1962-10-01

DEFENCE RESEARCH


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday night at 11.04 p.m. Pacific daylight time the satellite Alouette, developed by the defence research board here in Ottawa, was successfully launched into orbit from Vandenberg air force base in California atop a Thor Agena rocket provided by the United States national aeronautics and space administration. This culminated three years of effort to combine applied science and technical skill by scientists here in Canada, and marks the first occasion for a space craft to be completely designed and built by a nation other than the United States or the Soviet union.
Signals from the satellite are now being received by tracking stations around the world including eight operated by NASA and two by the British, while here in Canada three defence research board stations are already receiving important data. The satellite passed over Ottawa for the first time shortly after noon on Saturday, and on subsequent passes tracking and the reception of information has been very satisfactory.
The Alouette is being called upon to carry out four experiments, three designed by the defence research board and the fourth by the national research council. One will seek the electron density distribution within a specific layer of the ionosphere; a second will determine changes in the ionosphere directly below the orbiting satellite; a third will measure cosmic radio noise, and the fourth, designed by national research council, will measure primary cosmic ray particles which are related to auroral effects and the leakage of particles in the upper atmosphere. If these experiments are completely successful, and at the moment we have every reason to believe that they will be, they will have valuable practical application to the technology of long range telecommunications both for civil and defence purposes.
Our collaboration with NASA, which includes the launching of a similar satellite in the near future, will result in a pooling of scientific data that will add much to what we already know.
The government and industrial scientists and engineers who have contributed to this project have acquired new experience, knowledge and skills which will improve Canada's international stature and industrial competitive position in an expanding technological field. Valuable experience has also been gained by Canadian firms which have participated in this project, in particular the de Havilland Aircraft Company in Toronto which developed the unique antenna system for the satellite and which has already received large United States orders for similar antennae and expects more orders to come. Another Canadian contractor, R.C.A. Victor Company Limited of Montreal, has a firm prospect for United States orders for telemetry transmitters of the type developed for the satellite.
This has been an outstanding Canadian achievement which could not have been successful without the close co-operation and support of officials in the United States, industry here in Canada and, in particular, without the earnest endeavours of all who participated in this project within the defence research board.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house would like to join with the government in congratulating all those who have participated in the successful launching of the Alouette satellite. It is indeed an outstanding achievement. It is a demonstration of the high quality of Canadian scientists and of their capabilities and endeavours in this collective achievement. It is also an indication of the successful teamwork on the part of government scientists working closely with those of private industry.
We also appreciate the excellent co-operation of our American neighbours, and particularly of the United States air force, in putting the satellite in orbit. We congratulate all those who participated in any way in the project on their magnificent achievement.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we in the Social Credit party would like to join in extending our sincere congratulations to those whose efforts have led to the accomplishment to which we are now referring. It is an example to the world of international co-operation in the peaceful development of modern science, and shows the progress which can be made and to what extent we can go forward in this field.

Proposed Legislation


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, we join with the other members of the house in expressing our pride and satisfaction in these achievements of Canadian scientists. We are very glad to note that this program was initiated in the interests of peace, and members of this party sincerely hope it will remain so. We extend our sincere congratulations to all those who have worked toward this end on their successful achievement.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce a Bill No. C-2, to amend the British North America Act 1867, with respect to the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is in similar form and nature to the bill that was introduced at the last session.


Some hon. Members:: We were not here last session.


John George Diefenbaker: It provides for the retirement of senators at the age of 75 years.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING READJUSTMENT OF REPRESENTATION IN HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-9, with respect to the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Explain.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This bill is to permit a minor amendment which would allow for the establishment of a permanent national redistribution commission.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of Naiional Healih and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-3, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide tighter control over drugs under the administration of the department.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-4, to amend the Department of National Health and Welfare Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for a national council of welfare.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE ACT


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Postmaster General) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-5, to amend the Post Office Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to amend the Post Office Act with respect to charges for and distribution of second class matter in local areas.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NEWFOUNDLAND SAVINGS BANK ACT


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-6, to repeal the Newfoundland Savings Bank Act, 1939.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Explain.


George Clyde Nowlan: The Newfoundland savings bank has been sold to the Bank of Canada, and part of the agreement in connection with that sale was that the government should seek to repeal the act and that all the assets vesting in the bank should vest in the receiver general for the government to collect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister not mean the Bank of Montreal, not the Bank of Canada?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that all the subsequent bills are non-government bills. As they will be appearing before me for the first time I am not sure of either their bulk or their content, and I do not know whether or not they meet the requirements of the rules of the house in so far as their essentials are concerned. I must therefore enter a caveat by

pointing out that between now and the time they come up for second reading such bills will be scrutinized, and if there is any essential defect the house will be acquainted with that fact when the particular measure appears before us for second reading.
I realize that at the present time the house itself is not in a position to judge whether a bill is acceptable or not, because it is seeing it for the first time. An order for first reading is merely a direction that a bill be printed so that hon. members may see it. This motion will be by unanimous consent of the house. Are hon. members agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (for Mr. Orlikow) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-7, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (wage earners' assignments).
An hon.. Member: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The purpose of this bill is to adjust the procedure of the Bankruptcy Act so as to cover the case of a wage earner who, though deeply in debt, could yet under budgetary supervision and with a time extension reimburse his creditors in full. It makes provision for this to be done without the wage earner being saddled with unconscionable rates of interest sometimes charged by money lenders.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXCHEQUER COURT


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-8, respecting the
jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada.


Mr. Pearson:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: The purpose of this bill is to transfer the jurisdiction now exercised by this house and the other place in the matter of divorce proceedings arising in the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec to the exchequer court, so that the court could handle that problem.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SMALL LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Introduction of bills-Mr. Orlikow-Bill intituled: An act to amend the Small Loans Act.
27507-3-3J
Proposed Legislation
Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Knowles requests unanimous consent to move, for Mr. Orlikow, for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Small Loans Act. Do the same conditions apply in respect to this bill as applied to the previous one?


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: No, Mr. Speaker, there is not unanimous consent to proceed with this bill at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I trust that note will be taken of who is objecting.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is requested that note be taken of whose bill it is.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous approval for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the bill must stand.



AMENDMENT REQUIRING STATEMENT OF TRUE INTEREST RATE CHARGED

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Introduction of bills-Mr. Orlikow-Bill intituled:
An act to amend the Small Loans Act.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asks unanimous consent of the house to introduce this bill on behalf of the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Speaker. The same bill will come up in a few minutes.



Hazen Robert Argue: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-35, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Small Loans Act and to require small loans companies, in all advertising of small loans facilities, to state the actual rate of interest that will be charged on any such loans.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-10, to provide for minimum wages for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to establish a minimum rate of wages with respect to all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction. The bill provides that the minimum rate of wages shall be $1.25 an hour.

Proposed Legislation
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION OP STATUTORY HOLIDAYS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-15, to provide for pay for statutory holidays for employees and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays in federal works, undertakings and businesses.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the title of the bill makes clear, the purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide that all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction shall enjoy at least eight statutory holidays a year and shall receive their regular pay for those eight statutory holidays without having to work for them. It also provides for additional pay if they are required to work. But as I have indicated, the main purpose is to provide eight statutory holidays a year with pay.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENTS REVISING MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION PROCESSES, ETC.

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-23, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: This bill is designed simply to establish a new and different system of negotiation and conciliation under the act, and thus speed up the negotiation processes between union and management to allow a greater opportunity for settlement of industrial disputes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENT TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-ll, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act (Canada highways).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: This bill is designed to permit the federal government to enter into agreement with the provinces for the purpose of contributing funds toward the building of highways other than a single trans-Canada highway; in effect, to build a second trans-Canada highway or other types of highways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Mr. Knowles.]



DIVORCE


William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-12, to provide in Canada for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR PARLIAMENTARY PROCTOR AND TAXATION OF COSTS

William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-30, to establish the office of parliamentary proctor and to regulate taxation of costs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR DISSOLUTION AND ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may have your attention and ask the permission of the house to have this motion withdrawn and the bill not proceeded with, because the substance of it has already been covered.
(Translation):


Mr. Dumont:: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to give us some information on that matter.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the request of the hon. member to withdraw his bill. Is it agreed that this bill may be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, it is the third time today that the matter of divorce is being raised in the house, and I should like to have some explanations.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has fully understood the statement made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who wishes to withdraw his bill. Since the bill is being withdrawn I feel we have no need for any explanation.
(Text):
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



SOLICITOR GENERAL ACT


Mr. Speaker:: In connection with this bill, which is entitled "An act to repeal the Solicitor General Act", the title on the bill reads "An act respecting the Solicitor General Act". This is merely a clerical error, and I trust that the house will approve the necessary change in title. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-13, to repeal the Solicitor General Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: If it needs explanation, Mr. Speaker, the position of solicitor general has become increasingly less significant and less important over the years. As the title says, the bill is designed to repeal the Solicitor General Act so that this officer will no longer be a part of the cabinet of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTEREST ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Introduction of bills-Mr. Orlikow-Bill intituled: An act to amend the Interest Act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I will try again.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asks for unanimous consent to present this bill on behalf of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Has he unanimous approval?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Speaker.



AMENDMENT TO PLACE CEILING ON INTEREST RATES

Hazen Robert Argue: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-40, to amend the Interest Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Interest Act so as to place a ceiling of 12 per cent per annum on all interest rates in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-14, respecting Indians.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: This bill, Mr. Speaker, has the purpose of consolidating the Indian Act and its various amendments into one statute so that it will be more compact and more easily readable by those interested in these matters. An ancillary effect upon its introduction and first reading will be that the Minister of Justice will be required by the bill of rights to review this particular bill to see whether it is inconsistent with the bill of rights and to report any such inconsistencies to the house, in
Proposed Legislation
which event such amendments as are necessary can be made in the committee stage.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to assure the house that this is not merely the re-enactment of an existing statute as reported in the press?


Frank Howard: My explanation, I thought, was lucid.


Hon. Richard A. Bell (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I rise on a point of
order which I think is of some importance, and perhaps Your Honour might be disposed to reserve it. From what the hon. member has said it is clear that this purpose is not to legislate but to secure a legal opinion. In other words, he attempts to secure by indirection that which he cannot do directly.
In my respectful submission that would be an abuse of the procedures and practices of the house, and if I am right I suggest that the Speaker has the duty and obligation at this stage of the proceedings so to rule. May I put it to Your Honour that if this procedure is permissible it would lead us to the ridiculous position that some member of the house could take the five or six volumes of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1950 into the Journals branch and the twelve or fourteen volumes since that time and place all the legislation therein on the order paper in the form of bills, which would mean they would all have to be reprinted and would all have to be reenacted based upon an opinion that might be secured from the Minister of Justice.
I make these statements to you, sir, conscious of the fact that amendments to the Indian Act will be advanced in the near future based upon the report of the special committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Indian Act. I think the principle involved here is far greater and goes far beyond that which is related to the particular bill, and I submit to Your Honour that this is a matter of such importance that Your Honour would perhaps like to reserve it for consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard the remarks with respect to this bill may I say that I appreciate what the minister has said; but he, as well as other members of the house, is aware of the bulkiness of this act. There are certain explanatory notes about which I think it would be quite improper for me to give a snap judgment. I have indicated with respect to all the bills now before us for consideration that they will be studied and prior to their introduction for second reading a ruling will be given by the Chair in respect of the said bills. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?

Proposed Legislation


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: May I point out with respect that the point raised by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would perhaps warrant your reserving this particular bill, because my recollection is that the obligation to give a legal opinion arises as soon as a bill is introduced in the house. In case, therefore, the point of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be correct, that the purpose of the bill is to secure a legal opinion rather than to have legislative effect, may I suggest with respect that perhaps you should reserve this particular bill until you can have a look at it and decide what are its primary purpose and effect and whether it should be introduced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say a word on the point just raised by the ex-minister of justice, I suggest to Your Honour that a similar point came up last year in connection with a purported amendment to the Income Tax Act, that it does appear from what Your Honour has already said that the bill is not in the possession of the house, and that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the former minister of justice are making assumptions about it. Since we are all equal here, I suggest that the whole house is entitled to look at the bill, as Your Honour quite properly suggested at the beginning, before any judgments about it are made by anyone, and that it is not for ministers to seek to abridge the rights of members of this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are seeking to uphold the rights of the Speaker, who has certain authority.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate all that has been said. I feel that in all fairness to the house on all sides the line of conduct which I have proposed is that which I would follow. However, in saying so I must point out that there may be room here for an abuse of the legislative process and, in the light of the bulk of this bill, if it should be found to be an improper bill the house will, of course, be out the quite considerable expense of printing it. These are factors that I have to weigh. While hon. members were speaking I had some chance to peruse the nature of the bill, the title and the explanatory notes, and a very definite and considered opinion will have to be taken about its validity. Therefore I propose to consider the bill and render my decision at a future date. In order that the hon. member's position with respect to his bill might not be prejudiced, I feel I must now ask the house whether it is prepared to give first reading.
IMr. Speaker.)
Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF COURT OF CLAIMS

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-19, respecting the Canada court of Indian claims.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SWEEPSTAKES


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-16, to provide for the establishment of a hospital sweepstakes board.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Arthur Smith: This bill has been before the house in numerous forms before, and has a two-fold objective. The first is to provide a legal outlet for those Canadians who wish to participate in a national lottery. The second is to assure that the funds resulting from this lottery will be redirected for the benefit of Canadians and not for promoters abroad. It is introduced at this time as a result of the growing demand by Canadians who wish to see such legislation introduced.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-32, to amend the Civil Service Act (collective bargaining and arbitration).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for arbitration in case of disputes between the government and public employees, and further to provide a means of establishing a tribunal of arbitration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

(Translation):



PROVISION FOR NEGOTIATION AND ARBITRATION

Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-17, to amend the Civil Service Act (negotiation and arbitration).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that civil servants be considered as first class citizens all across Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Text):



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-18, to amend the House of Commons Act (internal economy autonomy).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the commissioners of internal economy are now set up in such a way that the cabinet, particularly the treasury benches, has virtual control over the internal affairs and expenditures as well as the estimates of the House of Commons. It is the purpose of this bill to repeal those sections in the House of Commons Act in order that the house can become autonomous in this regard and run its own affairs without interference from the treasury benches.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I do not believe we can allow the remarks of the hon. member to pass without challenge. The suggestion-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order; there is no debate on this.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The suggestion that the
house is not autonomous in this regard is incorrect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-20, to amend the Criminal Code (trading stamps).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
Proposed Legislation


Frank Howard: The Criminal Code now prohibits the issuance and use of what are commonly called trading stamps, but provides a few loopholes so that trading stamps can be issued under certain circumstances. The design behind this bill is to plug those loopholes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO WATER POLLUTION

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-27, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, by the introduction of this bill I am following in the footsteps of the Prime Minister. The bill is identical to one introduced by him in 1955 when he was a member of the opposition. The purpose of the bill is to make it an offence for owners of industrial plants and oil refineries, and other persons, to discharge noxious matter into interprovincial waters, thus endangering the lives, safety, health and comfort of the public. I look forward to receiving the Prime Minister's support in this my fourth attempt to have the code amended in this respect.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. David Lewis (York South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-21, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Lewis: The purpose of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is simply to reduce the voting age to 18.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Frank Howard: I wonder if, with the permission of the house, I could ask that this measure be withdrawn, because the matter has been covered.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the hon. member for Skeena ask for permission to withdraw this bill. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.

Proposed Legislation



AMENDMENT RESPECTING ELIGIBILITY OF MINISTERS

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-24, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The purpose of this bill is to amend Section 14 of the Senate and House of Commons Act by adding thereto a new subsection providing that directors of Canadian companies shall not be eligible as ministers of the crown. In other words, its purpose is to establish by law what we now understand is a practice.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURAL REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-22, to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act (Indian reserves).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This bill would extend the provisions of the act popularly known as A.R.D.A. so that Indian bands and Indian councils could enter into agreements with the A.R.D.A. agencies.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MERCHANT SEAMEN COMPENSATION ACT


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-25, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Chesley William Carter: The purpose of this bill is to widen the discretion of the merchant seamen compensation board with respect to the conditions under which a maximum allowance may be paid to a person who undertakes the care and maintenance of orphans of merchant seamen who are entitled to compensation under the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-26, to amend the Railway Act (responsibility for dislocation costs).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This bill provides for retraining and moving costs to be given to railroad employees who lose their jobs as the result of organizational changes. It merely extends an obligation which now exists under the act towards employees who are required to move as a result of organizational changes in the railway.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING ABANDONMENT OF BRANCH LINES

Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-44, to amend the Railway Act (abandonment).
He said: This bill seeks to provide the board of transport commissioners with authority to lay down conditions under which abandonment of railways may take place after permission to abandon has been granted.
Motion agreed to and biU read the first time.



COPYRIGHT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Miss LaMarsh:: Before placing this bill before the house and asking unanimous consent for its first reading I wish to point out that there is a clerical error in it. The bill was introduced twice previously, and at the close of the last parliament the second part of it was implemented in the acceptance by the house of the universal copyright convention. I would ask the unanimous consent of the house to delete from the title, as has already been deleted from the bill, the provisions with respect to the implementing of this convention.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked for leave to amend the title to the bill, but the copy I have has not had the second portion deleted therefrom. Is the house in unanimous agreement with regard to the alteration of the title of the bill as indicated by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-28, to provide for copyright in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Translation):



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Soulan-ges) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-29, an act respecting the sovereignty of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Speaker, the aim of this bill is to endow this country with a distinctive national emblem and with a national anthem while, at the same time, setting aside a day in the year to celebrate Canadian sovereignty. I might add that this bill was introduced during the last parliament by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Mr. Allard.
As a Canadian, I take pleasure in moving again for leave to introduce this legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Text):



INDIAN ACT


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-31, to amend the Indian Act (liquor rights).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-33, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (twelve mile fishing zone).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is that Canada affirms the right of her nationals, exclusive of others, to fish within twelve miles off her coast, and further affirms her obligations to preserve the resources of those waters.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Proposed Legislation MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS ASSISTANCE ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING USE OF CENSUS DATA, ETC.

Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-34, to amend the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to reactivate the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act of 1938. It provides in particular that the 1961 census data be used for the purposes of this bill, instead of the census data of 1931. It also provides that a clause providing for the suspension of the act by the governor in council be repealed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


Hazen Robert Argue: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-36, to make provision for the disclosure of information in respect of finance charges.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require all persons and companies providing credit to set forth the actual interest charges being levied on each transaction.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISIONS RESPECTING INTEREST CHARGED ON CONSUMER CREDIT

Mr. T. R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-39, to provide for the control of consumer credit.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Rodney Berger: This is a bill designed to affect all those institutions which are involved in consumer credit. It applies to both real estate transactions and transactions involving personal property. It requires the actual amount of money chargeable by way of interest in any such transactions to be disclosed, and limits the rate of interest which can be charged.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Proposed Legislation (Translation):



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Marcel Bourbonnais: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-37, respecting the administration of certain crown corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to have members of the various parties in this house appointed to the board of directors of crown corporations. They would have to attend the meetings of the board of directors of those corporations and report to the house thereon.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
provision permitting political activities
Thomas Rodney Berger: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-38, to enable civil servants to engage in political activity.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to enable civil servants to join political parties, to contribute to political parties and to be candidates for political parties, with the exception of those civil servants engaged at or above the level of deputy head as defined in the Civil Service Act, and those employed in a confidential capacity.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



YOUTH APPRECIATION

[Stage Direction]
designation of annual youth appreciation week
Arthur Smith: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-41, for the establishment of an annual youth apprecia-ation week.
He said: This bill is promoted as a result of the interest of a number of service clubs. It is designed to set aside a week in recognition of the many useful and constructive activities of young Canadians. It is supported, as I say, by the majority of Canadian service clubs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT

[Stage Direction]
amendment of regulations respecting

William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-42, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (instalment purchases) .


John Whitney Pickersgill: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: This bill is designed to provide protection to those who sign promissory notes upon lines similar to the Copyright Act which transfers, with the promissory note, the liabilities as well as the responsibilities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT


Barry Mather: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-43, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (age discrimination).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Barry Mather: The purpose of this bill is to add age discrimination to the list of prohibited employment practices unless the age requirement is a bona fide occupational qualification. At the present time many workers suffer from discrimination in this respect, particularly where pension plans rather than work skills determine who is hired.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT


William Howell Arthur Thomas: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-45, to amend the National Energy Board Act (drainage works).
He said: This bill seeks to make pipe lines operating under federal charter subject to provincial drainage laws in the same way as pipe lines operating under provincial charter.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BROADCASTING ACT


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-46, to amend the Broadcasting Act (human rights abuses remedied).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This bill provides for an amendment to the Broadcasting Act so that a licence issued under that act might be conditional on the observation of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and, specifically that there should be no discrimination by a licensee with regard to providing commercial services to competitor applicants.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENSION ACT


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-47, to amend the Pension Act (judicial appeal).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John (Jack) McIntosh: At the present time there is no appeal from the decision of the Canadian pension commission. The decision of that commission is final. I feel that this commission is not qualified to deal with the legal interpretations of the act. In British justice or British law there is provision for recourse to the courts by the citizens in such circumstances, and I believe the same rights should be given to our citizens in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
September 27-The Prime Minister:
That a humble address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Senate and Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:
An act to amend the British North America Act, 1867.
Whereas the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled have submitted an address to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Section ninety-four A of the British North America Act, 1867 is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:
27507-3-4J
Proposed Legislation
"94A. It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to
(a)	old age pensions, and
(b)	pensions and other benefits incidental to„ or conducive to the better operation and administration of, a scheme of old age pensions,
but no law made by the parliament of Canada under the authority of this section affects the operation of any law enacted by the legislature of a province in relation to any of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section."
2. This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1963, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1962, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1963.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



FREIGHT RATES REDUCTION ACT


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act to extend for not more than twelve months the period during which the revised rates under the said act shall be applicable and to increase the authorized expenditure under the act by an additional twenty million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George Clyde Nowlan: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures in the year 1962 not exceeding $156,500,000 and to make certain capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts prior to July 1, 1963; to authorize the National Company to issue securities to provide amounts required for the authorized expenditures; to provide that, except as expressly provided, the aggregate principal amount of securities outstanding at any time shall not exceed $57,700,000; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the Minister of Finance to make loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $57,700,000 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the national system; and to provide further in respect of the refunding of

Proposed Legislation
matured, maturing and callable obligations of the said company, for the issue of securities guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada, to an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $480,000,000 in lieu -of the present amount of $230,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John George Diefenbaker: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the establishment of an electoral boundaries commission for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons; to provide that certain members of the commission may be paid such per diem allowances as may be fixed by the governor in council; to provide also for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses for the members of the commission; and to provide further that the commission may engage the services of such technical advisers and other staff, including a person to act as secretary to the commission, as it deems necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund, to any person who was a member of the Senate on April 6th, 1962, but who ceases to be a member at the age of seventy-five years or more by reason of an amendment to section 29 of the British North America Act, 1867, of a lifetime retirement annuity equivalent to three quarters of the amount per annum of the sessional allowance he was receiving under the Senate and House of Commons Act at the time when he ceased to be a member.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the next resolution, through clerical error the order paper lists this resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance, whereas it should have been posted in the name of the Minister of Agriculture. If the house will give unanimous consent to the correction of this error, I will put the motion in the name of the Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to increase the capital of the farm credit corporation from twelve million dollars to sixteen million dollars so as to increase the lending capacity of the corporation from three hundred million dollars to four hundred million dollars; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Clyde Nowlan: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to purchase, out of the exchange fund account maintained under the act, securities of the international monetary fund.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Clyde Nowlan: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure Id amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide an arrangement with respect to fiscal years commencing on or after April 1, 1962 similar to that provided in the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act with respect to previous fiscal years; to provide also in the said amendment for an increase of one third in the amount of the payment, from one dollar and fifty cents to two dollars per capita.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George Clyde Nowlan: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations on or after the 1st day of April, 1962.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Waller L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance, and in doing so to congratulate him on his appointment. Has the government or the Bank of Canada taken any steps to stop or to discourage the chartered banks from making loans to foreign corporations or to their Canadian subsidiaries for the purpose of acquiring control of Canadian owned or controlled companies?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
gentleman for his congratulations. I think this question is more properly one for the order paper, because it deals with the policy of takeovers, which have prevailed in Canada for a decade or more, as the hon. member well knows-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Clyde Nowlan: -his firm having been associated with banks and banking throughout.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is no power in the Bank Act or any legislation of the parliament of Canada since the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Control Act whereby such authority can be exercised.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does the minister believe that loans made for such purposes are desirable in the public interest at any time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -and especially in times when the amount of credit available for all purposes, including ordinary commercial purposes, is limited?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should reiterate my caution of last Friday with respect to the asking of questions.



REQUIREMENTS RESPECTING LOANS TO HELP EXCHANGE RESERVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Did the international monetary fund, the export-import bank, the federal reserve bank
Inquiries of the Ministry and the Bank of England require that the government pursue particular monetary and budgetary policies at the time they agreed to guarantee or lend to Canada $1,000 million to replenish our exchange reserves?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not a question for orders of the day. What took place was done several months ago. There will be every opportunity for the hon. gentleman to secure the information he requires, either during the progress of this debate or through a question placed on the order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege affecting every hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why don't you give your leader an opportunity to speak?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let him start the debate; he is sitting there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have all day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege affecting every hon. member. The Prime Minister has just given an answer denying information about the austerity program which was undertaken in contempt of parliament, and the first occasion upon which a question is asked about it, the Prime Minister says it is a matter of no importance, that the question can be put on the order paper. I suggest, sir, that this is a shocking breach of the privileges of the elected representatives of the people.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; in the light of the remarks just made, I find that there has been no question of privilege. We will not, therefore, embark on a sterile controversy in regard to those remarks.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. As he is not in his seat, may I address my question to the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary. Has Mr. A. S. Whiteley, a member of the restrictive trade practices commission, whose term ends shortly, been given notice that when his term expires, it will not be renewed, and, if so, will the government reconsider its decision in this regard?
42	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker,
I was going to suggest that this is perhaps a question for the order paper, but I will mention it to the minister on his return.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will wait for the answer, but with great respect this matter merits answer now.


Mr. Speaker:: May I draw to the attention of the hon. member for York South that the nature of the answer is not subject to comment.



REQUEST OF SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS FOR NEGOTIATION PROCEDURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will there be government legislation during this session amending the Civil Service Act, to meet the request of the various civil service organizations for negotiating procedures?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend is too good a parliamentarian to believe that that question is proper on the orders of the day.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the dire need for employment opportunities in the industrial Cape Breton area, is the federal government presently making a direct financial contribution to the government of the province of Nova Scotia with a view to assisting in providing special pensions to miners 60 years of age and over, thereby removing them from the labour market and opening up new employment opportunities for younger persons?


George Clyde Nowlan: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house when he expects the
[Mr. Lewis.)

report and recommendations of the air transport board regarding the prairie milk run air service?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, before November 1. In the meantime Trans-Canada Air Lines is carrying the service as before.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has given any consideration to the urgent requests that I know he and other members have received regarding the cancellation for the winter months by the Canadian National Railways of its transcontinental trains Nos. 3 and 4.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, curtailment of service, short of abandonment of a line, can be decided upon by the railways themselves without applying to the board of transport commissioners; but if anyone feels that his rights have been infringed or that the interests of the public are at stake he can always apply to the board of transport commissioners.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. Will the minister consider following the practice adopted by his predecessor in office in 1960 of making representations to the railways that led at that time to the ending of this curtailment idea?


Léon Balcer: I have not received any representations yet but as soon as I receive any I will study the matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to pose a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the government's announced decision to reduce from 12 to 8 squadrons the Royal Canadian Air Force overseas commitment to NATO been rescinded or changed in any way?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the number of aircraft to be supplied to NATO was decided some year and a half to two years ago and we are following the policy which was announced at that time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Is the government going to maintain 12 squadrons in Europe for more than the next year, or is it its intention to reduce that number to 8?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. gentleman had not been asleep in the house for the last two years-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -he would be aware of the fact that there have been plans for some considerable time to reduce the number of squadrons from 12 to 8.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Does the minister feel that the international situation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -has improved sufficiently-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is embarking on a quite separate tack. He is entitled to ask a supplementary question to clarify the previous answer. I would again urge hon. members to read standing order 39 and the citations with respect thereto. I think we will have a little more efficiency, shall I say, in the house if they do. The hon. member for Cariboo.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; this supplementary question is directly relevant to the government's plans for the Canadian commitment to NATO and I respectfully submit I should be allowed to pose it at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: At the moment I recognize the hon. member for Cariboo.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: On a point of order, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West on a point of order.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, twice today and once last week you have had occasion to refer members to the rules having to do with questions and have directed their attention to them when hon. members rose to put questions. Twice today the answers given to questions have breached the rules in a rather obvious way. If hon. members putting questions are to be called to order, then surely the rules must be drawn to the attention of the ministers in making answers and those answers must be made properly.


Mr. Speaker:: Without at all engaging in a controversy with the hon. member, may I say that my remarks with respect to questions were addressed to all members of the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bert Raymond Leboe: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister tell us if the government has any plans to build a system of arterial highways in Canada on a co-operative plan with the provinces, similar to that used in the building of the trans-Canada highway?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will cast his mind back not too many years ago I think he will recall that is the kind of question seeking information as to government policy which is not appropriate to answer on the orders of the day especially, as could be quite well assumed, as the matter of highways is under study.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Defence Production which I have been asked to raise in the house as an urgent matter. In view of a telegram I have received from Mr. Neil Reimer, Canadian director of the oil, chemical and atomic workers union, Edmonton, stating that the Polymer Corporation is indulging in strikebreaking tactics against the international brotherhood of electrical workers, would the minister undertake to investigate this situation?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the investigation asked by the hon. member has already been made. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) spoke to me about this matter on Friday afternoon. I got in touch with Polymer then and again this morning. The information I have received from the Polymer Corporation is as follows: Catolytic was given the general contract for the construction of the new plant in Sarnia and a strike was declared in the second week of August by the electrical workers. Since that time Catolytic has finished its work and is off the job. The local electrical contractors are continuing negotiations with the electrical union.
In the meantime the union chairman of our employees at Polymer, who belong to the oil, chemical and atomic workers union, has agreed that his electrical workers perform some urgent work before the cold weather sets in. I wish to state also at this time that it is impossible for these people to do all the
44	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry work and the new plant will have to remain idle until such time as the electrical workers and contractors in Sarnia come to an agreement, which I hope will be soon. The department of labour of the province of Ontario had a mediator on the site last week for two days and I understand he is coming back again this week.



CAPE BRETON, N.S.    SPEED UP OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Again, in view of the dire unemployment situation in the industrial Cape Breton area, is it the plan of the federal government to speed up their program or schedule of public works in this area in order to provide needed and urgent employment opportunities?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the government and the Department of Public Works is aware of its responsibilities and are taking every step to discharge those responsibilities to the fullest extent.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister say if the government has any plans to revise the Indian Act at this session of parliament?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, a
thorough revision of the Indian Act based upon the report of the select committee of the Senate and the House of Commons is under active drafting. The complexity and importance of the act are such that I am advised it will likely be early in the new year before the drafting can be completed. At that stage the bill would be introduced for first reading, not with the intention of proceeding at this session of parliament but at a subsequent session. In the interim it would be my intention to meet on a provincial basis with representatives of the Indians in every province to discuss the important provisions which are proposed.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Maiheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of


Labour. Has the minister looked into the complaint of 80 Manitoba Indians at Thompson, Manitoba that they have been refused training in skilled occupations as reported in the Times of London of September 22 last?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: This matter has not been brought to my attention. In any event, the actual training is undertaken by the provincial government.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the Free-domite sect in the province of British Columbia. I would have addressed it to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I will address it to the former minister of justice. Has his attention been drawn to the statement of the attorney general of the province of British Columbia that this problem is beyond solving by the provincial government and they have been cut adrift by the national government? May I also ask as a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One question at a time. Again, supplementaries are only permitted to clarify an answer that has been given, not to put an entirely new premise on a question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the hon. member to ask this question was referred to me as Acting Minister of Justice and I made inquiries. While the particular statement quoted had not previously been drawn to my attention, I have since checked with the office of the minister and I find that at least within the last ten days no request for assistance has been made to the minister or his department.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Rodney Berger: should like the Minister of Labour to say what steps the government has been taking to replenish the unemployment insurance fund.


Michael Starr: At the moment there is no need to replenish the unemployment insurance fund.


Mr. J. M. Forgie (Renfrew North):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. According to the report of the advisory committee the unemployment insurance fund is

nearing bankruptcy and will likely be exhausted during the winter of 1962-63 unless measures to restore its revenue are taken. Will the Prime Minister advise the house what action he intends to take to remedy this critical situation?


Mr. Speaker:: A similar type of question was put to the Minister of Labour and I feel the answer was quite as clear as any that might be given to this question. I call now on the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the question which was asked by the hon. gentleman is not, with great respect, the question which was asked a few moments ago from another section of the house. I believe that in view of the serious condition of the fund the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -ought to have from the Prime Minister not only an answer to the question but also some indication as to when we may expect a report from the commission which was set up a long time ago to deal with a problem the solution of which was promised by this government a long time ago.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why don't you let Mike speak, Paul.


Mr. Speaker:: I felt the questions were the same and unless the right hon. gentleman cares, or is willing, to make an answer then I think we shall leave it at that point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Maybe he does.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour simply to ask him when he may expect a report from the Gill committee that was established to investigate into all aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Michael Starr: My most accurate information is that it will be some time this fall.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the government giving any active consideration to amending the National Housing Act to permit the financing and sale of existing houses as is now done in respect of new house construction?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public
Works): Any consideration with regard to legislation would involve a matter of government policy to be announced in due course.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and offer him publicly, as I did privately, an expression of my pleasure at seeing him in his present position. Can the minister inform the house if there has been any change in government policy toward people of Chinese origin, who allegedly entered Canada illegally, as that policy was announced by the former minister on June 9, 1960?


Richard Albert Bell: I should like to thank the hon. member for his pleasant words. If there is any announcement to be made concerning the matter to which he referred, it will be made in the house.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question? Would the minister have answered the question asked earlier in respect of the Indian Act, if that question had been posed by a member of the government?


Thomas Miller Bell: I answer all questions to the best of my ability.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel that this matter of "bootleg" supplementaries should receive the particular attention of the members of the house, especially those who have had more experience in the house. I now recognize the hon. member for Fort William.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Huberi Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. This question arises out of a report in the Financial Post of September 22, to the effect that the federal government has promised the city of Montreal $20 million to help that city obtain the world fair in 1967. Can the minister inform the house if this $20 million comes from the $100 million already set aside by parliament to celebrate Canada's one hundredth birthday?


George Clyde Nowlan: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he agrees with a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) rebuking certain members on this side of the house when he said it was unpatriotic to criticize the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Translation):



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire Lapointe:: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does he intend to remedy the discrepancy which now exists in Canada between production and purchasing power?
And I should like to ask him a supplementary question: is he aware that there is now a discrepancy between production and purchasing power?


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member that there cannot be any supplementary question until an answer has been given.
(Text):



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles M. Drury (St. Antoine-Wesimount):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of recent press reports of the intention to continue next year the Dawson festival, has the government given any undertaking to provide further financial assistance for this event?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: As the hon. member is aware I am sure, the festival to which he has referred was sponsored by a group of public spirited Canadians. I am not acquainted with the current activities of the festival foundation but I do understand that, as a result of the substantial economic impact and benefit of the festival, it is the intention of the foundation to continue the festival.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a real supplementary?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, you have given a ruling that if there has been no answer to a question, there can be no supplementary. Unfortunately, the minister declined to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the hon. member ber is not in a position to comment upon the nature of the reply. The hon. member for York South.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While it may be true that the hon. member has not the right to comment, may I say to you respectfully that a moment ago you stated that if the hon. member had a true question, then he may ask it. I say to you, with the greatest respect, it is not up to the Speaker to say whether or not a member has a true question, unless he has heard that question.


Mr. Speaker:: I may have been precipitate in that, but in the light of the remarks with which the hon. member was preceding his supplementary, I came to a certain conclusion. However, I am quite prepared to hear the hon. member put his supplementary.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I should like to ask the minister whether or not it is the intention of the government to underwrite in any way the renewal, in the current year, of the Dawson festival?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, no commitment has been made in that regard.
(Translation):



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Charles Canfin (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. Secretary of State tell the house why the government persists in refusing to allow the C.B.C. to establish a French T.V. station in the city of Quebec, in accordance with the clearly expressed wish of the people of that city?
(Text):


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: There has been no decision handed down on that as yet.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR DEFINITION OF ONTARIO-QUEBEC BOUNDARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Lamoureux (Stormont):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of impending legal proceedings resulting from the fact that

the Ontario-Quebec border east of Cornwall is still indefinite, would the minister advise whether early action is contemplated, in conjunction with provincial authorities, to fix this border?
(Translation):


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question was only brought to my attention when I came in the house. I shall take it as a notice and answer it as soon as possible.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General?
(Text):
Before I do so may I congratulate the government for the addition of charm to the post office department by the appointment of the present Postmaster General.
Has the Postmaster General been informed that the London postmen of the confederated association of letter carriers have recently decided upon strike action to support their pay claims and that about a week ago, for the same reason, the Canadian postal employees association decided to adopt a work to rule attitude which would have the effect of slowing down operations?
If the answer is yes, will the minister tell the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In the latter portion of his question the hon. member clearly indicated that it was one that should go on the order paper. In any event questions should deal with matters of urgency and the matters which the hon. gentleman has raised have been before the public for some ten days or two weeks. I would again appeal to hon. members to be discriminatory in their questions.


Azellus Denis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the confederated association of letter carriers represents some 7,200 people and that there are 10,500 people involved in the Canadian postal employees association. They are to vote on strike action and I consider this an urgent matter. I want to know what steps will be taken in order to solve the situation.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister which has reference to something that happened this
Inquiries of the Ministry afternoon. In view of the declaration the other day that a request for an amendment to the British North America Act regarding contributory pensions would be recommended to the house when all the provinces had agreed thereto, does the fact that this resolution was on the order paper today and has been transferred to government orders mean that all the provinces have now agreed? If not, could the Prime Minister state what stage has been reached in the negotiations or conversations with Quebec and Newfoundland?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, most of the questions this afternoon have been put for a purpose, and many of them have been very clear and indicative of a desire to hold off the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: This one is not in that category. As a matter of fact, I communicated with both the premier of Newfoundland, the guardian of free speech in that province, and with the premier of Quebec. I have not had a reply from the former but I did have a reply from the premier of Quebec advising me that this was a matter which would have to be dealt with by the provincial legislature. Apparently there has been a dissolution of the legislature in that province, so that is the present position of the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister whether this order will be proceeded with during this session, or is it intended to wait until the government has had an affirmative reply from both these provinces?


John George Diefenbaker: It is on the order paper and, as is stated in the speech from the throne, when these two provinces have given consideration to the matter it will then be brought before the house. I do not know when the expiry of the writs takes place in Quebec but I hope that when it does we shall have co-operation from the province of Quebec, and I would also ask the assistance of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who controls to such a degree the premier of Newfoundland.
(Translation):



CROP INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenleuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sorry I did not give him notice of it.
Is it the intention of the government to extend to eastern farmers the benefits of crop insurance?

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member should be aware that the Crop Insurance Act was passed in 1959.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, notice of which was sent to the minister's office. The question arises from the announcement on Saturday by the Roy Thomson newspaper organization that they have bought the Fort William Times Journal, an independently owned paper. My question is, could the minister tell us whether the combines investigation branch is studying this purchase, which makes the lakehead a one publisher community?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the hon. member privately that I feel this question is one for the order paper, but I will refer it to the Minister of Justice on his return.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Anligonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received reports that Canadian scallop boats have been damaged as a result of running afoul poorly marked drift nets placed by Russian ships on Georges banks?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, no such report has come to my attention. However, I am having an investigation made in case such a report may have been made recently to officers of the department in the field. If this proves to be the case, I will inform the hon. member later.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Pennell (Brant-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
[Mr. Drouin.)
My question is, having regard to the fact that 99 civil servants were discharged at the Hagersville army camp as of August 31, 1962, does the minister anticipate that there will be further lay-offs at the camp during the remainder of the year?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. No further reductions in staff are contemplated at Hagersville before the end of this year.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the bill with respect to the Senate. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether this bill will be referred to a standing committee of the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think that question can be answered when the bill is before the house.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. L. Clunis (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government given any commitment which would involve the importation into Canada of additional quantities of eggs or egg concentrates from Poland?


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest deference to the hon. member, we are here definitely embarking upon a type of question which would more properly be on the order paper. These are matters of not the greatest urgency. They may be of importance; I grant that every question that may be asked may be important. The hon. member is not seeking information on an urgent matter, and let us limit ourselves at this time in the house to consideration of questions of urgency.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, notice of which was sent

to him earlier today. Arising from a front page story in the Calgary Albertan concerning some very serious charges of insubordination, would the minister care to comment with regard to these alleged charges of insubordination and distortion of government policy by a senior official in administering the national parks policy?


Mr. Speaker:: There again, I think the hon. member is adverting to an event which happened several weeks ago. Undoubtedly the fullest information will be furnished to the house. I am of the opinion that this is not a question which should come forward on orders of the day.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the decision of the United States government to construct immediately a very large atomic power plant in the state of Washington affect in any way plans for the joint development of the Columbia river?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question and I do not believe I can answer it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not a hypothetical question. I am sorry that the minister's department does not keep him briefed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is this move on the part of the Americans in retaliation for the blundering indecision of the Canadian government?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
address a question to, I am not sure whether it is the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Transport.
In view of current press reports of the informal arrangement whereby Royal Canadian Air Force courtesy crews are assisting in the navigation of aircraft from iron curtain countries to Cuba, what steps or what action, if any, is being taken to ensure that the
Inquiries of the Ministry cargoes of such aircraft do not include articles which are on the list as being prohibited for export from Canada to Cuba, namely contraband?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, an examination of the cargoes on airplanes of this sort is no part of the responsibility of the R.C.A.F. courtesy crews. The courtesy crews have been put on Soviet aircraft for any flights over Canada for quite a number of years now because the soviets have not signed the international air agreement. These courtesy crews are put on these airplanes as a protection to Canadian air traffic, to ensure that landings are made properly and that signals sent out are correctly interpreted, and so forth. They are there for that purpose entirely.
There have been of course, only a very limited number of flights of this kind during the past two years. I think there were three all told in 1961, and I believe there have been five so far this year.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would your policy apply if they were carrying bombs?



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. Rideout (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house whether the government has any plans for the extension of runways at the Trans-Canada Air Lines airport at Moncton to accommodate modem types of aircraft?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, at the present time T.C.A. is flying modern aircraft into Moncton. No request has been received by the government from T.C.A. for the building of any extension to the present runways.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Cook (Monlmagny-L'Islei):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I am sorry that I did not have time to advise him beforehand. Could he tell me, all the same, if he intends to make some changes in the administration of the C.B.C.? We know that at the present time and for some time now-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to remind the hon. member that he may ask questions but

Inquiries of the Ministry he must refrain from giving personal opinions or conclusions.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether, in Ottawa, the beautiful capital of Canada, the official in charge of train schedules who calls the times of arrival and departure in English only could not also do it in French, the other official language?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I am a member of a government which has accomplished so much for the cause of bilingualism, I shall be pleased to forward the request of the hon. member for Bellechasse to the authorities of the Canadian National Railways.
(Text):



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. In view of representations from the railway mail clerks association in the province of Nova Scotia that changes are proposed in the railway and postal service of that province, I should like to ask the minister if she would assure the house that these changes would not result in inferior service in relation to the recently inaugurated rail liner mail service. Secondly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I draw to the attention of the hon. member my previous warning or advice in regard to questions. While this question may be important, it is not of the type which urgently requires information on the orders of the day.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. F. Stenson (Peterborough):: May I
address a question to the Minister of Labour. It is in regard to vocational and technical schools. Will the grants to those schools be extended after March 31, 1963?


Mr. Speaker:: May I address the same injunction to the hon. member.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

[Stage Direction]
CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN RErLY
The house resumed from Friday, September 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon Chaplin for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I desire first of all to observe the traditional and worthy custom-at some times easier to follow than at others-of congratulating the mover (Mr. Chaplin) and seconder (Mr. Vincent) of the address in reply. Today the task is an easy one because both hon. members performed their task in a way which was creditable to themselves and to their party. They must, I think, have made an impression on all members of the house because of the constructive nature of their contributions.
I may perhaps be pardoned for saying an additional word about the mover because of the fact that his father was so long associated in such an honourable and important way with our deliberations as a member of the house. As I have ventured to tell the hon. member already, I think his father would have been very proud and happy if he had been here last Friday.
The first business of this parliament once the formalities have been completed-and it has taken a little time to complete these formalities this afternoon-must be to decide in accordance with our constitutional and democratic rights whether the minority government now in office has the confidence of this House of Commons. In the present circumstances-and I emphasize "in the present circumstances"-such a motion takes precedence over other business, as it has done in the past in similar circumstances. For this purpose it is the duty and the privilege of the official opposition to move a motion which will make that decision possible. That duty is obvious. Indeed, it is inescapable when nearly 63 per cent of the voters in this country have declared in a recent election that they have no confidence in this government, in its policies and in its leadership.
If there were to be any surprise expressed, it would be not that we are following the course I have indicated but that we did not intend to follow it having regard to the repudiation of the government on June 18 and the stand taken by this party in the recent election campaign. A motion of no confidence having been moved, it becomes the duty of every member of this newly elected house to vote for or against it. If the decision results in the defeat of the government then there will be a dissolution and a general

election at which time the people will make a final decision-one that they almost made last June 18. On June 18 they made their negative decision. Next time they will make their positive decision. Since when has a move to give the House of Commons an opportunity- and an obligation-to declare its position in regard to confidence in a minority government been wrong, or playing politics? Since when has a declared willingness to accept an appeal to the people, which a decision against the government would produce, become something to be condemned? Since when has it become responsible to declare confidence in a government in which you have many times before, during an election campaign and afterwards, declared you have no confidence? I may say that contrary to some allegations made in forceful terms, there will be none of our members removed from the house when the vote is taken. We do not aspire to hold the record for absentee membership in this house.
If the house should reject our motion of non-confidence-and I hope it will not-then the government has a mandate at least to introduce its legislative and other proposals- a mandate which it has not got now-and each of those proposals will be considered by this party on its merits in exactly the same way as if the government had a clear majority in this house.
That is our position. It is in this spirit that in due course we shall support this position of non-confidence by moving an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Whatever decision any other party in this house may have reached, we have no confidence in this government, nor has the country any confidence in this government. Its record over the past five years, together with its record over the recent election campaign and since, has been condemned, and not only by us. That record surely abundantly justifies and even demands the stand we are taking. Nor is there anything in the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, which would warrant a change in our views. Quite the contrary, as the other two opposition parties themselves admit.
The leader of the Social Credit party is reported in the press to have said in Ottawa on September 26 that, to move a vote of non-confidence in the government-and remember, this is a government which was opposed in an election by nearly 63 per cent of the voters-is political and parliamentary irresponsibility.
I hear comment on the other side, but such comments are not made in the same volume as they were in the old days, when hon. members opposite erupted like volcanoes; and it is noticeable that some of the chief erupters are no longer with us.
The Address-Mr. Pearson
Here is what the co-leader of the Social Credit party said a few weeks earlier than his leader's statement, as reported in the press. On August 8, at Timmins, he said:
I have fought against Diefenbaker outside parliament. I will not fight for him inside it. The country needs a stable government. I would like to see one too. The quicker we have another election, the quicker we will have such a government.
Those are true words, Mr. Speaker. That kind of statement, therefore, makes us on this side just a little sceptical about the subsequent reasons for criticizing us for bringing forward a motion of no confidence which, if the house votes for it, will bring that stable government about.
Mr. Speaker, a vital requirement for national progress and stability in a democracy is confidence in the government of the day. The people showed last June that they did not have such confidence in this government. The government record, both before and since, shows that it does not deserve such confidence. Will it help Canada if, by voting confidence in this minority government, we reject this verdict of the people, ignore the records, and deny the validity of positions previously taken, and declared by those who took them to be in the national interest? There can be no stability in government when over any substantial period the party in power cannot ordinarily command a majority in the House of Commons. Smaller parties or groups may like it this way on occasion, because it might give them an influence they would not otherwise have. But the principle remains valid surely, that a party, either by itself or by arrangement for continuing support from some other party, should be able to count on the support of a majority of the members of this house. Otherwise a government would have to tailor all its legislation and all its proposals to the requirements and to the support of any smaller group on which its life depends. Now, the Prime Minister- and it is always nice to quote the Prime Minister in these situations, and I must say that he lends himself to quotation-


Mr. O'Hurley:: What about yourself?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know the Prime Minister has been looking through my speeches too. I have no doubt of that, and he has a great quantity of helpers working on this subject. But I did not need any help to look for some of his quotations. The Prime Minister has recognized in the past the instability of minority government, indeed the impossibility of minority government. He did that, of course, when his fortunes were in the ascendant. On January 25, 1958, at a press conference in Winnipeg, he referred to the impossibility of his government carrying on in its minority

The Address-Mr. Pearson position-and this, remember, shortly alter a time when he had been successful at the polls and had been assured of the co-operation of the official opposition, which I confess with sorrow had been defeated in that election. And yet even in these favourable circumstances for the Prime Minister, he is reported by the press of that day as having said:
This condition of affairs-
That is, government by a minority.
-cannot continue if Canada is to have that effective parliamentary government it needs.
Then he added that his government "lacks the freedom to act", but presumably he has found that freedom now. He also said that that minority government, in those favourable circumstances, was forced into "the predicament of day-to-day planning, instead of the long term planning" that the realm required. Then he added these words, which I quote again from the report:
The experience of the past few months has proved to me that it is impossible for a government to operate efficiently in a minority position.
Well, the Prime Minister seems to feel very differently now. In a much more difficult minority position, and after a defeat at the polls, not a victory, the Prime Minister now asks for the right to carry on inefficiently. Some of us also remember those words of the Prime Minister uttered in this house on that day, February 1, 1958, when with histrionics, and dramatics he dissolved parliament; and for him it was a very fortunate dissolution indeed, more fortunate than the one last spring. On page 4200 of Hansard for that day he is reported as saying:
The present government is supported by 113 members out of a total of 265. Its position as a minority government has become intolerable. No other party or group in this house can possibly form a government; ... The only way in which the present situation can be effectively resolved is by the course I am about to announce.
That course was dissolution, followed by a general election, before he was ever defeated in the house on any issue.
Then the Prime Minister continued in this house in the following words:
No hon. member will suggest that a situation in which a government can depend upon the support of only a minority of the members of this house is a satisfactory situation, or one that could he expected to continue long.
Well, we will give the Prime Minister the chance and help him realize now that expectation, that this is not a situation which should be allowed to continue long. It has already continued since June 18.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the composition of this house as a result of the election of June 18 certainly shows that we have a government possessing the confidence only of a minority

of this house, and of a minority of the country as well. This new parliament, I do not need to tell you, is very different from the old; though from what we have heard this afternoon from the ministerial benches the government already seems to have forgotten that fact. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had this to say on the very eve of the last election, and this has a bearing on the changed composition of the house. I quote from the broadcast he made on June 14, I think it was. He will remember it.
As I travel about and meet people, I find this. They know how to separate wheat from chaff.
Then he went on:
And the chaff of five years is being spread asunder.
That is very true indeed, because in the recent separation of wheat from chaff the Conservative government lost more members, 86, than any party has lost in any election in our history-


Mr. Ricard:: We had more to lose.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and that after less than five years in office.


An hon. Member:: We had more to start with.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the other hand, this party over here, I am proud, happy and comforted to say, has doubled its membership from 50 to 100 with the largest percentage of the popular vote. I call that fact to the attention of the Prime Minister who has been stating otherwise. I know this cannot be very comforting for my hon. friends opposite to listen to and I know their minds are going back to the old days when they had 204 or 205 shouting supporters to howl us down whenever we made statements of this kind in the house. But those days are ended.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: You will never shout us down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Conservative defeat was catastrophic but I would be the first to admit that it was indecisive because they are still in office. They are still in office, Mr. Speaker, after losing 86 members, but they will not be in office much longer. This defeat must, I think, have been all the more surprising, indeed, perhaps shocking to them, in view of certain factors during the election. I am going to mention some of them and one or two I am going to go into in considerable detail. There is their success, for instance, in concealing the financial crisis from the electors and the really desperate effort they made and the

tactics they followed in which the bill of rights became a Conservative campaign document-


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: It certainly was not a Liberal one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -in which communism was put on our side to help their side-


An hon. Member:: You should know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: By the former minister of finance too.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -by ministers who should have known better. Let us look at my statement about concealment of the financial situation from the electors, which was a very important factor in the election itself. Within a few hours after the election of June 18 this minority government had to deal with a financial and exchange crisis which had been concealed from the electors by what can only be termed a major political fraud, fraud by concealment and misrepresentation of the situation. Let us look at the evidence, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) figures largely in the evidence.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The farmers certainly knew where the "fraud" was.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The evidence on this very important point provides one of the strongest reasons for voting no confidence in this government. Who deceived whom?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the question all right and I will answer the question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You will be sorry.
The Address-Mr. Pearson know whether there is any particular significance to be attached to that kind of transition from finance to justice-boasted in his budget speech on April 10 and right through the election campaign that the nation's finances were in wonderful shape. He scorned the very idea of devaluing and pegging the dollar before May 2. We had the minister's jeers and the even more violent reaction of the Prime Minister when we in the Liberal opposition talked about pressure on the dollar, the depreciation of our reserves, the foreign help that had to be secured and the financial dangers that were certainly ahead. Yet the Prime Minister in that broadcast of June 14 assured the country that all was well and that we, who said otherwise and unfortunately proved to be right-that was our crime-were besmirching the good name of Canada for political reasons.


Mr. Winkler:: You have been doing it for five years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let us see who was besmirching whom. Then we have the Minister of Agriculture. On June 20, after the election was over, everybody but the minister apparently knew what the situation was. Even his colleagues knew because it was possible for them to talk candidly about what had happened; but not the Minister of Agriculture. On June 20 after the election and four days before the emergency austerity program was announced he made the incredible statement that "there is no crisis that anyone can point a finger at".


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Every indicator was moving up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Agriculture seems a little nervous this afternoon, a little agitated, shall we say.
The farmers certainly


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: threshed you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I beg him to be calm. The Prime Minister in his television broadcast on June 14 had this to say, and I quote from the text of that broadcast as it was circulated:
We have given you the facts.
This was June 14.
We have given you the facts. We have bared the record. We have concealed nothing and shaded nothing.
What was the version of the facts, Mr. Speaker, which on this occasion the Prime Minister said they had given to the people of Canada, concealing nothing and shading nothing? What was their version of the facts with respect to the developing crisis? The minister of finance of that day, who is Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) now-I do not


Lester Bowles Pearson: One of the reasons for the acceleration of this crisis, not the cause of it but the acceleration of it, was the minister's own incredible gaff when he calmly announced during the election in Vancouver that he did not like the 92.5 cent dollar of which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the minister of finance at that time were so proud. They had been telling the Canadian people what a master stroke of policy that was. Then, the Minister of Agriculture gets some ten days before the election and says he does not like it. Talk about cabinet secrets and the inviolability of cabinet discussion. What would have happened to a British cabinet minister in Westminster if he had made this kind of public gaff? The Minister of Agriculture said that some of his colleagues had wanted a 90-cent dollar, while others had wanted a 95-cent dollar. There was a compromise reached, Mr. Speaker. I suppose the compromise may have been reached by tossing
54	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the only implication to be drawn by the financial community and others from this incredible indiscretion of the minister was that at least part of the cabinet would be arguing for further devaluation. Did anyone ever offer such an invitation to speculate or invite such pressure upon our dollar as the Minister of Agriculture did, with that kind of statement? There was already a run on the dollar by people who doubted that this government could maintain the value of the dollar at the figure at which they had put it, even if they wanted to do so. Then, along comes this member of the cabinet who provides information to the effect that some ministers did not want to maintain it at that figure. He might as well have got up and shouted, "Do not have confidence in us; take out your dollars while you can get 92. If you wait, you will get less."


An hon. Member:: That is what you said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was not a minister in the cabinet at that time, betraying cabinet secrets.


An hon. Member:: No responsibility.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will never be possible, Mr. Speaker, to ascertain the damage done to our reserves at that time by that incredible statement by the Minister of Agriculture.
After the voting was over, there was an effort to tell the facts. Indeed, it was essential to tell the facts or we would have been broke in a couple of weeks, perhaps. Then, came the admission that there was indeed a financial crisis; that our reserves had gone down to just over one billion one hundred million dollars, in spite of the various devices to keep the figure up to the maximum possible amount. This crisis, which had been discovered only a few days after the election, now required an emergency program, and austerity. The people of this country who had just been told that all was clear sailing, that all was well, were now told to tighten their belts. It might have been better if they had been told to tighten their seat belts, in view of the kind of government that would follow.
I remember very well the reaction of the Prime Minister to a statement I made a few days before this in the election campaign to the effect that foreign sources had been supporting our dollar, and it seemed we needed to borrow from outside of Canada for that purpose; it seemed we needed to borrow from foreign banks. I was accused of falsehood and every other kind of slander because I said that. Now, three or four days after the election, we were told that they were about to borrow or had borrowed from the United States, the United Kingdom and the international monetary fund, more than a billion


dollars to stop the run on the dollar. Was that deceiving the electors? In any event, we were told to cool off and forget about it.
But, Mr. Speaker, an explanation for this crisis has now been discovered by the Prime Minister. Presumably, it has been given to his followers amidst great cheers. It was a very sudden crisis. It just blew up, though at other times we are told that this balance of payment crisis goes away back to the Liberal administration 22 years before. However, that is when that argument is required. On this occasion, the argument is required that the crisis was very sudden and blew up very suddenly, and that I caused it by my speeches in the campaign which had destroyed confidence in Canada abroad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am glad to listen to hon. members opposite say, "Hear, hear" because I will have something to say about this. No doubt the Prime Minister will produce statistics, figures and charts to try to support the thesis that every time I made a speech pointing out the dangers, attacking the policy of the government, hundreds of millions of dollars fled the country. Well, it is not very difficult to deal with that kind of argument. There were a great many people in this country and abroad, not interested in politics, not even interested in the Canadian election, who had pointed out and emphasized the same dangers and called attention to the same results that would happen if something were not done about it.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, why should everyone in the world outside, in the financial community outside, be so greatly impressed by my words? Why should they have ignored the reassuring statements of the Prime Minister? This was a very great tribute to me indeed. I had no idea that I had the power to influence national and international financial interests. It is very flattering indeed.
The Prime Minister's thesis, about which we are going to hear later on, I suppose, is also affected and made slightly ridiculous by the fact that a large percentage of the loss, as we know now, was due to Canadians moving their money out of Canada. The Minister of Agriculture, particularly, may have had something to do with this. In fact, he probably had a lot to do with it. He was a privy councillor who had taken the oath of secrecy, and he talked about the division of opinion inside the cabinet. How can you square the Prime Minister's thesis with the fact that the movement out accelerated alarmingly after the election, when it became clear that the voting had not displaced the government or put us in.

The fact that our exchange difficulties were so greatly increased after the election, during those two or three days before action was taken, is the most damning indictment of the policy of the government and its reputation in this field that any government could receive. Had there been a different result to the election there would not have been that flight from the Canadian dollar after June 18. The government's explanation of the nature, cause and timing of the dollar crisis in June is false to the point of being nonsensical but, as we shall probably be given it again by the Prime Minister and his colleagues during the course of this debate, it is necessary for me to put the facts on the record and show how we got into this position. That I propose to do in very considerable detail.
We on this side of the house in the previous parliament repeatedly pointed out that a financial crisis was developing and that it was mainly-although we never attempted to say it was solely-due to government mismanagement. Perhaps I may be permitted to quote what I said in the budget debate on April 17, 1962, which may be the last budget for which this government will be responsible. I said, as recorded in Hansard of that date at page 3073:
The situation now is that instead of buying United States dollars in order to get our reserves up and get our dollars down he is selling United States dollars in order not to depress but to support the Canadian dollar, to stop it from going down too far.
It is going down and it may go down too far because of loss of confidence in that dollar. One reason for that loss of confidence, in addition to certain ambiguous statements by the minister, was the shameless Coyne affair and the effects it had abroad.
This operation of the minister which was to bolster our reserves, has cost our reserves about $350 million in the first three months of this year. I can only describe that, Mr. Chairman, as muddled manipulation of our dollar.
That was done by a government which, only a short time before, had refused in this house to accept any responsibility for monetary policy.
During the election campaign we repeated our warnings and said the country was already facing a dollar crisis. The Prime Minister and his colleagues denied the existence of this crisis and they accused us of falsifying the facts. They claimed that the devaluation announced in May was a deliberate, planned attempt by the government to promote expansion. We said such a decision had been imposed upon the government by necessity and was another undeniable sign of the crisis.
Anyone who knew anything about the subject, and that must have included some members of the government but certainly not the Minister of Agriculture, must have known what was happening and why it was happen-
The Address-Mr. Pearson ing. The reason for this situation into which we got ourselves unnecessarily goes back through the whole period of the last parliament when this government was in office.
The stagnation experienced since 1957, and our chronic trade deficits, were bound to weaken the external value of the Canadian dollar; but until fairly recently that underlying weakness was met by a net inflow of capital, so that the Canadian dollar remained at a relatively high premium with respect to the United States dollar while our official holdings of gold and United States dollars also remained at a fairly constant level. That was true until the end of 1960; but in December, 1960, the value of the Canadian dollar began to decline slowly until June 1961 when it was about par with the American dollar.
What happened to produce that trend? It was due to three steps in particular taken by this government. First, the non-resident withholding taxes were sharply increased in the so-called "baby budget" in December, 1960, which contributed to discouraging capital coming in from abroad.
Second, the Minister of Finance and the Bank of Canada at that time strongly advised the provinces, the municipalities and other potential Canadian borrowers not to borrow in the United States.
Third, as we learned only in June, 1961, from the former governor of the bank of Canada, the Minister of Finance, in December, 1960, began to manipulate in secret the exchange rate and to buy United States dollars.
Those three factors, for which the government is responsible-and nobody else-fully account for the slow decline in the value of the Canadian dollar which occurred between November, 1960, and June, 1961. Then in July, 1961, the Canadian dollar suddenly dropped by about three cents to 96J cents in terms of the U.S. dollar. This was the beginning of the rot; and two factors, directly connected with the government, account for that sudden change for which it must take full responsibility.
I have mentioned one already. It is impossible to overestimate the Coyne affair, that sorry and shameful episode which caused a great deal of concern not only in our own country but abroad. It did more than any other single thing to destroy financial confidence in our country. Indeed it has been called devaluation by slander.
The second factor was that the Minister of Finance in his budget speech of June, 1961, finally decided to admit publicly that he was manipulating the exchange rate in order to bring about "a significant discount", although he refused to tell us what he meant by

The Address-Mr. Pearson "significant". That manipulation would mear that the government would buy U.S. dollars and increase its reserves in order to depreciate the Canadian dollar.
But this new policy of manipulation, announced by the minister at that time, was applied only once. Before and after October,
1961,	our holdings of U.S. dollars declined each month and that meant of course, contrary to what the minister had said, that the government was not buying but selling U.S. dollars in order to support the value of the Canadian dollar. It was the exact opposite of what the minister of finance had said a short time before that he was going to do. It was another flip-flop. That new policy and the minister's refusal to say what he meant by a "significant discount" were bound to cause uncertainty and a further loss of confidence on the financial market.
Then there was the huge budgetary deficit announced by the minister at that time, which was another contributing factor. It meant that all the main elements of a dollar crisis were now at work, and the government was responsible for all of them.
The minister does not have to make notes. He is Minister of Justice now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are afraid of his reply.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not taking dictation from you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: After October, 1961, the exchange fund was used systematically to support the Canadian dollar and to prevent further devaluation. Therefore between the end of October, 1961 and the end of April,
1962,	our holdings of gold and U.S. dollars declined by $516 million, or nearly 25 per cent. Were my speeches responsible for that?
It was quite evident to everyone who wanted to see, who wanted to find out, that our reserves were being rapidly depleted, as we pointed out in the house, and that they were near a dangerously low level, as we also pointed out in the house. Yet, in spite of these substantial injections the value of the Canadian dollar continued to decline between October, 1951 until May, 1962, until we came to the devaluation announcement during the middle of the election campaign on May 2, 1962.
Devaluation had at that time become inevitable. But even that dramatic decision did not stop the run on the dollar. Between the end of April and the end of May our exchange fund lost a further $102 million, and on June 24, when the Prime Minister announced the austerity program, our reserves, as I have said already, stood at $1.1 billion, which meant another loss of nearly $300 million between the end of May and June 24, a period of about three weeks.


From all this, Mr. Speaker, two conclusions are inescapable. Our currency difficulties had reached the proportion of a crisis long before the Prime Minister's announcement of June 24. The main reasons for the crisis were the government's financial mismanagement, the government's policies regarding foreign capital, and especially the government's mishandling of the Coyne affair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Leader of the Opposition allow a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, of course.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the reason for the same situation in 1947?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: That was a different picture altogether.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the situation in 1961 and 1962 could not have been more different from the situation in 1947, and I will be very glad indeed to go into that. If the Prime Minister, with his vast knowledge of financial and monetary matters-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the Prime Minister tries to tell me that there is any parallel between the situation in 1947 in this field, and that in 1961 and 1962, he really does not know very much about either matter. If he will read the debates of 1947, the speeches made on this side of the house when he was in opposition, he will receive a good lesson in finance from some of his own supporters who did understand the position at that time. Also, Mr. Speaker, when the minister of finance at that time put forward the financial difficulties of the government arising out of the post-war situation, when we had loaned $2 billion to Great Britain and hundreds of millions of dollars to other devastated countries in Europe so that they could buy our goods on credit, the minister of finance rose in the house and told all the facts, and told parliament what he was going to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not only were the facts different, not only was the remedy adopted to deal with the facts different, but there was no concealment or deceit on that occasion. So the government on this occasion must accept full responsibility-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nineteen forty
seven budget by radio.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -not only for the crisis but for the concealment of that crisis from the Canadian people even during an election campaign.

The Address-Mr. Pearson
The Prime Minister is trying to tell us, and he tried to tell the people of Canada, that it all blew up as suddenly as his knowledge of it.


Mr. Robichaud:: Where was he?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the Prime Minister did not know anything about this developing dollar crisis before his last campaign telecast of June 14, what a manifestation of incompetence that is. But, Mr. Speaker, I think he should be exempted from that criticism, because I think he must have known about it. After all, he is Prime Minister. There are several reasons to justify my thinking that he must have known about it, apart from the fact that he is Prime Minister and used to sit beside the minister of finance in the House of Commons, and he still does.


Mr. Benidiclison:: Good friends.


Lester Bowles Pearson: These are the reasons he must have known about it much earlier in 1962. The governor of the Bank of Canada, the new governor, at a meeting in Toronto was advising investment dealers to borrow on the United States markets. That was quite a reversal of the official attitude in this respect-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the hon. member saying "advising"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said "advising", yes. That was quite a reversal of the government's attitude, which proved, if the minister of finance knew what the governor of the Bank of Canada was doing-and I am sure he did- that people in Ottawa in the government were already aware that something was wrong. That new attitude, as a matter of fact, was confirmed in this house by the minister of finance shortly after that, and I presume he told the Prime Minister about it.
Then there are reports to the effect that, immediately after prorogation, the minister of finance issued a directive to cut current expenditures by $50 million-that was after prorogation. If those reports are true, that fact, though hidden from the public, clearly means that the government was aware in April of the critical situation and that austerity had begun before the election campaign.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? He referred to what he calls reports, and then went on to make statements or charges based on them. Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared in this house to take responsibility for the accuracy of his statement about these reports, or the accuracy of the reports he is alleging were made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am prepared, Mr. Speaker, to give the minister an opportunity to deny these reports.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -take responsibility for the accuracy of the reports?


An hon. Member:: Deny it.


William Moore Benidickson: You are taking notes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House of Commons I have stated that there were reports that the minister of finance issued a directive to cut current expenses by $50 million immediately after prorogation. Does the minister deny that there was any such directive, any such step taken, any such action taken, any such advice given?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I will be more than pleased to answer that question, but in the meantime perhaps-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -would answer the question that I asked him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps he will
answer my question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He cannot deny it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We have a crossfire of questions going on at the moment, which I think can be answered in the ordinary course of debate as and when the opportunity arises, at the proper time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that is the best way to do it. I asked the minister the question because he raised the matter and I wanted to give him the chance to clear himself and his government at once if he so desired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are other points-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Still running away from questions.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, you ran away from finance.

The Address-Mr. Pearson


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the government decided to devalue at the beginning of May, the Prime Minister must surely have known that such an exceptional step was taken by necessity, as an attempt to stop the run on our reserves. He must have known that devaluation had become inevitable on that ground. But there was an election going on and the Canadian public was led to believe by the Prime Minister himself that this exceptional decision was merely part of a deliberate and planned policy to increase exports and to encourage domestic industries.
There is another factor which bears on this question. When the level of our reserves at the end of May became known and showed a further substantial decline, the Prime Minister must at that time, surely, have become convinced that devaluation had failed to stop the dollar crisis and that something else had to be done.
The government's advisers in Ottawa were certainly aware of the existence of the dollar crisis, and I am certain they discharged that responsibility of keeping the Prime Minister and the minister of finance informed of the situation even during an election campaign. When action was taken after the election, the Prime Minister and his colleagues had only four days in which to prepare an austerity program including the determination of the new tariff schedules and the negotiation of the various loans in the United States and in Great Britain. It is surely unbelievable that the austerity program could have been thought of, initiated and implemented in a period of only four days. The Prime Minister must have known before the election that such a program was being developed in order to be ready for implementation immediately after the election. For all these reasons any impartial observer must come to the only possible conclusion, namely that our dollar crisis, our financial crisis, was developing over the months and that the Prime Minister was fully aware of it long before his telecast of June 14. In that perspective, and because of the other reasons I have given, surely the statement made in that telecast was both improper and misleading.
Then came the morning after the election, after our celebration and the hon. gentleman's desolation, and the amazing about-face of the Prime Minister and his government on this issue which had been put before the electors in such optimistic and concealing ways. We suddenly realized in this country that we were facing a crisis of confidence-a real emergency. We realized we were facing difficulties which would go beyond the emergency itself-that we were facing a need for long range programs which would get to the root of the difficulties. Above all we were

facing a need for a restoration of confidence. In addition, we were facing a conference of commonwealth prime ministers.
In the light of all this, what did the government do after the election? Mr. Speaker, they told us to cool off and forget it. I can understand why they gave this advice to cool off, forget what had been said and what had been happening. The government told us, somewhat unctuously, to tighten our belts and get ready for austerity after the election. They took emergency action leading up to austerity and, of course, they shuffled what was left of the cabinet deck, adding a second senator to it. I think this is the first time since the early thirties, in Mr. Bennett's day, that we have had two senators in the cabinet. Maybe I am wrong about this, but I think I am right. It is, perhaps, a step in the reform of the Senate, but it has other implications.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who are the two?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I took it for granted that this great Conservative party would put the leader of the government in the Senate into the cabinet, but perhaps they do not do that. Should that not be the case I have made a mistake and I apologize. In Mr. Bennett's day they used to do that. There is an inaccuracy which I correct; there is only one cabinet minister in the Senate. However, this appointment had one very interesting consequence and I must say it is a pleasant one as far as I am concerned. It will be recalled that the hon. gentleman in question who served his country during the war in Ottawa with distinction and devotion, was one of Mr. C. D. Howe's wartime bureaucrats. He was one of those men who were trampling the liberties of the people under foot.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Said to have been.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish I could remember what the Prime Minister used to say about them during the election campaigns, but his adjectives are a little beyond me. However, he poured scorn on these people and particularly he poured personal scorn on Liberal candidates who, he claimed, were bureaucrats in those days despite the fact that one or two whom he attacked personally had not spent their wartime years in Ottawa but were fighting overseas. However, this particular appointment has purified some of my colleagues and I am grateful for that.
The Prime Minister's reaction was an understandably happy one when the appointment was announced. He drew a parallel which, I confess, surprised me a little. He said: President Kennedy has his McNamara; I have my McCutcheon. When the Prime Minister said that, I thought we were at

least going to get a defence policy. If I am not wrong, I believe Mr. McNamara is secretary of defence in the United States government. The Prime Minister's exhilaration over this appointment was badly timed because at the time he was reported to have made that remark the house armed services committee in Washington accused Mr. McNamara on August 13 of accumulating power in a way which could lead to the disastrous erosion of military effectiveness.
We all remember that while these steps were being taken by the government, and indeed, weeks afterwards, no economic program was put forward; no parliament was called to deal with what we were told was a grave national crisis. What have they done? They should have called parliament together at the first date possible under our constitution. Imagine a man who talks so much and with such emotion about the responsibilities of parliament and the privileges of the House of Commons refusing to call parliament together at a time which he claims to have been one of national emergency after an election. They should have done what was done in 1925 and 1926 which was the only time previously when we had a minority government in a comparable situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Not comparable in any way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Comparable. The year which the Prime Minister put forward as a precedent was not a precedent at all in relation either to the situation now or in 1925 and certainly 1957 did not provide a comparable situation. True, in 1957 there was a minority government but, as I have already said, the Liberals had, in effect, been defeated in that election even though no party had a majority in the house. Mr. St. Laurent recognized that by resigning, and indicated that the party which had been the most successful in the election should have a chance to implement its proposals which had, on the whole been supported by the electorate. That is the stand he took in 1957. The Prime Minister should be careful not to try to relate the circumstances in 1957 to those of 1962 to justify the course of action he has taken, because the comparison would prove embarrassing to himself and to his colleagues. The truth is that on this occasion in 1962 responsible government was mocked by the Prime Minister's refusal to summon parliament at the earliest possible moment to deal with the position in which the government found itself at a time of emergency on the eve of a prime ministers' commonwealth conference called to discuss matters of the most far reaching importance. Responsible government means, if it means anything at all, that the Queen's ministers are
The Address-Mr. Pearson responsible to the elected members of the House of Commons, and must therefore have the support and the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons before they take action.
Between sessions of any one parliament the government with a clear majority can normally, of course, count on that support; but with a minority government, that is not the case. The first such parliament elected in this situation was elected on October 29, 1925. It consisted of 117 Conservatives, 101 Liberals, 24 Progressives, and 3 Labour and Independent members. This minority government of 1925 decided to submit its fate to parliament, which was summoned at the earliest possible date after the last writ was returned on January 6. What a contrast with the course followed by this minority government, which held up parliament to the last possible minute.
There is another and very glaring contrast indeed. Mr. Mackenzie King, though not in the house, was head of a minority government, and he announced-and his government acted on the announcement-that his minority government would make no appointments, and would take no action which was not required for the routine business of government, until parliament had met and decided the question of confidence. What a contrast between that position and the one taken this summer by these paragons of parliamentary rights and parliamentary responsibilities.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the Leader of the Opposition state to the house that Mr. Mackenzie King had been defeated in his own constituency in 1925 and was not a member of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I mentioned that, Mr. Speaker. He had been defeated. His government had 101 members in the house. He decided that they would do nothing in this minority position, nothing of any kind, until parliament had had a chance to meet. He called parliament and put his fate to that parliament at the first possible opportunity; and in order to make sure that parliament would be given the opportunity to decide whether or not they had confidence in his government, the government itself put forward a motion of confidence. Read the debates of that time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did, and it was just a trick.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Look at the contrast between what happened then and what has happened now.

The Address-Mr. Pearson


Gordon Minto Churchill: The motion was declared out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was amended by Mr. Meighen. The vote was on Mr. Meighen's amendment. Both parties felt that this was the right course to take; the vote was taken at once, and Mr. King's government got a vote of confidence. That precedent, Mr. Speaker, I had in mind when I said in a statement I made immediately after the election of June 20:
No government has the right to remain in office unless it can command the support of the majority of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, therefore, should have parliament called into session at the earliest possible date and seek a vote of confidence.
That would have been the right course for the government to take even if there had been no exceptional circumstances and no financial crisis. But in the circumstances disclosed immediately after the election, there was an additional and compelling reason for the government to take that course. Instead the government chose to take action on its own to delay to the last possible date the meeting of parliament, and to carry on in the meantime as though it had the confidence and support of parliament, making appointments to the public service, to the judiciary, to the Senate, which appointments should never have been made by the government until it had been assured that it had the support of the elected House of Commons. If the proper course had been followed, the course which would have recognized the rights of parliament, the course which was advocated so strongly by Mr. Meighen in 1926 and followed at that time by Mr. King, there would have been a debate at the earliest possible moment on the speech from the throne, when consideration could have been given to the government's austerity program, to any long range proposals which were brought in, to the situation regarding the financial crisis, as we were told it was, and to the forthcoming commonwealth meeting of prime ministers. In the midst of this situation of emergency and crisis, the question could have been decided on the vote in the light of what was required by the country in a time of emergency. But that course was rejected by the government, even though it was advocated at that time both by the Social Credit and N.D.P. parties. The government merely said: Let us cool off and forget the election. By that attitude and the attitude they have taken since, they now deny the

existence of a crisis, either financial or economic. They deny that there was any emergency that justified the calling together of parliament, and they face this parliament according to their own protestations in a very different national situation, and I will have something to say about that at eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, at the six o'clock adjournment I was discussing what I thought was the proper course for the government to have followed during the summer in respect of the summoning of parliament. Before I go on with that I should like to correct an inaccuracy in one of my statements this afternoon when I said there had only been two cabinet ministers in the Senate in this government and in a government in the early 1930's. It has been brought to my attention that a former minister of trade and commerce, Mr. MacKinnon, for many years a member of the House of Commons as minister of that department, was transferred to the other place and served in that other place as minister without portfolio along with the leader of the government in the Senate; so that in that sense I was inaccurate.
I feel strongly, Mr. Speaker, and I tried to express that feeling this afternoon, that parliament should have been called at the earliest possible moment this summer when we were told that we were in the midst of a financial and exchange crisis. If at that time a crisis of that kind had required special consideration by parliament and if the government had needed special support to deal with the crisis, that could have been made clear in the speech from the throne and parliament could have taken whatever action was thought desirable to meet this critical emergency. That course of calling parliament was rejected by the government.
It was said that we were merely to cool off. By that attitude, by what they have said since and by what they have included in the speech from the throne they have denied that there is any longer a situation of emergency or crisis, financial or otherwise. Certainly they have denied, by not calling parliament, that there was a situation which justified taking that action, and in doing that they have confirmed that the situation today is very different indeed now.

We meet today, Mr. Speaker, in that changed situation. We are told that the emergency program of the government has worked so successfully that the immediate crisis has been removed. When that emergency program was put into effect, when the austerity program was initiated, we on this side of the house endeavoured in the national interest to co-operate and endeavoured not to oppose it. We did not exploit it for any partisan advantage even though parliament was not to be called. No matter what we may have thought of the government's responsibility in getting us into that crisis, or of its deceit in concealing it, or of certain details in the program as such, such as import surcharges and the 6 per cent bank rate, we said no word and took no action which would interfere with the effectiveness of these emergency measures in order to give them a chance.
The newly elected Liberal members of the House of Commons met in Ottawa in caucus on June 27 and they issued this statement:
The Liberal party will co-operate in effective measures to protect the soundness of the currency. Defensive emergency measures are now essential, but they must not last beyond the emergency.
Of course, the speech from the throne tells us that the emergency is over.
In addition to meeting the financial emergency, there must be effective and constructive measures to get Canada's economy moving forward again; to restore full employment and to bring about the freest possible trade. All these things must and can be done without the sacrifice of financial stability. The necessities of an emergency program should not take our minds off this ultimate objective of an expanding economy with social progress and strong national purpose.
I myself, Mr. Speaker, as leader of the party, had said on the previous day, June 26, in a statement which I issued:
All Canadians will agree that the country needs farsighted leadership and united action to prevent further devaluation of our dollar.
That was in the light of the crisis as it had been declared. Then I went on:
Emergency measures have now been taken to this end. Everyone, including the Liberal party, will support whatever these measures can do to restore confidence in the value of our currency. Our party will judge them solely by what is best for the country.
The Prime Minister showed his appreciation of that attitude, or his lack of appreciation, by deciding not to call parliament until September 27 and in the meantime to carry on as if nothing had happened on June 18. Is it to be wondered, Mr. Speaker, that we have no confidence in this government? Apart from its record over five years of ineffectiveness, confusion and indecision, are we to vote confidence in these same men, or those 27507-3-5
The Address-Mr. Pearson of them who are left, who have been so wrong so often and whose administration of the nation's business has been so bad?
Meanwhile the government's emergency measures remain in force, according to the speech from the throne, until circumstances make their removal possible. So we cannot any longer call them emergency measures. They are now government policy. But the Liberal party has not accepted, does not accept and cannot accept these Tory measures, put forward after the election as part of an emergency program, as policy of any value for the solution of our long range economic problems. In the emergency of June after the election there was no alternative, I know, because of the mess we had got into, but to borrow from abroad, though the Prime Minister said during the election that was not his policy. There was also no choice but to take some direct action to cut our spending abroad.
The Liberal party rejects as economic policies emergency measures which will not solve our problems but may indeed make them more difficult. The tariff surcharges, for instance, reduce trade and they must go. Cuts made in public works could reduce construction and employment where it is most needed. Tight money will make it harder for Canadian industry to get Canadian capital for expansion, and that has an effect on our balance of payments position. It will make it harder for provinces and municipalities to finance necessary investments in economic and social progress.
The short term inflow of capital due to high interest rates must be replaced by foreign investment for development, not hot money, and by a sensible trade policy. Austerity measures are only of emergency value in repairing the mess created in the last five years. A return to expansion and to growth will require very different measures indeed from these emergency measures. These emergency measures, Mr. Speaker, must be temporary, especially since they are on the whole restrictionist in character and their success as emergency measures will depend on the speed with which the government can get rid of them. In an economic sense austerity, whatever moral values it may have, makes no sense with unemployment and excess unused capacity. We need, above all, stability and confidence in our future, in our destiny, in our growth. We need new jobs that can only come from growth.
Now, of course, one of the most important sources of these new jobs, an important source of employment, is trade. This brings me to a matter which is mentioned in the speech from the throne, and which has been mentioned a great deal by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his colleagues,

The Address-Mr. Pearson the commonwealth economic conference in London and the prospects arising out of that conference for increasing our trade and therefore increasing employment in Canada. I know that I have been told we have no right to criticize the Prime Minister's actions at a commonwealth economic conference. I know also that he has claimed that his objective at the conference was to protect Canadian interests, Canadian jobs, Canadian income.
Well, Mr. Speaker, of course what other purpose would the Prime Minister of Canada have in going to an international conference? Of course, we accept without question the fact that was his intention, that was his objective, that was his desire. The question, Mr. Speaker, is how did he act in order to achieve that essential and desirable objective? By what methods did he protect Canadian interests, with what understanding of the situation?
There are two ways, as I see it, and this may be an oversimplification, by which this could have been done. He could have tried to protect Canadian interests by getting the best possible terms for Canada. I am now talking about United Kingdom entry into the European common market. He could have achieved this by exerting a strong but friendly influence on the United Kingdom to that end, while accepting the creative importance of United Kingdom entry into the European common market. Alternatively, he could have protected Canadian interests-and this is what I think he tried to do-by insisting on terms that would have kept the United Kingdom out, something which in itself might have been considered to be desirable. I suggest that his tactics, his policies, were based on that latter attitude.


Mr. McPhillips:: Are you saying this for Washington?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very intelligent remark, and it is an especially intelligent observation from the member of a government which has at last discovered the wisdom of President Kennedy's trade policy.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the making of the British entry difficult, perhaps to the point of impossibility, was also the avowed policy of certain other members of the commonwealth. They, however, with far more at stake than Canada in terms of immediate damage to their trade, played their cards far more cleverly and secured a much better reception for their position than Canada did.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Someone on the other side says, "How do you know?" I quote a very good authority, the secretary of state for

commonwealth relations in the United Kingdom, who ought to know. He is quoted in a newspaper which is of unimpeachable accuracy and integrity, the Toronto Telegram. The reporter for the Toronto Telegram in London quotes the secretary of state for commonwealth relations on September 17, 1962, as follows:
That where Australia and New Zealand were constructive and helpful in trying to find ways of improving commonwealth market terms, Canadians were intransigent.
Our Prime Minister, instead of talking softly in public and negotiating strongly in private, took from the very moment of his arrival in the United Kingdom, shaky though his position was at home, an aggressive position that was not likely to be effective in securing his own asserted objective of protecting Canadian jobs and income. Immediately on arrival he made two public suggestions, one of which was certainly bound to cause a lot of controversial excitement and give great comfort to the discordant British elements of the extreme right and extreme left who for different reasons were opposing British entry into the common market. They were bound to seize on any statement of this kind that was made by the Prime Minister of Canada and use it for their own purposes.
One of these two suggestions was to the effect that there must be a second prime ministers conference before Great Britain entered the European common market. This is not reflected in the communique, although continuing consultation is reflected. The other, and far more important suggestion made by our Prime Minister on his arrival in England, concerned an alternative plan to British membership in the European common market. Once that statement was made, the Prime Minister at once became the leader of the commonwealth opposition to the United Kingdom on this issue, a position which he, most of all of those attending, should have been careful to avoid. At first, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was a little vague and coy about his alternative plan, about which apparently no one in Ottawa knew anything. He would give it only if he were asked to give it or if the United Kingdom decided not to press for entry into the common market.
Finally, at the end of the conference, the great alternative plan was produced. Well, it proved to be neither a plan nor an alternative. However, it certainly indicated the Prime Minister had lost his faith, more than once reiterated in earlier statements, in Prime Minister Macmillan's declared promise to safeguard commonwealth interests, and that included Canadian interests, in the common market negotiations. The plan, since that time, has been politely ignored. We are now

being told-I think the Prime Minister has said it himself-that the British minister in charge of common market negotiations, the Right Hon. Edward Heath, has endorsed it. When I read that statement I was interested in the kind of endorsation Mr. Heath would give to this kind of plan, so I looked up the London Times to see exactly what he said at his press conference. This is what he said, according to the London Times. This is the great endorsation of the plan:
Although Mr. Diefenbaker's suggestion for an international conference had not been discussed, it could be read into a part of the communique . . . as could the United Nations proposal for a world conference or indeed any similar initiative.
The president of Pakistan, who was a very welcome guest of the Canadian government a few days ago, did have some very friendly things to say about the Prime Minister's plan; but the finance minister of India, speaking in Ottawa a few days later, and he was here on business, merely remarked about the Prime Minister's proposal for a world trade conference of like-minded nations that a similar proposal had been made at the United Nations and that he could see no point in "duplicating, triplicating or complicating" that earlier proposal.
The fact is, of course, that this proposal of the Prime Minister's was a last minute attempt to divert attention from the failure of his tactics in London and from the very bad reception that they had in the United Kingdom and in Canada.
In view of what happened in London perhaps it is well to remember that in diplomatic negotiations with friendly governments you make your case most effectively and strongly when you do not invite misunderstanding or create ill will. It is also perhaps well to remember the old Chinese proverb, which seems to have been forgotten: "The wise man does not use a hatchet to kill a fly on the forehead of his friend." You must also know very clearly what you are seeking, not only for the short run but for the long run. In this sense the ideals and objectives of the Prime Minister may have been beyond reproach, but his diplomacy and negotiation at London for the realization of those objectives, for the protection of Canada's real interests, were both ineffective and unsuccessful. As so often before, this government exhibited its peculiar genius for getting into quite unnecessary difficulty with its friends.
On this occasion it has followed the normal course, when these things happen, of blaming others for its own difficulties, and in particular the press which, as usual, has been inaccurate and unfair. The British press, and that is not a Canadian Liberal press, was 27507-3-5i
The Address-Mr. Pearson shameful, according to some reports from government sources, and the Canadian correspondents were misguided largely, we are asked to believe, because the Canadian delegates followed the press rules of the conference after others had broken them. Mr Speaker, are our representatives really so naive as that? All this was merely a convulsive reaction of a confused and ineffective administration when things go wrong for it, as they so often do.
So far as the Prime Minister's tactics at London were concerned, they have been condemned by a good many journalistic supporters of his own government; yet the Prime Minister now tells us he really accomplished everything he wanted to in London.


Eric Alfred Winkler: He did not sell Canada short.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He did not sell Canada at all.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is your policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister now says everything went very well at the conference and that the atmosphere, to use his words, was "friendly and fair." His words were quoted by Mr. Richard Jackson in the Ottawa Journal, and Mr. Jackson was very close to the Prime Minister at the conference. He also said:
At no time were there bitter words as reported by clandestine sources to some newspapers. The communique showed this.
However the same Mr. Richard Jackson in his very interesting report-as his reports always are-in the Ottawa Journal of September 20, which lauded the Prime Minister's position at the conference and accepted without question, indeed with ecstatic endorsation the above statements, himself added, perhaps a little carelessly at the end of the same article, these words:
Both sides in the communique gave out with the old con-the ten days of talks had all been buddy, buddy. Thissaid Mr. Jackson
-was eyewash. Blood had been spilled.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it was not as bad as that but all who support the commonwealth of nations, this essential association of men and nations representing all races, all creeds and all continents, could not help but be disturbed by some of the implications as reported from the London meeting.
A very careful and experienced observer, Mr. Robert Duffy, reporting in the Toronto Globe and Mail on September 20 expressed this worry, and I am sure it is one which must trouble a lot of people. He wrote:
Despite the genial communique on Wednesday and benign comments on it by various prime ministers, it must be obvious to everyone that the past ten days at Marlborough House have done the commonwealth no good at all.

The Address-Mr. Pearson
He went on:
The commonwealth concept (or is it a myth?) -
These were his words, and I am sure it is not a myth:
-has in fact been perceptibly damaged-just ihow badly, and with what prospects of repair, *only the future can tell.
We must hope that this is not so and that that report is too pessimistic. But certainly It is a fact, and the London conference underlines this fact, that the nature and character of the commonwealth of nations has now changed as its composition has changed and as its membership has increased. Perhaps the old informal clubbish atmosphere of pre-world war II, and immediately after that war, when a few prime ministers sat around a table in Downing street has gone forever, and this involves problems and creates new challenges for the new commonwealth.
The case against the government's tactics and policy at the London conference takes us back to the months before that conference, to the government's general attitude to the development of the European economic community, and to Britain's possible membership in that community with all that that might mean for the commonwealth and the world. That attitude on the other side of the house has shown, from the very beginning, an amazing unawareness of the historic significance of what was taking place on the continent of Europe, a significance which is as political as it is economic.
When the possibility of Great Britain joining the common market first arose a few years ago, and when that possibility was brought to the attention of the government by the opposition in this house-and the record of Hansard is clear on that point- it was shrugged off by the government as unlikely, if not impossible, or at least not worth talking about. When that reaction was shown by events to be wrong, then the next reaction was one of carping and negative criticism, expressed at times in terms that were not very friendly to the possibility of this change taking place.
Then we have the recent London conference, where the Canadian representatives adopted an attitude that ill became a government with the record of this government in respect of trade with the United Kingdom. The whole record of its trade relations with the United Kingdom was such as would have made it only decent that we should have been at least careful regarding how we would take our stand in London to protect Canadian trading interests.
That record is a revealing one of fine words. Oh, yes. Mr. Speaker, it is a record of many

fine words which, as one British member of parliament put it, "buttered no parsnips". The house knows that record and I am not going to go into it in any detail this evening. We know it from August, 1957, the fiasco of the 15 per cent diversion offer. It did not fool us on this side, but it apparently fooled the British for a short time, because in response to this 15 per cent diversion offer they made, through Mr. Thornycroft, who was then chancellor of the exchequer, an offer on behalf of the United Kingdom to help bring about the promised diversion in the only way it could be brought about, by eliminating all British tariffs on Canadian goods if Canada would reciprocate. We know what happened to that. It was ignored; it was rejected by being ignored.
We know what followed that

an increase of duties against certain British imports. We know during 1960 about the warnings of the minister of finance of that day, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) uttered as to the dangers that would come from Great Britain joining the European common market, referred to by the Minister of Agriculture in Vancouver as merely "a rich man's club". That was his interpretation of this historic European development.
We remember in August, 1960 how the minister of finance in Ste. Adele, Quebec, could hardly disguise his threats of retaliation if the United Kingdom should join ECM, and we remember-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That statement is just rubbish, and you know it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have read the minister's speech and I will draw my own conclusions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a gross perversion of the truth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And we remember how the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Paris, just a few weeks after that, said that unless the European common market, which was lowering its tariffs at that time, actually reduced its announced new tariff changes affecting Canada, we would retaliate by increasing our tariffs against ECM. That is, unless they were reduced even further.
Also, we will never forget what happened at Accra in the autumn of 1960-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have not learned the truth yet, apparently.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -when the United Kingdom was told that if they considered going into the European common market, that was the beginning of the "slippery slope". Important members of this government have tried to make it slippery ever since then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was slippery before then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the face of this record the government of Canada saw fit to adopt the tactics that it adopted at this recent conference. Oh, Mr. Speaker, they do not seem to be aware of how much is at stake, not only for Canada but for the commonwealth and for the world in these changes that are taking place.
I would like to read what The Economist, which is a highly regarded and most respected business weekly, had to say about this. The Economist of London, England, in an editorial of September 8, 1962 entitled "Facing the Commonwealth" said, and I quote one paragraph from that magazine:
What the British entry into the common market ought in the long run to offer the commonwealth is a firm link with the new Europe that is now being shaped.
And, thank God, it is being shaped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Those words are mine.


An hon. Member:: They sound like it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then the article goes on to say:
The vision of this great adventure-


An hon. Member:: The great "I am".


Lester Bowles Pearson: It goes on to say:
The vision of this great adventure-for that is what it is-is only too easily lost from sight among the wrangling about immediate and particular interests. But the question that leaders of opinion in commonwealth countries should really be asking themselves is: do we want a key to the European door, or do we not? If the answer were to prove a negative one-


An hon. Member:: Back and front.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I was saying:
If the answer were to prove a negative one, that would-tragically-suggest that the commonwealth has exhausted its vein of dextrous adaptability to change in the world.
Then a week later, on September 22, after the commonwealth conference was over, The Economist has this to say:
What one has missed in the last ten days, from the commonwealth leaders is an understanding of the plain fact that the uniting of Europe brings a new force into the world-and that Britain's participation is the best guarantee that the force will be steered in the right direction.
If our Prime Minister had shown some understanding, some awareness of the concept of what is happening in Europe and had expressed himself along those lines in London, what he had to say about protecting Canadian trading interests might have been understood; but what he did, of course, was quite the opposite. He publicly dissociated himself from that part of the communique in which was
The Address-Mr. Pearson put the reasons for joining and the beneficial results which might be achieved by everyone in that event.
Instead he told the press, as reported by the Canadian Press correspondent in London, in a report which has not been denied, that British entry into the common market must raise the question of whether the effect would be to make North America feel less obliged to share in Europe's defence.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And the story went on to say that his reference to a possible reduction in North America's interest under NATO was a new talking point.
Mr. Speaker, that report has not been denied, and it has appeared in all newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic.


John George Diefenbaker: It was denied. That is one thing you did not read.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That report Mr. Speaker, was not denied. No denial of that report appeared at the time it was made.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A subsequent denial, I think, was issued by the Prime Minister after he got back to Canada many, many days later. I ask the Prime Minister what mandate he feels he has to speak for North America.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: What right did you have to speak about Suez in the way you did?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad indeed to speak about Suez at any time, as I have in the past, and I will be very glad to remind the Prime Minister of his attitude at that time, which would have destroyed the formation of the first United Nation's permanent force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there are those who say, of course, that we in the opposition have no right to criticize the tactics followed by our Prime Minister while he was in London. This government which refused to call parliament before the conference; which refused to give any information, publicly or confidentially, to anyone outside cabinet about the policies it proposed to follow in this critical international matter; this minority government was to be immune from criticism and public opinion was to conclude from our silence that we approved of what was going on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why did you not wait until he was here in Canada before you made your statement?

The Address-Mr. Pearson


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why did not the Prime Minister call parliament before he left for London? What a frightened and undemocratic position to take.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You should talk.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Gaitskell, the leader of the Labour party in England could criticize, and strongly, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan of England, but I must not criticize the Prime Minister of Canada.
The limits of misrepresentation of the criticism we did make were reached by the local Conservative newspaper which claims that we Liberals are taking the position, in our criticism, that Canada's trade policy should be determined by Whitehall and by some bureaucrats in Brussels without any Canadian voice at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear. That is your position.


Lester Bowles Pearson: "Hear, hear", says the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton). Well, that criticism is false to the point of absurdity. What matters is the kind of Canadian voice; what it says, and how it says it. There was a Canadian voice at Accra-but none at Brussels-shrill in its criticism of the United Kingdom, talking about this being the end of the commonwealth, the slippery slope. There was a Canadian ministerial voice publicly and unfairly berating the British government for not supplying a report of meetings with ECM negotiators, although the information had already been provided in a full precis of the report. There was a Canadian ministerial voice belittling the great move toward European unity as the formation of a rich man's club. There was a Canadian voice shouting about a 15 per cent diversion of our imports from the United States to the United Kingdom while rejecting British initiative as to how this could be done in the interests of both our countries.
That is the kind of Canadian voice we have been hearing. It is the kind of Canadian voice we want to hear no more. One result of the tactics adopted by the Prime Minister and some others in London is that they have tried to force the British government into a position where it would have to make a choice between the commonwealth and the common market.


John George Diefenbaker: That is completely false.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is no other deduction to be drawn from the stand taken which was that Britain must make a choice between the commonwealth and the common market.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Rubbish.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was the same at Accra.


An hon. Member:: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is my statement and I stand by it.


An hon. Member:: You'll fall by it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In these tactics they may have isolated the commonwealth from the ideal of European unity with Britain and from the idea of an Atlantic regional economic bloc which could be expanded by the operation of the most favoured nation clause to include all other free countries. Of course, it is the duty of the Canadian government to seek the best terms it can as the United Kingdom seeks to join the European common market. But by the great doubt thrown on the whole idea of Britain joining the ECM a heavy, unwise and unnecessary responsibility has been taken which may have harmful and unhappy results for us all.
If the United Kingdom does not join the common market, will that be in the best interests of Canada? Is it to our interest to see a European common market with the United Kingdom outside, dividing free and western Europe into two groups? Would it help us if the common market is deprived of British experience, British wisdom and British pressure to follow non-discriminatory and expansionist trade relations with the rest of the world? Will it help us if we hinder the development of a strong Great Britain as a market for our goods by insisting that the price for entry into the common market must be the entire preservation of a system of commonwealth preferences already greatly eroded since 1932? If the British do not succeed in entering the common market, has this government any plan to deal with the resulting situation except its world conference proposal? If the United Kingdom government proposes a commonwealth common market arrangement, should they not be able to get into Europe, what would be the attitude of our government to that?


An hon. Member:: What is yours?


Lester Bowles Pearson: For a few short weeks you are still the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are still as negative as ever.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the United Kingdom repeats its proposal for the elimination of duties between our two countries, will the government again exclude that?


An hon. Member:: Tell us.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the fact that the rules provide that the hon. member who has the floor has the right to speak, perhaps some of the side remarks could be contained for other occasions, not in this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) and the Minister of Public Works-


Mr. Hees:: I have not been saying a thing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: True, the minister has not said a word and I have not said he has, but I am saying that if he and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton), and other ministers, wish to ascertain a sensible attitude to this question, let them read the statement made by the hon. gentleman's deputy in Vancouver. There is no doubt that Britain's entry into the ECM will confront us with problems in this country. Britain's rejection by the ECM would confront us with greater problems, so the urgent task at the commonwealth meetings in London was not to patch up the old system, not to try to make this choice between the common market and the commonwealth, but to begin a new structure of commonwealth trade within the pattern of a new trading world. Britain can gain political and economic strength by full partnership in Europe while remaining the heart and centre of the commonwealth, but a declining Britain will never mean a stronger commonwealth. There have been few greater challenges to statesmanship than the relationship we should all adopt to these European developments. If that challenge was not met in London, that was due in large part to the negative and shortsighted attitude taken by the Canadian government which over recent years has had nothing constructive to propose and no leadership to give.
Hon. members ask: What would you do? We have put this on the record in the House of Commons ever since 1959. We would have accepted as a desirable objective Great Britain's accession to the European common market and we would have gone to work at once to see how we could have associated ourselves with that move. That could have been done by showing some understanding and sympathy for the United States freer trade initiative and by trying to work with the United States and with the European common market and the United Kingdom so that the benefits of any agreements, through the most favoured nation clause might apply to all our friends as well. We should not be dragging hopefully behind the Kennedy program, which the Prime Minister has now

The Address-Mr. Pearson discovered, or throwing road blocks in the way of the United Kingdom's desire to move across the channel.
There is, of course, a very important connection between trade and jobs, and the most important need of the Canadian people at the present time is jobs. The most important task before any parliament is to find employment for the Canadian people. We have heard a great deal of complacent talk from this government about employment. This complacency reached its peak, of course, just before June 18. On June 14 the Prime Minister claimed in that famous television broadcast:
Full employment is now about to take place.
This was in June.
In this month of June we may well reach that long-Iooked-for goal of virtual full employment. It will certainly be achieved, as I see it, in July or August.
Mr. Speaker, we now have the figures to set beside the Prime Minister's vision. Unemployment in June: 301,000. That is not bad, and I am glad to say that it was an improvement over the previous June. It was not as bad as the previous June, because it was then 370,000. But, Mr. Speaker, 301,000 people were out of work even in June. Is that what the Prime Minister means by full employment? Is that his "long-looked-for goal"? Will he tell the Canadian people that his idea of full employment is to have two or almost three times as many people looking for jobs as there used to be before his day? Will he admit that? He had better look up the figures, because he will have to admit it.


An hon. Member:: How many were there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will put the figures on record, seeing that they are being challenged now across the aisle. Will the Prime Minister admit, when he told the electorate in June that the unemployment problem was "licked", and that we will certainly have full employment in July or August, that he was wrong again in that prediction? In June, Mr. Speaker, it was inconceivable that we would have full employment this year. But this was before the election. Economists can argue about the details, but certainly we do not have full employment when in the summer 4 per cent of our workers do not have jobs. That has been the situation this summer, and according to the government's own statistics it is equivalent to an unemployment level of 6 per cent on the average through the year. In the Liberal years from 1946 to 1957 the average was 3 per cent; and in the summer months it was generally below 2 per cent.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this wonderful year, this year the Tories are so proud of, except in an electoral sense, is twice as bad for unemployment as an average Liberal

The Address-Mr. Pearson year. Well, Mr. Speaker, there was then no shred of evidence for saying, when the Prime Minister spoke in June, that we would have full employment in any true sense this summer. That statement was inconceivable to any responsible person. I invite the Prime Minister when he speaks to give us one of the only two possible explanations. Either he was wrong and he knew that he was wrong; or what he means by full employment is not what the Canadian people mean. It is what anyone else would call a serious level of unemployment. In June, 1957, let me remind the Prime Minister, there were 177,000 unemployed men and women in Canada. Five years later he said that he had reached the "long-looked-for goal", and we have 301,000 unemployed. Perhaps that is progress and achievement. But that was the June figure. In fairness to the Prime Minister, I must add, and I have repeated these words, that he only "thought" we would get full employment in June; but two months later he was sure there would be full employment. And so he told the Canadian public, again on television during this speech made, I think, at Brantford on June 13, and he was a little more personal about it. He got a little more personal towards the end of the election. These were his words:
Pearson and Martin will find out that in July and August we will have the lowest unemployment total in five years.
That is not much of a standard, Mr. Speaker. The five years are Tory years, and the standards are pretty low; but even so, when July and August came, Pearson and Martin did not find out what the Prime Minister told the electors we would find out. In August 280,000 people were without jobs. Even in the Tory years, the five years, there were ten previous months when unemployment had not been as bad as that.
For the month of July the Prime Minister was even further from the mark, because the unemployment figure of 308,000 was more than it had been at twelve earlier Tory dates. But of course, Mr. Speaker, the comparison to be made is not between one Tory month and another, inaccurate though that comparison has been. The comparison is between the situation in these last five years and what it was before this government came into office. The Prime Minister talks now about full employment, that he has "licked" unemployment. He said that we would have full employment in July and August, when it is more than twice as bad, nearly three times as bad, as it was in the summer of 1956.
Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to members of all parties of this house, and I ask them to consider it in their hearts and in their consciences when they come to vote on this amendment: How can we in Canada prosper with a government that thinks that
300,000 unemployed in midsummer is something to boast about? How can we meet the needs of the Canadian people with a government that says that we have full employment, when 300,000 men and women are looking for work in summer? How can we have confidence in a government which seems to think that a summer unemployment figure of 300,000 is good enough for the Canadian people?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought you admitted that it was 280,000?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister is obviously a little disturbed and a little agitated about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was just trying to be
accurate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not knowing what these figures are, you now contradict what the Prime Minister of this country said during the election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The speech from the throne talks in glowing terms about 200,000 new jobs that have been created; 200,000 are to be created every year. Well, Mr. Speaker, the annual increase in the labour force during the last year was just about 200,000. Is that the objective that we are to achieve? Is that our goal? Is that our target-to create enough new jobs to take care of people coming on to the labour force, but to do nothing about chronic unemployment? With only 200,000 new jobs a year, that is exactly what must happen. Our real need is not a million new jobs in five years; it is a million jobs, as I have said more than once in this house, in four years. That is what we will have to find in order to get back to full employment; not to full employment as some theoretical abstraction, but to the level of employment which was reached under Liberal administration when we did have full employment.
Mr. Speaker, the most urgent problem before us at the present time is the creation of enough jobs to take care of the men and women coming on to the labour force, and to liquidate this problem of chronic unemployment. For that purpose we need action. We need a positive program of constructive policies, instead of the Tory leftovers in the speech from the throne.
At this time I can give only some part of the program that we are going to put forward, and I will leave other parts to be filled in by my colleagues during this debate, if indeed the debate goes on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has not started yet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What we need first and foremost is action for employment. How can we in Canada create the jobs that will give the unemployed a fresh start? How can we provide for the growing number of young people who are leaving our schools and colleges? How can we provide for them the opportunities they ought to have and deserve? How do we get more jobs, better jobs, secure jobs?
For these purposes there are three main steps that a Liberal government will take. We put these forward before, but in those days with the massive majority opposite no attention whatever was paid to them. They were not even debated. They were howled down when they were not ignored. First, we must have more construction, and this has some bearing on tight money. This means, of course, that our construction industry must not be strangled by the present tight money. We must provide Canadian capital for the work that needs to be done, and the biggest area of construction that is being starved today falls within the responsibility of the municipal governments. They cannot borrow at reasonable interest rates and the burden of the municipal taxes is already very heavy indeed. In other words, municipalities cannot pay for the great amount of construction and development work that needs to be done, and it surely makes every kind of economic sense to do the work rather than to have people unemployed, not producing and having to be supported without earning.
New streets, new bridges, new sidewalks, storm sewers and sewage systems, expanded water supplies, new housing, urban redevelopment-all these things need to be done and must be done. They call for an intensive effort by all Canadians and with every level of government in Canada cooperating. The contribution of the Liberal party in a Liberal program to meet this challenge is a national plan for municipal development. It will be carried out, of course, by agreement and in co-operation with the provinces, with the three levels of government working together to promote sound development where it is needed, where Canadians live and where they need jobs.
For that purpose, Mr. Speaker, we will set up, in consultation and agreement with the provinces and municipalities, a municipal loan fund. A municipality will be able to come to the fund for projects which it cannot finance at reasonable rates in today's tight money market. This is nothing new on our side. We have been putting this forward for five years and perhaps now the people on the other side will pay some attention. Of course, it will have to be done in co-operation with the 27507-3-6
The Address-Mr. Pearson provinces and the approval of the provinces will be required, but provided it does have that approval this is something that can be done and should be done. I appeal to the Prime Minister and the government to forget their past ignoring of this particular problem and to do something to co-operate in putting this kind of thing into effect. It seems to me it is more important to put men to work in the municipalities in construction jobs with federal help-and I state this to the Prime Minister-than it is to rake up the old coals of Suez.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That will help a lot, Mr. Speaker, but it will not do everything. I know hon. gentlemen opposite are having a hard time taking all this in.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A hard time taking it seriously.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Here is another measure that perhaps may appeal to them, although they seem to jeer at these proposals to put people to work. Having made such a colossal failure of their own proposals in the past they do not take easily to proposals made by anybody else that might succeed if everybody would co-operate to make them succeed.
Through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation we would provide capital grants with an extension of the federal share of expenditures for slum clearance and urban renewal. For important development projects, especially in areas particularly needing new development, we will supplement municipal loans with federal grants.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Where have you been all these
years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have been watching this government for the last few years do none of these things.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You were sleeping.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Rip van Winkle.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The best proof of that fact, Mr. Speaker, is the figures I gave recently about unemployment. If they were so successful in these projects, why is it we have all this unemployment?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Seven hundred more people working now than in your time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Seven hundred thousand more people working now than in your time.

The Address


Mr.   PearsonMr. Pearson@: If they jeer at these proposals now because they have been so successful in creating opportunities to work, I wonder if they noticed in the press this morning a report of experts in Washington on unemployment statistics in the seven leading western industrial countries. Who was at the top of the list in terms of unemployment? Canada.


An hon. Member:: Don't gloat over it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the record of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: That was in 1960.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the
Leader of the Opposition a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He is afraid of questions.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would appreciate the co-operation of hon. members in taking their seats when I am on my feet, so that I can say what I have to say. I have been having some trouble hearing the debate in the last few moments. Unless the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is prepared to yield the floor to the Minister of Justice then the Minister of Justice should not pursue his attempt to make an interrogation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I assure you I would not have pursued it if the Leader of the Opposition had not indicated-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that he was prepared to allow me to ask a question. Hon. members opposite were making such a howling noise that you could not hear the Leader of the Opposition indicate that he would accept a question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If there have been interjections that have not been too acceptable on either side, it has been very difficult for the Chair to hear them even with the use of a hearing aid. Accordingly I give the floor to the Leader of the Opposition and he can yield it to the Minister of Justice if he so desires.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the minister has a question I will be very glad indeed to hear it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the Leader of the Opposition indicate what period these statistics to which he referred cover, because I happen to know they were not recent ones?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to do that. The report was for the year 1960, a year during which this government was in power.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Two years ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the year of the great recovery.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was the year of the minister's great recovery. That was the year when unemployment was going to go with the snow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Give us up to date figures now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The figures to which I have referred covered Canada and other countries and the Canadian figure was 7 per cent. The next highest, the United States, was 5.6 per cent. That was 1960.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will you give us 1962 now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister will correct me if I am wrong but I believe the 1961 unemployment figure in Canada was higher than 7 per cent. I think it was 7.2 per cent, so perhaps the minister had better stick to 1960.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will you give us up to date figures? Give us 1962.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Justice says, what about 1962? We are still in 1962 and by the end of 1962 the minister probably will not be around to ask for them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: More evasion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, these are the important measures which, if put into effect, could do something to cure this economic evil of unemployment. What it adds up to is this: We will make it possible for the municipalities to have a massive increase in construction. We know this is going to cost money but, Mr. Speaker, it will be an investment expenditure by the government, an investment which will more than pay for itself in increased employment and incomes for Canadians. Half a billion dollars of construction means the equivalent of a year's work, I am informed, for 100,000 men, and their employment in turn would mean stimulation for a great deal of other businesses.
Well, that is part of our plan for more jobs, for better places for Canadians to live and work. Our point No. 2 is the promotion of new industries. Now, the government has talked a lot about that in the last five years, what they were going to do to promote new industries. However, they have talked more

than they have acted. We need new industries, especially in the depressed areas, and to achieve that purpose we will have to use, to a greater extent than we have before, the industrial development bank to provide special credit facilities for those areas. I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is in the speech from the throne. However, this kind of thing has been in the speech from the throne for the last four years. The government puts it in the speech, then they do not do anything about it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is untrue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have to work with industry on a co-operative basis. The government has to gain knowledge of the conditions of each industry in order to work out arrangements to achieve this objective. One instance, and perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) will be interested in this, is the automobile industry. Last year we imported $300 million worth of automobile parts into this country. This represents the equivalent of between 40,000 and 50,000 jobs. Is it really impossible, Mr. Speaker, to produce more thoroughly Canadian cars? Can we afford to allow this situation to continue? Can we not do what other countries have done?


An hon. Member:: Raise tariffs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not a question of raising tariffs at all; that is the only thing that occurs to my friends.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read your own report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Sweden, which is smaller than we are, has a successful automobile industry, and has an industry which is exporting automobiles to this country. Is that due to Swedish tariffs? Even the French and German industries have a domestic market which is not larger than ours. Surely, Mr. Speaker, in this country we have enough initiative and intelligence, enough co-operative effort with industry left to bring about that kind of situation in Canada. By going through our whole economy, industry by industry, we can get more things made in Canada without becoming a protectionist country. If the government wants to know how this can be done in Canada perhaps, let them not only read the Bladen report, let them do something about the Bladen report.


Peter Francis Martin: Three years old.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it is about three years old.


Peter Francis Martin: On the shelf, dusty.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Liberals have come out for a big increase in tariffs tonight.
27507-3-6J
The Address-Mr. Pearson


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) says it can only be done by increasing tariffs, and that shows how reactionary' and backward-looking he is. He is living in the nineteenth century. He thinks that these things can only be done in a protectionist economy, but that is not the way it has to be done; that is the not the way it would be done under a Liberal government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How would it be done?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It could be done by tax incentives; it could be done by a sensible financial policy; it could be done by a sound fiscal policy; it could be done by a government making capital available in a co-operative enterprise with industry; it could be done in a dozen ways without raising tariffs. If the minister does not know anything about that-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You do not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -perhaps that is why he was moved into the ministry of justice.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the third point-we have talked about jobs, about industry, about municipal development-is training. Before I say anything about this, and my hon. friends opposite are going to be surprised by this, I want to pay my tribute to what has been done by the government in the field of technical training. However, a great deal more needs to be done than has been done. The thing modern industry increasingly requires is skilled workers. I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) knows this; that is where the jobs are. It is, even more, where the jobs will be. For this purpose we have to invest more money in human resources. I cannot think of any other way by which we can get a better return from our investment. This means more and better vocational training. I have already paid my tribute to what has been done by the government in this field, and I do not think I need to repeat it. It means better vocational training for young people beginning work and also for the unemployed who need a fresh start, new skills. Perhaps most important of all, we need training for people who are now doing jobs that will decline in the changing years ahead. There should be a retraining program for these workers before, not after, unemployment.
We in the Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, are determined to establish a vigorous agency for job training which will work with industry and with the provinces, which will provide Canadians of all ages with the opportunity to obtain skills for better jobs. While this is important, it has to be backed up by improvement in the opportunities for basic education that the rising generation of Canadians deserve and can achieve. I know this

The Address-Mr. Pearson remains a function of the provinces. No federal government would desire to do anything which would interfere with that responsibility. However, helping the individual to take advantage of education is the concern of all Canadians. Far too many of our boys and girls are leaving school at 16 and drifting into aimless occupations, and many of them should remain at school to go on to university.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We did something about it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have not done nearly enough about it. I will tell you something more you can do about it, but you won't be given a chance. Family allowances should be extended from age 16 to age 21 for all of those boys and girls who are continuing their education. Our program-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know my hon. friends opposite object to this. They show it by their attitude. They will have no part of it. They do not believe in family allowances for this purpose, obviously, or they would not take this attitude. At one time they did not believe in family allowances at all.
We have already provided, Mr. Speaker, for a system of university scholarships and university loans which will enable every boy and girl in this country to get a university education if he or she can qualify for it, irrespective of his or her financial position. Well, that is one aspect and only one aspect of the Liberal program for growth, for jobs, for progress and for development.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are advocating bigger deficits or higher taxes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I have said, this program will cost money but it will be an investment expenditure which it will be desirable to make. When this kind of expenditure is made and our economy is moving forward, then we can take further steps in the direction of social progress. There are two things specifically we can do under conditions of expanding economy, and which a Liberal government will do. The first is health care and the problems of old age, health care which has been so ignored by the government opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the best laugh yet.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is a good one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If I could have the floor for just a moment, and although I know the Leader of the Opposition is fully capable of looking after himself, I wish to point out that there is a murmur of conversation coming to me from around the chamber and this makes it impossible to hear the

interjections. I would ask hon. members for their co-operation in allowing the Leader of the Opposition to conclude.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a very boring speech, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If you do not hear them, Mr. Speaker, I do, and they indicate quite an agitation in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. I have just said that in the field of health care they have done practically nothing in the past five years. They have referred this very important matter of health care to a royal commission, and this is what they always do when they are up against any problem.
In health care we have a clear objective. We know what we are going to do, and what we will be able to do before very long. We must make sure that every Canadian family can get good health care when it is needed, without fear of crippling bills. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite if they take exception to that plan.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then why did you not do something? Of course, Mr. Speaker, the minister of health well realizes-


Jay Waldo Monteith: The price tag.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think he is realizing things very acutely tonight.


Michael Starr: Why did you not implement it since 1919?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know that the obstacles to such government action are very serious. The obstacles to doing it efficiently, responsibly and fairly, are serious. After the experience of Saskatchewan no one can underestimate the importance of the obstacles, but we have surely advanced to the point where these difficulties must be faced and solved. In the next Liberal government that will be done, and the question will not be referred to another royal commission.
Our plan will provide medicai services without charge to children, to old people and to the unemployed. It will make sure that other people, people who are working, can get any medical care they need at a cost they can afford. This, Mr. Speaker, is a responsible, step-by-step plan that must be worked out in co-operation with the provinces and the medical profession. As I said before, for health care the present government offers nothing. It has tried to bury the problem, like so many others, by submitting it to a royal commission.
There is also the progress that should be made in the field of social security, arising

The Address-Mr. Pearson
out of an expanding and growing economy, and that is towards portable contributory pensions covering everybody.


An hon. Member:: That is in the speech from the throne.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is something in the speech from the throne on it and, as could be expected, there is a reference to discussing it at a provincial conference. The government says it will talk about it with the provinces before discharging its responsibility as a federal government; but a pension plan, as such, does not require any further constitutional amendment. It can be drafted by this parliament if any government would take the responsibility for doing it. There is doubt, of course, about widows and orphans benefits, but that need not hold up the main plan, if the government had one. We could go ahead with what we can do and then work out these other points later.
If the government is really determined that existing private pensions should be made portable, it can effectively secure that result by changes in the income tax administration.
I am sure the time has come when we in this country can, and should have, a national pension plan making an adequate and fully portable pension available, on a contributory basis, to every Canadian. That is the Liberal plan which we have worked out in detail and which a new Liberal government will be ready to carry out.
Those, as I see them and as my party sees them, are the five main lines of action we need in Canada today: construction, new industry, training, health, contributory pensions. Those are the main points of a program for Canada, a program which we have put forward and which we will put forward again, and those are the standards by which a party will be judged in the days and weeks ahead. Those are the standards by which this government stands condemned. It offers now, as it provided before, bumbling indecision instead of a plan; palliatives instead of resolute action; restriction instead of expansion, confusion instead of progress.
There is only one very unimportant reference to international affairs in the speech from the throne. There is no indication ot any kind regarding the real seriousness of the international situation. There is a reference to Berlin, and that is about all. There is no indication of how things are really going in the world. True, there is some mention of disarmament, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs keeps working away at disarmament, going up to New York and to Geneva, and then back again. We wish him well and applaud his efforts and his sincerity, but in the speech from the
throne there is practically no indication of what is going on in the world and of the dangers in which we live. There is, of course, a reference to our own position, and it is:
Canada has continued to play an increasingly effective role in international affairs.
If that means that Canada is a country held in high regard for the achievements of its people in peace and war, for its promise of great progress under good government, for what it has done in the past and what it is going to do in the future, then that is good, but, Mr. Speaker, do not confuse it as a reference to the Canadian government. If the government tries to tell us that it has continued to play an increasingly effective role in international affairs, then I would ask it to present the evidence in support of that.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is nothing in the speech from the throne about defence policy, but one would expect that from a government which has no defence policy, and which is spending millions of dollars in ways that really do not add to our defence at all. What we should have had years ago, and what we fought for in this house, is a defence committee on policy where we could try to find out the principles upon which the government is acting in defence matters. We have never been able to do that, but when a Liberal government takes over that will be done. The defence policy will be examined by a committee in the House of Commons in the way it should be examined, in a way it has not been examined since this government took office.
There are other things required for a program of national advancement but, before we can put programs of the kind I have indicated into effect, there must be a re-awareness on the part of government of the needs of the people and the necessity of relating policies to those needs and those feelings. There must be an end to financial mismanagement and a beginning of efficient public administration of our affairs. I do not know if that can begin in the Senate. There must be a tightening of our belts, we are told, but it must be a tightening of the belt by the best method, which is an expansion of the body economic. The purpose of the Liberal policy is to provide for that expansion with increased production and incomes. Government social measures which are necessary can be paid for out of that expansion. That is the only way in which these payments can safely be made.
I know that government intervention these days is increasingly necessary in our huge and complicated society of concentrations of bigness and power; I know that government

The Address-Mr. Pearson must intervene more and more in order to protect the individual. But the object of that intervention must always be protection against those forces which would limit the freedom of the individual and would not itself limit that freedom.
Government should not be a prop. Government should provide the conditions where a man does not need a prop, but can stand on his own feet. Government cannot do everything, and the feeling that it can, and that it should, is one of the greatest threats to our freedom today. That feeling can weaken; it can even destroy our self-reliance, individual and national, by obscuring the necessity for individual and national effort, individual and national service, individual and national sacrifice. If that necessity is not accepted and met by the individual and by the nation, then we are not going to be able to solve our problems as a democracy, however good the programs we may put forward as a government.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this effort, service and sacrifice must be directed to maintaining and strengthening moral values in our society as well as in seeking material progress. If that is not the case, then no government policies, however wise in themselves or however wisely administered, will save us. The challenge in a democracy is ultimately and always to the people, because it is they who have the power and the responsibility, including the choice of those to whom, in parliament and in government, they delegate so much of that power and responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, it would have been encouraging to have found in the speech from the throne some expression of these basic problems; some understanding of these new, deep-seated and massive problems that confront us individually, nationally and internationally. But there was nothing of that in this speech. There was nothing about the real state of the nation; nothing about the test that it now faces within its boundaries and within the world; nothing of the necessity of the right responses to the challenges that are ahead. Instead, Mr. Speaker, this speech gave all the indications of a last minute and scrambling search for anything that might be lying around anywhere to stuff the Christmas stocking. Stuffing the Christmas stocking is not good enough for 1962.
In short, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this speech or in the conduct of the government since June 18 that gives us any reason to hope or think that the dreary or confused record of the last five years would be improved if this minority government continued in office.
We have heard a good deal in recent weeks-a good deal more in recent days-

of the necessity of putting the national interest above the playing of politics. That talk does not come very convincingly, to me at least, from those whose concern to avoid an appeal to the people could preserve a state of political weakness and uncertainty such as we have in this parliament today.
I do not believe we will get progressive action and efficient administration, wise, forward-looking, sound policies from a weak and discredited minority government which in the throne speech has shown, as its record has proven, how little it could do to meet the real needs of the Canadian people, the real needs which it does not even understand.
The alternative, Mr. Speaker, is a government with a plan of action of the kind I have indicated and which will be filled in later by my colleagues; a plan which is based upon the principles I have mentioned.
Some people in this house have been building up hopes of a change of heart in the present government. The third and fourth parties seem to be looking for some justification for supporting this minority government, for voting for the ministers and the policies that a few months ago they were very strongly condemning-quite as strongly as we were. I feel that in this respect the throne speech has let them down badly. It is not little, but it is certainly limping and late.
It is going to be very difficult, surely, to find any evidence of real change in the dish of Tory leftovers that the throne speech provides; a change that will mean policies that will put the unemployed to work. This is a speech which includes so much of last year's budget speech of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming); which includes so much of the last election campaign pronouncements of the government, which were repudiated by the people on June 18; which has added two or three new boards and commissions, including a national economic committee on development. That is a proposal we put forward first in this house in 1958 and subsequently, and it was rejected by the government. It was torn to pieces by the minister of labour in one speech, when he argued that this kind of thing was no good.


William Moore Benidickson: Socialist.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He said it was socialist. Of course, I admit that is new; it is new to the government, but not to us. We have been pleading for this for four years.
Also, in the throne speech there is a paragraph that represents one of the most amazing conversions in modern political history, which provides for the arrangements for the export of power from British Columbia to the United States. That, I admit also, is new. But apart from a few things like this

and a board or commission here or there, this speech is a rehash of last year's budget and the last election campaign statements. 1 do not know how anyone can get any hope of a change in the heart and mind of the government from that kind of speech from the throne.
Early this year the government produced another throne speech. Hon. members ought to read it. They will find a lot of this one in it. In those days, Mr. Speaker, this government had a very massive majority in this house, but they got very little done before they dissolved parliament.


An hon. Member:: You were the reason.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The reason they gave for not getting very much done was that they had been obstructed by a minority.


Lionel Chevrier: Forty nine people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They had 204 and I think we had 49 or 50; but we prevented them doing the things they meant to do. Now they have 116 and the combined opposition is 140 or 150; but they feel sure they can do the things now that they could not do with that great majority. They say, "It is easy now we are in a minority". Obstruction will not matter now. It does not matter that they can be outvoted. They did not do very much to implement the last throne speech, and I do not think we can have very much confidence in the present one.
The third and fourth parties said: we must wait and see; we must wait and see what the government has to propose in the speech from the throne. It may be, they said, it will have some promise of action in it such as would entitle us to declare confidence in this government. Well, they have waited and they have seen, and they have seen what I believed they would see and what I suspect they knew themselves they would see. They have seen a government which is incapable of important new initiative-a government incapable of undertaking new projects; a government pressed by so many conflicting interests that it takes refuge in indecision. Oh, it will do a bit more of some things and a bit less of others, set up councils and repeat the same old stuff. But what is there in this program, in the speech from the throne, which answers the criticisms made by all the opposition parties of this government, criticisms which were on June 18 supported by 63 per cent of the electorate? This program, I repeat, is made up of Tory leftovers from the last parliament.
If you had no confidence in the government in the last parliament, how can you have any confidence in this government now? Is this a parliamentary situation to make you change
The Address-Mr. Pearson your minds? Is this a program to make you change your minds? I do not envy any member of the opposition who has to go to the country to explain why he has now decided that this government which he so recently criticized so strongly has suddenly become a government which should be kept in office. Surely, no one who understands our national problems could vote confidence in this government. The financial editor of the Montreal Gazette, an unimpeachable authority, wrote on August 29-this was after the election:
The government's credits of domestic and international good will are alike just exhausted. It will have to be very convincing in both the scope of its programs and in its determination to see them through to retain its mandate.
I suggest that this government has been convincing in neither the scope of its programs nor in its determination to see anything through, and I hope I have given enough evidence to show why we on this side have no confidence in this administration and why we feel it is not only our duty but our privilege to move a vote of no confidence so that this house may decide whether it wishes the government to carry on or whether it wishes the people to be given a chance to put into office a government which will know how to carry on.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) that the following be added to the address:
We respectfully affirm to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers do not possess the confidence of this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, naturally at ten minutes to ten it will be difficult to answer the many issues that were covered in that wide ranging speech. Indeed, there were times during the progress of it when I felt that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was in the position of Wellington at Waterloo: "Give me night, give me Blucher". As he watched the clock one could only conclude that his purpose, as was the case this afternoon-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -was to make sure that there would be no opportunity for any answer to be given. And out of that volume of words and that wide range of discussion it is of interest to note that the only reference he made to agriculture was a number of passing allusions to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) in a derogatory way. I saw the Leader of the Opposition on election night, Mr. Speaker, when he believed he was going to be occupying this seat. That is before the
78	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson western farmer came in. I can well understand his reason for not mentioning agriculture at any time. That is the best evidence that could possibly be given of the fact that under this government the farmers of Canada have at long last received reasonable consideration. I am sure everybody waited in anticipation for the revelation of a program. I have not the time to deal with the various items tonight, but I must say as I read this program that I wonder what he means when he says that there should be a government in office that knows how to carry on.
And what plans did he offer? These are the projects that are to be made by the opposition, the major points. Construction: a national plan to help municipalities undertake a massive increase in useful projects. That, surprisingly enough for him, has been in effect under the winter works program during the last few years. New industry: a series of measures industry by industry to develop new production in Canada. There is not a word as to how. Many of the measures which will come before parliament, those already revealed in the speech from the throne and those which will come later in their proper order in the budget, will be a continuation in regard to such development. In particular, he mentions the manufacture of automobile parts to ensure a thoroughly Canadian automobile industry. I think that there was the voice of Esau. What did the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) do-


Peter Francis Martin: Defeated the Tory party, that is what he did.


John George Diefenbaker: -when he was a minister to achieve this on behalf of the automobile industry? Then there was a major program to help Canadians take full advantage of educational opportunities. In that connection I shall quote the government of the province of Quebec to the effect that such a plan has been in existence in that province which has provided 3,000 jobs. Skills: the only thing in the whole plan to meet the present situation is an increase of family allowances from 16 to 21. Health: how he touched upon this. He has had the experience of Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact, that policy as enunciated today by him in this house represents the antithesis of the stand taken by the Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan. I point this out, Mr. Speaker, in the best of good spirits: the promise that in 1919, if they ever got back here, they were going to bring that in.

I have read in advance in the press that a broadside would be launched by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). Do you know what it reminded me of? It reminded me of the boy with a number of firecrackers who joined each one together in a number of packages because they took longer to explode and did not do very much harm. I am going to deal, when the opportunity comes, with some of the statements made by him outside of parliament. There was far greater exhibition of vituperation and virulent abuse outside the house than here in parliament, and I will deal with them at length. With the exception of one or two of those matters, his speech seemed to me to be a warmed over election speech, generated in large measure by frustration. This speech reveals the annoyance which must come to those who have almost had the cup in hand, yet find it dashed to the wayside.
I expected a different speech. But I did find one thing. I did find the tremendous interest which he now takes in third parties. He keeps referring to us as a minority government. I think of the references he made to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) only three or four weeks ago. Possibly he will recall those things. He speaks of us as being a minority, because he says that 63 per cent of the people voted other than for us. For whom did the others vote who did not vote for the Liberal party? Is there a paradox in existence, that if you vote for a third party you are voting against the government but for his opposition?
He talks about minority governments. Here is the record. He says that having 37 per cent of the population for us denies us the right to be the government. Here is the record year by year. In 1921 the Liberal party had 41.5 per cent of the vote. It ruled in this country-and that is the proper expression in the case of that government-for a period of four years. Then he spoke of how Mr. King came before parliament in 1925. He had 40.1 per cent of the vote, and the Conservatives had 46.5 per cent. He said that it was a wonderful thing that they had a fewer number of members in the house than did the Conservative party, by some 11 or 12. And they hung on.


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


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 2, 1962