	Amount Repaid	Balance Owing	Interest Rate$	$	$	$	%Avon Coal Co. Ltd., Minto, N.B., No. 1	
375,000.00	375,000.00	375,000.00	nil	2*" 2	
82,000.00	82,000.00	82,000.00	nil	2" 3	
333,000.00	333,000.00	333,000.00	nil	3.3" 4	
132,000.00	132,000.00	64,500.00	67,500.00	4!" 5	
620,000.00	620,000.00	none due yet	620,000.00	aBras d'Or Coal Co. Ltd., Bras d'Or, N.S., No. 1	
42,000.00	42,000.00	none due yet	42,000.00	5" 2	
80,000.00	80,000.00	none due yet	80,000.00	51Crawford Contractors Ltd., Minto, N.B	
140,000.00	140,000.00	39,330.38	100,663.62	3?Dominion Coal Co. Ltd., Sydney, N.S	
7,500,000.00	6,984,584.S3	1,278,278.70	5,706,306.13	3? to July 1, 1957; 4 thereafterDoucet Sons Ltd., Inverness, N.S	
47,738,67	47,738.67	6,853.78	40,884.89	5Four Star Collieries Ltd., Bras d'Or, N.S., No. 1	
100,000.00	100,000.00	100,000.00	nil	2f" 3	
62,000.00	62,000.00	62,000.00	nil	3iD. W. & R. A. Mills Ltd., Minto, N.B., No. 1	
305,850.00	305,850.00	305,850.00	nil	4" 2	
214,000.00	214,000 00	154,405.06	59,594.94	5iV. C. McMann Ltd., Minto, N.B., No. 1	
8,175.00	8,175.00	8,175.00	nil	3" 2	
28,017.00	28,017.00	8,057.10	19,959.90	QIWestern Dominion Coal Co. Lt 1., Taylorton, Saskatchewan	
1,066,000.00 11,135,780.67	106,911.10 9,661,276.60	none due yet 2,817,456.02	106,911.10 6,843,820.58	5
NB: Loan No. 2 to Four Star Collieries, Ltd., was cancelled at the company's request before funds were advanced because of a change in the company's plans.
JANUARY 20, I960	159
Questions

Thursday, January 21, 1S60