1961-01-31

STANDING ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Miss Margaret Ailken (York-Humber) presented the first report of the special committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-62, to amend the War Measures Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This bill, Mr. Speaker, seeks to do what the government said it would do itself this session-


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: And therefore is unnecessary.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but, as usual, the opposition has to do the things which the government has promised to do. It is hoped that if the government itself takes action in this matter it will be as a result of this prompting by the Liberal opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion is not debatable, and the hon. member is given leave to explain the purport of the bill rather than to debate it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was moved to give this clarification by the benevolent and kindly intervention of the Minister of Finance.
This bill seeks to provide for an amendment to the War Measures Act to bring that act into a position consistent with the bill of rights passed by this parliament at the last session, a bill that was considerably improved as a result of the contributions made by the opposition.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT REQUIRING NOTICE TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES

Paul Joseph James Martin: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-63, to amend the Expropriation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Spare us the explanation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) would be among those who would require an explanation, and I am very happy to give it to him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I asked you to spare us the explanation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This bill likewise seeks to remove from the Expropriation Act provisions that are contrary to the bill of rights passed by this parliament last session.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may rise on a matter of privilege, if there is one involved, or he may rise to assist the Chair in determining whether it is a definite matter of urgent public importance.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Speaker, I think it is both a matter of privilege and a matter of assisting you in determining the matter of urgent public importance. The two of them work together, as it happens, in this particular case.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member on the matter of privilege first, if there is one.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On Saturday night, Mr. Speaker, I attended a mess dinner at H.M.C.S. Carleton at which I made a few brief remarks. The writer of the article to which the hon. member refers was not present at this dinner, nor were any other reporters present. I think the writer of the article has come to some conclusions and made some assertions here which are completely unwarranted by anything I said at this mess dinner.
From reading this article one would think I had devoted myself chiefly to discussion of nuclear arms and nuclear armaments. As a matter of fact I did not mention the matter of nuclear armaments at all, and I did not have them in mind at all. Therefore the assertions which are made in this article on that score, and the assertion that I was inviting reserve officers to dip their feet in politics are without any warrant or any background whatever. It was the last thing in my mind and, I am sure, in the minds of any of the officers who were present at this dinner. In view of these circumstances, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The substance of the matter of privilege which the minister raises is that the alleged episode has been misreported, as I understand it. Am I to understand from him that the reports on which this motion is based are not in accordance with the facts?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Erhart Regier: May I, Mr. Speaker, make an observation on the question of privilege raised by the minister? I believe you will note that the minister has not denied that he has invited the armed services to participate in a campaign against ban the bomb movements in Canada. The minister carefully avoided a denial of that fact.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with this point, Mr. Speaker, may I say that what I did in this speech was to state-and I am prepared to state it again now-that there is a considerable amount of propaganda of a neutralist and pacifist type; and by "pacifist" I mean in favour of unilateral disarmament and so forth. A considerable number of people who are putting forward that propaganda are taking part in ban the bomb movements, putting advertisements in newspapers, engaging in marches, and things along that line. In my opinion their purpose in doing this is to undermine the will of the Canadian people to resist aggression and to weaken Canadian defence efforts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think if I allowed the minister to go further we would in effect be debating the matter for which the hon. member seeks to move the adjournment of the house. The minister has raised, as a matter of privilege, the accuracy of the report. It remains for me to consider whether this request for leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 comes with the rule.
There are two difficulties that seem to me to stand in the way of the hon. member's request. Standing order 26, subparagraph 1 reads as follows:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance must be asked after starred questions on Wednesdays and on other days after the ordinary daily routine of business-
I have very serious doubts whether this is a definite matter of urgent public importance. The request is based on some remarks alleged to have been made by the minister during a speech at a private dinner, and not in the exercise of any administrative function of the minister. Standing order 26 has been invoked only to deal with administrative responsibility and acts of the government. Therefore I think that on those two grounds this motion is scarcely within standing order 26. I do not find here a definite matter of urgent public importance. A remark made in the course of a speech at a private dinner seems to me not the kind of urgent matter for which this rule was devised so as to permit the house to interrupt all other proceedings for the purpose of considering that definite matter of urgent public importance. The other question is whether the matter alleged is an administrative responsibility or act.
Having said that much, there is another difficulty. We are today embarked upon a supply motion which is governed by standing order 56, which calls upon the house to vote in the course of this debate at 8.15 o'clock

this evening. If I permitted this proposed debate to go on, how could this house comply with standing order 56, which calls for a vote on this motion at 8.15 p.m., if the debate on the motion to adjourn the house were still continuing? It seems to me there is a conflict here of procedure. It is perhaps unnecessary to resolve it, because on other grounds already stated, I do not think this request for leave to move the adjournment of the house can be granted.
There are these difficulties. The two rules, standing as they do, would prevent standing order 26 being used in the course of debate on a supply motion. If the hon. member who made the request wishes to be heard on the two points on which I find against him, I will be glad to hear him. Otherwise I do not find the rule has been satisfied.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and ask whether the minister gave directions to Sky-Caps Incorporated at Dorval airport to stop handling passengers' luggage; and is it a fact that this cannot be done without the minister's permission, in accordance with the so-called order in council dealing with the matter?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: For a number of years prior to the opening of the new terminal building in Montreal in December last, porter service was provided under an arrangement made between T.C.A., on its own behalf and on behalf of certain other air lines, and Murray Hill Limousine Service Limited. Payments were made by the air lines concerned to Murray Hill Limousine Service Limited in consideration of which the latter maintained a porter service for the general public with particular regard to the requirements of the air lines.
Some time prior to the move to the new terminal building, discussions were entered into between T.C.A. and Murray Hill, on behalf of T.C.A. and the other air lines concerned, with respect to the provision of an enlarged porter service at the new terminal. In view of the substantial increase in the number of porters and the consequential increase in the cost of providing the service, alternative means of paying for the service were discussed, and an arrangement was made between the air lines concerned and Murray Hill for the adoption of a new system under which baggage checks would be issued to members of the public and a modest charge made for the service. I am informed that this 90205-6-100
Inquiries of the Ministry is similar to systems used elsewhere, and particularly in the New York area in respect of porter services at railway and bus stations and, I believe, New York international airport, which have proved to be very satisfactory. One particular advantage is that it minimizes the possibility of lost baggage and facilitates its recovery if mislaid.
In or about November last, as a result of differences which had arisen between Murray Hill and the porters, the services of the porters were terminated and a new group of porters was hired by Murray Hill. At the same time a couple of other groups started operating their own porter services and proceeded to offer their services to members of the public using the airport. This led to confusion and a deterioration of the service. It proved very unsatisfactory, and something had to be done to restore order on the premises of the new airport.
My officials had always assumed that the department had adequate authority to control activities at airports, but in view of the serious aspects of this situation they sought the advice of the Department of Justice, and as a result new regulations entitled "Government airport concession operations regulations" were drafted and approved by the governor in council and promulgated in the Canada Gazette on January 11, 1961. These regulations prohibit the carrying on of any business, including the provision of services, on government airports without the authority of the minister, and provide penalties for infractions.
These new regulations are now in force and Murray Hill has been authorized, in accordance with their provisions, to operate the porter service in accordance with the original plan and in accordance with their contract with the air lines, and they were authorized to start this new arrangement commencing February 1, 1961. The unauthorized porters have been served with copies of the regulations and notified that they will not be allowed to operate, commencing tomorrow, February 1.
Murray Hill has stated that it will employ both coloured and white porters and will reemploy any previously employed porters whose work had been satisfactory.
Under the new arrangement Murray Hill will provide a complete service designed to meet the requirements of both the general public and the air lines. The porters will be paid the minimum wage, which I understand in this case would amount to about $35 a week, together with 10 cents on every 25 cent baggage ticket issued, in addition to any tips they might receive. A locker room has been provided by Murray Hill for the porters; telephones have been installed at key points

Inquiries of the Ministry to ensure more effective control, and there will be adequate and competent supervision on a 24-hour basis.
The new arrangement has been authorized on a trial basis for a period of six months. At the end of that time a full report of the operation will be reviewed by departmental officials.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the judgment of the superior court of the province of Quebec authorizing Sky-Caps Incorporated to do this carrying of luggage in competition with any other groups? Has he given any consideration to the fact that the order in council is opposed to the judgment of the superior court of the province?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, these matters have been studied very carefully by the legal officers of my department. Of course we do not want to interfere with the ordinary legal rights of the parties in this dispute. The only thing we are doing at the present time is to give effect to an arrangement which has been made between the air lines, the T.C.A. on their own behalf and on behalf of the other air lines, so that a decent service can be given to the public.
As far as the labour problems between Murray Hill and the former sky-caps are concerned, this is a matter for the two parties to fight out between themselves. As far as the department is concerned we could not allow different people to run their own private porter services nor could we allow any individual to walk on the premises of the department and start carrying baggage without proper liability insurance and without proper protection for the public.


Lionel Chevrier: What happens to the rights of those people which have been guaranteed by the judgment of the superior court, and which are now taken away by order in council.


Some hon. Members:: Order. Put it on the
order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the questions are now verging on opinions on a legal problem, if the hon. member will permit me to say so, and we have had pretty substantial discussion on the subject. It can be dealt with more effectively on the estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: What about the bill of rights?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the

minister now in a position to inform the house whether studies are continuing in his department, preparatory to the reconvening of the fifteenth general assembly of the United Nations, to carry forward the proposals which he made in the No. 1 committee in November and December, calling for a cessation of nuclear tests and no expansion of the nuclear club?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has mixed up two or three issues which we were dealing with at the United Nations. The fact is that preparations are under way now in the department for the resumed sitting of the United Nations.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question. Can the minister advise us whether, in the continuing study, there is to be any change in the policy which he enunciated at the United Nations in November and December?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. On a supplementary question the hon. member is asking the minister to declare a change in policy in a rather broad field.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the statement of the minister my question was, is there any change in the policy on the cessation of nuclear tests and non-expansion of the nuclear club?


Howard Charles Green: If there are any changes they will be announced in the house in due course.


Harold Edward Winch: Have you heard from the Minister of National Defence on these matters?



ALLEGED SEEKING OF OUTSIDE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister care to comment on the press report that President Kasavubu is seeking military aid outside of the United Nations? Would he comment also on the report that Belgium is organizing a foreign legion to battle the pro-Lumumba forces?


Howard Charles Green: I could not comment on this statement. I did read the press dispatch myself, but I think this was not a statement addressed to the United Nations by Kasavubu. I believe it was reported as a statement he had made to some reporter or some other person in the Congo.
There is no evidence that Belgium is recruiting a foreign legion.



REPORTED REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
a supplementary question on the Congo situation. Is the minister able to inform the house whether or not Canada has made a decision on the request for the provision of food to the Congo?


Howard Charles Green: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on that question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has a decision been made?



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, before the house resumes the supply motion debate may I speak to a point of personal privilege. I was required to be absent from the chamber last evening, as I am sure occasionally happens with other hon. members, by the visit of constituents on important business. I could not therefore be present when the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) enlightened us in the debate. On reading Hansard this morning I found that in reference to a fine speech by my colleague the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLellan)-perhaps I can quote the remarks of the hon member for Gloucester-*


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member state the matter of privilege before he begins to elaborate? So far there does not appear to be any matter of privilege.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The question of privilege arises out of an assertion and asservation made by the hon. member for Gloucester on a matter of which he could have no personal knowledge. He said that I stated publicly before a group of Conservative women right here in Ottawa last Friday-actually it was Wednesday-
That conditions in Nova Scotia are bad.
My question of privilege is that the hon. gentleman, understandably-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: I submit to you with deference, sir, that the procedure which is being followed-
90205-6-1001
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or speaking to the question of privilege?


Lionel Chevrier: I am rising on a point of order to indicate to you, sir, that this procedure which is being followed by the hon. member is entirely irregular because there are debates which take place from time to time, on the budget, on the speech from the throne, or on a motion to go into supply when statements are made which may be inaccurate. I think there are opportunities when objection can be taken-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure what the hon. member says is so, but when a question of privilege is raised it is the responsibility of the Chair to determine whether or not there is a prima facie matter of privilege. In order to do that I must, of course, hear what the hon. member has to say. In what he had said up to the time I interrupted him he had not got to the point. I am not satisfied that the hon. member for Halifax should be interrupted until it is apparent that he has or has not a matter of personal privilege.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, if the opposition do not want to hear the facts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member resumes, may I say that if he has been misreported by any member in the house he may state the facts simply, and that would satisfy the question of privilege.


Edmund Leverett Morris: With every respect, that is what I am endeavouring to do, to point out that the hon. gentleman asserts that I said things which he is not capable of asserting. This is a quotation from an erroneous newspaper report. What I said was that conditions in Nova Scotia were bad, and I underline "were" but that matters had improved since June, 1957. I intend to repeat the speech later this week.


Lionel Chevrier: I now rise on a point of order to say to you with deference, sir, that the hon. member has taken this occasion to do something which, in my opinion, he has no right to do under the rules. He could have done it either by taking part in the debate or on some other occasion. As far as I can see there is no privilege involved in the statement made by the hon. member.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Since my name was brought into this question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Halifax, I wish to place on record the reference from which I took the statement I made last night. It was from the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Leverett Morris: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Gloucester knows the rule. When a member states in his place that certain facts pertaining to him are so, his duty as a member of the house is to accept the word of the hon. member and not to seek to controvert it. I suppose there is no reason why the hon. member should not indicate how he came to make the assertion which has been complained of; but when a statement has been made by an hon. member it then is for the house to accept that statement unless there is a procedure taken to deal with the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to you with great respect that your statement of the rule is not perhaps fully in accord with what the rule seeks to do. If an hon. member makes a statement to which another hon. member takes exception and raises a question of privilege, it is the duty of all hon. members to accept the statement of the aggrieved member provided the person who makes the initial statement feels that he is not in a position to controvert the grounds on which the statement of the aggrieved member is made.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is not accepting the statement made by the hon. member for Halifax, and he is seeking to establish justification for the statement he has made. After that statement has been made by the hon. member I think it would then be open to Your Honour to take the position you have outlined, but surely the hon. member for Gloucester is perfectly justified in saying that he does not accept the statement made by the hon. member and then give his reasons.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Essex East perhaps has a point but it might better be expressed in this way: "I accept the statement of the hon. member but there are these circumstances which seem to justify my comment." I do not think any member has to sit down when he feels that there is something to be said, but in the final analysis if a member makes a statement on his honour from his place in the chamber with regard to a matter which is within the knowledge of the member speaking, that statement must be accepted by the house. Unless some hon. member wishes to set the hon. member for Essex East and myself right, I might hear the hon. member for Gloucester.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to say that I was prepared to accept the statement made by the hon. member for

Halifax. However, as he said that I had no personal knowledge of what was said by him at the meeting, I think I have the right to refer to the article.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is going a little far afield. The hon. member for Gloucester has now admitted that he was not present at the meeting and therefore has no personal knowledge of what was said by the hon. member for Halifax. Nevertheless he wishes to read a statement from a newspaper which the hon. member for Halifax has already declared to be erroneous.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Maybe he is following your example.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is carrying things too far.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gloucester has said that he accepts the statement of the hon. member for Halifax with respect to what he said, and has indicated that the reason for his making the remarks he did make was a newspaper report. I follow him that far and up to that point I consider it proper comment and quite in order, but I think he should not read the report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can give the house any information or make a report on the arrest of a Canadian citizen in Poland, Mr. Tadeusz Koyer.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The house will recall from statements made by the Prime Minister on November 28 and December 1 last that Mr. Tadeusz Koyer, a Canadian citizen of Polish birth, was arrested last summer while paying a private visit to his family in Poland. The investigation has been going on since that time. According to a brief telegram received today from our embassy in Poland, Mr. Koyer was released on Saturday and will be returned to Canada this week.
When this matter was raised previously in the house, occasion was taken to note that the Polish authorities had been co-operative in allowing our consul in Warsaw to interview Mr. Koyer. At this time, in addition to expressing my pleasure at the recent news, I

should like to note again the correctness of the Polish attitude in the handling of this matter.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the government has abandoned the appeal to the court of appeal of Manitoba in the British Columbia Sugar Refining Company case and, if so, why.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Notice of abandonment of the appeal was entered in the court in Winnipeg on Friday of last week, I believe. Briefly stated, the reasons are that the trial judge had made certain findings of fact adverse to the crown's case, and had come to the conclusion that the crown had not satisfied him beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the effects of the merger upon competition necessary to be established in order for the prosecution to succeed. After discussing with very eminent and learned counsel the advisability of appeal in the light of the above findings, I came to the conclusion that the appeal should not be proceeded with.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of this decision, coupled with the supreme court decision in the other merger case involving breweries, does this not provide justification for amending the merger section of the act in order to make it more effective?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is seeking to present an argument under the guise of asking a supplementary question.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. When the minister spoke at Guelph last week to the graduate students of the Ontario Agricultural College did she state the government's present policy on immigration or did she announce new government policy?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Where were you yesterday?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Graffley:: A Tuesday to Thursday member.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members will let me finish, I have not questioned the minister's denial. I am making no reference to the denial or what was said or was not said. I am merely asking whether she was stating present government policy or was announcing new government policy. Second, in the interests of knowing precisely what did happen, would the minister be good enough to table the text of her address?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to see that my hon. friend has returned to the house. If he had read my statement of yesterday he would have realized that I offered therein to make the address available, as it is public property. So far as the first part of his question is concerned, I was describing current government policy.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, emanating out of the same subject matter raised by the hon. member for Halifax, I think it is not proper for one member of the house to say to another member that he has been absent from the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Where is your leader?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members cannot settle anything by noise, and I should like to hear what the hon. member for Laurier has to say.


Lionel Chevrier: What I should like to say, if I am going to be allowed to say it, is that no member is more assiduous in being in his place than the hon. member for Cartier.


Mr. Speaker:: I question that any matter of privilege arises, and I say that with all due respect to the hon. member for Laurier and hon. members of the house who may consider that it is not appropriate or in good form, shall I say, to draw attention to the fact that a member is absent. It is common practice in the house to refer to the absence of members, particularly from the opposite side, and if this is to be raised as a question of privilege I will have to have some more substantial precedent to follow.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the less thin-skinned member for Kootenay West wishes to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and

Inquiries of the Ministry National Resources. Has the minister received a request from Kootenay rod and gun clubs for his co-operation in a study by a liminolo-gist of certain undesirable algae that have appeared in Kootenay lake since 1957 and are causing damage to the world famous Kootenay trout?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the hon. member has given notice, but the question in its context discloses no urgency, because I understand that the activities of the algae or whatever they are have probably been going on constantly since the formation of the Kootenay lakes. However, I see that the minister is prepared to reply.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, there is more to this than appears on the surface.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have no personal knowledge of any such query, and neither have any of the officials of the department.
(Translation) :



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaielets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion).
Is it true that last Sunday evening the Secretary of State stated over the French television network that the percentage of unemployed was lower in Canada than in the United States?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secreiary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall making any such statement. I might have said something along that line, but certainly not in those terms.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could he tell us exactly what he did say, over the T.V., about unemployment?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot accept the hon. member's invitation in his supplementary question to ask the minister to repeat a speech made on television. It is true that the minister's administrative acts are open to question on orders of the day, but I doubt that the speech made comes within the category of a question relating to administrative action.
fMr. Herridge.]
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: In his own interest, the
hon. member should listen to what I say; I think he could only gain by doing so.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion)?
Last Sunday, on television, the Secretary of State said that the census questionnaire will correct the 1951 questionnaire, not to mention the correction made in that of 1960.
Could the Secretary of State explain to the house how that questionnaire will correct the 1951 questionnaire and the one drafted in 1960 on instructions given by this government?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what extent I can take it upon myself to answer this question, since the matter comes directly under the Department of Trade and Commerce. Last Sunday, I did refer to the matter on television, but I think this is a problem which comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce. I would not want to assume powers which are not rightly mine but, with that reservation, I am prepared to answer the hon. member's question.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the Secretary of State explain to the house-


Noël Dorion: I think it rests with Mr. Speaker to rule whether it comes within my province to answer that question.


Azellus Denis: I do not think Mr. Speaker needs any advice from the Secretary of State to decide what he has to do; he is quite familiar with his duties.
As a supplementary question further to the reply of the Secretary of State, and if in his opinion this matter now comes under another department, may I ask him why he talked about it when he appeared on television last Sunday?


Some hon. Members:: Order. Order.


Noël Dorion: If one had to speak only of matters coming under one's responsibility, I think the hon. member-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me we are engaged in a futile series of questions which do not relate to the responsibilities of the particular minister involved.

(Translation):



SECRETARY OF STATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) in order to ascertain whether he is aware that, according to a press release originating in Hamilton, the returning officer for the riding of Hamilton South is reported as saying that he has received tons of electoral literature from Ottawa, and that he was wondering what this might mean. Here are the questions I have to ask of the Secretary of State: Has he read this press release, and what does he make of all this activity which smacks of pre-electoral conditions. How is it that tons of electoral matter-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the hon. member is not rising to verify the press statement. He is, therefore, asking a question relating to the delivery of the literature. I do not ask him to take the responsibility for the truth of the facts on which he bases his question, but it is normally desirable that a member asking a question should accept the facts on which he bases his question.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister, first of all, whether it is true that a tremendous volume of electoral literature has left the offices of the chief electoral officer for the various ridings and, second, what is the meaning of this action?
I would ask him to explain to the house the meaning of all this.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, let me say that I have not read the report referred to by the hon. member. In the second place, if anything like this has been done, it has been so under the authority of the person solely responsible for it, the chief electoral officer.
(Text):

The house resumed, from Monday, January 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Cardin.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS  TAX-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS

Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment of the house at ten o'clock last night I had stressed the
Dominion-Provincial Relations need for additional revenues for our municipalities, and I insisted that our municipalities must be provided with adequate sources of revenue. I would be prepared to go even beyond the tax-sharing agreements and the additional payments which are being provided under the principle of equalization. Instead of a complacent attitude and a cold indifference in meeting the problems facing this country at the present time, this government should come out with a bold determination to meet those problems and rectify the present state of affairs which is not worthy of a growing nation with unlimited resources.
According to the letter which was made public yesterday and which has been sent by the Prime Minister to the provincial premiers, we now know that there will be another federal-provincial conference within the next few months. At that conference I feel that the Prime Minister should take advantage of the opportunity to offer to the provinces not only the continuation of the tax-sharing agreements, and not only the continuation of the equalization principle, but should go further and offer a means of relief to the municipalities.
The offer which was made to the provinces at the July conference and which, notwithstanding the statements made yesterday by the Minister of Finance, was contradicted by the Prime Minister at the October conference and which was renewed in the letter sent to the provincial premiers by the Prime Minister yesterday, will not meet the demands of the provincial and the municipal governments.
What I would suggest-and this I do keeping in mind the principle involved in the amendment now under discussion, namely the principle of equalization-is that much more could be done to relieve the provinces, and particularly the municipalities, which have reached and even surpassed the limit of their taxing facilities. Keeping in mind the principle of equalization, and keeping in mind the needs and the increasing demands of certain areas where the economic growth has been retarded and is lagging behind that of more fortunate sections of the country, I feel that the government should also consider the possibility and advisability of providing the municipalities with financial facilities for the undertaking of certain capital projects. In other words, financial facilities should be made available to municipalities for a number of approved projects which should be undertaken, according to the present terms of our constitution, by our municipal governments.
Such a scheme would not mean a direct outlay of money by the federal treasury. It

Dominion-Provincial Relations could consist of guarantees to our municipalities, extended through our provincial governments and subject in all respects to provincial jurisdiction. It should consist of money made available to the municipalities at a low rate of interest not exceeding 4J per cent to 4f per cent, and it could be used for a variety of approved capital projects such as streets, sewers, public buildings and even schools and hospitals. Under existing conditions our municipalities are curtailed by the excessive cost of borrowing, and the high cost of financing means an additional burden to the individual taxpayer.
I see at this moment the Minister of Forestry in his seat listening to my remarks. I would remind him of the statement he made at the 1955 conference and again at the 1957 conference, when he pleaded with the federal government to come to the assistance of the municipalities. At that time he had particularly in mind the municipalities of his province of New Brunswick. Now that he is sitting only three seats away from the Minister of Finance I hope he will speak up. I hope it will not be only a matter of words. I hope he will insist on action in this field of assistance to our municipalities which so badly need it in the province of New Brunswick.
If funds were made available to municipalities under a four-year program or a five-year program, a series of capital projects could be undertaken as a result of which direct employment would be provided to hundreds of thousands of unemployed and thousands of new jobs would be opened in supplying the material required for such projects. After all, when billions of dollars were needed in war years in order to safeguard our rights and our liberties, Canada was able to find ways and means to meet its obligations. When hundreds of millions of dollars are needed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order to provide new homes for Canadians, the necessary funds are made available to individuals and groups alike. Today the welfare of the nation is at stake, and such ad hoc measures as those which have been introduced so far by the government will not be sufficient to solve the problems.
In the course of his lengthy remarks yesterday the Minister of Finance insisted that the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was "completely misdirected and had no basis whatsoever". Notwithstanding the long arguments put forward by the Minister of Finance, with the approval of hon. members on the government side, I hope we have been able to convince the house that the reason for our amendment was the contradictory statement with respect to the proposal which was made by


the Prime Minister at the October 26 conference. The words of the Prime Minister have been quoted. They have not been denied. They have been quoted from a statement which was given to the press following the statement made by the Prime Minister at that conference. I therefore insist, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment of the opposition was well founded and well warranted.


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should express my appreciation for the warmth of the welcome which has attended my first contribution in any formal debate in this chamber. I appreciate the warmth of the feeling expressed by all my hon. friends from every quarter.
In rising to make some observations in connection with this amendment at present before the house I am very confident that most hon. members who listened to the able review of the Minister of Finance yesterday, when he dealt with the matter in general terms and also in specific terms to some degree, are thoroughly satisfied in their minds that this amendment is ill-conceived and ill-intentioned. It is a flagrant attempt to becloud the whole question of dominion-provincial relations in this country and to convey an erroneous impression to the Canadian people.
I do not claim familiarity in detail with all questions which come before this house. I would not be presumptuous enough to make that claim in the limited time I have been here. I am familiar, however, with amendments of a like nature to the one before us, since it has to do with dominion-provincial relations with which I have had indirect and direct connections for something like 16 years.
It has also, in my opinion, another element with which I am familiar. That element, in my view, Mr. Speaker, is that this amendment constitutes a political manoeuvre. It is designed with a political end in view. I do not for a moment believe that it will have the desired effect, but I do want to quote the amendment. It is as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In view of the fact that the federal government at the October conference (1960) with the provinces proposed fixed subsidies in place of the equalization payments provided under the present tax sharing arrangements, and that this October proposal is a repudiation of the principle of equalization;
Therefore be it resolved that this house strongly favours the continued application of the principle of equalization of direct tax revenues pledged to the provinces by the Prime Minister at the federal-provincial conference in July, 1960, and defined at the time by the Prime Minister as a payment by Canada to the provinces to bring the per capita return from the three taxes at

standard rates up to the average per capita yield in the two provinces in which per capita yield is highest.
The amendment, of course, is a motion of non-confidence in the government. It suggests that by virtue of its attitude toward and its leadership in the field of dominion-provincial relations, this government no longer retains the support of this parliament. I have listened with great interest to the debate on this amendment up to now. The arguments advanced by various speakers have been of interest. I wish now to give to the house a review of my experience in dealing with the previous government in dominion-provincial relations as a representative of a province, and then dealing with their successors in office. I wish to apply the test of comparison to this government with the previous Liberal administration and then compare the results. That, to my mind, is the acid test.
My indirect experience with federal-provincial relations came as an opposition member in the New Brunswick legislature for a period of something like eight years. Time after time the Liberal premier of that day reported to the New Brunswick legislature concerning various dominion-provincial conferences. He would report in general terms, and would state that the arrangement concluded with the federal authorities was the best that could be secured in view of conditions prevailing. It seemed difficult to secure information in detail in those days. Suffice to say that the principle of special consideration for the province of New Brunswick did not seem to be seriously considered at that time.
I wish now to skip over a few years and to give the house some information concerning the 1955 dominion-provincial conference, at which I was honoured by making the presentation for the province of New Brunswick. I wish to deal with the representations made, the consideration given, and the results achieved.
I have in my hand the official report of that conference. I consider some of the submissions made of sufficient importance to read here and now. This is the first proposal that was made, and it is found in the official report of the conference at pages 29 and 30. After I had mentioned the difficulties which smaller and less wealthy provinces were having, I had this to say to the conference at that time:
Yet, Mr. Chairman, most of us will admit that certain deficiencies and weaknesses in this course of national development have become very evident. It is true that Canada as a whole gained in prosperity and social security and all provinces have made considerable progress since 1945; yet, at the same time, the discriminatory features of our federal system have not been overcome and, in some respects, have tended to grow greater over the years.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
New Brunswick has derived considerable benefits from federal social security provisions and no doubt this is true in any province where the low income groups are relatively great in number and the per capita income tends to be low. Yet, although supplementary family income from social welfare sources is welcome and useful in raising regional standards of living, the fact remains that such matters still depend and must always depend upon the regional economy in the final analysis. It will be the submission on behalf of our province that this matter can only be dealt with by a national policy specifically designed to improve regional income through helping to increase the productive capacity of areas which fall below certain indices to be determined.
At this point, I would exchange principle for concrete example by mentioning the great problem which confronts the government and people of New Brunswick at the present time. I refer to our vital need for relatively cheap power. This question has none of the academic qualities and values of constitutional and ethical discussions. It is a matter of economic life or death and any representative of the province would be derelict in his duty if he failed to call the matter to the attention of this gathering at the earliest possible opportunity.
As many present have reasons to know, our province has made great efforts over the past few years to secure federal assistance in meeting the demand for more electric energy at lower cost and we have been told that compliance with our request would contravene national policy and that there is no provision for it in the articles and conventions which bind the nation and its component provinces together.
I do not propose to argue the questions of whether these decisions have been right or wrong, just or unjust, expedient or inexpedient. Our proposal at this time is for the purpose of giving the matter of federal assistance to the provinces for resource development the place and importance which it undoutbedly deserves so far as New Brunswick is concerned.
That is the first quotation. I therefore suggested that the first item on the agenda- and I would like this house to keep in mind that this is the year 1955 about which I am speaking-should be "Discussion of national policy of assistance to the provinces for resource development."
The second item which I requested should be placed on the agenda for discussion was "Future tax rental agreements should include a factor which would take into consideration the difference in taxable capacity among the various provinces." My pertinent comments in connection with taxing capacity read as follows in one paragraph to be found on page 32 of the report. I might call the attention of the hon. member for Gloucester to this point. He called my attention to it and I refer him to it also, because this is what I submitted to the government which he supported and which I presume he still supports-that is, their successors-without any results.
What I have said about the lack of taxable capacity for our province also applies in the case of New Brunswick municipalities. The trend in municipal finances indicates that local authorities are becoming increasingly dependent upon grants

Dominion-Provincial Relations and subsidies from other levels of government in order to meet their traditional responsibilities as well as the new demands upon them. Inadequate transfers of income from the federal authority in turn prevent the province from making transfers to the municipalities, upon a scale adequate to their needs. Furthermore, in the event of business recession the demands upon municipalities would greatly increase. The problems of municipalities is another reason for considering the principle of taxable capacity. I submit, therefore, agenda item as follows:
That taxable capacity of the provinces be a consideration in determining annual grants.
No. 3, Mr. Speaker, had to do with the Duncan and White awards, and I will not go into the detail of it at the moment. No. 4 was a recommendation for the agenda. It had to do with the trans-Canada highway and its extension and revision. I feel quite certain that all hon. members will be fully sympathetic with the aims and objects of this particular submission.
I have gone into some detail concerning this preliminary conference with this end in view; that members of this house might be aware of the problem existing at that time, in 1955, and of the representations which were made to the federal government in that year. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members once again to the conference itself, which took place on October 3, 1955. For the information of the house I might mention that a preparatory committee had been working subsequent to the preliminary meeting.
So far as New Brunswick was concerned, our formal submission might be summarized as follows. We requested that tax rental agreements be renewed and that a definite renewal clause be inserted to that effect. We submitted also that low income provinces should receive a national adjustment grant. The submission in this connection was as follows, and I quote again from my remarks at the conference itself:
Experience, however, has indicated that the tax rental agreements do not go far enough to meet the needs of low income provinces in that they are largely based upon a per capita plan of compensation. We are firmly convinced that these provinces should receive a national adjustment grant to compensate them for their lack of taxable capacity in respect of those sources of revenue remaining to them.
It has seemed to us that the conditions which favour this conference permit a reconsideration of one of the major recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois commission designed to correct regional maladjustments. In this connection, the language of the Rowell-Sirois report is still eloquently persuasive in regard to the principle of adjustment grants. The following quotation is taken from chapter V, book II of that report:
"They (the grants) are designed to make it possible for every province to provide for its people services of average Canadian standards and they will thus alleviate distress and shameful conditions which now weaken national unity and handicap many Canadians. They are the concrete expression of the commission's conception of a


federal system which will both preserve a healthy local autonomy and build a stronger and more united nation."
The government of New Brunswick urges with all the force at its command that, in addition to the tax rental agreements, there should be adjustment grants to the low income provinces, and we submit herewith a formula based on relative per capita personal income which would, we consider, accomplish this purpose in a simple and equitable manner.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I submitted a formula which will be found on pages 50 and 51 of the report. I repeated my request for reconsideration of the Duncan-White commission awards, and I outlined the need for federal financial assistance for projects. To be specific, I now quote exactly what was said in that connection as reported on page 53:
The government of New Brunswick proposes that the federal government should extend financial assistance to the provinces for approved natural resource development projects which are in the national interest. The assistance should take the form of loans to the provinces at low rates of interest. To limit the commitment of the federal government, the maximum loan which would be extended to any provinces at any one time could be restricted to two hundred dollars per capita. Such a program would bring great benefits to the federal government in the form of increased revenues from personal and corporate income taxes.
The question of sewage disposal units was discussed, and this seems significant in view of the legislation which has been passed by the house during the present session. Misgivings were expressed in connection with the pollution of our provincial rivers and streams; the serious effect of this pollution on the fishing industry and on tourist traffic was mentioned. We also suggested a continuation of farm credit policy and a more aggressive performance of all its functions. We expressed our approval of the health program, and may I say at this point that the former minister of health was always co-operative with the province of New Brunswick; I should like to pay him that tribute here and now. We requested assistance for electric power development, and I should like to quote again from page 56 of the report. This is somewhat lengthy, but it does sum up the submissions made to a federal-provincial conference and, after all, we are talking about federal-provincial conferences at the present time:
The government of New Brunswick comes to this conference table representing a province united in its determination to accept no substitute nor make shifts for the rights of full citizenship in this great and growing nation. Today, in our province, you will find a new spirit of enterprise new capacities-a new determination to take our place beside our fellow Canadians on terms of full economic equality. Such ambitions and endeavours have not always been practical for us-but they are practical now. We know that we have resources which, properly developed, can furnish our people with the means to greatly

improve our public services and our provincial standard of living as per capita income rises. Through the efforts of the provincial government, and by the enterprise of our people, we have already made important advances in the improvement of our economy. We are co-operating with private capital and doing everything possible to create the favourable economic situation which can encourage the fuller use of our resources. In fact, everything that government and people can do is being done and will continue to be done; yet our progress will be slow without assistance-our full development can only come about with financial help from an interested outside source. The interested source should be the federal government.
We have applied to the central authorities for assistance in electric power development, which is the key to our provincial future; so far without result. We have been led to believe that federal assistance in this respect is contrary to national policy. But we now find that this is not the case. Those listening to the C.B.C. national news bulletin at 11 p.m. on September 13, 1955 heard the announcement that Canada and the province of Ontario had agreed in principle to jointly finance a portion of the Alberta natural gas pipe line. In order that there shall be no possible chance of misunderstanding, I propose to quote the applicable portion of the newscast.
"Agreement in principle has been reached on a plan to have the federal and Ontario governments jointly finance a major section of the proposed Alberta natural gas pipe line."
We are pleased to note that the federal government is adopting a new policy of assisting provinces to obtain additional sources of energy for industrial development.
New Brunswick expects the principle of joint financing to apply to us. Certainly we need it. Surely, you cannot and will not deny it to us.
The details of the arrangement can easily be worked out between your capable officials and ours who are equally efficient, faithful and interested.
We in New Brunswick have no quarrel with other provinces-no quarrel with the federal authority. We are not coming hat in hand to this or any other conference table. Yet we know that we represent an important principle, far beyond considerations of area, population and voting strength in its importance. It is the principle of justice and equity, and no federation of any kind can survive without it.
That conference met again early in 1956 and finalized the five-year agreement for 1957-62. The point I wish to make here and now is this. No action was taken in connection with the special situation existing in the low income brackets which particularly affects the Atlantic provinces. We were led to believe that this could not be undertaken that all the provinces comprising the nation should be prepared to accept the principle that a formula of general application must be applied and should be accepted. We were obliged to accept the conclusion that this was the policy of the government of the day, and that from then on we could expect no recognition by way of special adjustment grants for the Atlantic provinces.
I proceed now with the history of those years. April 1, 1957 ushered in a new fiscal policy. A federal election was called in June, and I took some part in that election. I was
Dominion-Provincial Relations delighted when the new government came into office and was sworn in on June 21. The reason I was delighted was that-well, of course, it was my party; but there was another reason, and a good reason. We had received no action from the Liberal party on repeated requests for recognition of the special situation with respect to the fiscal need, no action regarding special situations with respect to development, no action regarding special situations with respect to the lack of reasonably priced electric energy. And so our only hope, Mr. Speaker, lay with the new administration. What were we going to get from them? That was the question with which we were faced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister will permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister can decide. My question is, does the minister not recall an offer made in Mr. Harris' budget of 1957, which he as premier of the province accepted in principle, for aid in developing low cost electricity in New Brunswick?


Hugh John Flemming: We are getting into low cost electricity. That was a different proposition. It came from the minister of northern affairs and national resources, if I remember rightly, and was not acceptable because-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have the minister's acceptance in principle.


Hugh John Flemming: We will leave that with you, but it was not entirely acceptable. We may have accepted it in principle, but there certainly were still some details with respect to which it was not acceptable, as I remember it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It would have helped the coal mines.


Hugh John Flemming: They were going to develop the power; they were going to move in and take control of New Brunswick. The hon. member recalls it as well as I do. Certainly we did not shut the door in their faces, Mr. Speaker. We could not afford to shut the door in their faces; but as far as that was concerned, there soon was a change after June 10, 1957, because what we expected and what we received from the new administration is now a matter of history. On November 25 and 26 a provincial conference was called by the new administration here in Ottawa. We were welcomed by the Prime Minister, who made a speech at the opening of the conference. I now wish to quote his words to that conference.

Dominion-Provincial Relations They are found in the dominion-provincial conference report of the year 1957, at page 9, and read as follows:
The purpose of each of us here today, as Premier Smallwood said in effect, is to come together in a spirit of amity, to endeavour while maintaining the spirit and intent of the British North America Act to assure the ability and capacity of the federal and provincial governments to discharge their respective constitutional functions. The spirit of confederation requires that provincial governments by their demands upon the federal treasury shall not undermine the strength it requires to sustain its own proper burdens, and that the dominion government shall not take advantage of the legitimate needs of the provinces to undermine the essentially federal nature of our constitution: We are here at this time primarily to listen and to learn. We want to learn about your problems, those problems that bear upon ours. We want to hear your suggestions. We, of course, know something from the public record of the past. We wish to hear directly from you of things as they now are and as you see them.
We believe that this federation cannot thrive in a climate of glaring disparities in levels and standards of service and development as between the several provinces from Newfoundland to British Columbia. Believing in a positive policy, this government intends in co-operation with the provinces to co-operate actively in promoting the development of Canada and all its regions. It is our opinion that positive government is necessary both at the dominion and provincial levels in assuring national development and we are prepared to assist provinces in carrying out their functions where we agree that is necessary and when parliament approves. We are prepared to consider on their merits major projects which will contribute to national development and which are beyond the capacities of any of the provinces.
In that connection I might refer to three examples. In pursuance of that general plan we have announced a program in respect of power in the maritime provinces. In the speech from the throne reference was made to this government's willingness to recommend to parliament participation with the government of British Columbia in a joint program for the development of the immense potential of the Columbia river.
Premier Douglas and members of his government will meet with members of the federal government shortly to consider the making of plans regarding the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation projects.
These were the words of the Prime Minister of Canada in addressing the conference called almost as soon as the government could get around to doing it. These three projects that the Prime Minister mentioned were projects which seemed to be incapable of development under the previous administration. They could not do it. Under the new government they were not impossible, not by any means. Two of them have already been provided for and the third is well under way, as all hon. members are aware, since the signing of the treaty in Washington a few days ago.
I wish to say something in a somewhat personal way, but still with tremendous reference to the general subject of federal-provincial relations. I refer here to the speech

from the throne on October 14, 1957, and I quote from that speech from the throne as follows:
As an immediate start upon a program ot more extensive development in the Atlantic provinces, you will be asked to authorize, in joint action with the provincial governments, the creation of facilities for the production and transmission of cheaper electric power in those provinces. You will also be asked to provide assistance in financing the Beechwood project which has been under construction in New Brunswick.
My ministers will advance this national development policy further by initiating new discussions with the government of Saskatchewan in order to make possible the early commencement of construction of the dam on the South Saskatchewan river.
My ministers are pressing for a favourable settlement of international problems in connection with the Columbia river to clear the way for a joint program with the province of British Columbia to develop the immense power in the waters of this river.
I was impressed, thrilled and thankful to hear this reference to the financing of the Beechwood project and the relief it would afford to all my fellow citizens of the province of New Brunswick. And if there should come a time when there is a proper matter before this house I would be glad to give a resume of my expenrience in connection with Beechwood and the previous administration.
I have no doubt members from Saskatchewan were equally pleased. I have no doubt that members from British Columbia were likewise especially delighted at the mention of the Columbia river. These words would have been a thrill coming from any minister of the crown; they would have been a great thrill coming from the lips of the Prime Minister of Canada, but when they were uttered by Her Majesty the Queen, opening the first session of the twenty third parliament of Canada, it seems to me that was an occasion when we should all acknowledge and properly be grateful for an outstanding moment in all our lives.
Yesterday in this house the Minister of Finance, in an eloquent speech, made a comparison between the policy of this government toward the Atlantic provinces and the policy of the Liberal party. I have said on many occasions, and I repeat here and now, that there is a definite, clear-cut distinction between the policies of the two parties with respect to the Atlantic provinces. It is simply this, that this government has recognized the special situation existing in the Atlantic community. The Liberal government would not recognize that special situation. They never recognized it. This government has taken steps to deal with it. This government has made possible a combined electric grid system for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia by

Dominion-Provincial Relations
which stand-by power plants in each province are made available to the other. This grid system will also be available when wanted for Prince Edward Island, and for Newfoundland when required. It may properly be considered to be on the way.
Coal subventions more generous than ever before have been applied to the Atlantic region. Financial aid has been extended by way of loans to pay for the Beechwood project. All we ever asked for was a loan, not a hand-out; just a loan for Beechwood. The transportation difficulties of the Atlantic provinces are receiving consideration by the transportation commission at this very moment. The present dominion-provincial conference is still in progress and is to be reconvened on a later date, either in February or March.
Relations between the provinces and this government are excellent, and I subscribe completely and enthusiastically to the words of the Minister of Finance yesterday when he stated that there never would have been any Atlantic provinces adjustment grants under the previous administration. He also said that the government was firmly behind the principles of equalization and stabilization and, as I said before, they have demonstrated that they are behind the general principle of the recognition of special situations, and that special adjustment grants will be permanent as far as this government is concerned.
He mentioned the fact that there was an improvement in spirit. I can vouch for that as a completely accurate statement. There is a new optimism generally prevalent in our region, and it is due in no small measure to the sympathetic attitude of the Prime Minister and his government. I have said and I repeat here that in my opinion the Atlantic provinces might very well consider that June 10, 1957, was more important to them than July 1, 1867.
When one considers the percentage position of federal contributions in relation to total revenues of all the provinces and compares this with the position that existed previous to the advent to power of this administration, to be asked to join in a motion of non-confidence against such a government, Mr. Speaker, was referred to yesterday by the Minister of Finance as temerity but I submit that it is unmitigated gall. That is what it is. In my opinion any members of the house, particularly those representing the Atlantic provinces, who would join in a motion of non-confidence against the government on the basis of federal-provincial relations would be casting an entirely partisan vote not in the best interests of his constituents, not in the best interests of Canada and especially not in the best interests of
the Atlantic community which forms a part, and an increasingly important part, of this great nation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to congratulate the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) on his maiden speech in the house. I think all members can agree that he has given an excellent account of himself and has made a speech in the grand style of a political campaigner. In my view a speech of that kind is always welcome in the house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He should have made it last June.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing today a very serious reversal of policy by the government whereby it proposes to abandon the tax rental agreements and turn back to the provinces the right to levy corporation and income taxes and succession duties in a field also occupied by the federal government. In our opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is a return to the antiquated past. If the government persists in following this policy it will mean we will go back to a sorry state where, instead of having a uniform or nearly uniform level of corporation and income taxes and succession duties across the nation, we will have differing rates in each of the ten provinces of this country.
This means, of course, that differing revenues will be coming into the provincial treasuries. Even though the government may continue to follow a so-called principle of equalization with a different definition it will mean a very great variation in provincial revenues and therefore in provincial services. In the main fields of provincial services it will mean that Canadian citizens will receive widely varying standards of services in the different provinces.
We believe that this retreat to the past will make it more difficult for the federal government to embark on those policies that are necessary to provide the kind of climate in which we can have full production and full employment. We feel that this return to the past will mean further encouragement and additional impetus to the concentration of industry in certain areas. If the Prime Minister persists in following this policy it will mean almost inevitably that the less well to do provinces will of necessity be forced to impose higher corporation and income taxes. These higher taxes will not encourage the establishment of industries in the less favoured provinces but rather will result in a further impetus to the concentration of industries in the central provinces and in the present main industrial areas of the country.
A great forward advance was made after the war when the government of the day in

Dominion-Provincial Relations its green book proposals proposed to the provinces that during peacetime they should rent their right to occupy these three main fields of taxation, and that in return they should receive certain grants, certain income from the federal government. In our opinion this has had many great advantages. It meant that these taxes would certainly be equal if all of the provinces rented their right to occupy these fields and the federal government from the revenues obtained would be in a position to make grants on the basis of a specific formula which would enable the provinces to provide a minimum standard of provincial services for their citizens.
Now, we feel these taxation agreements have worked reasonably well. We feel that they have worked in the interests of Canada and that they should be continued. When the conference was held on October 27 last year the Prime Minister made these proposals in his statement:
I wish now to place certain suggestions before you:
First, the federal government is prepared to recommend to parliament that federal tax rates in the three shared tax fields be reduced at the time of the termination of the present tax rental agreements, March 31, 1962, by the amount of the present standard rates, that is, by 14-9-50 in terms of current tax rates. This will permit the provinces to re-enter these tax fields and to cultivate them in the way they find necessary to meet their respective revenue requirements.
Second, it is realized, of course, that handing these rental tax fields back to the provinces will not solve the whole problem of provincial finance. There are many provinces where the revenue yields from these taxes will not be large enough to meet the needs of provincial finance. The problems of such provinces must be recognized, and indeed we have recognized them and continue to recognize them.
To meet the needs of the provinces with lower tax potential we would therefore ask parliament to provide equalization payments or their equivalent in a total amount of $220 million a year, which is approximately the scale of the payments this year.
This meant, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces would be forced back into those three main taxation fields; that for the provinces that had rental agreements and were receiving equalization payments there would be a fixed payment of $220 million per year; that no matter how the country prospered, no matter what the growth in production, no matter what the increased wealth in our nation, the people living within those provinces would not have the right to share in that increased production and increased wealth.
When these proposals were made to the conference every province, I think without exception, expressed keen disapproval and keen disappointment, perhaps with the exception of Ontario. The provinces knew that this was turning back the clock. They knew that this would place them in the position

of being part of a tax jungle which would stretch across this nation, in which taxes would vary from province to province. The provinces knew that this proposal concerning equalization grants would mean that the citizens of the less wealthy provinces would have a fixed standard of services above which, during this period of time, they could not hope to go. Such a howl went up across this country, Mr. Speaker, that the government had to make some amendments to the proposal put before the conference at that time.
Sometimes it is said that parliament is not very effective, and that the opposition may not be able to make the government act. However, it was very interesting yesterday, when we all knew a supply motion was about to be moved in this house, to find the Prime Minister announcing the convening of a federal-provincial conference. By doing so, of course, he would take away some of the impetus of the opposition in moving this want of confidence motion. In order to show that the government considers this a very important question, to show that the government is sensitive in this field, the Minister of Finance read a letter that had been sent by the Prime Minister to the provincial premiers saying that the Prime Minister was prepared to have the federal-provincial conference reconvened on Thursday, February 23, or alternatively on March 25.
It was interesting to me to note in listening to the Minister of Finance that this letter was not dated. I have in my hand the Toronto Star for this afternoon, which indicates that Premier Frost, late yesterday afternoon, had not received the letter that had been read in this house; that is the one the Prime Minister sent to the provinces. As an indication that the government is very sensitive on this question, and that the government knew something had to be done in answer to the debate that might take place, we have this letter which was written. I think it also shows a great discourtesy to the premiers of the provinces of this country when the Minister of Finance refers to a letter and reads it into the record as part of the proceedings of a debate, at a time when the provincial premiers had not had a chance of receiving this letter.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What would the hon. gentleman have said if the Minister of Finance had spoken and not disclosed the existence of a letter which was in the mail?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the Prime Minister
should have written this letter before the debate; that is what I am saying.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: He did.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, yes, a few minutes or a few hours before; but even with the fast air mail between Ottawa and the city of Toronto the

premier of Ontario had not received this letter at the time the Minister of Finance was disclosing it in the House of Commons. This undated letter


Richard Albert Bell: What does the hon. gentleman mean "undated letter"?


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister did not refer to the date. I am sure the letter has a date.


Richard Albert Bell: Of course it had a date on it.


Hazen Robert Argue: 1 imagine the premiers of the provinces will show greater courtesy after they received this letter than the Prime Minister showed after receiving certain letters from the provincial premiers on former occasions. He did not even have the courtesy to reply to some of those letters.
A federal-provincial conference is necessary. The government's proposals have been held up before the conference, but I suggest that even with the additional propositions contained in this letter these proposals are inadequate. They are shortsighted, and they will not assist in dealing with the great unemployment problem or the great economic crisis that faces the Canadian nation. What these proposals, in toto, say is this: Go back to the tax jungle, go back to varying rates of corporation taxes in this country. This proposal would give the provinces that have the largest amount of revenue an opportunity to levy a lower corporation tax, and would provide a still greater incentive for the concentration of industry in this country.
Then the federal government are saying, "We will pay a lump sum to the provinces by way of the so-called equalization grants. We will put in that grant a factor for growth, but an undisclosed factor". We are not told what the factor will be. The provinces will have no idea of this factor until the conference is held. However, Mr. Speaker, putting the very best interpretation one can upon these proposals, I suggest that the government's policy is archaic and will not in any way meet modern conditions.
As an alternative to the government's policy I would suggest that there should be maintained a policy of offering to the provinces a continuation of the tax rental agreements. I suggest that the federal government should give leadership in encouraging the provinces to sign such agreements so that we may maintain standard corporation, income and succession duty rates across this country. We also suggest that in any such proposals there should be provision for an equalization payment. By that I do not mean an equalization payment that gives to each province a guarantee of having an income equal to the per capital yield of the
Dominion-Provincial Relations three taxes at standard rates in the two provinces in which the per capita yield is highest but rather an equalization payment related to the average per capital yield from these three taxes at standard rates in the province with the highest per capita yield. This provision would then bring all the provinces on a minimum standard basis up to the level with the province with the highest yield and not up to the level-which of course is a somewhat lower level-of the average of the two provinces with the highest yields.
In addition to that, we suggest that there should be other proposals or other provisions such as provision for additional grants from the federal government to the provinces. We suggest that grants should be provided by the federal government to provinces that undertake a program of health insurance. Grants of this kind are what the government should be providing to provincial governments in addition to the equalization payments. We suggest that the government should bring into effect once again the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act under which municipal governments could obtain money for capital needs at a low rate of interest.
Proposals of this kind, Mr. Speaker, are necessary to deal with the present recession, to give Canadians in every province a basic minimum standard of social services and to provide for the citizens of each province a reasonable hope of having industries within their province. With the new proposals contained in the letter sent out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and with the additional moneys that may come as a result of those proposals, we suggest that the government is in error in scrapping the tax rental agreements which have served the Canadian nation so well for so long.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul Marlineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to commend the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) who has just made in this house, a speech which certainly will count among the most notable which have been heard here in a very long time. He spoke as the true leader of the Atlantic provinces. Let us bear in mind his concluding remarks to the effect that the official opposition showed incredible cheek in submitting a motion of nonconfidence in this government in the field of federal-provincial relations, and more particularly trying to justify it by the treatment meted out to the Atlantic provinces in fiscal matters by this government.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You were not singing that tune in the days of Mr. Duplessis.
1586	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, there is no ground on which the Liberal opposition is more vulnerable, no ground where it runs a better chance to stumble-


Mr. Michaud:: Who stumbled on June 27 last, in New Brunswick?


Paul Raymond Martineau: -and to slip, than the one mentioned by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) when he introduced his amendment yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that when this administration came into power in 1957, it had to face an unprecedented fiscal jungle, and, at this point, I would like to quote some words which give about the best description of the Liberal party's attitude throughout the years, in the field of federal-provincial relations. As a matter of fact, these adjectives are an excellent illustration of the conditions inherited by this government.
It has been said that the attitude of the Mackenzie King and St. Laurent governments had been unpardonably arbitrary. It has been referred to as medieval and feudal. It was stated that the terms offered were hard, complex and anticonstitutional. It has also been said that the ministers of the crown, at that time-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Who has been saying this?


Paul Raymond Martineau: -acted with incredible arrogance.


Murdo William Martin: Who said that?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I was anticipating that question. Right at the beginning of my remarks, I said that I was giving a concise summary of remarks heard in connection with the proposals of the federal government during the 1945-57 period. The descriptive words are my own, but they reflect-


An hon. Member:: The Union Nationale.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -precisely the feeling
which prevails throughout this country.


Murdo William Martin: Inside the Conservative party.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Your own former chief, Mr. Duplessis, said so.


Paul Raymond Martineau: But, allow me to continue. I could describe the situation as an awful mess, an unaccountable jungle, a medieval labyrinth, utter confusion, an anticonstitutional attitude, an imbroglio. Such were the epithets used by observers of the parliamentary scene at the time. Today I fully endorse those epithets, believing as I do that they reflect the extreme scorn and arrogance shown by the then central government


toward our confederative pact, provincial autonomy and, in fact, the whole constitutional history of this country.


Mr. Cardin:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will only be patient, and if I have some time left at the end of my speech, I shall be pleased to grant his request.
Perhaps the hon. members opposite will say that my words do not accurately describe their attitude, and they may perhaps try to say that, as far as they were concerned, they were above reproach. So I shall refer to another authority, one that hon. members opposite indeed will not be able to disavow, since it is none other than the ineffable member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), an increasingly important authority on constitutional matters.
Here is what the hon. member said as recorded in Hansard for July 24, 1956, page 6373:
Nothing-
Referring to the proposals then put forward by the federal government, he said:
Nothing would have been simpler then for the government to recommend ... some slight change in the formula-
That is to say the formula then in force in connection with federal-provincial agreements; but here is what he added:
-and continue the situation which had persisted since 1945. A situation which, I submit-
And I quote textually:
A situation which I submit, was not good for this country and which could not much longer continue-
Therefore, according to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, from 1945 to 1956, his government tolerated, with regard to this matter, a situation clearly detrimental to the best interests of the country. He went on to say:
Whereby the benefits-
And I still quote:
-of this legislation were going to two thirds of the country and not to the other third.
Those were the words of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate: they are a very clear indictment of his government's attitude during those years.
But, it might perhaps be said that in the meantime, hon. members opposite have changed their minds, have realized they were on the wrong track and have now adopted a new approach which, this time, will be more in keeping with the Canadian

spirit, and when I say Canadian spirit, I mean the spirit of the federalist system now prevailing in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, when hon. members of the opposition introduce a motion of non-confidence in the government, they somewhat remind me of expert witnesses who are sometimes heard in court. You know, when those witnesses are heard, it is the practice-and a good one at that-to ask them about their qualifications as arbiters or as experts called upon to decide the pros and cons of a controversial matter.
Well, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the words I have just quoted, and particularly after what has been said by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I feel that I can say that those hon. members are certainly not qualified to deal expertly with a matter as closely related to the best interests of this country.
But recently it has been suggested that our friends had repented and that the Liberal policy would now be in accordance with our confederate mentality and our confederate system.
The other day, the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Tremblay) spoke about a recent Liberal rally and he explained very clearly that the centralizing tendency of the Liberal administration was always as strong as it had been. In addition, he particularly proved that point by taking issue with the sentence of the Liberal policy which concerns education, which is a clear encroachment, or attempted encroachment upon a field belonging exclusively to the provinces. Thus, there has been no repentance whatsoever.
Coming back now to last night's debate, I must say I was especially surprised at certain words spoken by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, particularly those recorded on page 1559 of Hansard where the hon. member quotes as his authority none other than Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Here is what he said on that matter:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding pointed out at that time that the proper basis of federal subsidies should be a real per capita basis and that the rather extraordinary scheme that there was in the British North America Act.. .
Let us then consider that suggestion in detail. First of all, what was the attitude of the Liberal leader in the matter of tax sharing between the provinces and the federal government?
I read in column 5289 of Hansard of March 25,	1907, the following which is worth
quoting. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was then prime minister of Canada and proposed the adoption of the following address:
We pray that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the
Dominion-Provincial Relations imperial parliament at its present session, repealing the provisions of section 118 of the British North America Act, 1867, aforesaid, and substituting therefor the scale of payments above set forth, which shall be a final and unalterable settlement of the amounts to be paid yearly to the several provinces of the dominion for their local purposes and the support of their governments and legislatures.
Here is another proposal made by the prime minister of the time, and which is mentioned in column 5304 of Hansard for the same year:
The plan we proposed was that we should revise the subsidies given the provinces, with the clear intimation to them that this was to be a final settlement, that no further claim would recognize, that each province must carry on its affairs with the means at its command and must not have recourse to this parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly useless for the hon. members opposite to quote such an authority in support of their claims, for provincial rights, and especially a larger tax share for the provinces.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in fact of the opinion that a final settlement had to be entered into with the provinces and that those provinces should not come and knock again at the door of the federal government.
Such was the very opinion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as reported in Hansard which I just quoted.
It has been rightly said that the Liberal leader, the then prime minister, also thought that it was a false principle that one government should collect taxes and another spend them.
I remember that at the beginning of this session the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) seemed to disagree with this and even said of one of my interventions that it was utter nonsense.
Be that as it may, I believe that those words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier which I just quoted imply that this was his opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You accepted it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, we accepted the principle, but the hon. members opposite are the very ones who no longer accept it; they would have us believe that their leader at that time, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, did not advocate that principle.


Murdo William Martin: You accepted that principle under Mr. St. Laurent's administration.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Other similar statements were made. Do you know by whom? By none other than the great constitutional

Dominion-Provincial Relations wizard, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who stated the following, as reported in Hansard for March 24, 1956:
I think it is much more advisable that the government spending the money should collect it.
That is, should collect the taxes.
So, why maintain and suggest now, in vague and underhand terms, that such a principle is unfounded?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
question under discussion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Surely more surprising still are the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who described as "rather unusual'' the tax-sharing formula provided under the B.N.A. Act between provinces and the federal government Now, we know what this is all about. We realize now how the Liberal party throughout its long administration gradually sought to disregard the precise terms of the constitution and to lean towards centralization.
Besides, they have never changed their position, because yesterday the same member for Bonavista-Twillingate said that the formulas provided in the B.N.A. Act were really extraordinary. He used the word "strange."


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Let the hon. member read his statement.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I understand why my remarks are not to the hon. members' liking.


Mr. Ricard:: They hurt.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what he said. You are wrong and you know it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It hurts the hon. members.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the motion introduced yesterday by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) as it appears on page 1535 of yesterday's official report. There is a preamble, because this was an important event in the history of parliament, and they saw fit to begin the amendment with a preamble.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Very well said.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mention was made of the meeting held on October 26, 1960.
In view of the fact that the federal government at the October conference (1960) with the provinces proposed fixed subsidies in place of the equalization payments provided under the present tax-sharing arrangements, and that this October proposal is a repudiation of the principle of equalization;


Therefore, be it resolved that this house strongly favours-
Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, such words coming from that source.
The continued application of the principle of equalization of direct tax revenues.
Mr. Speaker, it is readily realized that hon. members of the opposition are still confused, not only with respect to the history of Canada's constitutional evolution, but also as to the very meaning of the terms. This can clearly be seen in this resolution in which principle and formula are confused.
The principle of equalization has not at all been questioned nor challenged by this government. On the contrary, that principle was recognized by the very words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), on the occasion of the first steps taken by his government.
Here is what he said on the matter as can be found on page 1546 of Hansard:
Whatever the ultimate decision may be, the principle of equalization must be preserved.
And further on, the Prime Minister stated:
Again I wish to emphasize that the federal government remains firmly committed to the principle of equalization and of financial assistance to those provinces in which incomes and taxable capacity are below those of the richer provinces.
And again, in the letter sent yesterday to the premiers by the Prime Minister of Canada and which is recorded in yesterday's Hansard, we find this:
The suggestions that I have placed-
I am quoting the Prime Minister.
-before the October conference included the principles of equalization based on fiscal need and the stabilization of provincial revenues. The federal government is also prepared to make provision for a growth factor in the equalization formula.
Thus it is claimed here that equalization is being preserved not only in principle but in fact.
The formula can of course be changed, because as conceived by the constitutional authorities sitting on the treasury benches at the time, it is far from perfect, as constitutional experts agree almost to a man.
It has been said, for example, that it went against the spirit of the federal covenant allowing taxes to be levied for purposes entirely provincial. That is a first breach of the constitution. Second, it is not very realistic. And on this point, I am going to quote-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Why did you consistently support it?

Dominion-Provincial Relations


Mr. Racine:: What is your proposal?	proposals were to be discussed, and the


Paul Raymond Martineau: There, Mr. Speaker, is the supreme argument of members of the opposition whenever they run out of arguments.
That is the principle underlying the whole theory of equalization. It is intended to ensure that provincial services will not, due to the poverty of some provinces, fall below a minimum which is considered appropriate for Canadians generally. This is subject to one condition, namely that each contracting province should raise its various taxes to a level considered equal to that of the provinces which are required to pay the cost of the subsidies.
In other words, it is a question of equalizing tax revenues. Now the constitutional experts following the lead of Frangois-Albert Angers, a distinguished authority and a noted sociologist and economist, have made a very searching analysis of that government's proposals and have pointed out the flaws in the present formula. So it is with a view to correcting those flaws, and ensuring full compliance with the federal covenant that this government offers new proposals, which though not final, involve certain amendments to the 1957 agreements.
If the provinces accept those solutions, we shall be reverting to the true spirit of the constitution. That, surely, is an improvement on the previous agreements. Here is what Mr. Angers had to say in the concluding lines of an article published on November 24 in Le Devoir:
Summing up, the present equalization system is over-simple, phony and certainly unfair.
Over-simple, phony and certainly unfair.
Mr. Speaker, could anyone in his right mind rise in this house and say that the devious formula devised by Mackenzie King and his assistants, particularly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is so perfect, that it cannot be improved in any way?
That is the situation we are faced with now, in the year 1961, at a time when consideration must be given to renegotiating federal-provincial tax agreements.
The proposals submitted by the federal government were not as rigid as those put forward by the former administration. The Prime Minister in all his press releases and in all his dealings with the provincial authorities, repeated over and over again that these
provinces were invited to make representations.
I must not forget to quote Mr. Angers' conclusions on this problem, as they appeared in Le Devoir for November 24:
The present federal formula, the one submitted to the October 1960 conference is basically correct. We have now reached what may be termed the dangerous narrows in a reversion to a decentralized system involving greater consideration for the true autonomy of the provinces.
And he added:
The Liberals have diabolically-
This word may be worth noting.
-diabolically sown confusion and have harnessed interests to make them work for centralization.
In order to break out of their system, the provinces must now show enough wisdom and dedication to the common good to disregard the petty interests-
Petty interests.
-that the King and St. Laurent governments used for fifteen years to further their centralizing policies.
That, Mr. Speaker, is an unbiased opinion from a man who is certainly not interested in promoting anything but the highest interest of this country in the matter of government policy in the field of federal-provincial taxation.
Now, our hon. friends opposite, having been guilty of those offences, which are now a matter of history-and here I repeat the words used by the Minister of Forestry- have the gall to criticize this government, a government which has done more than any other to foster friendly relations and understanding between the central and provincial authorities. And if there is one thing, among all the achievements of this government, that deserves to be remembered and praised in the highest possible terms, it is its effort to restore a fair distribution of taxes. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there is no deluding ourselves about this: we know, and everyone knows, that there is only one taxpayer and that whether taxes are paid to the federal or provincial governments, it is always the same man who pays, and I believe that-


An hon. Member:: Poor man.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes. -That in view of the tax burden he has to carry, the Canadian taxpayer should be treated with dignity and justice. That is what this government has tried to do, and in a most concrete way by increasing, as it did-in fact it almost doubled over the last three and a half to

Dominion-Provincial Relations four years-the share of federal taxes that is paid back to the provinces. This share has gone up from approximately $680 million to the present figure of $1,300 million. That, surely, is significant evidence. And this government has done it without sacrificing the principles of our system of government. Today, it is proposed to come back to those principles which, surely are not unusual, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) seems to think, but are the cornerstone of this nation and the basis of its future prosperity.
(Text) :


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. member drew me into his speech, would he permit a question before he takes his seat? Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the present government was acting on a principle different from that founded by Mr. St. Laurent-allow me to finish my question, please-because the Minister of Finance told us last night it was exactly the same principle?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member missed the greater part of my speech because I was very careful to state that the present government still adhered to the principle of equalization but that there could be changes made in the formula. There is a distinction, in case the hon. member does not know, between principle and formula.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman say what changes the present government has made in the formula?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, again my answer is the same. I would have to repeat my entire speech and I think it would be time lost because the hon. member would not understand it anyway.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat, I should like to ask him a question. I did not want to interrupt the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary. Could the hon. member tell us exactly what is meant by the factor of growth, and tell us also the basis on which this factor would be calculated for tax distribution?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, factor of growth means exactly the growth of a factor, and if the hon. member does not know the meaning of the word, I suggest that he look it up in the dictionary.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I thank the hon. member for the information he gave me about the word growth. Would he now explain to me how the government intends to determine the basis on which the payments will be made, taking into consideration the factors of growth?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what was done under the Liberals, this government does not decide on such matters without having discussed them with the provinces, and it is not for me to deal with them here before the provinces have been consulted and have given their opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) as I feel that he did not talk to the amendment before us. I regret very much that he refused to give us a definition of the growth factor because this is the heart of the amendment before us at this time.
(Text):
I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) likewise refused to give us an explanation of what is meant by the factor of growth which is, of course, the heart of the matter before us at this time. If we had had from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), if we were to have later from the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), some indication of what the Prime Minister meant in his letter of yesterday, which he said he sent to the provinces, by his reference to the factor of growth, we could then determine whether or not the government has abandoned the position which the Prime Minister took in July. Then he spoke of his faith in equalization and the determination of his government to see the principle of equalization in federal-provincial fiscal relations perpetuated.
I should like to begin what I have to say by complimenting the Minister of Forestry on the manner of his speech if not on its content. The hon. gentleman has made a very creditable first speech. One recalls, however, that many of the arguments he used today were arguments which he employed in the last federal election, particularly in the province of New Brunswick, when he urged the people of that province to support the present government. They were likewise arguments that he used in part in the last provincial election and the results of that election, of course, made possible his entrance into this house. But the fact is that the people of New Brunswick do not share his very strong and extravagant view of the beneficence of this government, because in that province there is now

a new provincial premier and the former provincial premier has, as I said, made a very creditable first speech in the House of Commons today.
The fact is, however, that neither the Minister of Forestry nor the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary addressed himself to the issue before us at this time, to the amendment now before the house so ably introduced yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). That issue is whether or not the government is prepared, in accordance with its promise to the Canadian people, to prosecute to the full its assurances with regard to amelioration in the relations which the federal government has with the ten provincial governments.


Mr. Chambers:: That is done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says that is done. Whatever has been done during the last forty eight hours has been as a result of the prodding by this party on Friday last and by this amendment, as I hope to show before I take my seat. Certainly we should have had from the parliamentary secretary today a definition of what the Prime Minister meant when he said in his letter to the provinces inter alia that he would hope that the equalization total might be distributed in such a fashion as to give greater weight to provincial fiscal needs and that the government would also take into consideration the factor of growth. We have not had that from the parliamentary secretary what is meant by the factor of growth, and in spite of repeated questions and requests yesterday by hon. members on this side we have not had from the Minister of Forestry today, a member of the government, any explanation as to what is meant by the factor of growth. A few moments ago the parliamentary secretary said to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres that anybody knows what the factor of growth is, and exactly the same reply was given to us yesterday by the Minister of Finance.


Paul Raymond Martineau: We speak in plain terms.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The real fact is that the government has not yet decided what it means by the factor of growth. I venture to challenge the Prime Minister to tell us before this debate is over what he meant in the letter signed by him, a letter which undoubtedly was prepared and dictated by the Minister of Finance, in using the words "growth factor". If the Prime Minister wants us to regard that letter as indicating the government's stamp of faith in this matter, let him tell us, the provinces and the country generally precisely what is meant so that we will be able to determine
Dominion-Provincial Relations whether or not the government is going to adhere to the assurances of the Prime Minister given in July, given prior to the last election in Winnipeg and given in 1957 in the same city, in absolute contrast to the reluctance of the Minister of Finance to forecast beyond one year what the government of Canada was going to do with regard to equalization payments.
The Minister of Finance chided the house yesterday because the Liberal opposition dared, pending negotiations with the provinces, to raise this matter, as though it was not the responsibility and duty of the House of Commons and of the opposition in particular to ascertain and to obtain precision of government policy in all aspects. Why dominion-provincial fiscal relations should be excluded is very difficult to see, but the Minister of Finance chided us yesterday as though when he was sitting in the opposition he was reluctant to question the government of the day with regard to matters involving negotiations with the provinces, as though in those days he was reluctant to criticize the government or examine policy when negotiations of another character were under way.
It is the duty of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, to ascertain whether this government has a real policy in these matters, whether it has changed its policy, whether it is favouring one province as opposed to the nine other provinces, whether it feels that its election commitments are such that it has got to pay greater attention to the most powerful province, economically, the province of Ontario, or whether it is going to give justice to all the provinces in our country. These are some of the issues that are implied in the discussion being carried on in this house. We have a right to ascertain whether there is implied in this matter a secret understanding, not put to the other provinces, between the Minister of Finance and the premier of the province of Ontario. There is good ground for asking this question. At the last conference the only premier who was satisfied with the plan put forward by this government was the premier of Ontario. The premier of Manitoba and the other premiers certainly did not accept it.
Why did the premier of Ontario seem to accept the proposal put forward by the government? I believe it was because the premier of Ontario, the premier of my own province, was opposed to the principle of equalization. This government, clearly, was determined to get rid of this principle and it was prepared to carry out the undertaking which I suspect was given by this government to the premier of Ontario.


An hon. Member:: You suspect.
1592	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course I suspect because-


Thomas Miller Bell: Mischievous.


Murdo William Martin: -when the present Prime Minister was on the same platform with Premier Frost in Massey Hall in 1957 Premier Frost said, I want $100 million more from the federal government, and I know the only way I can get it is by electing this man, and Premier Frost then put his hand on the Prime Minister's shoulder. Certainly Premier Frost could look to him for the kind of assistance which the premier of Ontario wanted.
Now hon. gentlemen may take issue with what I am saying. Let the Prime Minister rise in his place after I have spoken and deny that there was this understanding with the premier of Ontario, deny that the premier of Ontario did not state that he would be pleased to see this principle of equalization abandoned because Ontario then would stand to gain.
While I come from the province of Ontario, I prefer to take the position that the way we are going to build up national unity in this country is by according to all Canadians the same opportunities, wherever they may live, because in the final analysis they are the ones who supply the federal government with the revenues it receives and with which it carries on and discharges the functions of government in Canada. There can be no other way of carrying on a satisfactory relationship between the two levels of government in Canada than by recognizing that all the provinces have a right to share, along with the more fortunately endowed provinces, in the building of schools and all the other things which Canadians have an equal right to expect from the two senior levels of government.
I believe that throughout this whole matter we have had a demonstration of the real character of this government. We have here a day to day government. Ministers make decisions only when a crisis has developed or when they are under the immediate pressure of the opposition. We have seen evidence of that on more than one occasion. We saw it in the case of the appointment of a royal commission to investigate health insurance. We saw it in the case of the conference of management and labour called by the government with regard to unemployment. We saw it in the matter of the Clark report, an investigation made by the government into the old age survivor system in the United States. We saw it, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) points out, in the case 

of the census questions on which the government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) retreated.
The real fact is that since October last the government has allowed this matter of federal-provincial relations to drift as so many other problems are allowed to drift by this government. The proof of that is seen in some of the questions that were put in this house on Friday last. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to page 1476 of Hansard, where the following questions were put:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether any changes whatever are in contemplation with respect to the tax-sharing arrangements with the provinces for the fiscal year 1961-62.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the ambit of discussion at the dominion-provincial conferences on fiscal questions has been confined to measures in the period commencing April 1, 1962.
Then, the minister went on to deal with something that does not have anything to do with my point. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) put this question:
I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a reported statement by Mr. Frost to the effect that it would be impossible to present a budget, that is in Toronto, until the federal government position is known in this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My attention has not been called to this statement. I heard a reference to it on the radio this morning. Obviously this is a budget matter, and it would not be proper for me to comment on the plans of the Ontario government in relation to budget matters.
The minister then made certain other observations that do not have anything to do with the point I am making. At this point, I interjected:
The minister is not suggesting, is he, that he is not on talking terms with the premier of Ontario?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure that thought would not have crossed the mind of any hon. member but the hon. member for Essex East.
I thanked him for that compliment. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) then, interjected:
He just would not allow the premier of Ontario to get a word in edgewise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr
Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think I ought to hear the supplementary question of the hon. member for Assiniboia.
It is this part to which I ask hon. members on the government side to pay attention as to whether the letter written yesterday was not the result of prodding by the Liberal opposition. I quote:


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister can inform the house

whether a date has been set for a federal-provincial conference involving the provincial premiers in order to deal with fiscal matters.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.
If that does not indicate a justification for the course taken by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, then I would like to know what kind of evidence would satisfy hon. members opposite. The fact is that this government had no idea on Friday last when it was going to call a conference. The fact is that on Friday last, and as late as Sunday, the Prime Minister had no thought whatever of writing to the provinces suggesting a proposed date for the conference and he had no idea of using the phrase "growth factor".
I shall point out later my reasons for making this statement.
Then, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) went on:
Can the minister say whether a conference will be held within the next month or two?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would not expect one would be held within the next short period.
However, this conference is called for February 23. Obviously, even the Minister of Finance, who is generally alert to these things, had no idea of the dangerous trap in which this series of questions was putting him. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) then asked:
Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a supplementary question, is the government contemplating sending any communication on this matter to the provincial governments in the next month?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
It is true that the letter sent yesterday comes fully within the terms of the reply of the Minister of Finance. However, Mr. Speaker, what has happened is clear. Hon. gentlemen were aware that there was dissatisfaction on the part of at least nine provincial premiers; among those premiers were some strong supporters of the Conservative party, notably the premier of Nova Scotia and the premier of Manitoba in particular. Likewise great concern was expressed in editorial opinion in Conservative newspapers and in other politically affiliated newspapers throughout the country. It was sent only after the Minister of Finance realized on Friday that a supply motion was coming up for consideration on Monday and that it might be this particular question which might be the subject matter of discussion on a supply motion.
I can visualize what happened. On Saturday, after the Minister of Finance had cleaned his desk on going down to his office when all of his staff were away, when he was afforded an opportunity of contemplation, not being disturbed by the presence even of his parliamentary secretary, he suddenly realized that
Dominion-Provincial Relations the position taken by the government was one which could not be defended and that something must be done about the matter. He knew what the Prime Minister had said in July about equalization payments. There was not any doubt that the Prime Minister in July affirmed his conviction with regard to and his belief in the principle of equalization payments. That was not always the position of the Prime Minister nor was it always the position of this government. Well do we recall in this house the reluctance of the Minister of Finance to give any assurance that the principle of equalization would be carried on beyond any one year. It was only when confronted with opinion in Manitoba that the Prime Minister, after that reluctance on the part of the Minister of Finance, made the assertion that his government would support the principle of equalization.
But then what happened? In the month of October the Prime Minister changed his mind, the government changed its position, and the communique of October 26,	1960 clearly
established that the total of $220 million a year-which included, of course, the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants and the special grants to Newfoundland-was to be frozen. It was as a result of the realization of that fact that there was consternation and criticism all over this country. But over the week end and, I am sure, during the course of the last few days, in thinking about this kind of problem the Minister of Finance has realized that neither he nor the government-and certainly not a government in whose membership is to be found the new Minister of Forestry- could defend a government policy that denied the principle of equalization.
That is the reason the Minister of Finance suddenly got busy. He could not find the Prime Minister on Saturday morning. He could not find him on Saturday afternoon. He certainly could not find him on Saturday night because I understand the Prime Minister was speaking at an extremely exclusive club in the city of Montreal about something that is not my business. However, he got hold of the Prime Minister obviously before the week end was over because a cabinet meeting was held early Monday morning, so we are told. At that cabinet meeting undoubtedly the Minister of Finance presented the Prime Minister with this letter in which it was proposed there would be a conference with the provinces on February 23, and in which were used certain words that have not been defined in this house, namely "growth factor" something which would lend encouragement to the interpretation that the government was relenting in the position it had taken at the Quebec conference.
1594	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Why bring this letter forward on that date, namely yesterday morning? Largely because, as often happens in this house, news must have leaked out that the Liberal opposition was going to bring in this particular motion; and the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, who is not above doing this sort of thing, said: "We will anticipate them". The Prime Minister said, "We shall have only a few hours, but, Donald, if you rise in your place sometime during the course of your speech on Monday and indicate that I have sent a letter to the provinces, that procedure will take the wind out of the sails of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and any other hon. member in the Liberal opposition who would likely be attacking us". That is the situation.


An hon. Member:: That is not the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Somebody says, "That is not the situation". I should be happy to have the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Halpenny) tell us what really went on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Solicitor General (Mr. Browne).


Paul Joseph James Martin: Excuse me; I meant to say the Solicitor General. But the matter cannot be allowed to rest there. It is true that we have this letter. It is clear that the government has been prodded into writing this letter, into having a conference and into what could be interpreted as a relaxation of its rigid policy of maintaining for a time equalization payments at a stated level. But this is not good enough. This is not a boys' parliament; this is the parliament of the nation. There sits the government of Canada. It cannot justifiably use trick words in its relations or in its correspondence with the provinces.


An hon. Member:: Trick words?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, trick words; and I say that advisedly. No one can tell from that letter what those words mean and no minister in this debate has been able to tell us what the words "growth factor" mean. I ask the Minister of Finance, who is not here, through his parliamentary secretary to tell us before this debate is over, so that the provinces will know, what is meant by growth factor. On what is the growth factor to be based? The Minister of Finance did not tell us yesterday. The Minister of Forestry did not tell us today. The parliamentary secretary simply said growth factor is growth factor. We are entitled to know what the letter meant.
Is growth factor to be based on population growth or is it to be based on an increase in our gross national product? It could also be determined on the basis of the per capita


yield of the three direct taxes at standard rates in the wealthier provinces. Here the basis could be the top provinces, as I should like it to be, or the top two provinces as at present, or it could simply be the national average as requested by the premier of Ontario. But surely we are entitled to know on what this growth factor is going to be based. Moreover, in a debate of this kind I think we are entitled to know not from the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister but from the Prime Minister himself.
I should like to have brought before us any precedent for a debate on provincial relations of this character, particularly one that is based upon an initiative taken by the Prime Minister, in which that right hon. gentleman in the course of the history of this chamber has not taken part. The Prime Minister should speak tonight. He should tell us what he means by growth factor. He should also tell us whether I am justified in the surmise that the government had not thought of this matter at all until it heard of our proposed amendment, and only after it had been prodded into it by the brilliant questions of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
I have another reason for believing that this growth factor continues to be the essence of this argument. The Prime Minister says: I have never varied from my view that we should accord to the provinces of our country the principle of equalization. He says that notwithstanding the clear words contained in the press release of October 26, 1960 when he said this:
To meet the needs of the provinces with lower tax potential we would therefore ask parliament to provide equalization payments or their equivalent in a total amount of $220 million a year.
Then he went on further to say this:
-we. . . would hope that the total might be distributed in such fashion as to give greater weight to provincial fiscal need.
If that is the case, why does the Prime Minister use these particular words in the letter which he addressed to the provinces?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you trying to find it? It is on page 1548.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I welcome the hon. gentleman back from India.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You need somebody's help anyway.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister says that his view has always been that the principle of equalization shall apply. The Minister of Finance says the same, and he says that all the arguments adduced on this side of the house are without any validity. If that is the case, why does the Prime Minister, in his letter to the provinces-which

is supposed to be dated yesterday morning and which is supposed to have been mailed just before we began this particular debate yesterday afternoon-use these words:
The federal government Is also prepared to make provision for a growth factor in the equalization formula.
Why would he say that the government is prepared to make provision for a growth factor in the equalization formula if that has always been the policy of the government of Canada? The fact is, it was not in October. The fact is that notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance says, while the Prime Minister took that position in July the government took a different position in October. It was as a result of that that provincial premiers condemned this government, and among them particularly the premier of Manitoba.
I have here two press clippings, one dated October 25, 1960, from the Winnipeg Free Press.


Mr. Lambert:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend for Edmonton West does not like the Winnipeg Free Press. I quote it with relish because I think it is an excellent newspaper, and the Minister of Finance quoted from it yesterday. Here is what Mr. Roblin is reported as having said on October 25, 1960:
It would, he said, be "very difficult" to maintain the equalization principle under a new formula which would allow all provinces to set their own tax levels.
Manitoba, he said, would have "little or nothing to gain by getting the right to vary its own tax rate."
I am sure the premier of Manitoba would not have made that statement if he had not interpreted the policy of the government in October as we have interpreted it, as other provincial governments have interpreted it and as every newspaper in Canada has interpreted it. Here is what Mr. Roblin said on October 29, 1960, in an article headed:
No excuse for refusing tax proposal


An hon. Member:: What paper is that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Winnipeg Free Press. The heading of the article continues:
Diefenbaker's plan is termed "Expensive, unnecessary" by Roblin.
Then the article goes on to quote what Mr. Roblin said:
The real point at issue-
And this is the real point at issue in this particular debate:
-between the federal government and Manitoba, Mr. Roblin said, is the equalization principle which aims at giving the poorer provinces parity of revenue with the richest. He spoke out strongly 90205-6-101
Dominion-Provincial Relations
against the federal proposals to freeze equalization payments at last year's level for the full five years of the new tax agreement.
The equalization payments, he said, must vary from year to year with the revenue capacity of the government.
Then Mr. Roblin said, as reported in this
article:
If there can be derived a formula on equalization and stabilization that can reach our requests, there can be no legitimate refusal on the part of the provinces to collect our own standard tax.
Then he goes on and I ask the Minister of Forestry to note these words:
An equalization that depends entirely on a fixed amount, not related in a flexible way to a real measure of revenue capacity changes, as is incorporated in the present agreement by tying it into the standard tax rates, is unsatisfactory to us.
We would urge that equalization should be tied into some such measure of revenue capacity as the standard tax rate or any better measuring rod that can be devised.
There is no doubt, then, what the premier of Manitoba thought as a result of the conference that was held in October last. He saw here a denial by this government of an opportunity which was the only effective means of providing economic justice to the provinces that are less fortunate economically than some of the other provinces of our country. Unless the principle of equalization is to be recognized by the federal government, Manitoba would not be able to share, as it is entitled to share as a member of our national family, whatever economic advantages flow to this country through the avenue of the more fortunate, economically, situated provinces. Likewise the province of New Brunswick. Where would the province, from which the Minister of Forestry comes, be if the principle of equalization were not to be carried forward year by year?
This motion of ours has served to prod the government into some kind of action. First, in calling the provinces together to another conference. Second, in causing the government to realize that the rigid position it took in October was one that could not be accepted by the majority of the members of this house who want to be true to their trust and to the interests of their constituents, and it could not possibly be accepted by the majority of the provinces of Canada.
We have served a valuable purpose in putting forward this amendment. We have caused the government to give further consideration to its policy. We have caused the government at long last to call the provinces together. At long last we have given the Prime Minister an opportunity of triumphing over the ministerial discussions that obviously have taken place in the cabinet between himself and the Minister of Finance.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
The story of this administration's handling of federal-provincial fiscal relations is a sorry one. This is the government of the Prime Minister who said in 1957, "Elect us to office; make me prime minister; I will call a conference in September and I will resolve once and for all this problem of federal-provincial fiscal relations".
No conference was called in September, 1957. It is only because of the series of questions put from this side of the house that one was called in November 1957. And what happened in November? Nothing was settled; there was no statement of federal government policy; the conference was adjourned; it was to come back in January of 1958. This government, that was going to settle problems on the basis of consultation and collaboration with the provinces, did not reconvene the conference. Instead the Minister of Finance sent an ex parte telegram imposing on the government of New Brunswick and on all the other provinces of our country conditions to which the federal government alone was a party.
As a matter of fact the telegram was so erroneous in some of its mathematics that the Minister of Finance was put to great embarrassment a few days later when the necessary amendments were made. The reason for that was of course that the Minister of Finance did not prepare the telegram. It shows the great collusion that exists between this government and the present government of Ontario, because that telegram was prepared by Mr. George Gathercole, a very able assistant in the office of the premier of Ontario, and I challenge hon. members opposite to deny that.
Mr. Pallet!: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett), whose contributions always consist of mild interruptions, I am sure is now convinced-


An hon. Member:: -that you are crazy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that the opposition has brought the government to a realization that good government in Canada consists of proper relations between the federal government on the one hand and the provincial governments on the other.
The provinces cannot be treated like children. They have a right to have their responsibilities recognized by the federal government. The way to recognize those responsibilities is by treating the provinces as they should be treated, and as they were treated by Mr. St. Laurent, as ladies and gentlemen elected by their constituents to carry on government in the provincial area. They have their responsibilities under section
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).!

92 of the British North America Act. We have ours under section 91 of the B.N.A. Act. I call on this government to discharge its responsibilities under section 91, and the way to do that is not by the method employed yesterday, when under the prodding and the compulsion of an opposition it began to do something which it should have undertaken many weeks ago.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Before offering congratulations to the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) on his very great versatility. Over the years the hon. gentleman has demonstrated his ability as president of the Essex East bureau of statistics. This afternoon we have heard him as president of a new bureau, the Essex East detective agency. The hon. member has reconstructed the whole thing. He has told us precisely what has happened. He left nothing to surmise, nothing to conjecture. Frankly, after all the sound and fury is over, and having listened to the whole story, I cannot help feel I would prefer to be guided by one phrase used by the hon. member when he referred to constituents, and to leave these things to the constituents across Canada and their conclusions when they read the hon. member's speech.
There is no doubt in my mind that the constituents are thinking deeply about these questions and are inclined to look at the facts with regard to them. From what I have heard in the last few days I should be inclined to trust the facts as set out by the various hon. members on the government side who have spoken. These facts are hard to refute, and they concern the change which has been brought about in dominion-provincial relationships since 1957, since June 25 of that year, to be exact. I intend to deal with the subject only in relation to my own province, and this at a later time.
May I say that I rise with a good deal of diffidence and a certain amount of humility to follow the Minister of Forestry. This was his maiden speech. The hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Argue) afforded him the somewhat dubious compliment of saying it was a good political speech. To my mind it was a good deal more than that. It was a factual speech, and it came from a man who has had a great deal of experience in provincial-federal relations. The hon. gentleman has not only seen all sides of this question but he is also a steady and sound thinker who puts his facts forward very well. I would accept what he has said, together with the various quotations from newspapers which have been put on record. I would accept entirely his contention that in June, 1957 there was a

change in the manner in which provincial ministers of finance were dealt with by the federal government.
I like the remarks made by the hon. gentleman. They were straightforward. He said: Certainly we accepted the deal. We did not like it, but we had to accept it because of the take it or leave it attitude of the government of the day. He contrasted that situation with what took place at a later date and said that a true test could only be made on the basis of comparison. He said, among other things, that after 1957 the federal government was prepared to listen to proposals from the provinces, and I would say, offhand, that the facts bear out this contention.
The hon. member for Essex East made a lot of the position of New Brunswick, but it is only fair to quote a figure, namely that in 1960-61 the provincial budget of that province showed 55.5 per cent of its income to be derived from federal sources. That is, of its total revenue 55 per cent comes from federal sources. That is something to remember. In my own province that figure is certainly a lot less, but it is still a good one. I intend to say more on this point later. The Minister of Forestry brought out certain facts and set them before us very well.
But if anyone had listened carefully to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) speaking in this house they could not have helped feeling that he knew precisely what he was doing, precisely what he was setting forward; and that there was no deviation in any way from the acknowledged purpose of the government with regard to dominion-provincial relationships.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was saying that my constituents and the average voter anywhere in Canada would accept the statement made by those members of the government and those people who have spoken on behalf of the government as against the sound and fury generated during the last two days by others in this house. I was relating my remarks to those of the Minister of Forestry and those of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).
On the government side we have two things coming forward, first of all co-operation with the provinces and, second, and perhaps to the average voter much more important, performance.
90205-6-101J
Dominion-Provincial Relations
If you look at the figures given by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, you will see that in the increase from 10 per cent to 13 per cent-which was voluntary, incidentally- of the provincial share of the yield from personal income tax, the sum of $200 million has been paid to the provinces since we came into power. In addition, if you look at the Atlantic provinces adjustment grant you will see that at $25 million a year the additional sum of $75 million has been paid. If you look at the conditional payments to the provinces by the Liberals in their last year in office you will see that the sum amounted to $111 million, a rather puny figure-and this is the figure they are boasting about-as against the figure of $389 million paid by this government. That is performance.
I go now to British Columbia. Under conditional grants British Columbia received in the last year the Liberals were in power the sum of $17,491,000. The figure in the estimates for British Columbia last year is $61,936,000; $17 million as against $61 million in my own province. That is performance and it should be recorded.
What does it cover? Well, it covers a multitude of things that this government has gone ahead with, far more than has ever been done in co-operation with a provincial government in my province before. I might mention a few, comparing last year as against the last Liberal year. First of all, with regard to highways, mainly the trans-Canada highway but there are others, under the Liberals the policy was barren, negative, stalling; they managed to bring forth $6,680,000 for the trans-Canada highway. This government has spent three times as much, namely $18,872,000. This figure does not include Glacier national park, one of the finest parks in Canada. I hope that the Liberals will use their transportation and come out and have a look at that park which will be completed next year. A lot of expense has gone into it and it is a wonderful park.
I turn next to vocational training which is another phase of the program and into which have gone additional grants. Under the Liberals the figure amounted to $549,000; under the Conservatives the amount has been three times as much, namely $1,553,000. This does not take into account the new legislation brought in this year which expanded and will expand the amount of money going into vocational training as a guide to further employment and the production of further skills in Canada. In British Columbia we took advantage of that and a grand technical school for technical training was erected last year. No doubt in other provinces further work will be done along this line.
I come next to the municipal winter works program. Last year $1,335,000 was spent in

Dominion-Provincial Relations the province of British Columbia. As hon. members know, this legislation has been widened considerably. Take one city, the city of Penticton, in my constituency as an example. Winter works to the amount of $441,000 have been approved this year and this is only one spot. Multiply that by the cities all over Canada which have taken advantage of this forward looking Conservative legislation and you will see what I mean. This is dealing with problems.
In welfare, of course, twice as much has been spent-I will not give the figures-as was spent by the Liberals. The next is slum clearance. In British Columbia alone $700,000 was spent on that last year. The figure for the Liberals was nil under this heading; no advantage was taken of it. This is just one more place where the federal government in conjunction with the provincial authorities has said, "Let us do a job; let us do it together; let us do it in the spirit of cooperation". As I indicated, there was performance last year to the extent of $700,000 in my own province.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Will my hon. friend permit a question as this time? Is he in favour of the equalization payment?


David Vaughan Pugh: If the hon. member would ask a question on the matter on which I was speaking, yes, I would answer.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Just tell me.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Will the hon. member tell me whether he is in favour of equalization payments?
government is practically three times the 1956-57 dollop provided by the Liberal government.
In the field of health there have been vast increases brought about in part by the government saying, "We are going to help the hospitals; we will double the ante on beds". That was done. A good many other things were done under the changes they made in the act. The grant for chronic and convalescent beds was increased from $1,500 to $2,000 per bed. The grant for nurses' beds was doubled. As to internes' beds, the Liberals did not give anything for that but we are giving $750 per bed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We started it.


David Vaughan Pugh: The hon. member for Essex East, who has just come in, says that they started it. I will tell you one thing. Verbally the Liberal government started many things but so far as fulfilment is concerned they left a great deal to be done. It is rather nice to be on one side of the fence or the other. It is rather difficult to remain astride but some of these members to my immediate right in the Liberal party are pretty adept at doing just that.


Mr. Hodgson:: Mugwumps.


David Vaughan Pugh: They say that they suggested it but they did not carry it out. I understand from reading Hansard of past years that members of the government took a strong stand at that time and pushed and prodded the Liberals when they were in power.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They opposed family allowances.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Vaughan Pugh: The hon. member has asked me whether I am in favour of the equalization payments. Why should I, as a Conservative backbencher, take any side other than that which has been publicly stated in this house by the Minister of Finance who has spoken forcibly, sincerely, and, despite all of the rumbling and bumbling that is going on next door, consistently. We have no other axe to grind on this.


Mr. Hellyer:: Did you say "inconsistently"?


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I have given a few of the figures and there are many more of course. In the province of British Columbia 35.8 per cent of the total budget of the province is provided by the federal government in the form of payments under various acts which have been instituted or furthered by the government. There are many others. I might refer to aid to agriculture. I do not want to go into that in great detail. I think it is sufficient to say that aid given by the


David Vaughan Pugh: What I am trying to get at is that the people of Canada, Mr. Average Voter, decided about three years ago that they had had enough of this business of the Liberals saying that they were going to do all these things and put in a government that would do them. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we now have a government which is doing these things.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty to do so pursuant to section 3(d) of standing order 56 and to put forthwith the question on any amendments now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.



NUCLEAR WEAPONS


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to report a grievance to the house. My grievance is that there is a division of opinion in the ranks of the government in the matter of nuclear weapons being used and being made available to our defence personnel and that a clear-cut policy is urgently needed at this time. What is even worse is the obvious admission that was made this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hark-ness). Our Minister of National Defence this afternoon admitted guilt in that he agreed that he had appealed to the armed services to use their influence to counter "ban the bomb" movements in Canada.
This is a violation of our traditions, namely that in our democracy servants of the crown are subject to the will of the people. The whole of our judiciary and the whole of our armed services bear allegiance to the crown and the crown, by tradition, is subject to the majority decision of the people. A minister of the crown appealing to people on his payroll to come to his defence is a violation of our heritage. Personally speaking, may I say that I have a son who belongs to a reserve unit of the armed forces, and I do not like the idea that the minister responsible would appeal to my boy to oppose the aspirations of his mother who subscribes to the movement in Canada which says that we ought to ban the use of nuclear

National Defence
weapons by any Canadian, including himself. After all, I am the taxpayer and not my son and I feel that I ought to have more authority than has my son who is a member of the reserve forces.
My next complaint may be regarded as a relatively minor one. However, I feel that it is none the less significant. Immediately after the orders of the day were called my secretary stenographer did her utmost to get information as to what the minister had or had not said last week end. All she asked for was either a copy of the minister's speech or some press releases that had been issued by officers of the navy. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, how the departments of the minister will run for cover the moment they smell a rat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erhart Regier: You will be given at least a dozen officers and telephone numbers to which to appeal. You will even be told the almost unbelievable story that there is no copy of the minister's speech available, that he merely spoke off the cuff. You know that various press releases of his speech were issued, but to get a copy of one of them is almost an impossibility; that is a horse of a different colour.
I now want to publicly express my appreciation to a member of the press gallery who supplied me with a copy of the press release issued from H.M.C.S. Carleton, Ottawa, which among other things has this to say:
Turning to considerations of defence in Canada, Mr. Harkness pointed out that pacificists and "ban the bomb" movements are apparently being encouraged by groups wishing to prevent Canada from being able to make an effective defence effort. Their propaganda is being well disseminated in the country and the personnel of reserve units of the forces should make an effort to combat It. Being in much closer touch with the general population in their daily lives than men of the regular forces, reservists should counter pacificist and neutralist ideas whenever they hear them expressed.
That is the end of the quotation from the press release issued from H.M.C.S. Carleton, Ottawa.
We appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to express the opinion of the government on this issue as to whether or not Canadians ought to be supplied with nuclear weapons.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I will not relinquish the floor at this moment. I have given my word that I would be brief on this point.

We would like to hear especially from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), and I regret that he has to be absent tonight because the whole of the nation would like to hear from him on this issue in this House of Commons and not at the podium of the United Nations. We would also like to hear an expression of opinion on the part of the Minister of National Defence on this issue.
The government owes to the people of Canada an expression of opinion, and I am convinced that if our heritage means anything, any expression of opinion as to government policy will demand the immediate resignation of either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say on behalf of those of us on this side of the house that we agree with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) that this is no time for pacificism or neutralism. The Canadian temperament is neither. It has not been in the past, and is not now.
Several times Canadians have been called upon to take up arms in the name of freedom, and each time, without hesitation, they have done so willingly and both on this continent and abroad have fought gallantly for the things in which they believed.
We cannot be neutralist. To be neutralist is to be nothing. We are for something; we are for freedom. If we are for freedom we cannot be neutralist in this struggle. It is not enough to have freedom in Canada. We have to covet this belief for all peoples everywhere.
Mr. Khrushchev said, when visiting this continent, that he intends to bury us. Surely we have to take him at his word. Surely he means what he says, and even if he does not mean that he will bury us by means of force of arms, he means that he will attempt to do so by some other means, whether by the use of economic pressure or through an intensification of the ideological warfare which has been taking place now for some years.
We have to take this threat seriously and we have to do something about it. We are involved in an all-out struggle between two forms of government, the totalitarian on one side and the libertarian on the other. How, in this circumstance, can we be neutral? It is a struggle between tyranny and freedom.
Many people in this country know from bitter experience what freedom really means. Included in the more than one million postwar immigrants who have come to this country are a great many political refugees who have come from various countries behind the iron curtain. Some of them have been

personally persecuted because of their belief in freedom. Some of them have had families persecuted. Some of them have lost their families. Some of them have spent terms in prison camps in Siberia because they refused to be cowed by political tyranny. Believe me, they know what the word "freedom" means, and they are the vanguard of trying to keep this country stirred up to the point where we will not shirk our responsibility.
They know the meaning of freedom. The people from the Baltic states know the meaning of freedom; the people who have come here from Poland or Hungary, or any of the other countries behind the iron curtain, know that there is in fact a struggle and it is going to be waged until one side emerges victorious, either those who believe in the totalitarian system of government or those who believe, as most of us do, in freedom for all peoples to choose for themselves the way in which they would like to live. There can be no neutralism amongst them, and indeed they set a standard for us.
In this situation we must stand with our United States friends. True enough, they do things from time to time which annoy us. True enough from time to time they take us for granted. But notwithstanding that, when all the froth is swept away we must stand beside them, because they are carrying the burden of freedom in the western world and will continue to do so. The least we can do is to make sure that we co-operate with them in any useful venture which will strengthen the western world in this all-out struggle.
Coming now to the means of co-operation, may I say that this government has contributed considerably to the present tendency among some very small minority groups in this country toward pacifism and neutralism.


Mr. Palleil:: Including the Liberal convention.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This government, through its refusal to give the armed forces of Canada the wherewithal to fight has contributed to the feeling of frustration which has given rise to this unfortunate deviation toward neutralism and pacifism.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) proceeds further I should like to try to enunciate what is the real grievance. At this stage of the proceedings in a supply motion single subjects only may be introduced as grievances. I understood from what the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) said that the grievance he had related to remarks made by the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) at a meeting the other night
National Defence
during a speech. It did not deal directly with defence policy but the grievance was, rather, directed toward the attitude expressed by the minister at the meeting in question.
I do not think that reference to neutralism would be excluded, but I think the hon. member would be going outside the scope of the debate which has been initiated and should be kept to this single topic until it has been concluded. He should not deal with Canadian-United States defence relations and arrangements.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. That is my grievance and I am coming to it. What I have been giving is, really, background which I think will help in laying the ground for the grievance itself.
Before the election of 1957, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), when questioned during his coast to coast tour, said the Liberals had been telling the people of Canada that if he was elected he would let down the defence effort. The right hon. gentleman categorically told the Canadian people that he would not do so, that defence expenditure would not be cut. The record can be checked on this point.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought the hon. member agreed with me that it was the conduct of the Minister of National Defence which was in question. I would ask him to keep to that subject so that it may be dealt with. If there are other grievances they can be dealt with in due course.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was just coming to the point, which is that a mess dinner is no place for the Minister of National Defence to make a political speech. From the look of the monkey suit the hon. gentleman is wearing tonight-and it is very becoming, incidentally -it appears as though he may have another such engagement. Perhaps it is part of a campaign. Of course, there is an obligation upon people in Canadian public life to point out to the people of this country in plain terms the issues which confront them. Had he been doing this under proper auspices the Minister of National Defence would have been providing a worthwhile public service. The objection which has been raised by my hon. friend is that the minister chose a mess dinner as the occasion on which to launch this particular campaign.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity has the floor and I would point this out to hon. members who are attempting to usurp it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has just said: "How would you know, you were not there?" I am glad the hon.

National Defence
member asked that question. Earlier today you, yourself, Mr. Speaker, ruling on a matter of public urgency questioned the administrative responsibility of the minister for this particular act but surely when an officer of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve issues a public release which purports to give the kernel of what the Minister of National Defence said in his speech, this clearly comes within the responsibility of the minister. When this garbled version-garbled according to the minister-got into the hands of the press, the department gave out a somewhat modified version in order to set the record straight in accordance with the version which the minister preferred. Thus it is clear that this matter does come under the minister's responsibility and that it is a real grievance, because this government which has refused to provide the equipment, the mobility and the fire power necessary to the Canadian armed forces now goes to mess dinners in the person of one of its ministers in order to launch campaigns against the very neutralism which this attitude has itself engendered.
In conclusion, may I say that I think the Minister of National Defence should be reprimanded for skating on the constitutional nicety of encouraging members of the armed forces reserve to take an active interest politically in questions which refer to national defence. I think a measure of impropriety is involved here and I should like to hear the minister's comment on this aspect. But apart from the ill chosen vehicle which the minister used in order to make his pronouncement I must say that I think, should he make that speech outside, in the name of freedom we would have to agree with him that in a struggle involving as it does the whole world, a struggle to which the conclusion is not yet in sight, we must stand together in the name of liberty-


An hon. Member:: As bird watchers.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Walker:: How can the hon. member for Trinity who chaired the Liberal rally advocating their bird watching policy now do a volte face and recommend a "get tough" policy?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was about to conclude my remarks but I hope I can have the opportunity to answer the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity has the floor and, as I understand it, he is concluding his remarks.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The other day someone told me that when the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) goes duck shooting this fall he

is going to take a CF-100 with him for artillery, because that is all the use they are at the present time. If this government has money to spend on lame ducks and Bomarc dead pigeons surely it could find something better than that to do in the name of liberty and in the name of standing with our allies.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The
hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) said the minister chose a mess dinner in order to make an improper statement. Our grievance is that he chose a dinner to make a mess of Canadian practice and tradition.


An hon. Member:: You were there too, were you?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, but my colleague from Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) read the release issued, I presume, by the armed forces public relations department.
This is a serious matter. This is a departure from Canadian and, shall I say, British tradition when it comes to the armed forces. Here is a minister attending a mess dinner and advising the officers present there to use their influence-to exert a certain political influence, anyway-on those people who, he claims, by their efforts in support of peace-good Canadian citizens in every way-aim, so the minister says, to weaken the will of fellow Canadians.
In the first instance, we in this group think it was highly improper to make such a suggestion to officers of the armed forces of Canada and highly improper to refer to good loyal Canadians who are doing their best to do some of the things which are necessary at this time to build up public interest and public concern with international peace and the direction in which we are going. In contrast to the attitude taken by the minister, look at what has happened in the United States. In the last few days President Kennedy has issued a directive: no more talking from generals and senior officers. That is a democratic procedure. The congress of the United States is the place where the talking should be done. With all respect to the armed forces, it is parliament in all democratic countries which forms policy, and the armed forces take their direction from the parliament concerned.
Now I do want to indicate the obvious contradictions in the policies pursued by the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence as indicated by the attitude taken toward the movement know as the Voice of Women on July 28, 1960. The representatives of that movement came to Ottawa. They received the blessing of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I give him full marks for that. They received the blessing of the Secretary of States for External Affairs (Mr. Green); they received

the blessing of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Pearson), and they received the blessing of, let me emphasize, the national leader of the C.C.F.


Egan Chambers: Who is that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am referring to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who leads this group so effectively, so efficiently and with such magnificent results in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I admit that the hon. member is asking for it, but perhaps if he were given a respectful hearing he would not be encouraged in that line.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the interruptions in the least because it pleases me, Mr. Speaker, to see the whole house listening with intent to what I have to say.
In contrast with the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley), what do those women, who received the blessings of the people I have mentioned, aim to do? They are working for disarmament. Does that weaken our will? They are asking for the abolition of nuclear weapons and their maintenance only by the countries which have them at the present time. They are asking for a United Nations police force, and they are giving consideration to our civil defence and an all-out shelters policy.
Those women have been working effectively, Mr. Speaker. I know some of them are active and prominent in the Conservative party. I know some who are quite active and prominent in the Liberal party, and I would say this, they have more courage, conviction and guts than the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). They say where they stand.
Those people are doing good work as Canadian citizens in a democratic country, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs informed them only three or four days ago on their second visit to Ottawa. With respect to their activities, a minister of the crown said yesterday that he had received many reasonable and responsible letters from persons who had joined this group and had been influenced by this devoted group of women. There once again be blessed these persons I have mentioned and their work and I think they should be. They are giving consideration to these problems.
It is not a clash of ideas as to whether we shall do this or that in Canada that will weaken our will. What will weaken our will in international affairs, in national affairs and in local affairs is a growing sense of cynicism and indifference to things we should be concerned about. That is the thing that will 90205-6-102
National Defence
weaken our will. It is because of people such as these to whom I have referred-we may not agree with all they say but they are good Canadian citizens putting forth their views- that we in this group think it is most unfortunate, most improper, out of line with our Canadian tradition, that the hon. member and gallant Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness)-and I give him full credit in that direction; I know of his record in war- should suggest to the officers of the reserve forces that they should go out and use their influence to defeat the efforts of the very women who have received the blessing of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the hon. member for Trinity, and the national leader of the C.C.F. I protest very strongly. This may seem to be a minor matter, but it is a precedent, it is the first time. I do urge on behalf of this group that the minister give this question very serious consideration. We trust, Mr. Speaker, that after listening to the remarks of the members on the opposition side of the house and having a quiet night of sleep and meditation, he will return in the very near future and correct his unfortunate position in this respect.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the members to your immediate left, the C.C.F. party, have been very well known in the past for their ability to attempt to make mountains out of molehills. I think they have surpassed themselves tonight; they have tried to make a mountain range out of a grain of sand. The hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) has made various accusations against me based on the story written by a reporter who was not present at the time that the alleged remarks were supposed to have been made and which, as I indicated this afternoon, did not bear a very close resemblance to what I actually said at the mess dinner in question.
A great deal of this talk that we have had from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) seemed to revolve around nuclear weapons and so on. As I made it extremely clear this afternoon, I made absolutely no mention of nuclear weapons at this particular mess dinner. I did not have them in mind in any way whatever and I think anybody who was present at the mess dinner would be prepared to say that that is so, that there was no mention of them whatever.
Then, of course, the hon. member went on and attempted to state or to give the impression that this is what I was talking about; that then I was attempting in some way to

National Defence
introduce politics and to make political converts, or something else along that line, at the mess dinner. Nothing was further from my mind and nothing, I am absolutely sure, was further from the mind of any member of H.M.C.S. Carleton who was present. The effort, supposition, imagination or whatever you should like to call it on the part of hon. members opposite who tried to make out that there was anything political in the remarks that I made is completely absurd. There was nothing political in them whatever. There was no attempt made and no idea of there being anything political in them, and if my hon. friends in the Liberal party would like to ask the son of one of their senators who was there I think he will completely confirm that that was the situation. Certainly nobody ever raised any such idea or had any idea along that line as far as I am aware, and I am quite sure that this is so because there was no excuse for it at this particular dinner.
I hope this effectively disposes of the two allegations which have been made by hon. members opposite in connection with the remarks I made at this particular mess dinner.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam tried to make a point of the fact that there was a copy of the speech, and then there was none, and so on. Then he said there was something that had been issued by an officer of H.M.C.S. Carleton. I can assure the hon. member and all other hon. members that I went to this mess dinner without any pieces of paper of any kind, and I spoke entirely off the cuff without any notes such as those in my hand, or of any nature whatever and, therefore, naturally there was no copy of the speech.


Erhart Regier: The minister admitted it earlier today.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: He did not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not admit any such thing; I could not have admitted any such thing because there was no such copy in existence, as a matter of fact. This is just another example of how the hon. member imagines something and then tries to put words in somebody else's mouth and makes completely incorrect accusations.


Erhart Regier: Just read Hansard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Completely without my
knowledge, apparently one of the officers who was present at this mess dinner, and I presume he has the right to do so if he wishes, did put out some sort of account of what went on at the dinner and this was, I presume, issued to the press. However, as far as I am concerned, as far as my office is concerned, there is absolutely nothing to any accusations

such as the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) made that there was a modified version issued from my office. I saw this reported in newspaper accounts and I questioned the people in my office. After investigation they came back and told me that this was completely incorrect.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This came from a very reliable source.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is another example of the way in which this matter has been blown up out of all recognition and a certain amount of confusion seems to have arisen over it.


Erhart Regier: We could not get anything out of your office.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to make it clear again that at this mess dinner I expressed my opposition to neutralism and to pacifism as expounded by those who advocate unilateral disarmament and so on as far as Canada is concerned, and I expect to continue voicing my opposition to ideas of that kind. I think I would be a very poor minister of national defence if I did anything else. I quite understand that the C.C.F. party has a neutralist and pacifist outlook-


Erhart Regier: That is boloney and you know it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and policy.


Erhart Regier: That is boloney.


Mr. Kucherepa:: Determined at Regina.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, I would be very much surprised if any considerable proportion of the Canadian people supports them in that attitude. In fact, I feel quite convinced that the great majority of the Canadian people are just as determined as I am to see that the country's security is properly protected and the country is properly defended.
The hon. member for Trinity, as is usual with the Liberal party with respect to defence matters, was trying to be on both sides of the fence. He applauded the kind of remarks I made but at the same time he tried to say that I should not have made them, that there was a political manoeuvre or something of that sort on my part in making these remarks at this particular mess dinner.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Very logical and consistent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Of course, I have already dealt with that point. This is not the time to enter into a debate on defence policy. In fact, Mr. Speaker prevented the hon. member for Trinity from pursuing that line as he was attempting to do, but I must say I was extremely surprised at the general line taken by the hon. member in view of

the resolutions passed at the Liberal rally over which he presided as chairman.


John William Kucherepa: Phony Liberal policies.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you ruled that this kind of discussion was out of order and the Minister of National Defence, acknowledging that that ruling has been made, now defies it. I suggest to Your Honour with great respect that the minister should be asked either to take his seat or to take another line altogether because he is now transgressing a ruling that you made.


John William Kucherepa: Are you one of the bird watchers, Paul?


Mr. Speaker:: I understood that the minister was dealing with some remarks which had been made by the hon. member for Trinity but it is true that he seemed to go beyond that in referring to certain resolutions which have not heretofore been mentioned.


John William Kucherepa: They want to forget them.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall allow him to continue with the reminder that he himself has already declared that this is not a defence debate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I agree with your ruling that this is not a defence debate and, as you indicated, I brought up this matter only because the hon. member for Trinity brought it up and was allowed to continue for a considerable length of time. I think it has always been your custom under those circumstances to allow at least a few words in reply-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: when statements of this kind are made. However, I will only say further in connection with the matter that if the Liberal party could for once come down on one side or the other on this particular question or any other question I think they would be a great deal better off than they are in the extremely ambiguous and anomalous position in which they find themselves at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Vancouver East rising on a new matter?


Harold Edward Winch: On the same grievance.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not propose to stop the hon. member but I suggest to him that in order that there may be some systematic procedure during the grievance period hon. members who wish to speak to a grievance should do so before the minister concerned replies. No one rose before the minister but 90205-6-102J
National Defence
as he does not close the debate the hon. member can proceed on this matter if he wishes to do so.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to what has just been said by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) and at the outset I want to say that the minister cannot brush this matter aside as being something of no importance. In his opening remarks he stated that we in this group were endeavouring to make a mountain out of a molehill. All I can say is that if it is not a mountain it is a mighty big molehill. The grievance that has been raised is a most important and serious one. It must be or I would not be on my feet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John William Kucherepa: That is the biggest joke of all.


Harold Edward Winch: It is quite obvious from the remarks of the Minister of National Defence that as a tactician in the military sense he agrees with the old statement that the best defence is offence because that is exactly the strategy which he used. The grievance that has been raised has nothing whatsoever to do with what is the defence policy or international policy of the C.C.F. or whether we are or are not neutralist or pacifist in our policies. I am not going into that question, except to say that the minister is absolutely wrong there, because that is not the matter before us.
The matter before us is a most serious one. First of all, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge), this is what we term a break in tradition with respect to what, according to the press, was said at a meeting addressed by the minister and it is also something which, for a minister, was in exceptionally bad taste. I could not help noting, that in his remarks the Minister of National Defence made some reference to a press report but it must have been noted by all that he did not deny the correctness of the press release issued by the public relations officer of H.M.C.S. Carleton. That press release, which has already been quoted and not denied by the minister, reads in part as follows:
Turning to considerations of defence in Canada* Mr. Harkness pointed out that pacifist and ban the bomb movements are apparently being encouraged by groups wishing to prevent Canada from being able to make an effective defence effort. Their propaganda is being well disseminated in the country and the personnel of reserve units of the forces should make an effort to combat it. Being in much closer touch with the general population in their daily lives than men of the regular forces-

National Defence
As I say, it has not been denied and we say that it is in bad taste, that it should not have been done and that it goes beyond tradition with respect to the relationship between a cabinet minister and any segment of the armed forces.


Mr. Speakman:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member identify the document from which he read?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, I have read from a press release from H.M.C.S. Carleton, Ottawa.
That phase of our grievance has been discussed already by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) and the hon. member for Kootenay West. I should like to speak on a phase of this grievance which is of the utmost seriousness. I refer to the fact that such a statement can only be taken as the policy, the new thinking of the Minister of National Defence, that organizations of Canadian citizens who want to work for peace are basically subversive. This is the only interpretation that can be placed on these remarks which have not been denied, that some of these people are organized to work for peace and to ban the bomb.
It is essential, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada should have an understanding of the position of the minister and, therefore, of the government on the question of banning the bomb and on the question of nuclear weapons, not on whether or not we should have them, but on the question of nuclear weapons themselves. I am going to make this statement as brief as I possibly can.
I had the privilege of being named a parliamentary observer to the United Nations during the first two months of the fifteenth general assembly in New York. During those two months I do not believe I missed a day in the plenary sessions or a day in the No. 1 committee in which matters of this nature were discussed. I believe I heard the representatives of 31 countries speak in that No. 1 committee. I heard the speech which was made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the plenary session. I want to say here that I thought it was an excellent presentation. I had the privilege also of sitting immediately behind the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) when he made his presentation in the No. 1 committee of the proposals put forward on behalf of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; if I may interrupt the hon. member, it seems to me he is getting afield again. The alleged grievance relates to the advice given by the minister to members of the armed forces at a dinner. It does not relate to defence policy or to meetings of the United Nations. It has to do with a

meeting of the defence forces at a mess dinner, and it is within that scope that the matter ought to be discussed.


Harold Edward Winch: I am completely within that scope. It is not only the fact that the minister made certain statements that is important, but the statements which he has made are imporant. Among those statements is one which can only be construed as an attack on those people who are organized across Canada for the purpose of achieving peace and one of those purposes is to ban the bomb. Surely I can point out the seriousness of what the minister did and the seriousness of what he said.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: How do you know what he said?


Harold Edward Winch: He has not denied the P.R.O. report here. He has evaded and dodged, but he has not denied it. He did not deny it when he was approached by other members of the radio, T.V. and press corps. He has not denied it in the House of Commons. I maintain, sir, and I know that you will agree with me, that I have the right to discuss the statement that was made and say that we consider it very serious in relation to the statements I distinctly heard time after time in the United Nations during September, October and November which called for a cessation of nuclear testing, which put forward a policy of non-expansion of nuclear testing and which called for immediate action to get the Geneva committee of ten operating again to achieve complete disarmament. Those are things that were said at the United Nations and which we certainly hoped represented government policy.
If there is to go out in the name of the Minister of National Defence, and not denied, this approach that is reported from H.M.C.S. Carleton, then I say it is a matter of serious import to the people of Canada. They do not know what the policy of this government is, and whether or not it is subversive to go out and advocate the banning of the bomb. What is of even greater importance is the reaction of our friends in the United Nations, and in particular the uncommitted nations. I intend to speak on that particular phase when the opportunity presents itself.
I say that this is not something that can be brushed aside. This is a matter of supreme importance to the Canadian people, not so much the fact that the minister made a speech but what was in the speech. I would not term it a directive because he could not give a directive of this nature, but there was at least a definite inference, an indirect direction, that the reserve officers should use their influence in their daily lives

to oppose these movements for peace in Canada along the lines of the ban the bomb movement.
This is a most serious matter. I maintain it is a breach of a cabinet minister's responsibility and something which can only cause confusion in the public mind and in the international mind, something to be most roundly condemned and most bitterly attacked. The minister should exhibit a greater sense of responsibility when he speaks as a minister, whether in this house or outside of it, because whether he likes it or not he does speak as a cabinet minister. The most important thing is not whether he knew the statement would be reported, but what the views of the minister were. I take this matter so seriously in its national and international implications that I believe, unless the minister tells us here and now that this report which he has ignored so far is completely incorrect and that he did not infer anything like that, there is only one thing for the minister to do and that is the decent thing as would be done in Great Britain, immediately resign his portfolio.


Egan Chambers: suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the government can take some satisfaction from the fact that the only matter the opposition can find upon which to raise a grievance on the first occasion on which an opportunity is presented is a report of what someone said that someone else said that the minister said at a dinner at which no notes were taken. It seems to me that both this afternoon when this matter was first raised, and this evening, the minister has been most clear in explaining, first of all, what he said and, second, how it came about that the press report was in the form in which it appears. He is the Minister of National Defence. He was speaking to members of the armed forces and he spoke on defence. Upon what else would he speak? He expressed his opinion because he is a man who has the courage to express his opinion on this matter.
However, he has made it clear, and the press release that was read out a few minutes ago makes it clear if it is read carefully, that he advocated no political action on the part of his audience; that he did not oppose those who advocate peace. Surely, no government, no group in the history of this country has a greater record in the search for peace and disarmament than this government.


Mr. Peters:: Nobody made more promises either.
National Defence


Egan Chambers: This was not a question of promises. This was action in the United Nations, action at Geneva and action right in this House of Commons in giving expression to the policies.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Failure in the United Nations, failure at Geneva and failure in the House of Commons.


Egan Chambers: It is a new line that the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) is taking when he says that Canada was responsible for the failure at Geneva.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not say it was responsible. Just that its success is indicated by the results.


Egan Chambers: There is a difference, Mr. Speaker, between being in favour of peace and working for peace through the international media that are provided for that work and advocating unilateral disarmament. There is a difference also, I suggest, between those who honestly and from conviction advocate that point of view and those groups who for their own particular and suspicious purposes may foster these movements. I think a close reading of the press release, if indeed it reflects the words of the minister, will show that distinction was made.
However, we have had here this afternoon two extremely interesting demonstrations, one on the part of the C.C.F. party who are attempting to take unto themselves the mantle of being the only group in this country who are in favour of peace and that on the part of the hon. member for Trinity who has announced the third Liberal defence policy in the period of about a month.
Nowhere, Mr. Speaker, has there been the slightest substantiation in any of the speeches made from across the floor of the house of the allegations that the minister in any way acted improperly or the allegation that he did anything in fact but get to his feet and honestly express his opinions on the defence of this country.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Skeena rising to speak on the same matter?


Frank Howard: On the same subject matter, Mr. Speaker, yes. I have only two or three brief comments to make, some of them occasioned by the remarks of the hon. member who just took his seat. I point out to him that because we have such an inept, bungling government in the house, that this is not the only subject matter that could be made the point of discussion this evening.


An hon. Member:: What about divorce?

National Defence


Frank Howard: My hon. friend may be desirous of obtaining one or he may need one, but that is his problem not mine.


An hon. Member:: "Honi soit qui mal y pense."


Frank Howard: There is that nasty innuendo again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member precipitated the comment by a personal reference which had nothing to do with the subject under discussion.


Frank Howard: The reason that this matter is raised is the extreme and immediate seriousness of it. It is more than a question of differences of opinion in the cabinet which are quite obvious. It is a question of the very lives of the people of this nation and of other nations. The very lives of children are involved if we are going to embark on a program directed to the end of becoming a nuclear power and if we are going to follow the program advocated by the Liberals when they were in office. I do not know what they are advocating now, really; their policy moves too fast for me to keep up with it. But the program advocated by that party and by the government in office, that is the ultimate end to which it is leading. That is the reason the matter is raised.
It is a serious question of war or peace. It is not a question of accusations about positions or unilateral disarmament, whether or not they are advocated by anyone in this house. It is a matter of action by the minister and of the split personality that exists in the cabinet over this matter. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it cannot be brushed aside or be pushed off into one corner by some-and I use this word in a general sense-scurrilous innuendos, without naming the people to whom they are directed.
As the parliamentary secretary indicated, the activity of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) was not improper. It is his responsibility as minister to speak his mind. But it is the statement that he made to promote in the armed services political activity, attempting to undo all the fine work in this matter by people like Dr. Schweitzer, Dr. Linus Pauling and others. I submit that this is the result of straight absolute confusion in the minds of the government about this matter. This is the effect of the statements of the Minister of National Defence.
I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). It is obvious that he still thinks he is associate minister of national defence in exhibiting that sort of schizophrenia for which the Liberal party is responsible. I have in my hand a document; I will be

gracious and call it by that name. It is entitled "The Record Speaks". It is published by the Conservative association of Canada, I presume.


An hon. Member:: Have you read it?


Frank Howard: Yes, I have read it.


An hon. Member:: It is good is it not? There is nothing wrong with it.


Frank Howard: The hon. member says there is nothing wrong with it. It is full of falsehoods. I will relate them at another point.


An hon. Member:: You are losing your sense of humour.


Frank Howard: When I look at my hon. friends my sense of humour picks up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is taking off at a tangent, if I may say so. If he wishes to relate the document to the grievance, I suggest that he do it before he pursues it.


Frank Howard: I had fully intended to do so immediately but I was being pushed to one side by hon. members who remain in their seats. On page 14 of this document-I do not know whether it is a serial story or what it is-this particular piece of fiction, there are some quotations from the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) at the United Nations, September 26, 1960, a period of time to which my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) referred. Like my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East I think they are excellent comments dealing with this self-same subject matter. I wish to quote from "The Record Speaks". You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the colour has changed. It is getting to be a paler and paler blue all the time.


An hon. Member:: You are getting deeper in the red.


Frank Howard: In the financial part it gets deeper in the red. As found at page 14, the Prime Minister said this:
I have frequently had occasion to urge publicly the end of nuclear weapons, the systematic control of missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons of mass destruction,-
And so on.
Canada over and over again has advocated an end to nuclear testing.
He is another one who would ban the bomb, another one of those individuals whom the Minister of National Defence would like to send his charges off to quell. The country is full of people who believe explicitly in what the Prime Minister said. But the more that we get statements by the Minister of

Agriculture or rather, the Minister of National Defence-and I keep thinking of him as the Minister of Agriculture-it is obvious that he is going to make as much of a mess of this department also as he did of that one.
In any event, statements of this nature made by the Minister of National Defence, which by his silence must be accepted as factual, unless he now, in a belated way, wants to repudiate them and say he did not make them, will within this country undo all the good that has been done, as I said, by people like Dr. Schweitzer and Dr. Linus Pauling and the 2,000 scientists who signed the petition, and the work that has been advocated by the Prime Minister at the United Nations. It will also undo the work that has been done by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) on the disarmament question. All this work could well be unravelled, undone, emasculated and ruined by irresponsible statements of the nature of those attributed to the Minister of National Defence.
It is perhaps obvious that his long attachment with the Department of Agriculture got him in close association with what is decently referred to as fertilizer and which is now slopping over into defence policy.


An hon. Member:: That is your level.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this matter which has been brought up by the C.C.F. tonight is, as the minister has said, trying to make a mountain out of a grain of sand. It is just another illustration of the tactics they have carried on in this house.
No man and no government in this country is more interested in disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons than the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and this government. But it is our duty to protect this country. We have never been known as an aggressive country. We are a country wishing to protect ourselves and the western hemisphere. It seems to me-and this is my own opinion and I have a right to that opinion- that that little corner down there would like to see our defences weakened by the abolition of nuclear weapons so that their big brothers from Russia could overrun this country.
I say that on these grounds, and I will quote a few remarks that I have here. Even the late Mr. Woodsworth, the first leader of the C.C.F. party, confessed on February 1, 1933, in the house of Commons:
It may well be that force may prove inevitable.
Then we go on to 1943, when the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) made that notable speech in Calgary. This has
National Defence
been recounted before, but I think it should go on record again. These are his words, as reported by the Calgary Herald:
Asked about the position of the police and military forces in the event of moves for a change, Mr. Winch said that when ''we become the government we will introduce socialism immediately," and would use the power of the police and the military forces to force those opposed to obey the law. "Those who defied the government's will would be treated as criminals," he declared, adding "If capitalism says no, then we know the answer- so did Russia".
These are the statements on which I am basing my opinion. There are one or two more. There is the statement made by Mr. Woodsworth on April 23, 1935:
"The socialist", Mr. Woodsworth says, "stands for the abolition of capitalism".


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may be confused, but may I ask you whether the grievance is regarding a speech made by myself allegedly in 1943, or is it in reference to a speech made a couple of days ago by the Minister of National Defence?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member who has the floor would indicate how he relates these matters to the point of grievance.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I am just relating the reasons why they are bringing up this matter. They want us to give up nuclear weapons so that their big brothers in Russia can take over. I just have one more statement. This was reported in the Calgary Herald.


Harold Edward Winch: If it is mine, I hope it is correct this time.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Speaking to a C.C.F. rally of 1,000 people on April 23, 1935, Mr. Woodsworth made this clear and unequivocal declaration:
The doctrines of the C.C.F. are the doctrines of the united front or communist, and all that keeps us apart is a difference of tactics and a suspicion of insincerity.
That is why this matter has been brought up tonight. They do not want nuclear weapons in Canada for the simple reason that they want their big brothers in Russia to overrun this country, and we in this capitalist country do not want that.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised how such a simple little grievance-


Mr. Speaker:: Are your remarks on the same matter?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised how such a simple little grievance should raise such a storm of protest. It would seem to me that the minister in this case made a speech at H.M.C.S. Carleton. I think

National Defence
he admits that. I think he also admits that he stated a new policy as far as the reservists of Canada are concerned.
As an active military man over the years, with a good reputation, and getting into a department now that he should know something about-certainly more so than in the previous department-I am not surprised to find that he has asked his reservists to do something that he wishes to be done.
Reading the press statement we come to the conclusion that the reservists in Canada are going to be asked to help the minister in this way, "Let us get as big an appropriation out of my cabinet colleagues as possible and we will keep all you boys employed".
I do not blame the minister for this, if he wishes to do it and has the inclination. If he is, as the minister was, asked to make that statement, then he should make it. But I think the question now is not whether the C.C.F. is interested in banning the bomb, or whether we are neutralists, or what our position is going to be, but whether the minister agrees with the statements he is reported to have made at a meeting that he attended.
I think it is that simple. If this is a new policy of the Conservative party, then I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) should be told; I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) should be told, because we have three or four different policies going around. We in the opposition are entitled to know what the stand of the government is.
I do not believe we will ever find out what the Liberal stand is; we cannot follow them. If we are going to have airplanes, we can bird-watch; if we have no airplanes we cannot even do that. So I am not particularly concerned with what they stand for. I am concerned with the fact that the Canadian reservists should have an honest appraisal of what they are doing. If we are going to ask them to go out and spread our military strength, the fact that our country has a capable defence, then I think the minister should say so. He should be quite proud to say that that is his opinion and go on from that supposition.
If he was misquoted in this case; if he did not say that, he should say so. It is true that over the years reservists have been allowed much more freedom than the active army, the active air force or navy, who have been told they are not to participate in political action of any description except by special request, although allowance was made for certain people in the services to declare themselves political candidates during the period of war. With that exception they have 
not been able to do what the reservists have been able to do; but they are not acting in the line of duty.
If this is a change in policy-and it appears to us to be a change-then I think the minister should say so. But if he says this, I think he must go much further and make the statement that is requested by the opposition. He should give out information that is contrary to that being propagated by "ban the bomb" and other pacificist organizations. He should be in a position to give to the reservists more than just the speech that he gave off the cuff. He must come out with the new policy so that the reservists will have some opportunity at least of being informed, or half as well informed as the opposition.
The Prime Minister is giving leadership, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is giving leadership to those who say we should work toward disarmament and peace, toward banning the bomb. I think that at least the reservists should be given enough information so that they are not going to look silly putting forth a half-baked scheme that the minister may get up for his amusement for an after-dinner speech.
As I see it, that is all that is involved in this particular matter. If the minister has been misquoted, if he does not believe these things, then he should say so. If he does believe them he should have the gumption, in my opinion, to stand up and say, "I said them; I stand behind them, and if the other cabinet members do not like it they can go jump in the lake".
(Translation):


Mr. Louis Fortin (Montmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, I listened, along with everybody else, to the remarks of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) and, surprisingly enough, with my limited experience of only two and a half years in this house, I managed to understand fully the explanation provided when old-timers of the parliamentary scene do not seem to understand it or at least are not willing to understand it.
We are called upon at times to account to our constituents for the work being done in the House of Commons. I believe it would be very difficult to explain to those who elected us the hour and a half we spent tonight discussing this problem.
The government has to find answers to serious problems. Some important legislation is awaiting our consideration. And we are being asked now to spend an hour and a half to discuss a matter that the minister might have raised some place.

Mr. Speaker, for my part, I would rather consider, first of all, the military record of the Minister of National Defence and then his accomplishments both political and administrative. What he told us tonight in this house is worth a lot more than all those reports which were read to us and whose origin cannot even be ascertained.
I would rather stick to the tradition existing in this house and which gives a member claiming to have been misquoted, let us say, in the newspapers the opportunity to explain the situation and to have his word accepted by his colleagues.
The Minister of National Defence explained to us tonight what had taken place. I think we should all accept his word of honour. Second, he has witnessed and lived through the very events that he related.
Consequently, we are faced here with only hearsay such as the C.C.F. party like to spread. They preferred to rely on what they may have read.
The minister, who naturally was present on that occasion, told us exactly what had taken place, and I feel his word should be accepted. More especially as the position he holds is so closely connected with the one occupied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) and both these gentlemen, let me emphasize it, have done a lot to bring about a well balanced and controlled disarmament.
At all events, I think this debate will have been a good thing since it will have indicated that our people-who are so much interested everywhere in the work done by the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs-can be very happy about the task performed by these two ministers.
I am not suggesting that this debate was begun in bad faith, I am only suggesting that it will nevertheless have been beneficial to the people.


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, on this same grievance I will say only a few words. Indeed tonight's discussion should produce good results, I hope.
Not too long ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated that the Conservative party failed to make its record known to the Canadian people. Ever since that statement was made, we have noted that ministers, took turns in delivering speeches here and there. Saturday's speech was one of the series; quite often however, those same ministers have had, not to retract, I would not say that, but they had to correct newspaper reports.
Business of the House


An hon. Member:: To clarify.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: To clarify, if you like. Then, to use the words of Mr. John Bird, I say that he was perfectly right when he blamed the present government, whose fault is not to keep its record secret but to talk too much.
Therefore, the ministers had better agree before making statements; then they would not have to take the time of the house afterwards to correct newspaper reports.
(Text):
Motion (Mr. Fleming, Eglinton) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration branch

1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $911,098.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
47. Departmental administration, $1,001,840.

[Stage Direction]
76. Departmental administration, $6,924,915.
[Stage Direction]
165. Departmental administration, including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada and $167,500 as grants to recognized private after-care agencies as may be approved by treasury board, $1,194,583.
[Stage Direction]
255. Departmental administration, $1,821,267.
[Stage Direction]
308. Departmental administration, including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $2,174,216.
Proceedings reported.

Lionel Chevrier: May I have an indication of what the business is to be tomorrow and Thursday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we shall continue the debate on the motion setting up the committee on broadcasting. This would be followed by consideration of the budget resolutions of which there are two, to be taken in this order-the one dealing with customs tariffs and the second dealing with income tax. If we finish the budget resolutions we will consider the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on Friday.


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

Wednesday, February 1, 1961


[Stage Direction]
Miss Margaret Ailken (York-Humber) presented the first report of the special committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.